Recovery Plan for the Ivory billed Woodpecker Fish and by ixieshaofang


									U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Recovery Plan for the
Ivory-billed Woodpecker
(Campephilus principalis)

                     Recovery Plan for the
                   Ivory-billed Woodpecker
                           (Campephilus principalis)
                                   April, 2010

                         U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                               Southeast Region
                               Atlanta, Georgia

            Regional Director, Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Disclaimer                             Notice of Copyrighted Material        Cover Illustration Credit:
Recovery Plans delineate               Permission to use copyrighted         A male Ivory-billed Woodpecker
reasonable actions that are            illustrations and images in the       at a nest hole. (Photo by Arthur
believed to be required to             final version of this recovery plan   Allen, 1935/Copyright Cornell
recover and/or protect listed          has been granted by the copyright     Lab of Ornithology.)
species. Plans published by            holders. These illustrations
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife             are not placed in the public
Service (Service) are sometimes        domain by their appearance
prepared with the assistance           herein. They cannot be copied or
of recovery teams, contractors,        otherwise reproduced, except in
state agencies, and other affected     their printed context within this
and interested parties. Plans          document, without the consent of
are reviewed by the public and         the copyright holder.
submitted for additional peer
review before the Service adopts       Literature Citation Should Read
them. Objectives will be attained      as Follows:
and any necessary funds made           U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
available subject to budgetary         200x. Recovery Plan for the
and other constraints affecting        Ivory-billed Woodpecker
the parties involved, as well as the   (Campephilus principalis).
need to address other priorities.      U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Recovery plans do not obligate         Atlanta, Georgia. 156 pp.
other parties to undertake specific
tasks and may not represent the        Additional copies of this Recovery
views nor the official positions       Plan are available on the U.S.
or approval of any individuals or      Fish and Wildlife Service web
agencies involved in developing        site at: http://endangered.fws.
the plan, other than the Service.      gov/RECOVERY/RECPLANS/
Recovery plans represent the           Index.htm
official position of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, only after       Common names for birds are in
they have been signed by the           accordance with the American
Regional Director or Director as       Ornithologists’ Union (American
approved. Approved recovery            Ornithologists’ Union 1983).
plans are subject to modification      Scientific names of species in the
as dictated by new findings,           text are found in Appendix G.
changes in species’ status, and the
completion of recovery actions.
By approving this recovery
plan, the Regional Director
certifies that the data used in
its development represent the
best scientific and commercial
data available at the time it was
written. Copies of all documents
reviewed in the development
of this plan are available in the
administrative record located
at the Service Field Office in
Lafayette, Louisiana.

Acknowledgments   Although the Ivory-billed
                  Woodpecker has been listed as an
                                                       Ralph Costa, Chuck Hunter, Erin
                                                       Rivenbark, Laurie Fenwood, and
                  endangered species since 1967, no            .
                                                       Robert V Smith made substantial
                  recovery plan was ever prepared      contributions.
                  for the species.
                                                       Charles Baxter and Bill Uihlein
                  Perspectives with regard to          of the Lower Mississippi Valley
                  the need for a plan changed          Joint Venture Office and their
                  dramatically when substantial and    interagency partners at the
                  compelling evidence suggesting       USGS National Wetlands
                  the presence of at least one         Research Center in Lafayette,
                  bird in the Bayou DeView             Louisiana, contributed many
                  area of Cache River National         technical aspects of the plan.
                  Wildlife Refuge was announced
                  in April 2005. Primary needs         The following individuals provided
                  for recovering the Ivory-billed      summaries of information on
                  Woodpecker were to learn more        the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in
                  about the bird’s occurrence, to      their respective state: Dwight
                  locate birds, and to determine       Cooley, Alabama; Mike Harris,
                  how to improve conditions for        Georgia; Cliff Shackelford,
                  long-term recovery.                  Texas; Richard Hines, Kentucky;
                                                       Catherine Rideout, Arkansas;
                  As might be imagined about such      Laurel Barnhill, South Carolina;
                  a charismatic species, there was     Erik Baca, Louisiana; Karl Miller,
                  widespread interest in assisting     Florida; Nick Winstead and Paul
                  with Ivory-billed Woodpecker         Hamel, Mississippi; and Bob Ford
                  recovery. A team of more than 60     and Scott Somershoe, Tennessee.
                  technical experts, scientists, and
                  managers was identified. This        The hard work and dedication
                  list eventually grew to nearly 80    of those mentioned above, as
                  people. A list of team members       well as the Recovery Team
                  is provided in Appendix A. All       members listed in Appendix A,
                  members are acknowledged for         are gratefully acknowledged. The
                  their expertise and commitment       Recovery Plan is much better
                  to the recovery planning effort.     for the involvement and critical
                                                       thinking of this talented group
                  The Nature Conservancy of            of people. The thoughtful peer
                  Arkansas, the Cornell Laboratory     review of 7 scientists, led by The
                  of Ornithology, the Arkansas         Wildlife Society, was essential in
                  Game and Fish Commission,            making the final recovery plan a
                  the Arkansas Natural Heritage        better document.
                  Foundation, and Audubon
                  Arkansas contributed greatly         Importantly, the work of James
                  during the initial stages of the     Tanner must be acknowledged
                  search and recovery effort           as the basis of much of what
                  and as the plan began to take        we currently understand about
                  shape. Especially instrumental       this magnificent bird. His early
                  in preparing the plan were           contributions to the conservation
                  Scott Henderson and David            of the species through scientific
                  Goad, Arkansas Game and              field work allowed us a window
                  Fish Commission; Tom Foti,           into the life history and habitat
                  Arkansas Natural Heritage            of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
                  Commission; Robert Cooper,           We stand on his shoulders and
                  University of Georgia; Kenneth       gratefully acknowledge his
                  Rosenberg, Cornell Laboratory of     contributions.
                  Ornithology; and Kenny Ribbeck,
                  Louisiana Department of
                  Wildlife and Fisheries. Martjan
                  Lammertink from Cornell
                  Laboratory of Ornithology, and
                  Jerome Jackson from Florida
                  Gulf Coast University contributed
                  written portions of the plan.
                  Among U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                  Service staff, Deborah Fuller,
Executive Summary   Current Status
                    The Ivory-billed Woodpecker
                                                          Number for the Ivory-billed
                                                          Woodpecker is 5, indicating a high
                    (Campephilus principalis)             degree of threat and low recovery
                    belongs to a genus composed           potential for this species (U.S.
                    of 11 species of woodpeckers          Fish and Wildlife Service 2005).
                    inhabiting the Western                When additional compelling
                    Hemisphere— primarily Central         evidence exists of a nest or roost,
                    and South America. Two forms          or there are repeated sightings
                    of Ivory-billed Woodpecker have       of birds, the actions described in
                    been recognized (American             the recovery plan will provide the
                    Ornithologists’ Union 1983): the      initial guidance for conservation
                    North American form with a            of the species.
                    historical range covering most
                    of the southeastern and a small       Habitat Requirements
                    portion of south-central United       The Ivory-billed Woodpecker
                    States (Figure 1) and the Cuban       was historically described as
                    form with a historical range          a resident of large, contiguous
                    throughout Cuba. The Ivory-           forests with numerous large
                    billed Woodpecker was listed as       trees. A significant portion of the
                    endangered throughout its range       forest must also be in some stage
                    on March 11, 1967, (32 FR 4001)       of decay, providing a continuous
                    and June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495).        supply of food (Jackson 2002).
                    Information on the status of the      Bottomland hardwood forests are
                    population is limited, and current    frequently noted as important
                    population size and distribution is   (Jackson 2002, Tanner 1942). It
                    not known. In 2005, information       is unclear if this view is biased
                    was released on the presence of at    by the scant information on
                    least one Ivory-billed Woodpecker     habitat use having been gathered
                    in Central Arkansas (Fitzpatrick      near the end of a long period
                    et al. 2005, see Appendix B).         of population decline. Habitats
                    Additionally, the existence of        occupied at the time most of the
                    potential habitat and numerous        studies occurred may not have
                    reports from credible sources         been typical or preferred by
                    of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers           the species. Rather, the habitat
                    in recent decades provided            may have been occupied simply
                    motivation to carry out surveys       because it was the last suitable
                    for the species throughout its        habitat available.
                    range. Searches have taken
                    place in Texas, Arkansas,             In Florida, bald cypress was
                    Louisiana, western Tennessee,         noted as an important component
                    Mississippi, southern Illinois,       of the forest used by Ivory-
                    Georgia, South Carolina, North        billed Woodpeckers, especially
                    Carolina, and Florida. While          in conjunction with an adjacent
                    suggestive evidence has been          pine forest (Jackson 2002). On
                    found in several states, no clear,    the Singer Tract near Tensas
                    conclusive photograph or video        in northeastern Louisiana,
                    has been made as of the date of       Tanner (1942) documented use in
                    this writing. State, Federal and      higher parts of “first bottoms,”
                    private partners will continue to     bottomland forests infrequently
                    search for evidence of the species’   flooded and forested primarily
                    presence (e.g., sightings, nest       with species such as Nuttall
                    cavities) in order to document        oak (Quercus texana Buckley
                    an active nest or roost when          [syn., Q. nuttallii]), sweetgum
                    sufficient additional evidence        (Liquidambar styraciflua),
                    warrants such a response. The         and green ash (Fraxinus
                    species may also persist in a few     pennsylvanica). Tanner also
                    locations in Cuba (Garrido and        observed that habitat used by
                    Kirkconnell 2000; Kirkconnell,        Ivory-billed Woodpeckers was
                    pers. comm.).                         also highly favored by other
                                                          species of woodpeckers, a high
                    No critical habitat has been          density of other woodpecker
                    designated for this species, and      species being indicative of good
                    none is required due to the date      Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat.
                    of listing. The Recovery Priority

Habitat requirements likely            over forests. Nevertheless, it        Americans. Collection of Ivory-
vary seasonally and with habitat       stands to reason that the Ivory-      bills for scientific purposes has
conditions, population density,        billed Woodpecker, as one of          been documented since the 1800s.
food resources, and other factors.     the largest picids, may have          Jackson (2002) presented data
None of these influencing factors      particular food demands that          indicating that such collecting
is understood for this species. It     are only met in large tracts of       resulted in the taking of over 400
is clear, however, that the Ivory-     mature forest during at least         specimens, mostly between 1880
bill requires large tracts of forest   part of its life cycle. Specific to   and 1910. By itself, collecting
for foraging and trees large           the Singer Tract, before large-       or hunting may not have caused
enough for nesting and roosting.       scale logging had commenced,          the widespread decline of
                                       Tanner (1942) also commented          Ivory-bill numbers. However,
Limiting Factors                       that the reduced occurrence of        collecting in combination with
Two main reasons for the               recently dead and dying wood was      the concurrent habitat loss
precipitous decrease in Ivory-         probably responsible for declines     likely hastened the decline of
billed Woodpecker numbers have         of woodpeckers there. He notes        the species. Local populations
been proposed. Throughout              that their overall population         could have been extirpated
the species’ range, beginning in       loss throughout the southeast is      by collecting. For example,
the early 1800s, there has been        probably not directly caused by       Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are
a reduction in suitable habitat        hunting.                              believed to have been reduced
and potentially a direct impact                                              by excessive collecting, rather
on suitable nest trees as well as      Habitat loss has probably affected    than as a result of the conversion
an indirect destruction of their       Ivory-billed Woodpeckers              of forest habitats in a small area
food source due to large scale         since the original cutting of         of the Suwannee River region
logging and conversion of forest       virgin forest. Some losses were       of Florida. In addition, Tanner
habitats (Jackson 2002). During        probably gradual while other          (1942) indicated that many Ivory-
this period settlement, logging        losses occurred very rapidly.         billed Woodpeckers were killed
roads, and slash fires improved        Tanner (1942) reported that by        merely to satisfy curiosity.
access for hunters, trappers, and      the 1930s only isolated remnants
commercial collectors, increasing      of the original southern forest       Ivory-billed Woodpecker
the potential for lethal contact.      remained. Forest loss continued       populations appear to have
Rather than habitat loss, the          with another period of accelerated    been in a state of continuous
direct killing of Ivory-billed         clearing and conversion to            fragmentation and decline since
Woodpeckers could have been the        agriculture of bottomland             the early 1800s (Jackson 2002,
primary cause for their decline        hardwood forests of the Lower         Tanner 1942). Early accounts
(Snyder 2007). Other factors           Mississippi Valley during the         gave no accurate or definite
such as disease or non-human           1960s and 1970s. The combined         estimates of abundance, but
predation are not documented by        effect of those losses has resulted   populations by the 1890s were
Tanner or Jackson as important         in reduction and fragmentation        probably not large and were
causes.                                of the remaining forested lands.      limited to habitats subject to
                                       The conversion rate of forest to      high tree mortality, e.g., areas
Essential features of Ivory-billed     agricultural lands has reversed       that were regularly flooded or
Woodpecker habitat include:            in the past few years. Currently,     burned (Jackson 2002). The
extensive, continuous forest           many public and private agencies      small population size and limited
areas, very large trees, and           are working to protect and            distribution of the Ivory-billed
agents of tree mortality resulting     restore forest habitat; however,      Woodpecker place this species,
in a continuous supply of recently     it may be many years before           where it may occur, at risk from
dead trees or large dead branches      these restored forests mature         natural events and environmental
in mature trees (Jackson 2002).        and are capable of providing          factors.
According to Tanner (1942), “In        ideal habitat for the Ivory-billed
many cases [the Ivory-billed           Woodpecker. Therefore, until          Additionally, the exact number
Woodpecker’s] disappearance            more is learned about the Ivory-      and genetic health of any
almost coincided with logging          billed Woodpecker’s habitat           remaining birds are unknown.
operations. In others, there was       requirements, the extensive           In general, small populations
no close correlation, but there        habitat loss and fragmentation        are at risk from genetic and
are no records of Ivory-billed         and the lack of information on        demographic stochastic events
inhabiting areas for any length        specific habitat requirements         (such as normal variations in
of time after those have been cut      remain a primary threat to this       survival and mortality, genetic
over.” Snyder (2007) argues that       species.                              drift, inbreeding, predation, and
the close correlation between                                                disease). However, other species,
timber harvesting activities and       Historical records indicate           such as the California Condor
the decline of the Ivory-bill may      that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers         (Gymnogyps californianus)
reflect an increased exposure to       (bills and the plumage) were          and the Seychelles Warbler
poaching and collecting rather         collected and used for various        (Acrocephalus sechellensis)
than food limitation in logged-        purposes by Native and colonial       (Komdeur 2002) have survived

narrow genetic bottlenecks.             major focus is learning more           1. Identify and delineate any
Mattson et al. (2008) applied a         about where the birds may                 existing populations
stochastic modeling approach            persist, then examining those
to evaluate the potential for           habitats to reveal ways in which       2. Identify and reduce risks to
persistence under multiple              specific conservation actions             any existing population,
scenarios for large, longer-lived       could be developed. Many of the        3. Protect and enhance suitable
woodpecker species. Their               potential recovery actions will be        habitat once populations are
results support the determination       made only where a nest or roost           identified, and;
that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers           is located or where there are new
could also survive with a very          multiple sightings, video, physical    4. Reduce or eliminate threats
small population size.                  evidence, or a photograph of a            sufficiently to allow successful
                                        bird.                                     restoration of multiple
Though not a threat directly                                                      populations when those
related to a species’ biology or life   Spatially explicit, objective, and        populations are identified.
history, the inability to identify or   measurable population goals have
delineate a population to obtain        not been identified. However,          The emphasis in this recovery
basic life history information can      those goals are recognized as          plan of documenting and
greatly limit the recovery of that      a key part of future recovery          conserving viable populations
species. Difficulty in confirming       efforts. Habitat modeling and          in the historical range is based
and delineating populations             other analysis tools have been         upon two widely recognized and
and the limited basic biological        completed for Arkansas and other       scientifically accepted goals for
and ecological information on           parts of the species’ range. These     promoting viable populations
the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is          models inform search efforts and       of listed species. These goals
therefore another primary factor        broadly identify potential areas       are: (1) the creation of multiple
that currently threatens our            for conservation. Population           populations so that a single or
ability to recover the species.         modeling has provided an               series of catastrophic events does
                                        indication that the persistence of     not result in species extinction;
Recovery Strategy                       the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in         and (2) the increase of population
Our understanding of most               low numbers throughout its range       size to a level where the threats
aspects of the ecology and biology      is possible (Mattson et al 2008).      from genetic, demographic,
of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is       These efforts will help inform         and normal environmental
limited. It has proven extremely        the development of spatially           uncertainties are diminished
difficult to locate or relocate         explicit, objective and measurable     (Mangel and Tier 1994, National
individuals despite extensive           population and habitat goals for       Research Council 1995, Tear et al.
survey efforts. Much of what            future recovery plans.                 1995, Meffe and Carroll 1994). By
is known is derived from the                                                   maintaining population numbers
studies by James Tanner (1942)          Recovery Goal                          and viable breeding populations
on one small population and             The goal of the Ivory-billed           at multiple sites, the species
his rangewide evaluation of             Woodpecker recovery program            will have a greater likelihood of
reports and habitat availability.       is to locate, protect and increase     achieving long-term survival and
Other information comes from            existing populations and               recovery.
knowledge of other Campephilus          associated habitat and recover the
species, woodpeckers in general,        species to the point at which it can   Recovery Criteria
interpretations of photographs,         be downlisted from endangered to       At present, the limited
and anecdotes gathered by other         threatened status, and ultimately      knowledge on the population
observers. The current strategy         to remove it completely from           abundance, distribution, habitat
must focus first on locating            the Federal list of threatened         requirements, and biology of the
and confirming the presence of          and endangered species when            Ivory-billed Woodpecker prevents
individuals. Then we can add to         the protections provided by            development of more specific
our knowledge about the ecology         the Endangered Species Act             recovery criteria. The following
and biology of the species once a       are no longer necessary. This          interim criteria will lead us to
population is identified, providing     goal is consistent with current        the development of more specific,
a feasible approach to habitat          requirements for all listed            quantifiable criteria that should
protection, given its potential         species.                               be met before considering the
presence.                                                                      delisting of this species:
                                        Recovery Objectives
Our poor understanding of the           This recovery plan identifies          1. Potential habitats for any
species has largely directed            many interim actions needed to            occurrences of the species are
the recovery strategy to one of         achieve long-term viability for           surveyed.
learning more about the species         the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and
status and ecology, rather than         accomplish these goals. Recovery       2. Current habitat use and needs
undertaking specific habitat            of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker            of any existing populations are
management actions. Habitat             focuses on the following                  determined.
management and land protection          objectives:                            3. Habitat on public land where
efforts are important, but the
  Ivory-bills are located is         7. Education and outreach on the
  conserved and enhanced. If            conservation of the species
  needed, more acreage is added
  to public habitat inventory via    8. Management of public use
  land acquisition from willing         in areas where the species
  sellers                               is known to occur to avoid
                                        possible adverse impacts from
4. Habitat on private lands is          intense public use
   conserved and enhanced
   through the use of voluntary      9. Management of rediscovered
   agreements (e.g., conservation       populations and forested
   easements, habitat                   habitats to aid recovery
   conservation plans) and           Total Estimated Cost of Recovery
   public outreach to facilitate     The total estimated cost of
   appropriate management            recovering the Ivory-billed
   actions.                          Woodpecker is unknown at this
5. Viability of any existing         time because of our limited
   populations (numbers, breeding    knowledge concerning its
   success, population genetics,     occurrence, distribution, and
   and ecology) is analyzed.         long-term actions required. See
                                     Appendix C for recovery and
6. The number and geographic         other expenditures to the date of
   distribution of subpopulations    drafting the plan.
   needed for a self-sustaining
   metapopulation and to evaluate
   suitable habitat for species
   reintroduction is determined.
Recovery Actions
The primary interim actions
needed to accomplish delisting
and/or downlisting recovery goals
and achieve recovery criteria are:
1. Population surveys and
   monitoring in the historical
   range where habitat and
   sighting information indicate
   potential for the presence of
   the species
2. Habitat inventory and
   monitoring in the historical
   range of the species
3. Population and habitat
   modeling to facilitate survey
   efforts and to inform potential
   management actions
4. Research directed at testing
   biological assumptions
   otherwise implicit in modeling
   and management actions
5. Landscape characterization and
   assessment of the Mississippi
   Alluvial Valley and other areas
   of the historical range
6. Conservation design aimed at
   defining the spatially explicit
   landscape conditions needed to
   support the species

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................................IV
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... V
List of Figures ..........................................................................................................................................................XI
List of Tables             ........................................................................................................................................................XII
I.    Background
      A. Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
      B. Species Description and Taxonomy .............................................................................................................. 1
      C. Status            ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
      D. Population Trend and Historical Distribution............................................................................................. 9
      E. Life History and Ecology ............................................................................................................................ 10
      F.     Habitat Characterization ............................................................................................................................. 12
             1.    General Observations on Historical Conditions ................................................................................ 12
             2.    James Tanner’s Observations on the Singer Tract ........................................................................... 13
             3.    Ivory-billed Woodpecker Habitat Along Bayou DeView ................................................................. 13
             4.    History of Habitat Rangewide (for individual records and sightings see Appendix E) .............. 14
             5.    Current Conditions in the area of Cache River NWR in Arkansas ............................................... 16
             6.    Current Regional Forest Conditions Within the Historical Range ................................................ 17
      G. Management Considerations ...................................................................................................................... 18
             1.    Current Landscape Management in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley (LMAV) ................. 18
             2.    Bottomland Hardwood Forest Management ..................................................................................... 18
             3.    Favored Tree Species ............................................................................................................................ 18
             4.    Impact of Changing Hydrologic Regimes on Tree Species ............................................................. 19
             5.    The Role of Disturbance ....................................................................................................................... 19
             6.    Dead Trees.............................................................................................................................................. 20
             7.    Current Forest Management ............................................................................................................... 21
      H. Reasons for Listing/Current Threats ........................................................................................................ 21
             1.    Habitat Loss and Degradation (Factor A) ......................................................................................... 21
             2.    Over-Utilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
                   (Factor B) .................................................................................................................................................... 22
             3.    Disease or Predation (Factor C) .......................................................................................................... 22
             4.    The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms (Factor D) .................................................. 22
             5.    Other Natural or Anthropogenic Factors Affecting the Ivory-bill’s Continued Existence
                   (Factor E) ............................................................................................................................................... 22
      I.     Conservation Efforts .................................................................................................................................... 22
             1.    Conservation Efforts in the Recent Past ........................................................................................... 22
             2.    Current Conservation Efforts ............................................................................................................. 23
             3.    Summary of Conservation Efforts ...................................................................................................... 24
      J.     Biological Constraints and Needs .............................................................................................................. 24

II. Recovery
      A. Recovery Strategy ........................................................................................................................................ 25
      B. Recovery Goal ............................................................................................................................................... 25
      C. Recovery Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 25
      D. Recovery Criteria ......................................................................................................................................... 26
      E. Recovery Actions .......................................................................................................................................... 26
      F.    Total Estimated Cost of Recovery.............................................................................................................. 26
      G. Narrative Outline of Recovery Actions ..................................................................................................... 26
            1.     Population Surveys and Monitoring ................................................................................................... 26
            2.     Habitat Inventory and Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 27
            3.     Population/Habitat Models................................................................................................................... 27
            4.     Assumption-Driven Research .............................................................................................................. 27
            5.     Landscape Characterization and Assessment ................................................................................... 28
            6.     Conservation Design ............................................................................................................................. 28
            7.     Education and Outreach ....................................................................................................................... 29
            8.     Public Use and Access in Occupied Habitat ...................................................................................... 29
            9. Management of Populations ................................................................................................................... 29
III. Implementation Actions ................................................................................................................................ 30
IV. References ................................................................................................................................................... 35
      Appendix A. Members of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Team and their Affiliation ............... 38
      Appendix B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service statement on existing evidence for Ivory-billed
                  Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) occurrence in the Big Woods of eastern
                  Arkansas and elsewhere in the Southeastern U.S. ................................................................ 42
      Appendix C. Expenditures ad accomplishemnts to date of this Draft Recovery Plan ............................ 46
      Appendix D. Research projects completed or underway in response to Recovery Outline/
                  Implementation Actions ............................................................................................................ 54
      Appendix E. Interpreting historical status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker with recent
                  evidence for the species’ persistence in the southeastern United States ........................... 66
      Appendix F.           Protocol to estimate occupancy and related parameters for the region-wide
                            search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker .................................................................................. 92
      Appendix G. Example of Action Plan and private lands considerations for the Ivory-billed
                  Woodpecker ............................................................................................................................... 108
      Appendix H. Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat inventory and assessment:
                  Public lands in the Big Woods of Arkansas ........................................................................... 120
      Appendix I.           Habitat conditions across the historical range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker .............. 126
      Appendix J.           Species names and acronyms used in the Recovery Plan ................................................... 142
      Appendix K. Service response to public comments on the
                  Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Plan ............................................................................... 144

List of Figures
Figure 1.         Male Ivory-billed Woodpecker and Pileated Woodpecker.
                  Heads of Male Pileated Woodpecker and Female Ivory Billed Woodpecker. ...................................1
Figure 2.         Comparison of Ivory-billed Woodpecker and Pileated Woodpecker in flight. ..................................2
Figure 3.         The Range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker according to Tanner. .....................................................3
Figure 4.         James Tanner, 1935. .................................................................................................................................7
Figure E-1. Numerical summary of all locations with Ivory-billed Woodpecker reports..................................71
Figure E-2. Total locations with at least one specimen known from that location,
            that decade, range-wide. ........................................................................................................................71
Figure E-3. Percent of reported locations with multiple reports within the same decade. ...............................72
Figure E-4. Percent of locations with multiple reports within one decade during multiple
            decade time blocks..................................................................................................................................72
Figure E-5. Number of locations with reports across two decades. .....................................................................73
Figure E-6. Percent of locations with reports across two decades during multiple decade time blocks. ........73
Figure E-7. Total locations with reports in each Tanner region. ...........................................................................74
Figure F-1. Possible encounters since 1944 are primarily in large patches of contiguous
            bottomland forest. ..................................................................................................................................95
Figure F-2. River basins within the former range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. ..........................................96
Figure F-3. Example grid of survey units for basin surrounding Congaree National Park. ............................97
Figure F-4. Initial detection trigger identified and confirmed. ...........................................................................100
Figure F-5. Four adjacent patches plus initial trigger patch searched five times. ...........................................100
Figure F-6. New trigger found during visit to adjacent patch.
            Three patches adjacent to new trigger patch searched five times.
            Process continues until no new triggers are found. This will result in edge patches. .................101
Figure G-1. Functional chart for Initial Response for Action Plan. ....................................................................112
Figure H-1. Schematic demonstrating:
            (A) the delineation of management compartments within a management area; and
            (B) the delineation and allocation of sampling units within stands across a management
            compartment. ........................................................................................................................................121
Figure H-2. Sensitivity analysis to assess implications of sample size on the coefficient of variation
            for density of large trees based on pilot data from White River NWR. .......................................122
Figure H-3. Schematic of a point-transect depicting a cluster of five plots spaced four chains
            apart upon which habitat metrics were sampled..............................................................................122
Figure H-4. Preliminary analysis of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat inventory data,
            Cache River NWR and Dagmar WMA, September-October 2005. ...............................................124
Figure H-5. Preliminary analysis of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat inventory data,
            White River NWR, September-October 2005. .................................................................................125

List of Tables
Table 1.           Implementation Actions ........................................................................................................................31
Table C-1. Accomplishments of Endangered Species Recovery (1113) FY 06 Funds Ivory-billed
           Woodpecker .............................................................................................................................................46
Table C-2. Accomplishments of Endangered Species Recovery (1113) FY 07 Funds Ivory-billed
           Woodpecker .............................................................................................................................................48
Table C-3. Accomplishments of Endangered Species Recovery (1113) FY 08 Funds Ivory-billed
           Woodpecker .............................................................................................................................................50
Table C-4. Draft Proposed Allocation of 1113 FY 09 Funds Received for Preventing Extinction of
           Ivory-billed Woodpecker .......................................................................................................................52
Table H-1. Location, number of forest stands and acreage inventoried in the Big Woods of Arkansas,
           September-October 2005. ....................................................................................................................122
Table H-2. Parameters and definitions of metrics collected during the habitat inventory
           and assessment project in the Big Woods of Arkansas, September-October 2005. ....................123
Table I-1.         Counties included in analysis of USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis data. ......129
Table I-2.         USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis physiographic tree species/
                   species group codes used as a filter in the analysis..........................................................................130
Table I-3.         USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis physiographic class codes used
                   as a filter in the analysis. Physiographic class is the general effect of land form,
                   topographical position, and soil on moisture available to trees. .....................................................131
Table I-4.         Sources of USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis data used for this analysis. ............................132
Table I-5.         Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in
                   Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas...............132
Table I-6.         Net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina,
                   South Carolina, and Texas. ..................................................................................................................133
Table I-7.         Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in
                   Alabama (2003 Annual Survey). .........................................................................................................133
Table I-8.         Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth,
                   mortality, and removals by size class in Arkansas (2004 Annual Survey). ...................................134
Table I-9.         Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in
                   Georgia (2003 Annual Survey). ...........................................................................................................135
Table I-10. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth,
            mortality, and removals by size class in Louisiana (2003 Annual Survey). ...................................136
Table I-11. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth,
            mortality, and removals by size class in North Carolina (2002 Periodic Survey). .......................137
Table I-12. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth,
            mortality, and removals by size class in South Carolina (2001 Annual Survey)...........................138
Table I-13. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth,
            mortality, and removals by size class in Texas (2003 Annual Survey). ..........................................139

I.	 Background                        need to develop cooperation at
                                      the international level to address
A.		Overview                          conservation of the species across
The Ivory-billed Woodpecker           its entire range (Thomas Barbour
(Campephilus principalis), once       1923 from Jackson 2004).
an inhabitant of forested habitats    B.		Species	Description	and	
throughout the Southeastern           Taxonomy
United States and Cuba, was           The Ivory-billed Woodpecker
reduced to very low numbers           (Campephilus principalis)
by the early 20th Century             belongs to a genus composed of 11
(Tanner 1942). Little hope was        species of woodpeckers inhabiting
held for its continued existence      the Western Hemisphere—
until compelling evidence of the      primarily Central and South
species was obtained in 2004 and      America. Two forms of Ivory-
announced in 2005 (Fitzpatrick        billed Woodpecker have been
et al. 2005). Observers reported      recognized: the Continental
multiple sightings and recorded       subspecies, with a historical range
audio and video interpreted to        covering most of the southeastern
be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker         and a small portion of south-
within a section of Bayou             central United States (Figure 1),
DeView, located in the Cache          and the Cuban subspecies with
River National Wildlife Refuge        a historical range throughout
(NWR) in east-central Arkansas.       Cuba. The Cuban form has been
This evidence is not universally      recognized by some authors to
accepted (Sibley et al 2006).         be a distinct species, C. bairdii
While there continues to be           (American Ornithologists’ Union
disagreement as to the validity       1983; Fleischer et al. 2006) while
of this and other reports, the        others define the 2 forms as
Fish and Wildlife Service has         subspecies -- C. p. principalis
received sufficient information       and C. p. bairdii (e.g., Integrated
to warrant additional searches        Taxonomic Information System
and preparation of a recovery         2008).
plan. Please see Appendix B for a
discussion.                           The Ivory-billed Woodpecker is
                                      noted for its striking black-and-
The Fish and Wildlife Service         white plumage; robust white,
recommend that the recovery           chisel-tipped bill; lemon-yellow
strategy initially focus on           eye; and pointed crest. Males
completing surveys and studies        are red from the nape to
to determine the species’ status,     the top of their crest with
distribution, ecology, and habitat    black outlining the front
relationships. Results from           of the crest. Females
these investigations will help us     have a solid black crest
formulate specific conservation       which is somewhat more
actions for the species throughout    pointed and slightly
its range in the United States.       recurved to point forward
Specific population goals             (Figure 2).
are not identified, but they                                                 Figure 1. Male Ivory-billed
are acknowledged as key to            The bases of the male’s red crest      Woodpecker perched (top) and
recovery. Recent efforts included     feathers are white and may allow       Pileated Woodpecker perched
development of predictive             a spot of white to be displayed        (below). Heads of female Pileated
habitat models and additional         on the side of the crest when the      Woodpecker (left) and female
research that will generate           feathers are fully erect. This         Ivory-billed Woodpecker (right).
spatially-explicit population goals   trait was illustrated by Wilson        Copyright by David Allen Sibley.
in the future, as needed. The         (1811) and shown on a specimen
recovery strategy contained in        by Jackson (2004). Morphological       (Ridgway 1914 from Tanner
this recovery plan pertains only      data from live birds are lacking.      1942). Available information
to the population of Ivory-billed     The best estimates of size are         from such sources suggests the
Woodpeckers in the United States      from measurements given by             Ivory-billed Woodpecker has an
but could be applied to recovery      John J. Audubon (although these        overall length of approximately
efforts for the Cuban population      lack locality, date, and other data)   48-51 centimeters (cm), an
of Ivory-billed Woodpecker. The       and ornithologists of the late         estimated wingspan of 76-80 cm,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service        19th Century, such as Robert           and a weight of 454-567 grams (g).
and its partners recognize the        Ridgway, who collected specimens       These figures are based on values
of “1 pound” and “20 ounces”                                               Compelling evidence of
given in the historical records.                                           the species’ existence was
However, no clearly documented                                             obtained when the Ivory-billed
data are available (Jackson 2002).                                         Woodpecker was reported in
In comparison, the more common                                             Arkansas and presented by
Pileated Woodpecker has an                                                 Fitzpatrick et al. (2005). On
overall length of approximately 40-                                        February 11, 2004, kayaker
48 cm and a weight of 250-355 g.                                           Gene Sparling observed a large
                                                                           woodpecker with characteristics
The most commonly described                                                of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker
Ivory-billed Woodpecker                                                         in Arkansas. The encounter
vocalization is a nasal “kent” call                                            spurred an extensive search
resembling the sound obtained by                                           led by the Cornell Laboratory of
blowing on the mouthpiece of a                                             Ornithology and the Arkansas
saxophone or clarinet. Audubon                                             Nature Conservancy. In 2004
likened the sound to that of a toy                                         and 2005 observers reported
trumpet. This call and variants                                            multiple sightings and recorded
of it seem to function as a contact                                        audio and video interpreted to
call, a distress call, or as a call                                        be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker
given during displays at the nest.                                         within the same area as Sparling
Mnemonics for these calls have                                             along Bayou DeView, located in
varied greatly, including such                                             the Cache River National Wildlife
renditions as “kent,” “yent,”                                              Refuge (NWR) in east-central
“yap,” and “kient.” The notes                                              Arkansas. Interpretation of the
of these calls are often given                                             video has been challenged by
singly, doubly, or in a series of                                          others (Jackson 2006, Sibley et al.
three (a single note followed by a                                         2006).
double note) such as “yent-yent-
yent” and were recorded at a                                               An alternative interpretation
nest in 1935 (Allen and Kellogg                                            is that the recorded bird is a
1937, Allen 1939). There is also                                           Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus
a far-carrying call described as                                           pileatus). In rebuttal Fitzpatrick
“kient-kient-kient” for which                                              et al. (2006) provided additional
no recording exists. This far-                                             analysis of the Arkansas video.
carrying call, often used among                                            An additional paper supporting
group members in chorus prior                                              Sibley et al. was published by
to a long-distance flight, is         Figure 2. Comparison of the          Collinson (2007). Both Sibley
reportedly the loudest contact call   Ivory-billed Woodpecker (above)      et al. and Fitzpatrick et al.
of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker        to the Pileated Woodpecker           recognize that the identity of
and can be heard up to a quarter-     (below), both in flight. Copyright   the woodpecker in question is
mile away (Tanner 1942). Non-         by David Allen Sibley.               not inherently obvious as either
vocalized sounds made by the                                               an Ivory-bill or a Pileated.
bird include a rapid, loud double     population is limited and has        Taking all information into
knocking characteristic of most       been debated for many years.         consideration, the Service concurs
members of the genus. This            Some authorities suspect the         with Fitzpatrick et al. (2006)
“rapping” is often described as a     species might persist in a few       that alternative explanations
“double rap” or “double knock”        locations in Cuba (Garrido and       of the Luneau video are based
since it consists of two rapid        Kirkconnell 2000, Kirkconnell,       on misinterpretations of video
knocks. Raps may also occur           pers. comm.). Potential              artifacts and faulty models
singly. When taking flight, the       population size and distribution     of bird flight. Dispute in the
Ivory-bill has been described         are not known. Since the last        ornithological community
to have noisy wing-beats. In          commonly agreed upon sightings       continues to the time of this
direct flight they are said to have   of the species in Louisiana in the   writing. See Appendix B for
a rapid wing-beat as well as a        1940s, there have been numerous      additional detail.
slender appearance, resembling a      reports of possible sightings
Northern Pintail (Tanner 1942).       and photographs as well as           Additional sightings and audio
                                      recordings of potential Ivory-       and video recordings from the
C.		Status                            billed Woodpecker vocalizations      search have suggested that the
The Ivory-billed Woodpecker was                                            Ivory-billed Woodpecker may still
                                      or double-knocks across the
listed as endangered throughout                                            persist. The Fish and Wildlife
                                      historical range of the species.
its range on March 11, 1967,                                               Service accepted the initial
                                      These observations cannot be
(32 FR 4001) and June 2, 1970                                              evidence of the presence of one
                                      independently verified, but can be
(35 FR 8495). Information on                                               bird in the Cache River National
                                      evaluated (Appendix E).
the current status of the U.S.                                             Wildlife Refuge and on the

basis of all available information    there will continue to be debate       species). We believe the more
believes that it is prudent to plan   regarding the evidence. The            appropriate RPN for the Ivory-
for the recovery of the species as    Service recognizes and supports        bill is currently a 5 (indicating
part of our responsibilities under    these exchanges of views on            a high degree of threat and a
the ESA. Additionally, the Fish       alternative interpretations as a       low recovery potential for this
and Wildlife Service, in response     part of the scientific process.        species) which more accurately
to the potential that the species                                            reflects the significant reduction
may exist in isolated locations in    Every federally listed species         in the species’ habitat and the
its former range, initiated region-   is assigned a Recovery Priority        general consensus over 60 years
wide search efforts with state and    Number (RPN) on a scale of 1           that it was near extinction (some
non-government partners. Initial      (indicating highest priority) to 18.   think it is already extinct).
searches and actions, as well as      The number assigned is based on        Consequently, in November of
any others deemed necessary in        first, the degree of threat to the     2005, the Service changed the
the future, are consistent with our   entity (either high, moderate or       RPN to 5; this change was also
interpretations of the evidence,      low); second, the species’ potential   based on the 2004 sightings
our responsibilities under the        for recovery (either high or           reported in Arkansas and a
ESA, and the urgency of the           low); and, last, the listed entity’s   reassessment of the degree
situation.                            taxonomic level (either monotypic      of threat to the species (U.S.
                                      genus, species or subspecies)          Fish and Wildlife Service 2005).
Many State, Federal and               (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service        Specifically, an RPN of 5 means
private partners will cooperate       1983a, 1983b). This is an internal     that a species’ extinction is almost
to continue searching for             review process, with the final         certain in the immediate future
evidence of the species’ presence     number representing a set of           because of rapid population
(e.g., sightings, nest cavities),     values that the biologist assigns      decline or habitat destruction
promoting habitat protection and      each of the 3 factors described in     (high degree of threat), and that
management, and supporting            the prior sentence. Until 2005,        the biological and ecological
necessary research to conserve        the RPN for the Ivory-billed           limiting factors are poorly
this species and the ecosystem        Woodpecker was 17 (indicating          understood; the threats to the
upon which it depends.                a low degree of threat and a           species’ existence are also poorly
Additionally, we recognize that       low recovery potential for the

Figure 3. The Historical Range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker according to Tanner.
understood or pervasive and           In addition to Arkansas, state-led     Florida:
difficult to alleviate; intensive     searches were conducted during         Florida Fish and Wildlife
management is needed, but             the winter of 2005-2006 in South       Conservation Commission staff
the probability of success is         Carolina primarily at Congaree         and volunteers searched for the
uncertain; or the techniques          National Park, in Georgia at           Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the
needed to recover the species are     Okefenokee National Wildlife           Apalachicola and Chipola River
unknown or experimental (low          Refuge, and along the Louisiana-       Basins from January through
recovery potential). No critical      Mississippi border using ultralight    early June 2007. They covered
habitat has been designated for       aircraft over the Pearl River.         23 2-square km search patches
this species and none is required     Several other searches were            during an effort of approximately
due to the date of listing.           undertaken because of recent           820 hours in the field using 33
                                      possible encounters with Ivory-        volunteers. There were no visual
Search results since the original     billed Woodpecker in other states      or audio detections of Ivory-billed
Arkansas report for the species       within the species’ historical         Woodpeckers.
in each of the states within the      range. No conclusive evidence
historical range is summarized        emerged from these efforts, but        The Auburn University Search
below. These data were obtained       information has been gathered          Group spent five months of
from the state and university year-   that can be used to guide further      searching the forested wetlands
end search reports provided to        searches in these states.              along the Choctawhatchee River
the Service. Analysis of historical                                          on the Florida panhandle. On
state records or sightings is         The most publicized search             seven occasions, searchers saw
included in Appendix E.               independent from state-led             what they identified as Ivory-
                                      efforts was conducted in               billed Woodpeckers. On 47
2005-2006                             northwest Florida by Dr. Geoff         occasions, searchers heard what
Led by the Cornell Laboratory
                                      Hill, Auburn University, and Dr.       they thought were kent calls
of Ornithology, The Nature
                                      Daniel Mennill, University of          or double knocks. Listening
Conservancy, and Audubon
                                      Windsor, Ontario, Canada (Hill         stations recorded 94 putative
Arkansas, the 2005-2006 search
                                      et al. 2006). Evidence to date is      kent calls and 58 putative double
season focused on the Big
                                      considered promising; however,         knocks. These encounters
Woods area in eastern Arkansas.
                                      the species’ presence has not been     provide additional evidence that
Twenty-two full-time searchers,
                                      confirmed.                             Ivory-billed Woodpeckers may
armed with state-of the art
                                                                             persist in the forests along the
audio and video monitoring            2006-2007                              Choctawhatchee River.
devices, searched portions of a       Arkansas:
550,000-acre area including the       Cornell reported 6,033 hours of        A specific, reported encounter
Cache River NWR, White River          searches covering about 11,075         occurred on December 24, 2006,
NWR., Dagmar WMA, and other           hectares. A robotic camera,            Tyler Hicks, an experienced
properties. The searchers were        developed by University of             birdwatcher, reported observing
aided by volunteers who spent         California Berkeley and Texas          a female Ivory-billed Woodpecker
two weeks at a time searching the     A&M University, was placed             perched on the trunk of a tree at
forest. Scientists from the Cornell   on Bayou DeView (powerline             a distance of 15 meters. Hicks
Laboratory of Ornithology             right-of-way between Stab and          stated he clearly saw a black
and researchers from several          PawPaw lakes). One million             crest, white dorsal stripes, an
state and federal agencies have       images from 79 Reconyx ®               ivory-colored bill, and a large
reviewed all evidence that was        camera deployments captured no         area of white across the lower
gathered during the previous          potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker      portion of the folded wings of the
winter’s search season, including     images.                                bird. Hicks was drawn to the
potential sightings, thousands of                                            bird by kent calls, and two other
hours of audio recordings, and        The official search team logged        observers heard kent calls and
examinations of tree cavities,        24 (13 acoustic, 11 visual) possible   double knocks in the same area
and bark scalings. Although           encounters during the five-month       just prior to this sighting.
the search resulted in no better      field season, none definitive.
documentation than previous           Six of these encounters were           South Carolina:
searches, four potential sightings    reported by members of the             Searching began on December 7,
based on a single field mark          public. This includes two visuals      2006, and ended on May 13, 2007.
were documented, and additional       in the Wattensaw WMA from              The TNC Crew, Cornell Mobile
acoustic evidence was gathered        Ross Everett, a duck hunter            Search Team, the National Park
from both the Cache River NWR         (12/31/2006, 3/25/2007), and Allan     Service and volunteer searchers
and White River NWR. While            Mueller, retired Field Supervisor      logged 4190 hours covering
this suggests that Ivory-billed       US Fish and Wildlife Service           Congaree National Park and
Woodpeckers may be present in         Arkansas Ecological Services           public areas within the Wambaw
the Big Woods, the inability to       (5/7/2007). Visual and acoustic        Creek and the Pee Dee River
relocate Ivory-billed Woodpeckers     encounters took place in both the      system. No definitive encounter
casts doubt on whether there are      Cache and White River National         with an Ivory-billed Woodpecker
breeding pairs in the Big Woods.      Wildlife Refuges as well.              was documented. A total of 1.3
million Reconyx® images were          days of sitting and watching were    were heard on the White River
recorded. Analysis has provided       completed on Lower Hatchie           National Wildlife Refuge.
images of only non-target             NWR. The crew surveyed 3,560
woodpeckers, raptors, ducks, and      acres of federal land transects,     Six days of helicopter surveys in
mammals. Thirteen autonomous          2,010 acres at Chickasaw NWR         these same areas were completed
recording units were deployed,        and 1,550 acres at Lower Hatchie     in cooperation with the USDA
recording one kent call and           NWR. Possible encounters             Forest Service, The Nature
three double knocks that were         include single and double raps       Conservancy, Arkansas Game and
plausible signs of an Ivory-billed    heard on January 8th and 9th,        Fish Commission, Cornell Lab
Woodpecker.                           2007.                                of Ornithology, and the Arkansas
                                                                           Natural Heritage Commission.
The majority of the search effort     Texas:                               These flights covered
occurred in Congaree National         Randomized patch surveys were        approximately 152,877 acres. No
Park. Thirty-one volunteers           completed in the Big Thicket         Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were
were utilized in the search           National Preserve, Trinity River     photographed. Woodpecker flush
efforts. A total of 15 participants   National Wildlife Refuge, and the    rates were very low in comparison
reported 29 acoustic encounters       adjacent Wallisville Lake Project.   with known numbers. Although
consisting of kent calls or double    No encounters were recorded.         the birds sighted during the flights
knocks. Six of these occurred on                                           could be readily identified and
May 11, 2007. One participant         Cornell Mobile Search Team:          photographed, a helicopter survey
described briefly seeing a large      Total field effort was 469 person-   seems unproductive as a method
black and white woodpecker with       days. A total distance of 3,566 km   for documenting an Ivory-bill.
characteristics consistent with       was covered by canoe or on foot
Ivory-billed Woodpecker in flight     during daylight hours. The four      Florida:
(February 11, 2007).                  main study areas were Congaree       The Auburn search continued
                                      National Park, SC (177 person        on the Choctawhatchee River.
Tennessee:                            days), Choctawhatchee River,         The search effort totaled 895
Possible visual and auditory          FL (62 person days), Atchafalaya     hours (149 search days). During
encounters in January 2006 on         Basin, LA (51 person days) and       this season 3 sightings that the
federal and private land led to       the Apalachicola River basin, FL     group considers credible were
research into the presence of         (40 person days). Another 10         reported. All activity (earlier
Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in           areas, including Ebenezer Creek,     video, double knock recordings,
Tennessee. In addition, a follow-     GA, Big Thicket, TX, Santee,         sound detections, and sightings)
up on records submitted to the        Wateree, and PeeDee Rivers,          occurred in clusters.
Cornell Ivory-billed Woodpecker       SC, Pearl River, LA, Pascagoula
sighting database has added           River, MS, and the Appalachicola     South Carolina:
great interest to two focal search    and Escambia Rivers, FL were         A total of 41 people participated
areas in west Tennessee. The          searched, consuming 3 to 36          in the 2007/2008 South Carolina
Tennessee Wildlife Resources          person days each. No sightings       Ivory-billed Woodpecker search
Agency personnel focused their        of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers          from 26 November 2007 to 2
search on Meeman-Shelby Forest        were made by the team, and no        May 2008. A four-person full-
State Park and Shelby Forest          possible kent calls were heard.      time field crew, 36 volunteers,
WMA abutting a heavily forested       There were two incidents of          and a Student Conservation
landscape and the Mississippi         possible double knocks heard by      Association intern with Congaree
River. About 100 hours was spent      team members, on April 6th and       National Park comprised the
in the field conducting transects,    10th in Congaree National Park.      participants. The field crew
kayaking, and sitting, watching,                                           searched a total of 1922.4 hours
and listening in areas of interest.   2007-2008                            in Congaree National Park, the
One possible single rap was heard     Arkansas:                            Francis Marion National Forest,
by two observers.                     The search team employed 6           and other areas of interest in the
                                      full time members. The crew          Lower Pee Dee and Little Pee
About 102 hours of additional         imitated double knocks, deployed     Dee Basins. A total of 2.3 million
effort were spent searching and       cameras, walked transects, and       Reconyx® camera images were
cavity monitoring on the Hatchie      did stationary watches. Bayou        obtained from the cameras during
River, the Lower Hatchie NWR,         DeView (Cache River National         the search season, and review of
and Chickasaw NWR. One                Wildlife Refuge) and the White       these images for the presence of
Reconyx® camera was deployed          River National Wildlife Refuge       Ivory-billed Woodpeckers yielded
for 13 days on private land,          were surveyed. This effort           no positive images. A total of
recording approximately 108,000       totaled 852 hours of stationary      15 ARUs were deployed and
images. In the refuges, random        watches and 31,521 acres of          analyzed by Cornell University.
GPS points on a 10 square chain       visits. No responses to the          Of the 15 units deployed, 3
spacing were assigned, then           double knocks were noted and         returned a total of 4 double-knock
priority areas were searched.         no sightings were made by team       detection events. No positive
Cavity trees were monitored. In       members. On January 27, 2008,        encounters were obtained during
total, 46 transect days and 15        3 sets of double knock sounds        the search season.
Tennessee:                           the vast majority living trees.       Freeze/Wattensaw Wildlife
Observers were in the field from     Double-knock “playback”               Management Area, Cache River
March through mid-May 2008,          series were performed with a          National Wildlife Refuge – Bayou
averaging 2-3 people in the field.   mechanical device. No Ivory-bills     DeView, Sheffield Nelson/Dagmar
There were 4 ARU deployments         were sighted. No clear double-        Wildlife Management Area, and
as well as Reconyx® cameras at 2     knocks were heard.                    White River National Wildlife
locations. These recorded about                                            Refuge - Prairie Lakes. Trained
150,000 images with no positive      Illinois:                             volunteers assigned to each area.
results. A total of about 1000 man   During the January-March              A GPS unit was used to record
hours were spent on searches.        season 1160 hours were spent          IBWO encounters and cavities.
The Lower Hatchie and 3 WMAs         on field surveys. No conclusive       Each volunteer had a high quality
were surveyed. Double knock          evidence was obtained from            camera at all times, and used
sounds, kent calls, and brief        search effort or Reconyx @            their own or boats supplied by
encounters continued to make         camera deployments.                   Cornell and TNC. Untrained
this area interesting.               North Carolina:                       supplemental volunteers
                                     The state group led by Audubon        frequently assisted the trained
Texas:                                                                     volunteers.
Surveys were conducted in the        North Carolina, continues
Big Thicket National Preserve,       to follow-up on any credible          Despite significant field efforts in
the Trinity River NWR, and           sightings in the state and is doing   past years, local hunters, anglers,
the Army Corps of Engineers          surveys in the Juniper Creek          and other outdoor recreation
Wallisville Lake Project, which      area.                                 participants spent more time
is adjacent to the refuge on         Cornell Mobile Search Team:           in the field than Ivory-billed
its southern boundary, and           Areas surveyed included the           Woodpecker search groups. The
that contains 23,000 acres of        Atchafalaya, Pascagoula, and          previous $10,000 reward amount
unsurveyed bottomland forest         Mobile River Basins. The effort       did not generate enthusiasm
and swamp. Conditions were           totaled 414 person days.              from local users. The reward was
moderately difficult due to forest                                         increased to $50,000 which greatly
damage from Hurricane Ike in         Kentucky, Mississippi, and            increased the number of reports
mid September. These surveys         Georgia:                              and generated a new wave of
will be concluded in March           No searches were conducted in         press coverage and publicity. The
2009. One possible brief visual      2007-2008.                            local community was then alerted
encounter was noted in June 2007                                           to the continued interest in the
at the Trinity River NWR, but no     2008-9                                scientific community in the Ivory-
subsequent ones.                     Arkansas                              billed Woodpeckers. Several
                                     The search used 4 methods             reports from the public were
Louisiana:                           which included 3 full-time paid       of high enough quality that we
Three sites in the Atchafalaya       searchers, volunteer searchers,       directed our searches to the areas
Basin and the Pearl River WMA        increased local participation, and    of their reports, but none resulted
were surveyed by helicopter.         remote cameras. The effort took       in any detections or additional
Approximately 646 miles of           place from December 2008-May          evidence.
transects were completed in          2009 and was a partnership
the period of January 28 to          of the Cornell Laboratory of          During this search season
February 1, 2008. No Ivory-billed    Ornithology, the U.S. Fish            there was no paid, full-time
Woodpeckers were sighted or          and Wildlife Service, Audubon         remote camera person. Several
photographed. Opportunity for        Arkansas, the Arkansas Natural        experienced partners coordinated
use of helicopters is limited by     Heritage Commission, and              this effort. Seventeen cameras
time, funding, and availability.     the Arkansas Game and Fish            were deployed on potential
Large numbers of other species       Commission under the leadership       cavities and feeding sign. No
of woodpeckers flushed, and were     of The Nature Conservancy. The        Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were
easily identified in the canopy      three person full-time search         recorded.
cover.                               crew was in the field daily (except
                                     on rainy days) and focused their      Florida          2
The 1200-ha study area in St.        efforts on following up on leads,     A 23 mi 2 (60 km ) area within the
Mary Parish, Louisiana was           searching previously uncovered        Choctawhatchee River Basin in
searched during December             or poorly searched sites, and         Holmes, Washington, and Walton
through May. Cavity and              visiting “traditional” hot spots.     counties in Florida. This study
foraging sign inventories were       No Ivory-billed Woodpeckers           site was limited to land owned
conducted. 120 vegetation plots      were encountered.                     by the Northwest Florida Water
were also surveyed during                                                  Management District within the
this time. A total of 309 large      Volunteer searches were               Choctawhatchee River Basin.
cavities in 155 trees were located   designed around five Special          The main search areas included
and their entrance dimensions        Search Areas located in the           tributaries and distributaries
estimated. Large cavities were       White River National Wildlife         Old Creek, Cypress Slough,
overwhelmingly in cypresses,         Refuge – Maddox Bay, Mike             Gum Creek, Yates Mill Creek,
Carlisle Lakes, and Bruce Creek,                                           2009, searches were conducted
and the East River Island area.                                            within the Santee River Basin
Eastern and western boundaries                                             in the Francis Marion National
of the study site were defined                                             Forest and adjacent areas along
by Northwest Florida Wildlife                                              the lower Santee River; within
Management District property.                                              the Congaree River Basin in
                                                                           Congaree National Park; within
The search used a multistrata                                              the Savannah River Basin in the
sampling design to search for                                              Savannah River National Wildlife
Ivory-billed Woodpeckers and                                               Refuge, and on small public and
all other bird species during the                                          private lands locations along the
search season from January                                                 lower Savannah River. A total of
4, 2009 to May 1, 2009. To                                                 750 survey hours were dedicated
conform to the floodplain of                                               to searches in these three main
the Choctawhatchee River, the                                              areas. Active transect surveys,
study area was divided into 0.077                                          double-knock (DK) trials at a total
mi 2 (0.25-km2) grids. All bird                                            of 296 stations, and stationary
species detected were noted                                                watches of open vistas in high
using a checklist of species.                                              quality habitat, and observation
Within each search grid we also                                            of large cavities were conducted
repeatedly surveyed 100 sites        Figure 4. James T. Tanner, 1935.      throughout each search area.
using randomly placed point          Photo by Arthur Allen/Copyright       Autonomous Recording Units
transects from January 4, 2009       Cornell Lab of Ornithology            (ARUs) and remote cameras
through February 25, 2009. Each                                            were not deployed in South
point was surveyed using three       to obtaining a photograph of an
                                                                           Carolina as part of the Ivory-
consecutive 10-min point counts      Ivory-billed Woodpecker. This
                                                                           billed Woodpecker 2009 search
on two different days, totaling      method obtained numerous
                                                                           effort. On April 4th, a Pileated
six counts. Technicians were         photographs of Pileated
                                                                           Woodpecker was observed
ordered to immediately abandon       Woodpeckers, Red-bellied
                                                                           performing a “double-knock” in
point counts if they heard or        Woodpeckers, and Northern
                                                                           Congaree National Park. The
saw anything that suggested an       Flickers. These cameras are
                                                                           observer witnessed it through
Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Each        capable of monitoring a foraging
                                                                           binoculars from a distance of
technician set and monitored         site for over two months with
                                                                           about 30 yards. It did not appear
three Reconyx ® cameras set to       no maintenance. The cameras
                                                                           that the bird was disrupted
record time-lapse surveillance       must be set with the appropriate
                                                                           during the display. There
of cavities as well as seismically   sensitivity. After a period
                                                                           were other calling Pileated
triggered targets.                   of learning the appropriate
                                                                           Woodpeckers in the area. The
                                     settings, the average deployment
Seismically triggered                                                      double-knock was muffled but
                                     of two weeks resulted in only
configurations were used on large                                          could be heard easily at a distance
                                     about ten photographs of
woodpecker foraging sign that is                                           of about 30 yards.
                                     which approximately 30% were
frequently found on dead trees.      woodpeckers. This compares            No Ivory-billed Woodpecker
After morning point counts, while    to a burdensome analysis of           detections were made within the
searching their assigned grid,       20,000 images from a three-day        Santee River Basin, Congaree
each technician also searched        time lapse camera deployment.         National Park, or the Savannah
for potential foraging sites and     Images were in 3.1 megapixel          River Basin.
cavities. From February 26 to        color images were sufficient
March 31, point counts were          for clear identification of           Tennessee
halted and remaining surveys         woodpeckers in images.                There was a reduced search effort
were 0.77 mi2 (2-km2) grids                                                in 2009. Two part-time, contract
searches and Reconyx ® camera        Future searches could invest in       searchers performed 48 days
surveillance.                        Reconyx ® cameras with more           of field work. Approximately
                                     reliable wireless seismic triggers.   80 field days from February
The search team did not detect       Such monitoring could be              through April 2009 were
any Ivory-billed Woodpeckers         incorporated into any bottomland      completed. Methods included
during search season. Zero           monitoring projects range wide        sitting observation periods over
sightings and sound detections       at low cost compared to the cost      a 5 section grid of the area.
were recorded. Although our          of sustaining large scale search      Searchers attempted to equally
seismically triggered cameras        efforts.                              divide their effort across sections.
photographed many species of                                               No standardized searches for
woodpecker, no ivorybill pictures    South Carolina
                                                                           cavities were conducted and no
were obtained.                       The Cornell Mobile Search
                                                                           Reconyx ® cameras or Autonomic
                                     Team (MST) crew arrived on
Seismically triggered cameras                                              Recording Units were deployed.
                                     March 23, 2009, and searched
appear to be a low-cost approach                                           Double knock simulations were
                                     through March 25, 2009. During

conducted on several mornings.        a speed of 40 knots. Observers        were passively searched. Over 1.2
On two occasions, suspicious          focused their attention in forested   million Reconyx ® images were
knocks resembling Campephilus         habitats on a narrow swath no         screened. No compelling sightings
were encountered. Follow up           more than approximately 100 feet      were noted and no evidence of
searching did not yield additional    on either side of the helicopter.     the presence of an Ivory-billed
evidence.                             Approximately 900 miles of            Woodpecker within the areas was
                                      transects were flown in 2 areas       found.
The search group still feels          of the Atchafalaya River Basin
confident that an as yet              (Duck Lake, and Bayou Sorrel),        North Carolina
unidentified species of bird that     one area in the Pearl River Basin     Search for evidence of the
makes Campephilus double              (Pearl River Wildlife Management      Ivory-billed Woodpecker (IBWO)
knocks in isolation from other        Area), 2 areas in Three Rivers        along the Waccamaw River and
calls infrequently uses the area.     Wildlife Management Area, and         Juniper Creek (Brunswick and
In 2008, there appeared to be         one area in Red River Wildlife        Columbus County, NC) began in
more regular use of the site than     Management Area. Flights were         January 2008. Effort increased
in 2009.                              conducted January 28 through          in October and continued through
                                      February 4, 2009.                     May 2009. Daily trips involved
Texas                                                                       canoeing and/or hiking to a
A team of two field technicians       A total of 6,680 individuals of 43    gridded, randomly selected GPS
began work in September 2008.         avian taxa were recorded from         point, and conducting a 10-minute
Field work continued, using           134 transects on 6 sites. No          point count and 2-hour sit at
the habitat model protocols,          Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were         each waypoint. During this time
through February 2009.                observed. However, 4 other            all birds heard or seen were
Vegetation profiles, data entry,      woodpecker species (Northern          recorded. After each 2-hour sit,
and organization of GIS data          Flicker, Pileated Woodpecker,         transects were walked through a
gathered during the full time field   Red-bellied Woodpecker, and           40 acre plot, marked by waypoints
season have continued through         Red-headed Woodpecker) were           at each corner. Within each
2009. The Trinity River National      readily identified. Individuals       plot, any evidence suggestive
Wildlife Refuge and two adjoining     were conspicuous and frequently       of a potential IBWO was
tracts will have been profiled.       observed, as they flew within the     photographed and its coordinates
Louisiana                             canopy of the cypress-tupelo and      were recorded.
The Pearl and Atchafalaya             bottomland hardwood forest of
                                      the study areas. The implication      After conducting 107 point counts,
river basins in Louisiana                                                   with nearly as many 2-hour sits
represent our last large tracts       of these observations is that, had
                                      an Ivory-billed Woodpecker been       and plots searched, there were
of contiguous bottomland                                                    no visual or auditory detections
hardwood and cypress-tupelo           flushed below the helicopter, it
                                      would have been detected by           suggesting the presence of an
swamps in Louisiana. The                                                    Ivory-billed Woodpecker within
most detailed reported public         the crew. Numerous Red-bellied
                                      Woodpeckers were observed,            the swamps of the Waccamaw
sightings have come from areas                                              River and Juniper Creek.
in the Atchafalaya River and          a considerably smaller and
                                      probably much less detectable         Less than ten large cavities
Pearl River basins, although an                                             were documented, but none
occasional report has come from       species, which lends credibility
                                      to the use of helicopters as an       exemplifying the size and shape
areas around the confluence of the                                          associated with the Ivory-billed
Mississippi, Red, and Atchafalaya.    investigative tool for an Ivory-
                                      billed Woodpecker search.             Woodpecker. Plots surrounding
These reported sightings led                                                these cavities were canvassed,
to the interest in performing         Illinois                              and point counts/2-hour sits
additional surveys of these areas     From January through June 2009,       were conducted at surrounding
for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.      totals of 4,200 person-hours in       waypoints.
Aerial Transects, spaced at           the field and 400 person-hours
                                      screening digital images were         In addition to surveying the
1,500-ft intervals in parallel                                              habitat, local residents were
north/south lines, were surveyed      spent searching for Ivory-
                                      billed Woodpeckers in Illinois.       questioned about the Ivory-
over the Pearl River Wildlife                                               billed Woodpecker. All those
Management Area, 2 sites in           The systematic search effort
                                      included 10-0.77 mi2 (2-km2)          questioned who had a firm
the Atchafalaya Basin, and in                                               knowledge of the surrounding
an area of the confluence of the      plots of bottomland forest, 140
                                      winter point-counts across the        swamp and had resided in the
Pearl, Mississippi, and Red River                                           area for much, if not all, of their
basins. Surveys were completed        10 plots, and deployment of color
                                      Reconyx ® cameras to trees with       lives were able to recognize
using a Bell Jet Ranger helicopter                                          the Pileated Woodpecker as a
carrying 3 biologists and an          large cavities or bark scaling.
                                      In addition, 15 sites in mature       bird that they frequently see.
experienced pilot. Numbers and                                              Some were familiar with its
species of all birds observed were    bottomland and swamp forest
                                      habitat during spring migration       scaling habits and call. Some
recorded. Transect were flown                                               individuals distinguished plumage
at an altitude of 150 feet and at     and the early breeding season
                                                                            differences between Ivory-
billed Woodpeckers and Pileated      forests with large numbers of        Kentucky, Georgia
Woodpeckers in photographs. All      trees killed by hurricanes and       No searches were conducted in
concluded that they had never        lightning strikes, large expanses    2008-2009
seen an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.     of recently burnt pine forests,
                                     cabbage palm stands, hardwood        General Observations
A portion of the Lumber River        hammocks with big oaks and           During the searches, many
was searched by canoe; however       maples, and cypress strands with     large cavities and feeding signs
this effort did not involve 2-hour   trees up to 59 inches dbh. The       similar to what James Tanner
sits or area searches. There were    congregation of these quality        described in Louisiana’s Singer
no detections.                       habitats, and its location within    Tract were noted. Though some
                                     large contiguous protected areas,    of these observations remain
Mississippi                                                               interesting, none of these “signs”
A 4 person team surveyed             indicates a high potential to
                                     support Ivory-billed Woodpecker.     can be attributed with certainty
the bottomland hardwood                                                   to Ivory-billed Woodpecker
forests of the Pascagoula River      Nevertheless, even in areas
                                     most difficult to access, such as    nesting or feeding activity. This
Basin between January 22                                                  type of information was used
and March 20, 2009 under the         the Gator Hook and Sig Walker
                                     cypress strands, there are old       to help search groups focus in
coordination and logistic support                                         particular areas or determine
of the University of Southern        signs of selective logging during
                                     ca. the 1920s and 1930s. Access      remote camera placement.
Mississippi and the Mississippi                                           Acoustic encounters were treated
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries    by tram lines was available to
                                     collectors and trophy hunters in     in the same manner. Though
and Parks. Survey areas included                                          several recordings are similar to
the entire Upper and Lower           those years, and cypress were
                                     selectively logged. Pine forests     historical recordings of “kent”
Pascagoula Wildlife Management                                            calls or match the “double
Area and parts of the Ward           in the region offer good habitat
                                     now but were intensively logged      knocks” of other Campephilus
Bayou Wildlife Management Area                                            woodpeckers, this information
and The Nature Conservancy’s         in the 20th century. Double knock
                                     imitations were done at 1,744        remains useful, but is not a
Charles Deaton Preserve and                                               confirmation of the presence of
Herman Murrah Preserve. The          stations spaced in distance and
                                     time, and no responses of interest   the Ivory-bill.
team spent 1150 hours searching,
mostly on foot. Of the 43 patches    were recorded. Several cavities      The results of searches already
searched (total area: approx.        of the appropriate size and shape    conducted suggest it is likely
14500 ha) 38 were high quality       for Ivory-billed Woodpecker          that any extant populations
and 5 were low quality patches.      were found, but were not in use,     of Ivory-bills are extremely
5% search effort was dedicated       and these cavities can be old,       small. Potential remaining
for the low quality patches.         or exceptionally large Pileated      habitat for this species has been
The region was impacted by           Woodpecker cavities, or mammal-      preliminarily identified, and work
Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and        enlarged PIWO cavities. The          is underway to refine methods
the resulting damage in the          team did not observe Ivory-billed    which will aid in identifying what
forests still supports an abundant   Woodpeckers.                         we believe is the best potential
woodpecker community. However,       Given the results, it is unlikely    habitat. In many locations,
the search produced no evidence      an Ivory-billed Woodpecker           the forests of the southeastern
that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.    population of a meaningful size      United States continue to expand
                                     exists in south Florida. The         in size and age, leaving some hope
Cornell Mobile Search Team                                                that as habitat conditions improve
Search Team:                         habitat in its current state has a
                                     lot of potential and South Florida   any remaining populations, if they
The Mobile Search Team worked                                             are there, will increase in number.
in southern Florida from January     parks, preserves, agencies, and
3 through March 16, 2009 with        birders should remain attentive      D.		Population	Trend	and	
a crew of seven, and in South        to reports of the species in the     Historical Distribution
Carolina from March 23 through       region.                              The extreme rarity of the species
April 29 with a crew of four.        In South Carolina, the team          for over a hundred years has
                                     worked in the Congaree and           resulted in a lack of population
In south Florida the team                                                 data which could be used to
explored areas with Ivory-billed     lower Santee River basins
                                     to follow up on Ivory-billed         establish a definitive trend in
Woodpecker specimen and                                                   population size or distribution. It
sighting records, and areas that     Woodpecker reports from 2009
                                     and 2007, respectively. The          is possible to sketch a distribution
were remote, had large trees                                              of the historic range in the
and/or concentrations of dead        Savannah River was explored
                                     because it showed up as potential    U.S. on the basis of museum
trees. Many of the search areas                                           records and the observations of
were difficult to access but were    habitat in the Forest Service
                                     model of Forest Inventory and        early explorers and naturalists.
reached with logistical support                                           The Ivory-billed Woodpecker
from Florida partners. Habitats      Analysis data.
                                                                          appears to have been relatively
explored included old-growth                                              widespread throughout the
mangrove stands, mangrove                                                 southeastern United States prior
to European settlement (Figure        (17 square miles or about 11,000     temporal flexibility, due to their
3). It once roamed forests of the     acres of bottomland forest in        use of disturbed sites containing
southeastern United States from       Louisiana). Thus, 50 breeding        increased volumes of stressed and
the coastal plain of Texas and        pairs of Ivory-billed Woodpecker     dead trees. Such trees are useful
eastern Oklahoma into North           in the late 1930s would need 777     for a limited period, normally
Carolina, southward to include        square kilometers (300 square        when the trees and limbs are
all of Florida, and the Mississippi   miles or about 200,000 acres) of     freshly dead or damaged after
Alluvial Valley northward to          habitat in Florida or 2,201 square   the disturbance. Ivory-billed
the confluence with the Ohio          kilometers (850 square miles or      Woodpeckers are thought to
River and then eastward on the        about 550,000 acres) in Louisiana.   be dependent on extensive
Ohio River bordering Kentucky         Snyder (2007) argues that these      forested areas with old-growth
and Illinois (Hasbrouck 1891).        estimates are inaccurate. Since      characteristics and naturally high
Archaeological evidence indicates     Tanner’s study in Louisiana was      volumes of dead and dying wood
that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker      based on very few birds in an        needed to sustain the species
may have occurred eastward to         altered landscape, it should be      in between disturbance events
southern Ohio and north along         used for information and guidance    such as fires, storms, or other
the Mississippi River to the St.      only. If populations persist         phenomena expected to kill or
Louis, Missouri area at least         today, the needs of individuals      stress trees (Tanner 1942).
300 years prior to European           and family groups could be very
settlement (Warner, pers. comm.,      different (Tanner 1942, p. XII).     When faced with habitat
J. L. Murphy and J. Farrand, Jr.                                           fragmentation or habitat
1979 from Jackson 2004).              E.		Life	History	and	Ecology	        degradation, other large
                                      Our knowledge of the Ivory-          woodpeckers have been found
Population numbers prior to           billed Woodpecker’s life history     to adapt by expanding their
European settlement will never        and ecology is limited and based     home range sizes. For example,
be known. According to Warner         primarily on just a few studies      in southern Sweden, Black
(pers. comm. Appendix D,              and information extrapolated         Woodpeckers expanded their
p. 85), the common farming            from other similar species. The      home ranges four-fold yet
practices (e.g., girdling trees       Ivory-billed Woodpecker is larger    maintained the same breeding
to create openings) of Native         than a Pileated Woodpecker.          success in forests fragmented by
Americans may have provided a         Weights are reported at 454 and      agricultural fields (Fitzpatrick et
rich food source for woodpeckers      567 grams (16 and 20 ounces) in      al. 2005). In Borneo, Great Slaty
along river bottoms. Ivory-           historical records (Jackson 2002).   Woodpeckers maintained similar
billed Woodpecker declines            Therefore, an Ivory-bill should      group sizes in logged and primary
corresponded closely with             require a greater amount of food     forests (Lammertink 2004a), but
European settlement and the           to maintain its body mass and        average densities in commercially
clearing and alteration of forest     feed its young than a Pileated       logged forests were only 17%
habitats (Appendix E). The long-      Woodpecker. This greater food        of those in primary forests of
term decline in habitats important    demand suggests that an Ivory-       similar soil type and elevation
to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker        billed Woodpecker must range         (Lammertink 2004b). Ivory-
began in the early 1800s with         farther and may be more sensitive    billed Woodpeckers could have
essentially all of the historical     to habitat alterations than the      expanded home range sizes in sub-
range affected in some way by         Pileated Woodpecker. That            optimal habitats, such as in the
the early 20th Century. This          Ivory-bills have relatively large    regenerating southern forests. If
impact also increased access for      home ranges and a sensitivity        Ivory-billed Woodpeckers reduced
hunting the species for curiosity,    to habitat alterations is further    densities five-fold as observed in
food, and collection for private      supported by the fact that three     the Bornean study of Great Slaty
and public museums. Through           other very large woodpecker          Woodpeckers, core home ranges
the early 1940s, there was a          species that weigh over 400 g (13    of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers could
gradual decrease in the number        ounces) (Lammertink 2007) also       be up to 52 square kilometers (20
of specimen and sight records.        have large home ranges and are       square miles) and home range
The last commonly agreed upon         sensitive to habitat alterations.    densities might be as low as +one
sighting was in the Tensas River      The Ivory-billed Woodpecker          per 220 square kilometers (85
region of northeastern Louisiana      was known to fly distances of at     square miles). At such densities,
in April 1944.                        least several kilometers each day    encounter rates with Ivory-billed
                                      between favored roost sites and      Woodpeckers, even with a large
Tanner (1942) estimates that          feeding areas. Such movements        number of observers in the field,
Ivory-billed Woodpecker density       are associated with maintaining      can be expected to be very low
ranged from 1 breeding pair per       large home ranges. However,          (Scott et al. 2008, Mattson et al.
15.5 square kilometers (6 square      information on daily movements       2008).
miles [about 4,000 acres of mixed     is limited to Tanner’s study.
upland pine and bottomland                                                 There is no evidence to suggest
forest in Florida]) to 1 breeding     The ecology of the species likely    that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
pair per 44 square kilometers         includes substantial spatial and     is migratory (Allen and Kellogg

1937), however Tanner (1942)          Breeding phenology (annual            other. They also reported the
suspected that the species may        cycle) is poorly known. Generally,    Ivory-billed Woodpecker to be a
become nomadic in response to         it is thought that breeding           late riser, leaving its roost after
a fluctuating and undependable        occurs between January and            sunrise.
food supply.                          April (Tanner 1942). Cavities
                                      are excavated in a dead or dying      Individuals can be faithful to
Diet is poorly understood and         portion of a live tree, although      the same roost cavity for at
based on anecdotal observations       in some cases a dead tree may         least a year and a half (Tanner
and the examination of the            be used. Nest cavities have           1942). Nest cavities are often
stomach contents from eight           ranged from 4.6 m to over 21 m        constructed in favored roosting
collected birds (Jackson 2002).       up the nest tree with nests rarely    areas and may later become
Large beetle larvae appear to         being excavated below 9 m from        roost cavities. Thus, in several
be an important component of          the tree’s base. Nest openings        respects, the roosting area is the
the diet throughout the year, but     are characteristically oval, with     center of activity for an Ivory-
especially during breeding when       an irregularly shaped rim, and        billed Woodpecker.
feeding young with potentially        somewhat taller than wide,
high energetic demands (at least                                            Reported clutch size ranges
                                      ranging between 10.2 -14.6 cm         from 1-5 eggs, but most reports
more so when compared with the        wide and 15.2-17.1 cm tall. The
young of the smaller Pileated                                               are of clutches of 2 to 4 eggs.
                                      size and shape of an Ivory-billed     Incubation period has never been
Woodpecker). These beetle             Woodpecker’s nest opening is
larvae are obtained according                                               quantified for an Ivory-billed
                                      generally distinguishable from        Woodpecker, but if it parallels
to Tanner (1942) primarily by         those of Pileated Woodpeckers,
stripping large pieces of bark                                              the measured incubation period
                                      which typically have a regular        of the Magellanic Woodpecker,
from recently dead or dying tree      oval or round rim and a width
trunks and branches as well as                                              it takes about 20 days. This also
                                      under 8.9 cm. The frequently          approximates Tanner’s estimate
by the more typical woodpecker        oval-shaped cavity entrance
approach of excavating rotted                                               (1942) for the gestation period of
                                      of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers,          an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Both
wood. Most notable in both the        Pileated Woodpeckers and other
stomachs of collected birds as                                              sexes of the Ivory-bill incubate
                                      crested woodpeckers may be an         the eggs, and Tanner documented
well as remains in nests were         adaptation to accommodate the
the members of the beetle family                                            that both parents feed the young
                                      bird’s crest (Jackson 2004). The      for a period of about 35 days until
Cerambycidae (long-horned and         inside diameters of Ivory-billed
roundheaded borers), but many                                               the young have fledged. The
                                      Woodpecker nest cavities that         young may be fed by the parents
other species of wood-boring          have been measured ranged from
larvae also have been documented                                            for an additional two months and
                                      17.8 to 26.7 cm with a possible       forage with and roost near the
in the diet. In addition to animal    depth from roof to floor of 44.4 to
matter, the contents of three                                               parents into the next breeding
                                      63.5 cm. The outside diameters        season.
stomachs examined in detail           of the limb supporting the
from birds collected outside the      cavities ranged from 33 to 55.9 cm    The only quantified data
breeding season (1 during August,     (Tanner 1942, Allen and Kellogg       regarding reproductive success
2 during November; described          1937).                                for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
in Tanner 1942, Jackson 2002),                                              is from Tanner (1942). While he
illustrated a high percentage and     Ivory-billed Woodpeckers              reported little difference between
broad range of vegetable matter       excavate and/or use roost cavities.   the average number of young
was also eaten when available.        Roost cavities are similar in         fledged per successful nesting
Included in these stomachs, with      appearance to nest cavities. In       effort from 1931-1939 between
anecdotal observations from           other woodpeckers, the roost          Ivory-billed Woodpecker and
others, were various nuts, such as    cavity of the male often becomes      Pileated Woodpecker (Tanner
pecans and acorn, and fruits and      the nest cavity. Observations         1942, p. 81), it is important to
seeds, such as from hackberry,        by Tanner (1942) and Allen and        note that most of the successful
persimmon, wild grape, poison         Kellogg (1937) suggest that roost     nesting efforts were based
ivy, magnolia, black gum, and         cavities are used by single Ivory-    year-after-year from only one of
tupelo. Due to the paucity of data    billed Woodpecker individuals,        the seven areas at Singer Tract
on food items actually consumed       but this may not always be the        supporting Ivory-bills (John’s
by the Ivory-billed Woodpecker,       case. In other large woodpecker       Bayou, p. 39), with no more than
only limited conclusions can be       species such as the Megallanic        two successful nests in any one
drawn concerning preferences.         Woodpecker (Campephilus               year between 1934 and 1939.
Current research projects with        magellanicus), members of a           While he identified up to seven
Pileated Woodpecker and with          pair sometimes roost together         potential family groups during
the community of wood-borers          (Ojeda 2004). Tanner (1942) and       this six year period, only three of
associated with decaying wood         Allen and Kellogg (1937) found        the seven produced young in at
in bottomland forests may shed        that pairs or group members           least one year. Ultimately during
additional light on this issue (see   often roosted in trees within         the period of 1934-1939, 9 of the
Appendix D).                          a few hundred meters of each          16 young observed came from one
area (again John’s Bayou), and 6       Therefore any future habitat           large tracts of mature forest
from another area (Mack’s Bayou        protection and management will         during at least part of its life
combined with Titepaper), with         require consideration that much        cycle.
the other five areas mostly failing    is unknown about the bird’s
to produce any young (the only         habitat requirements, as well          However, the importance of
exception being Bayou Despair in       as comparison and evaluation of        uncut forests may be only part of
1937).                                 what is understood.                    the habitat requirements of this
                                                                              species. Additionally, the species
No incidences of predation on          1. General Observations on             may have sought older forests
Ivory-billed Woodpecker are            Historical Conditions                  subjected to recent catastrophic
known, and it is likely that natural   Bottomland hardwood forests are        events such as drought, fire,
predators are few. However,            frequently noted as important          hurricanes, tornadoes, ice
nest predators could have had          (Jackson 2002, Tanner 1942). It        storms, and flooding, leading
an impact on the species’ decline      is unclear if this view is biased      to the death of large patches of
under certain conditions. Typical      by the scant information on            trees. In more modern times,
nest predators, such as squirrels,     habitat use having been gathered       Tanner documented that Ivory-
raccoons and rat snakes could          near the end of a long period          billed Woodpeckers used forests
prey on nestlings or eggs while        of population decline. Habitats        that had undergone some
birds, such as Great Horned Owls       occupied at the time of Tanner’s       partial logging, as long as many
(Bubo virginianus), Barred Owls        study may not have been typical        damaged, dying, and stressed
(Strix varia), and Red-shouldered      or preferred by the species.           trees were left standing and there
Hawks (Buteo lineatus) could           The habitat may have been              were nearby remaining large
prey upon recently fledged             occupied simply because it was         areas of unlogged, older forests.
birds. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers        the last suitable habitat available.   These observations do not in any
could also be killed by sudden         However, the Lentz (1928)              way suggest foraging in logging
catastrophic damage to nest or         report stated that hardwood            slash was prevalent for the
roost trees (e.g., lightning strike,   and woodland areas accounted           species. Logging, when followed
hurricane or tornado winds) and        for 81 percent of the parish, and      by conversion of forests to other
by disease, such as West Nile          of that 67% was classified as          land uses (mostly agriculture and
Virus and Avian flu.                   virgin timber. Additionally, the       shorter rotation forests) likely led
                                       specimen record shows that at          to this species’ overall decline and
Humans have killed the bird for        least in the case of the Tensas        extirpation throughout much of
the usual reasons. Historically        basin, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers        the historical range (Tanner 1942,
the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was        were known to populate the area        Jackson 2004).
valued for its ivory-colored bill,     long before significant logging
which was used as an ornament          and human encroachment was             Although most records and
or collected as a curiosity by both    a factor (Roaring Bayou:1899, 3        reports have been from
Native and European Americans.         birds. West Carroll Parish: 1903,      bottomland forests, the literature
The striking black and red crest       1 bird. Madison Parish: 1908,          suggests that the species also
of males was also used to decorate     1909, 1891, 4 birds, et al.). In       made substantial use of mature
Native American war pipes              1938, the R. K. Winters report         pine forests, not only in Cuba, but
(Jackson 2004). Additionally,          estimated that 2,682,700 acres         also Florida and elsewhere in the
Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were          were hardwood timberlands (69%         coastal plain (Allen and Kellogg
sometimes eaten by humans in           of the delta), of which 577,600        1937, Jackson 2004). Observers
the United States and Cuba. By         acres was considered uncut             noted Ivory-billed Woodpeckers
the late 19th Century, the rarity      old-growth and was available to        foraging on “very small” to
of the species made it desirable to    wildlife in the north Louisiana        medium diameter pines, recently
amateur and scientific specimen        delta.                                 killed by fire (from Florida and
collectors (Jackson 2004).                                                    Cuba; Allen and Kellogg 1937,
                                       Literature on habitat                  Dennis 1948, Lamb 1957).
F.		Habitat	Characterization           characteristics favored by the
What is known regarding                Ivory-billed Woodpecker creates        In many cases, occurrences
the habitat requirements of            the impression that this species       in pines were associated with
the Ivory-billed Woodpecker            was associated with expansive          fire-killed trees, often adjacent
comes mostly from historical           patches of uncut forests with          to bottomland forests. There
observations, the work of James        a relatively high proportion of        were known nesting cavities
Tanner, and current reports            very large and old trees. These        in pine, and almost all recent
from sites where observers             types of forest areas, in general,     nesting cavities in Cuba were in
may have encountered the               support a high proportion of dead      pine (Jackson 2004). The factor
bird. Any surviving birds may          and dying trees and it stands          in common between hardwood
have persisted under less than         to reason that the Ivory-billed        and pine habitat use appears to
optimal conditions if historical       Woodpecker, as one of the largest      be disturbance events. These
assumptions—and those of               picids, may have particular food       disturbances led to the availability
Tanner—regarding the needs             demands that are only met in           of many recently dead and dying
of the Ivory-bill are accurate.                                               trees, which in turn, supported
the beetle larvae (protein)             Tanner’s data suggest that large       3. Ivory-bill Habitat Along
considered by many to be                trees were preferred for foraging      Bayou DeView
essential forage for the successful     (feeding). Of Tanner’s foraging        The forest along Bayou DeView
fledging of young woodpeckers.          observations, 49% (frequency of        is relatively narrow (about one
                                        feeding) were on trees between         mile wide) through Cache River
2. James Tanner’s Observations          12-24 inches dbh (diameter at          NWR and Benson Creek State
on the Singer Tract                     breast height). These trees            Natural Area surrounded by
According to Lowery (1974)              represented about 18% of forest        agriculture, with the forest along
until 1932, ornithologists had          composition. Thirty-five percent       Bayou DeView expanding within
come to believe that the Ivory-         of the feeding took place on trees     Dagmar Wildlife Management
billed Woodpecker no longer             that were between 24-36 in dbh.        Area (WMA). Specifically all of
existed. As Lowery recounts it          Trees this size made up about          the published sightings of the
“A comment to this effect in the        5% of the overall forest. Tanner       Ivory-billed Woodpecker and
offices of the Louisiana Wildlife       notes that on the Singer Tract         the Luneau video during 2004
and Fisheries Commission                87% of the foraging was observed       and 2005 at Bayou DeView were
prompted a quick denial from            on the largest trees, comprising       within Cache River NWR in the
Mason Spencer, a resident of            25% of the total trees available for   tupelo/bald cypress swamps. As
Tallulah, who happened to be            foraging. However, the smallest        described in the previous section,
present. So incredulous was             trees also were utilized. Foraging     cypress-tupelo swamp was a
everyone of his assertion that          occurred on trees 3-12” dbh over       rarely used habitat according
Ivory-bills still lived near Tallulah   three times as often as on the         to Tanner (1942). After 2005,
that a permit was immediately           largest trees 36+” dbh. Tanner         additional sightings and auditory
issued to him to shoot one.”            also found that sweetgum was           evidence came from along the
Apparently, commissioners were          the most common tree species           White River from Wattensaw
certain that he would return            that the birds fed on during his       WMA (directly west of Bayou
with a Pileated Woodpecker. Mr.         1935-1938 study (43% of foraging       DeView) and at the southern end
Spencer returned with an Ivory-         observations, while making up          of the White River NWR where
billed Woodpecker. As previously        about 21% of stand composition).       bottomland hardwood forests is
stated in the plan, the Ivory-bills     Nuttall oak was the second most        more prevalent and more typical
of the Singer Tract in northern         often selected tree by Ivory-bills     of what Tanner described as
Louisiana were the last known           at 27% of observations compared        optimal habitat for this species
United States population to be          with about 11% availability in the     (see Appendix H).
studied (Allen and Kellogg 1937         forest.
and Tanner 1942).                                                              Historical information has
                                        While forest inventories in            been gathered from the USDA
James Tanner’s 1942 report is           the area during the 1920s and          Forest Service, Continuous
based on his observations in the        1930s indicate that the extent of      Forest Inventory (CFI) data and
Singer Tract of northeastern            virgin forest specifically on the      interviews with local residents
Louisiana (now Tensas River             Singer Tract appears to have           and managers. The first major
NWR), on his visits to remaining        been overestimated by Tanner,          human disturbance event in
habitat throughout the US range         it is clear that this forest was       Bayou DeView occurred around
of the species in the 1930s, and        within an area containing some         1920 to 1940 when the area
on a review of all literature up to     of the largest acreage of older-       was first logged. Logging was
the time of his writing. It is the      growth forest remaining in the         likely extensive and removed
best available source of historical     Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Lentz     a large amount of old growth
information. Tanner reported            1928, Winters et al. 1938, Pough       baldcypress. However, some
that the sweetgum/oak association       1944). Winters et al. (1938)           baldcypress were left, either
was the primary forest type             reported in northeast Louisiana        because of size, infeasibility of
used by Ivory-bills within the          that at the time of Tanner’s           logging, or poor grade. The
Mississippi Alluvial Valley.            study 577,600 acres out of 2.68        cutover swamp responded with
Tanner refers to these forests as       million acres of forest cover were     regeneration and release of tupelo
associated with the higher parts        classified as “uncut old growth,”      stands beneath the residual trees.
of the “first bottoms,” relatively      but most of this virgin forest
removed from frequent and               was habitat typically not being        Additionally, during this time
long-term flooding. According           used by Ivory-billed Woodpecker,       period, forests surrounding
to Tanner, cypress-tupelo forest        including cypress-tupelo and           the Bayou were cleared for
was rarely used in the Mississippi      overcup oak-water hickory.             agriculture. Forests were
Alluvial Valley. In Georgia and         Almost all bottomland forest in        likely similar in composition
Florida Ivory-billed Woodpeckers        the Mississippi Alluvial Valley,       to that of stands now extant.
were more frequently associated         if not the entire historicl range      These forests located above the
with cypress swamps, though it is       of the Ivory-billed woodpecker,        normal floodplain were mostly
unclear whether birds foraged in        had been cut over, cleared             hardwood containing mature
such habitats.                          for agriculture, or otherwise          sweetgum, willow oak (Quercus
                                        damaged from fire by the 1930s.        phellos), water oak (Quercus

nigra), Nuttall oak, sugarberry       center of distribution in Alabama     Illinois
(Celtis laevigata), American          was severely restricted. Six          The northern extent of the
elm (Ulmus americana), post           records of the species are from       historical range of the Ivory-
oak (Quercus stellata), white         the once vast forested areas          billed Woodpecker was thought
oak (Quercus alba), and other         drained by the Tombigbee and          to include the southern tip of
common hardwood species, with         Alabama Rivers in west Alabama.       Illinois, particularly along the
scattered pockets harboring                                                 Mississippi and Ohio Rivers.
native loblolly pine (Pinus           Florida	                              Audubon noted seeing Ivory-
taeda). As the demand for             Most historical Ivory-billed          billed Woodpeckers along the
agricultural land increased more      Woodpecker habitat in Florida can     Mississippi River from near
of the surrounding forests were       be characterized as river swamp,      the confluence of the Ohio and
cleared. From approximately           although stillwater swamps,           Mississippi Rivers to as far north
1960 to 1970 the swamps of            particularly cypress swamps and       as the Missouri River, and Robert
Bayou DeView were extensively         cypress strands, were a significant   Ridgway believed that he saw
logged again; this time removing      component. A habitat unique to        one not far from the confluence
more tupelo (Nyssa aquatica)          Florida was the extensive Big         of the Wabash and Ohio Rivers
than baldcypress (Taxodium            Cypress region of flat, poorly        in the mid-1800s (Jackson 2004).
distichum). Logging continued         drained limestone topography          There is little to no information
until much of the Bayou was           in the southwestern part of the       available on habitat use or historic
acquired by the U.S. Army             peninsula (Duever et al. 1986).       numbers of birds in these areas,
Corps of Engineers as mitigation      Tanner (1942) stated that “all        but these birds likely occurred in
for the Lower Cache River             Ivory-bill records have been          the once-vast bottomland forests
channelization project. The           located in or very near swamps        associated with the floodplains of
Bayou was posted as federal           or Florida hammocks.” However,        these major river systems. What
property at that time, but there      most of Tanner’s intensive field      little old-growth bottomland
was no enforcement to guard           studies were done in bottomland       forest remains in Illinois is
against encroachment, poaching,       forests and this may have             moderately to highly fragmented
or timber theft, until the            influenced his perception of ideal    and found primarily in the Cache
mitigation land was transferred to    Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat.      River watershed in southernmost
the Cache River NWR in 2000.          The salient feature of Ivory-billed   Illinois. There are presently
                                      Woodpecker habitat appeared to        several thousand acres of old-
The remaining habitat, primarily      be old-growth forest, including,      growth and mature bottomland/
cypress-tupelo bottoms, had           and perhaps favoring (Jackson         swamp forest along the Cache
been previously dismissed by          1996), the ecotone between            River in Illinois, and an ongoing
many authors describing Ivory-        bottomlands and uplands.              effort by conservationists has
billed Woodpecker habitat                                                   resulted in the conversion of over
requirements. Arkansas was            Georgia
                                      The original range of the Ivory-      15,000 acres of agricultural land
considered one of the least likely                                          to early-successional bottomland
states with potential to support      billed Woodpecker in Georgia
                                      probably was the extent of the        forest within the watershed
this species during the last status                                         during the past 20 years.
survey in 1985 (U.S. Fish and         coastal plain up to the fall line,
Wildlife Service 1985).               although it is likely that birds      Kentucky
                                      occasionally traveled up some         The earliest record for the
4. History of Habitat Rangewide       of the major river systems (i.e.,     species, provided by Col. William
(for individual records and           Savannah, Oconee, Ocmulgee,           Fleming in his journal (A. W.
sightings see Appendix E)             Chattahoochee, and Flint) into        Schorger 1949 from Jackson
Alabama                               the Piedmont. As with other           2004), placed the species in
Data on the original range of         parts of its range, the bird          Lincoln County on the foothills
the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in        probably was primarily associated     of the Knobs Physiographic
Alabama is meager. Published          with the floodplains of major         Region, a distinctive geologic
records and the historical range      river systems, including the          region with higher elevations
of the species in surrounding         Okefenokee Swamp in extreme           reaching 1,000 feet (above mean
states would suggest that the         southeast Georgia (Tanner 1942,       sea level) in forest habitat.
suitable habitat was located in       Burleigh 1958, Jackson 2002). In      The forest in this region is
the eastern gulf coastal plain of     addition, areas of mature pine        drastically different from most
Alabama south of the fall line (the   surrounding large expanses of         Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat
area where continental bedrock        bottomland hardwoods were             documented to date. Wharton
meets coastal plain). It was likely   apparently used for foraging. As      (1945) described the region’s
found in forests along major          large forested areas, including       different upland forest types
riverine systems in the west and      many bottomland forests, were         as pine (Pinus spp.), oak-pine,
south and in extensive longleaf       cleared for agriculture, replanted    chestnut oak (Quercus prinus),
pine (Pinus palustris) forests        for pine silviculture, or otherwise   scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea),
in the southeast. Available data      developed, the species range          white oak, and mixed mesophytic
indicates that by 1850 its main       continued to shrink.                  (not particularly dry or wet)

forest. Pre-colonial Ivory-billed    Mississippi                          around 1800. Wilmington is
Woodpecker populations could         Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in          near the primary river system
have extended up the Ohio            Mississippi were probably            in the southeastern corner of
River and its tributaries. Due       originally distributed essentially   North Carolina, which includes
to the lack of documentation of      statewide in floodplain forests      the Waccamaw and the Lumber
the Ivory-billed Woodpecker          along major river systems.           Rivers.
in Kentucky, it is impossible to     These systems included the
determine range changes over         Pearl, Wolf, Pascagoula, and         South	Carolina
time. By the early 1800s, the        Tombigbee rivers; the lower          Sprunt and Chamberlain
Ivory-billed Woodpecker had          tributaries and main stem of the     (1949) suggest that Ivory-billed
all but disappeared from the         Big Black River; and the Yazoo       Woodpecker was formerly
majority of Kentucky’s landscape,    and Mississippi River deltas         common over much of the
with some residual numbers           (Turcotte and Watts 1999). Most      eastern part of the state but its
remaining until the early 1870s in   records for the species are from     virtual extinction was due to the
Fulton County.                       the Pascagoula, Tombigbee, Yazoo     encroachment of civilization. The
                                     and Mississippi River floodplain     original range of Ivory-billed
Louisiana                            forests (Hasbrouck 1891, Tanner      Woodpecker in South Carolina
Jackson (2002), Oberholser (1938)    1942). Specimens have been           was the extent of the coastal plain
and Tanner (1942) discussed          collected from Bolivar and           bordered to the north by the fall
known Ivory-billed Woodpecker        Harrison Counties (Hahn 1963).       line and extending to the Atlantic
distribution in Louisiana prior      Other counties with apparently       coast. This area was comprised
to the 1940s which can generally     acceptable records include Clay,     of bottomland hardwood riverine
be described as occurring in the     Coahoma, Hancock, Jackson,           systems surrounded by longleaf
bottomland forests along the         Monroe, Warren and Yazoo             pine uplands intermixed with
Mississippi corridor from the        (Jackson 2004). Habitat used by      farms and plantations. Rice,
Arkansas state line south to the     the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in       indigo, and cotton were the
coast. Specimens and sightings       Mississippi is believed to be the    primary agricultural crops. The
(as reported by Tanner 1942)         same as the habitat described        state of South Carolina was
date back to the late 1800s and      in the life history account of the   extensively logged after three
in northern Louisiana came from      species in this recovery plan.       significant historical events, the
the general area between the                                              Civil War, the Chicago fire, and
Mississippi River and Ouachita       Reports of the species in            World War II. Tanner reported
River, south to the area where       Mississippi were most numerous       Ivory-billed Woodpecker suitable
they are joined by the Red River.    before 1940 and included 16 of       range was decreasing due to
Specimens and sightings were         the 27 known records from the        logging operations in the Santee
reported from the bottomland         state (Appendix E). Subsequent       River swamp around 1939.
forests along the Mississippi        reports have been made in areas
River and Atchafalaya River          near or within the same river        The Savannah River swamp
south to the forested coastal area   systems as the earlier ones,         system has been impacted to
of Iberia Parish. McIlhenny          suggesting that the range of the     varying degrees by timber
(1941) recorded his earliest         species did not change over the      harvest since colonial times, with
childhood memories of Ivory-         recorded history of its known and    cypress timber being important
billed Woodpeckers being             suspected occurrence in the state,   in the region as early the 1730s
resident in the forested areas of    but that the abundance within        (White 2004). As elsewhere,
Avery Island and in the “great       that range declined throughout,      capacity to cut increased
forest” extending east to the        presumably as the extant stands      dramatically in the 1840s and 50s
Atchafalaya River.                   of timber were harvested and         with the construction of larger,
                                     local populations were extirpated.   steam-powered sawmills. In
Tanner (1942) noted that             The most recent specimen             the mid 1850s, 2000 ac per year
logging in the southern part of      records are from 1893.               of old growth longleaf pine and
Louisiana began around 1905,                                              bottomland hardwood were
gradually moving north. The last     Several Ivory-billed Woodpecker      probably harvested. Until around
universally accepted observation     encounters have been recorded        1900, timber harvest was mostly
of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker        in Mississippi, including 13         restricted to areas within one mile
in the southern part of the state    unverified reports since 1944        of navigable waterways. Logging
was by E.A. McIlhenny in 1923        (Appendix E). Areas with             railways entered the central
(McIlhenny 1941). Logging            reported encounters since 1944       Savannah River area in the early
began to spread southward            include the Pearl, Pascagoula,       1900s and began harvesting the
into Louisiana from Arkansas         Leaf, Big Black, Noxubee, Yazoo      remaining uncut swamp forest,
about 1910 and met the logging       and Mississippi rivers.              but major activities there may not
movement from the south in                                                have begun until the late 1920s.
northern Louisiana where it          North	Carolina                       Indications are that 6400 ac of the
peaked about 1925 and then           One definitive record (Jackson       9400-acre Savannah River swamp
declined (Tanner 1942).              2002), from Alexander Wilson,        on the DOE’s Savannah River
                                     was from the Wilmington area
Site (SRS) in Aiken and Barnwell     traveling the Mississippi River       contiguous; the forest block in
Counties had been disturbed          during the winter of 1820–1821        which the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
prior to 1950, and some of this      (Corning 1929). Although              sightings have occurred stretches
harvest most likely included some    Audubon reported this species         from two miles south of Dagmar
second growth. Since that time,      from a stretch of river bordering     State WMA to six miles above
a few large tracts of bottomland     Tennessee, he did not specifically    Cotton Plant, Arkansas, an
forest (6000-10000 ac) have          mention the presence of Ivory-        approximate aerial distance of
been protected (e.g., SRS, Webb      billed Woodpeckers on the             20 miles. The corridor is fairly
Wildlife Center, Savannah NWR,       Tennessee side of the Mississippi     narrow, averaging less than 1 mile
and some private tracts) but some    River.                                wide, with the exception of the
harvest has continued.                                                     area at Dagmar WMA.
                                     Habitat was very likely limited
The Congaree-Wateree-Upper           to the relatively few acres of        The Bayou now contains a dense
Santee River Focus Area (220,000     bottomland hardwood forest in         stand of mostly second growth
acres) represents the largest,       Tennessee occurring within the        tupelo that range in age from
intact expanse of bottomland         floodplain of the Mississippi River   35 to 135, mixed with large relic
riverine system remaining            and its tributaries. By the end       baldcypress and tupelo that are
within the state. Portions of this   of the 1940s, intensive logging       several centuries old, with some
area received extensive logging      practices further reduced possible    cypress over 1000 years old. The
around 1900, while others did not    Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat       interconnected channels of Bayou
because of poor accessibility and    in the state.                         DeView create a broad floodplain
intermittent flooding. Timber                                              or swamp that presents an
prices soared in 1969, and some      Texas                                 increased mortality and decline
private landowners resumed           According to Oberholser (1974)        (senescence) of live trees within
logging operations; however, some    the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was       its distinct border. The perimeter
areas were not cut, and large,       never common in Texas. Records        of the Bayou is lined with
mature cypress and tupelo trees      exist from only 16 counties in        hardwood forests that are subject
characterize the current habitat.    the state restricted to areas east    to limited annual flooding but
Hurricane Hugo swept across the      of the Brazos River. Tanner’s         contain a diversity of hardwood
state in September 1989, leaving     publication indicates breeding        species. These perimeter forests
a large number of dead and dying     records along the Brazos and          are all second or third growth,
trees still present today in this    Neches rivers in the 1880s.           with prevalent species including
area. The lower Santee River         Most accounts provide little or       sweetgum, green ash, overcup
is separated from the upper          no information about the bird’s       oak (Quercus lyrata), Nuttall oak,
portions by Lake Marion and          habitat, but strongly suggest         water oak, willow oak, red maple
Moultrie (156,000 acres) created     the species resided in mature         (Acer rubrum), American elm
in 1940 by the Santee Cooper         bottomland forests (Oberholser        and locust (Gleditsia spp.). The
Hydroelectric and Navigation         1974, Shackelford 1998).              perimeter hardwood forests also
Project, and a number of Tanner’s    Changes in the Ivory-billed           exhibit elevated levels of decline
recorded sightings were located      Woodpecker’s range are directly       and senescence. In proximity to
in the area that is now flooded.     associated with changes in the        the Bayou DeView forest block
                                     distribution of mature forests.       but outside of the Bayou corridor
Bottomland hardwood habitat is                                             are larger forest blocks of diverse
still present along the Congaree-    Forests throughout eastern
                                     Texas were greatly reduced and        hardwood forests mostly under
Wateree-Upper Santee Rivers,                                               the management of the Cache
Savannah River, and Waccamaw         fragmented before World War
                                     II. Agriculture, logging, and         River NWR or Dagmar WMA.
Complex. The Savannah                                                      The forest types represented
River and Waccamaw Complex           reservoir construction were the
                                     main causes. However, some            in these outlying blocks are
are predominately in private                                               primarily sweetgum/willow oak,
ownership, and much of the           large forested tracts remained
                                     along the river bottoms of eastern    willow oak/water oak/diamond
remaining mature bottomlands                                               leaf oak, sugarberry/ash-elm, and
are contained within easements,      Texas until the 1960s when the
                                     Sam Rayburn and Toledo Bend           overcup oak/bitter pecan (Carya
public lands, and some large                                               aquatica). However, caution
plantations along the Savannah       Reservoirs were constructed.
                                     Unconfirmed accounts of locations     must be taken in consideration
River.                                                                     of conditions where the bird
                                     persisted from 1956 into the
Tennessee                            1970s, mostly along the Neches        was briefly observed. Nearly
While Ivory-billed Woodpeckers       and Trinity Rivers and Village        all sightings have been of flying
almost certainly occurred in         Creek in the region known as the      birds; there were no observations
bottomland hardwood forests          “big thicket.”                        of foraging, roosting, or nesting
of Tennessee historically, no                                              in the Bayou DeView area. There
definitive records from the state    5. Current Conditions in the area     is no certainty that these habitat
are known. Audubon reported          of Cache River NWR in Arkansas        conditions are preferred or
Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, for        Currently the Bayou DeView            optimal.
example, from a flatboat while       forest corridor is long and

In order to document forest           small patches in the Mississippi       the area of private hardwood
habitat conditions in proximity       Alluvial Valley, most if not all on    timberland is predominantly
to the 2004-5 Ivory-billed            public lands). In recent years,        in the large diameter size class
Woodpecker sightings, an              conditions in many forests,            (60.2% of private hardwood
extensive habitat survey was          particularly on public lands, have     timberland area) with much
undertaken on the Cache River         been gradually moving closer           less area in medium (23.4%)
NWR, White River NWR, and             toward what is thought to be           and small diameter (16.4%)
state WMAs surrounding the            suitable Ivory-billed Woodpecker       size classes. Public timberland
reported Ivory-billed Woodpecker      habitat requirements as trees          area is predominantly in large-
sightings/recordings. The survey      age and the forests are being          diameter-class forests for pine
inventoried live trees, recording     managed to encourage retention         and hardwood types (60.7%
species, diameter and stress          of older forest characteristics.       and 81.6% of publicly owned
condition, dead tree volume and       (LMVJV Forest Resource                 pine and hardwood timberland,
condition, and other habitat          Conservation Working Group             respectively).
parameters attributed to forest       2007)
stands (Appendix H). Field work                                              Although the majority of
was completed on 152,260 acres        Thirty sites in 8 states were          mortality is occurring in the
of White River NWR, 27,515            identified as areas of possible        large diameter classes, the total
acres of Cache River NWR, 7,532       post-1944 encounters with              volume of mortality is relatively
acres of Dagmar WMA, 2,091            Ivory-billed Woodpeckers.              low (<1% of total live volume).
acres of Henry Gray/Hurricane         To characterize the area and           However, mortality of hardwoods
Lake WMA, 2,698 acres of Rex          structure of forests on private        on public lands was 50% of net
Hancock/Black Swamp WMA,              lands and all ownerships that          growth in that size class. Public
5,244 acres of Bayou Meto             could potentially provide Ivory-       land management appears to
WMA, 843acres of Wattensaw            billed Woodpecker habitat, USDA        be more heavily focused than
WMA, and 2,862 acres of Trusten       Forest Service Forest Inventory        private lands on large-diameter-
Holder WMA. Foresters and             and Analysis (FIA) data for            class removals, especially in
biologists have inventoried a total   relevant counties is provided in       hardwoods, yet total removals
of approximately 200,000 acres.       Appendix I Tables 1-4.                 are still minimal overall. More
Data gathered in the field was                                               detailed forest characteristics
                                      In counties for which FIA              by state for private and public
sent to the Lower Mississippi         data were available, there are
Valley Joint Venture Office for                                              ownerships are described in
                                      more than 20.1 million acres           Appendix I, Tables 7 through 13.
entry and analysis. Summary           of forestland (land capable
statistics were generated for         of growing trees, 10% area             In summary, approximately
parameters of interest by forest      stocked) and 19.8 million acres of     89% of forest cover is privately
stand and cross-walked with a         timberland (forestland capable         owned and 11% publicly owned.
Geographic Information System         of producing in excess of 20           Of this, approximately 44% of
to produce spatially-explicit         cubic feet per acre per year           all timberland is in hardwood
maps depicting stand conditions.      of industrial wood in natural          types. Large-diameter-size
These forest stand maps were          stands) in the forest types and        class forests dominate the
used in overlay models to develop     physiographic classes of interest      hardwood timberland, 63% of
preliminary decision support          (Appendix I). Approximately            total lands, private and public.
models to facilitate search efforts   88.6% of all forestland is privately   All ownerships tend to focus
in the Big Woods area.                owned. Similarly, 89.9% of all         more toward development of
6. Current Regional Forest            timberland is privately owned,         large-diameter-class stems in the
Conditions Within the Historical      including 93.7% of pine types and      hardwood timberland while public
Range                                 84.3% of hardwood types. Public        ownership focuses more toward
Forests in the Southeast today        and private timberlands differ in      larger-diameter-class stems in
are mostly young (<100 year old)      species composition. Of the 17.8       pine timberland than private
and mid-seral (sequence of plant      million acres of privately owned       ownership. Overall, the majority
communities leading to the climax     timberland in the counties, 37.6%      of timberland volumes (pine and
vegetation). If the Ivory-billed      is in hardwood forest types and        hardwood) are represented in the
Woodpecker has indeed persisted       62.4% is in pine types. Of the 2.0     large-diameter size classes for
at some minimal population            million acres in public timberland,    all ownerships. Net growth in
level for the last 60 years, it did   62.6% is in hardwood types and         hardwoods and pines on private
so under conditions very unlike       37.4% is in pine types.                timberland was primarily in the
those described in the historical                                            large-diameter class, and for
                                      The area of privately owned pine       both hardwood and pine types on
literature. There are only a few      timberland is approximately
patches of bottomland forest                                                 public lands.
                                      equivalent in small, medium, and
considered to be characterized        large diameter size classes (35.4,
by older-growth conditions            32.1, and 32.4% of private pine
(e.g., Congaree National Park         timberland area, respectively,
in South Carolina and scattered       Appendix I, Table 17). However,
G.		Management	Considerations        physiographic region plan for         species of wildlife dependent
Current forest management            the bird conservation group           on that system. Any Ivory-
practices affecting Ivory-billed     Partners in Flight (Brown et          billed Woodpecker populations
Woodpecker habitat in the            al. 1999). Although it focuses        throughout the southeast may
Mississippi Alluvial Valley have     solely on birds, it contains many     benefit from increasing the
been examined in the context         features of ecosystem approaches      connectivity and continuity
of maintaining sustainable           to management (e.g., multiple         of existing forest patches.
landscapes capable of supporting     scales, focus on ecosystem            Accomplishing this will require
desired forest conditions            integrity, change in administrative   detailed, site-specific planning
for a variety of important           structure, focus on research          to identify the most beneficial
species. Recommendations             and monitoring; see Grumbine          and practical opportunities
have been published by the           1994). The effort involved (1)        for connecting and enlarging
Lower Mississippi Valley             inventorying large patches of         existing forest patches. Efforts
Joint Venture (LMVJV Forest          the priority habitat (bottomland      to enhance the connectivity
Resource Conservation Working        hardwood forest) that was to          of forests among the Florida
Group 2007). The publication         be promoted, (2) developing a         panhandle river systems may
Restoration, Management and          plan to enlarge, connect, and         serve as a possible example.
Monitoring of Forest Resources       enhance those patches so as to
in the Mississippi Alluvial          provide source populations of         2. Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Valley: Recommendations for          priority land bird species, and (3)   Management
Enhancing Wildlife Habitat has       implementing the plan, primarily      Over the last decade, common
guidelines which will benefit the    through afforestation (planting       ground has been reached on many
full suite of bottomland species,    trees) of priority locations using    issues regarding the management
including the Ivory-billed           various landowner incentive           of bottomland hardwood forests
Woodpecker. Application of these     programs. Determining priority        for wildlife. Providing for both
recommendations forms the            areas for afforestation has been      a diverse forest structure and
backbone of our approach to the      an evolving process that has used     composition (including hard
conservation of potential Ivory-     increasingly sophisticated sources    mast, soft mast, and light-seeded
billed Woodpecker habitat.           of data and algorithms (e.g.,         species) is now widely accepted
                                     Twedt and Uihlein 2005, Twedt et      as critical for covering the needs
The Singer Tract studied by          al. 2006).                            of all priority wildlife, along the
Tanner apparently did not                                                  lines of ecosystem management.
provide enough habitat to sustain    Currently, the land bird              Many recent forest management
even a small population due          conservation plan calls for           plans have emphasized the need
to a variety of factors which        creating large patches of mature      for greater structural complexity,
Tanner discusses. An actual          bottomland forest, with target        “balanced” composition of shade-
minimum area needed to support       sizes of at least 10,000, 20,000      tolerant and shade-intolerant
a sustainable population may be      and 100,000 acres for different       species, along with hard-mast and
substantially higher or it may be    groups of area-sensitive land         soft-seeded species, and greater
lower, depending on the actual       birds. Because it is ecosystem-       amounts of standing dead and
quantity of preferred food items     based, and emphasizes area-           dying wood in stands. Tanner
available. That threshold of         sensitive species, this approach      provides forest management
size is unknown. The quality of      also works for large-scale            recommendations for the Ivory-
habitat for any given species may    management potentially needed         billed Woodpecker that in most
affect the quantity of forested      for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.      ways sound very similar to
acres needed. Even, as proposed      Guidelines on the sorts of land       current direction. If additional
in Snyder (2007), if habitat loss    management within those forest        information is produced by
were not a major factor in the       patches, compatible with the          locating or studying birds, or
decline of this species, suitable    objectives of the Joint Venture       better interpretation of historical
habitat would be needed for          landbird conservation plan            data is produced in the future,
its recovery. Maintaining and        appear in next section and can        different approaches can be
enhancing the appropriate quality,   be found in the publication           considered.
quantity, and distribution of        Restoration, Management, and
habitat is a commonly accepted       Monitoring of Forest Resources        3. Favored Tree Species
conservation principle.              in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley:   Sweetgum and Nuttall oak were
                                     Recommendations for Enhancing         the two species clearly favored
1. Current Landscape                 Wildlife Habitat (LMVJV Forest        by Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in
Management in the Lower              Resource Conservation Group           Tanner’s study. Enhancing the
Mississippi Alluvial Valley          2007). Although the Ivory-billed      amount of sweet gum and Nuttall
(LMAV)                               Woodpecker is the focus of the        oak in future forests can be a goal
Starting in the early 1990s, a       recovery plan, the recommended        in appropriate forest management
large-scale bird conservation        approach is ecosystem-based,          prescriptions. Both of these tree
effort was developed for the         and if followed, should begin to      species need openings of several
LMAV that became the prototype       develop adequate habitat for all      acres to regenerate successfully

and produce large-diameter           4. Impact of Changing                 5. The Role of Disturbance
trees. Unless Ivory-billed           Hydrologic Regimes on Tree            Tanner concluded that Ivory-
Woodpeckers are considered, the      Species                               billed Woodpeckers respond
general belief is that sweetgum      Changing hydrological regimes         positively to disturbances as
is less desirable than hard mast     are causing deteriorating             long as many standing recently
red oak for promotion of wildlife    conditions for many forest            dead, stressed, and dying trees
values. This is understandable       communities in the Mississippi        remained after the disturbance.
because small diameter sweetgum      Alluvial Valley (MAV). Conditions     Woodpecker activity was usually
is prolific in today’s younger       in Arkansas’ portion of the           greatest two to three years
forests. Stimulating the growth      MAV are becoming wetter               after the disturbance. This
of large sweetgum trees such as      for longer periods during the         response indicates that these
those that formerly occurred at      growing season to the point           disturbances such as fire, wind
the Singer Tract (Tensas River       that loss of drainage is leading      storms, flooding, and some types
NWR) may require cutting trees       toward a shift in tree species to     of timber removal can produce
surrounding desired sweetgums        those more tolerant of wetter         the kinds and amounts of boring
in current forests to foster the     conditions. Without correction        insect larvae favored by Ivory-
growth of large, emergent trees      of this hydrologic regime, most       billed Woodpecker.
on appropriate sites. This will be   existing sweetgum and Nuttall
a challenge, even on public land,    oak will not survive into the older   Tanner described in detail the
where most forests were high-        age class apparently preferred        occupation by Ivory-billed
graded before or shortly after       by the Ivory-billed Woodpecker,       Woodpecker of specific areas in
(if the previous owner retained      and subsequent stands will likely     the Singer Tract associated with
timber rights) they came into        be dominated by species such as       major recent disturbances. He
public ownership. Today, however,    overcup oak and water hickory,        discussed the role of a major fire
there is growing recognition that    neither of which is considered        that passed through the Singer
sweetgum can play an important       by Tanner as important foraging       Tract in 1924 and how that may
role in establishing healthy red     trees for Ivory-bills. In even        have influenced the abundance
oak stands that will form mature     wetter conditions, tupelo gum         of dead and dying trees in the
forests of the future.               would tend to spread. The             home ranges of several of the
                                     importance of this tree for Ivory-    most reliably productive pairs
More important than merely           billed Woodpeckers remains            he closely studied. In addition,
favoring sweetgum and Nuttall        unclear despite the presence          he recounts the observations of
oak is management aimed at           of tupelo gum along the Bayou         J.J. Kuhn (the State Wildlife
producing older forest conditions    DeView portion of the Cache           official, who helped locate birds
with adequate dead and dying         River NWR (tupelo gum was             and assisted James Tanner
trees over large enough acreages     absent from the Singer Tract and      with his study) that Ivory-
to allow a more sustainable,         still is absent from the Tensas       billed Woodpecker ranges soon
functioning forest ecosystem.        River NWR).                           expanded to include the area
Gaps created for management                                                through which a 1931 cyclone
purposes or from dying trees will    In contrast to conditions in          had passed. This area contained
allow development of a diverse       much of eastern Arkansas, much        substantial dead and dying wood
forest structure and provide         of Louisiana’s portion of the         which remained after salvage
regeneration conditions necessary    LMV is becoming drier. This           logging. A pair also expanded
for a resilient ecosystem.           change is also leading to some        their range to the edge of a
Currently, this should be the        dramatic changes in forest            1930-31 timber harvest area with
appropriate habitat management       condition, with substantial die-      substantial numbers of dead
objective for Ivory-billed           offs underway in some areas           and dying trees. According to
Woodpecker. It is possible that      that are forcing a shift from         Kuhn, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers
the apparent preference for          Nuttall oak eventually to willow      had been absent prior to these
these trees in Tanner’s study        oak stands. Willow oak also was       disturbances, but adults were
area could have been due to their    not considered an important           observed frequently foraging
greater susceptibility to long,      foraging tree for the Ivory-billed    within them during 1933 and
gradual decline after an extended    Woodpecker on the Singer Tract.       1934.
drought and subsequent fire that     Nevertheless, such die-offs
occurred about ten years prior       might be considered beneficial        Ice storms, tornadoes,
to Tanner’s study. To complicate     for Ivory-billed Woodpecker,          hurricanes, floods, fires, and
the picture further, a photograph    providing a short-term pulse of       other natural disturbances are
included in Allen and Kellogg        foraging opportunity. However,        important factors that can lead to
(1937) documents an Ivory-billed     the apparent shifts in tree           favorable conditions, especially
Woodpecker on a pine tree in         species composition calls into        in older-growth forests. Where
Florida, and the species’ reliance   question whether older-growth         these natural forces occur, they
on pine is well known in Cuba.       conditions can be achieved            can create the favorable habitat
                                     without correcting hydrological       needed for the Ivory-billed
                                     conditions.                           Woodpecker as well as providing

for regeneration of shade             The fact that the appropriate size    are two studies investigating
intolerant species. However,          of a disturbance patch is unknown     the occurrence and abundance
the amount of bottomland              further complicates the issue.        of wood-boring insects after
hardwood forest in the Southeast                                            different girdling and harvesting
U.S. has been greatly reduced         Managers may be able to use           techniques and comparing these
from its former expanse. In the       prescribed fire in bottomland         to wood-boring insect occurrence
Mississippi Alluvial Valley the       forests to beneficial effect.         and abundance in unharvested
reduction is staggering, shrinking    Tanner’s data strongly suggest        stands. These studies can be used
from about 24 million acres           that fire was a major influence       to inform future management
before European colonization          on which stands were most             decisions, as needed (see
to less than 5 million. Today’s       productive, in terms of young         Appendix D for abstracts).
forest is also predominately          produced, within bottomland
fragmented across the landscape.      hardwood habitat. However,            Beavers (Castor canadensis) are
It is debatable whether natural       today the practice of many land       presently an important source of
forces alone can provide a            managers is to suppress fires                                  .
                                                                            disturbance in the MAV Beavers
sufficient amount or appropriate      rapidly in bottomland habitats.       historically created large patches
distribution of disturbance.          Potentially, this practice should     of dead and dying trees due to
                                      be replaced by allowing natural       prolonged flooding during the
Small storm events, although          or managed fires to continue          growing season (Kellison et
often locally devastating, have       through these areas to stress or      al. 1998). Today, aggressive
done little regionally to improve     kill trees purposefully.              beaver control programs have
structure in today’s mostly                                                 been implemented on public and
mid-seral forests. Given the          Another area of uncertainty is        private lands in this area. Due
dominance of mid-seral forest         to what extent certain forestry       to altered hydrology, beavers
conditions, storms often are          practices might enhance habitat       often lead to an unpredictable
either too weak to break open         conditions for this species. J.J      and disproportionate amount
densely stocked stands to             Kuhn reported to Tanner (1942, p.     of mature forest loss, given the
make much difference in forest        46) that about three years after      smaller amount (5 million acres
structure or they are too strong,     cutting occurred within a private     compared to 24 million acres
causing stand replacement             holding in the Singer Tract,          of estimated pre-European
events. Hurricanes or large           Ivory-billed Woodpeckers foraged      bottomland hardwood) and
storms causing catastrophic           in dead and stressed timber           more fragmented condition of
damage provide abundant               along the edge of the cutover         remaining bottom land hardwood
recently dead and dying wood,         area. In addition, Tanner wrote       forest patches. Potentially,
but only temporarily and likely       to Richard Pough (Jackson 2004,       beavers could be managed to
at the expense of losing many         pp. 147-148) explaining that he       provide the sort of disturbance
suitable nesting and roosting         had observed a similar response       suggested above.
trees. Observations along the         from Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in
Pearl River, post-2005 Hurricane      taking advantage of the flush of      6. Dead Trees
Katrina, and along the Trinity,       wood-borers in freshly killed slash   Providing habitats with mostly
Neches, and Sabine Rivers,            along the edges of the cutover        older and larger trees in addition
post-2005 Hurricane Rita, may         area. It must be emphasized,          to larger patches of recently dead
provide additional information to     however, that these examples          and dying trees on a regular
determine the validity of these       likely were exceptions. The           basis presents a management
assumptions with respect to           Ivory-billed Woodpeckers used         challenge, in part because the
forest dynamics and responses         cut-over areas for brief periods      appropriate quantity of recently
to severe storms. Storms are          of time, and only where directly      dead and dying wood to provide is
important, but we have no control     adjacent to extensive older forests   unknown. Tanner (p. 47) reports
over their location or intensity.     in the Singer Tract. In general,      that the areas Ivory-billed
                                      Ivory-billed Woodpeckers avoided      Woodpecker used for foraging
Although managers have no direct      foraging in extensively cut-over      on the Singer Tract contained
influence over storms, forests can    areas and did not use the slash       thirteen trees per acre with dead
be managed in ways that allow         and waste on the forest floor in      wood (this included live trees
for storm damage more closely         such areas. Regardless of the         with large dead limbs as well
to mimic likely pre-European          potential for short-term use of cut   as entirely dead small trees).
settlement effect patterns. The       stands, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers      Balancing older forest conditions
challenge lies in producing the       disappeared entirely from areas       with frequent development of
effects of large-scale disturbances   that had been subjected to            appropriately sized disturbance
where needed within these             extensive timber harvesting.          patches will be particularly
smaller isolated forests while                                              challenging in today’s fragmented
also promoting older-growth           Today, forest managers consider       forest (i.e., <15,000 acres).
conditions, which require an          many objectives and use a wide        Ideally, individuals or pairs of
emphasis on large trees, large        variety of silvicultural methods.     birds will have the possibility to
senescent limbs, and dying wood.      Some of these are similar to          find sites with temporary optimal
                                      his recommendations. There
conditions within the landscape.       using selection cuts. The harvests    the landscape level, and guidance
If management of larger tracts         would be focused on healthy,          is provided for how to achieve
of forested land to benefit Ivory-     growing trees and retain dead,        these objectives with individual
billed Woodpeckers is needed, it       dying, damaged, and otherwise         stands. This methodology allows
may require public and private         stressed trees. This would            the manager to apply appropriate
cooperation.                           maintain and potentially improve      silvicultural practices at the stand
                                       the food sources for the Ivory-       level to meet habitat needs in
In many areas, there are               billed Woodpecker.                    each situation. The publication
increasing numbers of dead and                                               Restoration, Management and
dying trees due to changing            The practice of retaining dead        Monitoring of Forest Resources
hydrological conditions as well        and dying wood is not viewed as       in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley:
as storm damage. The general           negatively as it was in the past,     Recommendations for Enhancing
approach in the past was to            Some public land managers are         Wildlife Habitat provides these
salvage log the stand in order         experimenting with ways to            recommended objectives and
to stimulate regeneration of           provide more dead and dying           guidelines. Application of the
more flood-tolerant or drought-        wood following some of Tanner’s       recommendations found in the
tolerant species, without much         suggestions. The amount of            document forms the backbone of
consideration for the importance       recently dead and dying wood          our approach to the conservation
of dead and dying trees for many       that should be provided for the       of potential Ivory-billed
species of wildlife. This practice     Ivory-billed Woodpecker is still      Woodpecker habitat. These
may need to be reconsidered if         unclear and may vary among            guidelines should be considered
Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are           forest types. The publication         for bottomland systems across
present.                               Restoration, Management and           the southeast. There are no
                                       Monitoring of Forest Resources        specific guidelines suggested for
The total number of dead and           in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley:
dying trees in bottomland forests                                            other forest types potentially
                                       Recommendations for Enhancing         used by Ivory-billed Woodpecker,
today is perhaps less relevant         Wildlife Habitat provides
than the size and ages of those                                              but focusing on other priority
                                       recommended prescriptions             species that depend on mature
trees. Potentially, an adequate        (LMVJV Forest Resource
flow of dead and dying wood from                                             forests may lead to proper habitat
                                       Conservation Working Group            conditions (e.g., open pine forests
large stems (including entire          2007). Additional adaptive
trees as well as large branches on                                           that are regularly burned).
                                       change may be required as more
still living trees) from one 3-year    is learned about the habitat          H.		Reasons	for	Listing/Current	
period to the next will sufficiently   preferences of the Ivory-billed       Threats	
support desirable wood-boring          Woodpecker.                           The final listing notice (32 FR
beetle larvae. Preliminary data                                              4001 and 35 FR 8495) did not
(Hamel et al. and Pearson et           7. Current Forest Management          contain an assessment of the
al; unpublished presentations)         In 2003, the Lower Mississippi        primary threats to the Ivory-
indicate an abundance of large         Joint Venture Forest Resource         billed Woodpecker. A description
larvae are produced from               Conservation Working Group            of these threats is presented
experimentally wounded trees.          specifically started to address       below; each is classified according
                                       issues related to the management      to the five listing/ delisting factors
If Cerambycid and other wood-          of the forest resources within
boring insect larvae are a                                                   identified in section 4 of the
                                       the Mississippi Alluvial Valley.      Endangered Species Act (“Act”;
preferred food, the peak foraging      Management issues of concern
window is more narrow than                                                   16 USC 1531 et seq.)
                                       included management of
that of other woodpeckers.             existing bottomland hardwood          1. Habitat Loss and Degradation
Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are           forest resources, reforestation       (Factor A)
described as seeking beetle larvae     of agricultural lands, and            The historical decrease in Ivory-
associated with “freshly” dead         inventory and monitoring of           billed Woodpecker numbers
sapwood (Tanner). The beetle           all these resources. Instead          throughout the range appears
larvae found in dead and dying         of placing restrictions on            to be mainly due to large-scale
wood become most available when        individual silvicultural practices,   reduction and conversion of
the death of the wood is recent        recommendations target defining       forest habitats, though this is not
(1-3 years). The Ivory-billed          certain habitat characteristics       universally accepted. Essential
Woodpecker habitually used its         that are necessary to meet            features of historical Ivory-billed
bill as a wedge to remove bark         the annual requirements of            Woodpecker habitat included:
from the freshly dead sapwood.         the multitude of wildlife             extensive, continuous forest
Therefore, the size and time since     species dependent on these            areas, very large trees, and
death of the tree is important as      forest resources. How forest          agents of tree mortality resulting
well as the amount of available        managers achieve and maintain         in a continuous supply of recently
dead wood. Tanner recognized           these habitat characteristics is      dead trees or large dead branches
the importance of providing dead       determined by the individual          in mature trees (Jackson
and dying trees. He suggested          situation. Objectives are set at      2002). According to Tanner,
that areas could be managed
“In many cases [Ivory-billed           400 specimens, mostly between           Woodpecker is protected under
Woodpeckers’] disappearance            1880 and 1910. Noel Snyder              the ESA, Migratory Bird Treaty
almost coincided with logging          (2007) concludes that the close         Act, and state laws.
operations. In others, there was       correlation between timber
no close correlation, but there are    harvesting activities and the           5. Other Natural or
no records of Ivory-billed [sic]       decline of the Ivory-bill reflected     Anthropogenic Factors Affecting
inhabiting areas for any length        an increased exposure to poaching       the Ivory-bill’s Continued
of time after those have been cut      and collecting rather than food         Existence (Factor E)
over.” In addition, before large       limitation in logged-over forests.      Ivory-billed Woodpecker
scale logging had commenced,           He asserts that direct killing of       populations appear to have
Tanner also commented that             Ivory-billed Woodpeckers was            been in a state of continuous
the reduced occurrence of              the primary cause for the species’      fragmentation and decline since
recently dead and dying wood           original decline. Collecting, in        the early 1800s (Jackson 2002,
was probably responsible for           combination with the concurrent         Tanner 1942). Early accounts
declines of woodpeckers in the         habitat loss likely hastened the        gave no accurate or definite
Singer Tract. Habitat loss has         decline of the species, and it is       estimates of abundance. As
probably affected Ivory-billed         possible that local populations         habitat loss progressed, coupled
Woodpeckers since the original         could have been extirpated by           with collection, population
cutting of virgin forest; with some    collecting. For example, Ivory-         numbers dwindled, and
losses being gradual and others        billed Woodpeckers are believed         fragmentation isolated the
occurring very rapidly. Jackson        to have been reduced by excessive       species into discrete communities,
(1989) estimated that by the           collecting rather than as a result of   contributing to the decline. Small
1930s, only isolated remnants          the conversion of forest habitats in    population sizes and limited
of the original southern forest        a small area of the Suwanee River       distributions put species at risk
remained. Forest loss continued        region of Florida. In addition,         from naturally occurring events
with another period of accelerated     Tanner indicated that many Ivory-       and environmental factors. While
clearing and conversion to             billed Woodpeckers were killed          a substantial amount of habitat is
agriculture of bottomland              merely to satisfy curiosity. The        protected in Arkansas and other
hardwood forests of the Lower          direct utilization of Ivory-billed      states where recent sightings
Mississippi Valley (LMV) during        Woodpeckers for commercial,             have been reported, threats exist
the 1960s and 1970s. The               recreational, scientific or             from continued fragmentation
combined effect of those losses        educational purposes is currently       and normal environmental
has resulted in reduction and          not a significant threat due to         changes. For example, sporadic
fragmentation of the remaining         the current laws protecting the         natural events such as tornadoes
forested lands. The conversion         species (see Factor D), and there is    or ice storms could destroy
rate of forest to agricultural lands   no recent evidence of take.             the only remaining nest or
in some parts of the southeastern                                              roost trees, or severe weather
United States has reversed in the      3. Disease or Predation                 conditions could result in nesting
past few years. Currently, many        (Factor C)                              or fledging failures. There is no
public and private agencies are        Little is known regarding the           information on the number and
working to protect and restore         past or current roles of disease        genetic health of any remaining
forest habitat. Nevertheless,          and predation in the decline of         birds. Small populations are
until more is learned about the        the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.            normally at risk from genetic and
Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s habitat      No mortality due to disease or          demographic stochastic events
requirements, the extensive            predation has been recorded.            (such as normal variations in
habitat loss and fragmentation         However, there may be future            survival and mortality, genetic
and the lack of information on         potential for avian flu, West Nile      drift, inbreeding, etc.). Also,
specific habitat requirements          Virus or other diseases to impact       difficulty in confirming and
remain a threat to this species.       Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. It is         delineating populations and
                                       unlikely disease or predation was       the limited basic biological and
2. Over-Utilization for                a primary factor in the original        ecological information on the
Commercial, Recreational,              decline of the species or in the        species is an important factor that
Scientific, or Educational             current status of the species.          currently threatens our ability to
Purposes (Factor B)                                                            recover the species.
Historical records indicate            4. The Inadequacy of Existing
that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers          Regulatory Mechanisms                   I.		Conservation	Efforts
were killed and used for various       (Factor D)                              1. Conservation Efforts in the
purposes by native and colonial        The lack of adequate regulatory         Recent Past
Americans. Collection of Ivory-        mechanisms may have                     Wherever the Ivory-billed
bills for scientific purposes has      contributed to the Ivory-billed         Woodpecker was reported,
been documented since the 1800s.       Woodpecker’s original decline.          both excitement and action
Jackson (2002) presented data          Currently, existing regulatory          followed. In the early 1970s,
indicating that such collecting        mechanisms appear to be                 Sam Houston National Forest in
resulted in the taking of over         adequate as the Ivory-billed            east Texas proposed to modify

timber harvests on the basis on        area, severely impacting the         created habitat that best meets
three unconfirmed Ivory-billed         study site as well as the entire     the requirements of the Ivory-
Woodpecker sightings by their          lower Pearl River drainage           billed Woodpecker. Managers
staff (Ruediger 1971). These           basin. No confirmed Ivory-billed     of the adjacent state lands at
and other sightings in east Texas      Woodpecker sightings have been       Dagmar and Rex Hancock/Black
were never widely accepted and         made in the area.                    Swamp WMAs also established
consequently did not stimulate                                              a temporary moratorium on
widespread forest management           2. Current Conservation Efforts      harvesting or thinning stands
changes to promote the welfare         Current conservation efforts         for forest management. This
of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.        in Arkansas have focused on          short term passive management
Most stories of unconfirmed            learning more about the status       was implemented under the
sightings have generated no            and distribution of the species      assumption that some birds
change in land management              in the Cache River and White         were present throughout the
throughout the southeast, though       River drainages; managing public     contiguous block of forested
there have been some local             access to potentially sensitive      habitat in the lower White
exceptions.                            sites and directing visitors to      River basin. Current forest
                                       appropriate areas; protection        management prescriptions
An unconfirmed sighting of             of land through acquisition of       allow the manager to apply
Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the         easements or fee interest; forest    appropriate silvicultural practices
White River NWR during the             management, reforestation; and       for individual stands to meet
late 1970s by the head forester        public education.                    habitat needs for a wide variety
led to a distinct and repeated                                              of target species. The publication
emphasis to retain many older-         Habitat improvement and
                                       restoration may be essential         Restoration, Management and
age-class trees. The emphasis on                                            Monitoring of Forest Resources
larger trees has continued for 30      to the future recovery of the
                                       Ivory-billed Woodpecker should       in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley:
years and was adopted upon the                                              Recommendations for Enhancing
purchase of the adjacent Cache         additional birds or locations of
                                       birds be confirmed. In related       Wildlife Habitat provides these
River NWR and the subsequent                                                recommended objectives and
acquisition of about 55,000 acres      actions, various quantitative
                                       models were developed to             guidelines (LMVJV Forest
of former timber company land.                                              Resource Conservation Working
The result is that very large trees    identify the amount and quality
                                       of habitat needed to support         Group 2007).
(>30” dbh) are retained in about
200,000 acres of forest. With          recovery. Additionally, NWR          In 2005 limited morticulture
staff moves and communication          forest management activity was       (stressing/killing live trees)
between Service foresters, this        carefully reviewed for potential     management was implemented
practice spread to the South           impacts on the Ivory-billed          as an experiment along Bayou
Arkansas Refuge Complex, Holla         Woodpecker.                          DeView on the Benson Creek
Bend NWR, Theodore Roosevelt           About 326,000 acres of the Cache     Natural Area, which is jointly
Complex, West Tennessee                River-White River basin is in        owned by TNC and the Arkansas
Complex, Tensas River NWR,             public ownership as national         Natural Heritage Commission.
and other NWRs (J. Denman,             wildlife refuges, state natural      Management is similar to what
pers. comm.).                          areas, or state WMA. In              the LDWF did on the Pearl River
                                       addition, private conservation       WMA. Four 4-acre blocks were
A well known, but unconfirmed,                                              treated with varying amounts of
1999 sighting in the Pearl River       interests, primarily TNC and
                                       Ducks Unlimited, hold nearly         tree girdling to create potential
WMA (WMA) in southeast                                                      Ivory-billed Woodpecker
Louisiana did prompt the               20,000 acres. These fee title
                                       ownerships are supplemented          feeding habitat and to attract
Louisiana Department of                                                     the birds for observation. The
Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF)          by approximately 52,882 acres
                                       of Wetland Reserve Program           results are being monitored and
to modify a prescribed harvest                                              may serve as a pilot for larger
in an attempt to improve Ivory-        easements administered by the
                                       Natural Resources Conservation       studies in the future. Additional
billed Woodpecker foraging                                                  modified harvesting practices
habitat and to attract the birds       Service. Together these lands
                                       total almost 400,000 acres of        and morticulture plots have
for easier observation. In 2002 at                                          been developed and established
11 sites, ranging from three to 40     current and future habitat that is
                                       being managed and conserved.         by the LDWF on WMAs and
acres, chainsaw felling, selective                                          Tensas NWR in Louisiana. These
girdling (25-75%), and chemical        Active forest management             activities are part of ongoing
injection was used to fell, kill, or   (thinning and other tree cutting)    research the better to understand
weaken trees in an attempt to          on Cache River and White             dynamics associated with
establish a concentration of beetle    River National Wildlife Refuges      insect colonization of stressed
larvae suitable for Ivory-billed       was temporarily suspended            trees in bottomland hardwood
Woodpecker feeding. In August          (2005-7) while the existing          forests; potentially informing
of 2005, Hurricane Katrina made        forest management plans were         the development of Ivory-billed
landfall near this particular          reviewed to ensure that they         Woodpecker foraging habitat.

Land acquisitions at Cache River      and international conservation
NWR, in cooperation with TNC,          In May 2005 three “Town               organizations. There was strong
also provide long-term habitat         Hall” meetings were held in           support for taking the necessary
benefits for a multitude of species.   the communities of Brinkley,          steps to assess population status,
This refuge is a regional priority     Stuttgart, and Augusta to             delineate habitat, and determine
for additional acreage, primarily      provide information on the            the proper management actions
driven by North American               announcement of rediscovery           needed for recovery. Subsequent
Waterfowl Management Plan              and the first steps which are         controversy over the evidence
objectives for the mid-continent       expected to be taken towards          supporting the announcement did
mallard population. Since 1995         recovery. Concerns over potential     not reduce the necessity for these
the Fish and Wildlife Service          land acquisition plans, impacts       initial actions, most of which are
has purchased 23,456 acres as          on public use, and questions          complete.
additions to Cache River NWR.          about the natural history of
Lands were purchased primarily         the species were answered. In         Research, modeling, and habitat
using revenue from the Migratory       Arkansas, the Corridor of Hope        inventory projects have been
Bird Conservation Fund, also           serves as an important method         undertaken to understand
known as the Duck Stamp Fund.          of communicating with the local       the distribution of potential
The remainder of the lands was         community in the lower White          habitat better, and to enhance
purchased with appropriations          River basin. Other outreach           the methods used to detect
under the Land and Water               efforts include interpretive          Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. In
Conservation Fund. In 2004 and         materials on how to identify an       addition, models focused on
2005 they acquired title, options,     Ivory-billed Woodpecker, where        foraging energetics, habitat
or easements on approximately          to report sightings, informational    characterization and assessment,
18,500 acres in the Bayou DeView       signage, and interpretive             and potential population viability
area. Reforestation efforts are        programs.                             are being developed (see
underway on much of this land.                                               Appendix D for abstracts).
All lands were acquired from           The surveys and related research
                                       will be adapted as more is learned    J.		Biological	Constraints	and	
willing sellers.                                                             Needs
                                       about the locations and habits
The Natural Resources                  of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.       The most significant biological
Conservation Service has been          Surveys have been made in other       constraint to recovery of this
a leader in restoring bottomland       portions of the historical range in   species is that the population,
hardwood habitat in the lower          east Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,   where there may be one, is
White River basin. Since the 2005      Alabama, South Carolina, North        very small, and individuals are
announcement of rediscovery of         Carolina, Tennessee, Illinois,        extremely difficult to detect with
the Ivory-billed Woodpecker their      Georgia and Florida.                  any degree of certainty. The
Wetland Reserve Program (WRP)                                                species is so rarely reported that
has enrolled 3,601 acres, and          3. Summary of Conservation            learning more about the species
the Wildlife Habitat Incentives        Efforts                               and its habitat requirements and
Program has established                Conservation efforts to date          basic aspects of its ecology will be
easements to reforest or enhance       have been directed towards            the primary interim conservation
existing forests on 5,958 acres        confirming the existence of the       action.
of privately owned land. The           species in multiple locations as
                                       well as Arkansas and taking           The capacity of such a small
Wetland Reserve Enhancement                                                  population to recover and
Program is committed to                initial habitat improvement and
                                       restoration actions.                  multiply is unknown, though
supplemental tree planting on                                                examples of successful increases
1,000 additional acres of WRP          The principal conservation            in numbers exist in other species.
lands.                                 actions included improving and        (Komdeur 2002).
The Fish and Wildlife Service’s        expanding the survey effort in
                                       Arkansas, as well as in other         Clutch sizes in the Ivory-billed
Partners for Fish and Wildlife                                               Woodpecker range from 1-6 eggs
Program committed $1 million in        formerly occupied locations,
                                       and describing potential habitat      but more typically consist of 2 to
support of habitat improvement                                               4. Incubation is by both sexes
activities on private lands in         sufficiently, so that the most
                                       likely locations for other possible   and takes about 20 days. Both
Arkansas and Louisiana. In 2005,                                             adults feed the young for a period
996 acres were enrolled in and         existing populations may be
                                       identified and surveyed. Current      of about 35 days and the young
reforested by this program in and                                            may be fed by the parents for
around the Big Woods. In 2006,         management practices were
                                       evaluated and modified as needed.     an additional two months. Life
an additional 1,362 acres were                                               span has been estimated to be
planted in the same area.              Public outreach and education
                                       was conducted.                        in excess of 10 years, although
A central database has been                                                  this is also not known for certain.
established where all Ivory-           The announcement of rediscovery       In sum, our current knowledge
billed Woodpecker sightings can        generated significant interest on     of the species suggests that
be reported (http://www.birds.         the part of the public and national   the relatively low reproductive

capacity of the species may
require many years for significant    II.	 Recovery                          Population modeling has provided
                                                                             an indication that the persistence
population growth.                    A.		Recovery	Strategy                  of the Ivorybill in low numbers
                                      Our understanding of most              throughout its range is possible
Protocols for captive breeding                                               (Mattson et al 2008).These efforts
of this species are also poorly       aspects of the ecology and
                                      biology of the Ivory-billed            will help inform the development
understood. Significant work                                                 of spatially explicit, objective
with surrogate species, such as       Woodpecker is limited. It has
                                      proven extremely difficult to          and measurable population and
the Magellanic Woodpecker may                                                habitat goals for future recovery
be needed. This effort would take     locate or relocate individuals
                                      despite extensive survey efforts.      plans.
some time since there is currently
no person or institution engaged      Much of what is known is derived       B.		Recovery	Goal
in the captive breeding of large      from James Tanner’s studies            The goal of the Ivory-billed
woodpeckers.                          on one small population and            Woodpecker recovery program
                                      Tanner’s range-wide evaluation         is to locate, protect, and
To the best of our knowledge,         of reports and habitat availability.   increase existing populations
the species requires large tracts     Other information comes from           and associated habitat and to
of forested habitat (several          knowledge of other Campephilus         recover the species to the point
thousand acres per breeding           species, woodpeckers in general,       at which it can be downlisted
pair) with large portions of the      interpretations of photographs,        from endangered to threatened
tract containing large trees for      and anecdotes gathered by other        status, and ultimately to remove
feeding, nesting and roosting.        observers. The current strategy        it completely from the Federal
On some public lands within           must focus first on locating           list of threatened and endangered
the historical range, forests are     and confirming the presence of         species. This goal is consistent
in suitable or close to suitable      individuals. Then we can add to        with current requirements for all
condition, though still highly        our knowledge about the ecology        listed species.
fragmented. Conditions continue       and biology of the species once a
to improve on many public             population is identified, providing    C.		Recovery	Objectives
lands as the forest ages. Most        a feasible approach to habitat         This recovery plan identifies
contemporary public forests           protection, given its potential        many interim actions needed to
are only beginning to approach        presence.                              achieve long-term viability for the
the older forest conditions we                                               Ivory-billed Woodpecker and to
think suitable for Ivory-bills,       Our poor understanding of the          accomplish these goals. Recovery
and they may have insufficient        species has focused the recovery       of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
large, dead, and stressed trees.      strategy largely on learning more      focuses on the following
In addition, major gains in           about the species status and           objectives:
recovering this species potentially   ecology rather than undertaking
require the cooperation of private    specific habitat management            1. Identify and delineate any
landowners. In the southern U.S.      actions. Habitat management               existing populations
89% of the forests are privately      and land protection efforts are
                                      important, but the major focus is      2. Identify and reduce risks to
owned. (Appendix I).                                                            any existing population,
                                      learning more about where the
                                      birds may persist, then examining      3. Protect and enhance suitable
                                      those habitats to reveal ways             habitat once populations are
                                      in which specific conservation            identified, and;
                                      actions could be developed. Many
                                      of the potential recovery actions      4. Reduce or eliminate threats
                                      will be made only where a nest            sufficient to allow successful
                                      or roost is located or where there        restoration of multiple
                                      are new multiple sightings, video,        populations when those
                                      physical evidence, or a picture of        populations are identified.
                                      a bird.
                                                                             The emphasis in this recovery
                                      Spatially explicit, objective, and     plan on documenting and
                                      measurable population goals have       conserving viable populations
                                      not been identified. However,          in the historical range is based
                                      those goals are recognized as          upon two widely recognized and
                                      a key part of future recovery          scientifically accepted goals for
                                      efforts. Habitat modeling and          promoting viable populations of
                                      other analysis tools have been         listed species. These goals are:
                                      completed for Arkansas and
                                      other parts of the species’ range.     1. the creation of multiple
                                      These models inform search                populations so that a single or
                                      efforts and broadly identify              series of catastrophic events
                                      potential areas for conservation.         does not result in species
                                                                                extinction; and
2. the increase of population size    E.		Recovery	Actions                     a. Ivory-bill surveys were
   to a level where the threats       The primary interim actions                 initially focused in the
   from genetic, demographic,         needed to determine explicit                Cache and White river
   and normal environmental           recovery criteria and ultimately            basins. Surveys have
   uncertainties are diminished       to achieve recovery criteria and            been completed there and
   (Mangel and Tier 1994,             accomplish delisting/downlisting            elsewhere in the historical
   National Research Council          recovery goals are:                         range. Survey protocols
   1995, Tear et al. 1995,                                                        have been developed,
   Meffe and Carroll 1994).           1. population surveys and                   and state search groups
   By maintaining population             monitoring in the historical             have been formed. A
   numbers and viable breeding           range where habitat and                  sightings database is being
   populations at multiple sites,        sighting information indicate            maintained by Cornell
   the species will have a greater       potential for the presence of            Laboratory of Ornithology.
   likelihood of achieving long-         the species,                             Criteria for evaluating
   term survival and recovery.        2. habitat inventory and                    encounters were developed
                                         monitoring in the historical             for that information (see
D.		Recovery	Criteria                                                             Appendix F);
At present, the limited                  range of the species,
knowledge on the population           3. population and habitat                  i. A survey design
abundance, distribution, habitat         modeling to facilitate survey              developed for search
requirements, and biology of the         efforts and to inform potential            efforts throughout the
Ivory-billed Woodpecker prevents         management actions,                        range is adaptive, uses
development of more specific                                                        ancillary data (e.g.,
recovery criteria. The following      4. research directed at testing               previous sightings,
interim criteria will lead us to         biological assumptions                     output from biological
the development of more specific,        otherwise implicit in modeling             models, distribution
quantifiable criteria that should        and management actions,                    of stressed or dying
be met before considering the                                                       trees), and results
delisting of this species:            5. landscape characterization and             in consistent survey
                                         assessment of the Mississippi              methodology. Search
1. Potential habitats for any            Alluvial Valley and other areas            teams used a sampling
   occurrences of the species are        of the historical range,                   design provided by the
   surveyed.                                                                        University of Georgia
                                      6. conservation design aimed at
2. Current habitat use and needs         defining the spatially explicit            (see Appendix F). This
   of any existing populations are       landscape conditions needed to             design, if birds are
   determined.                           support the species,                       detected, will allow
                                                                                    determination of the
3. Habitat on public land where       7. education and outreach on the              probability of species
   Ivory-bills are located is            conservation of the species,               detection based on
   conserved and enhanced. If                                                       survey effort, search
   needed, additional acreage is      8. management of public use                   area, and population
   acquired from willing sellers         in areas where the species                 size.
   and listed in the public habitat      is known to occur to avoid
   inventory.                            possible adverse impacts from           ii. Searches have been
                                         intense public use, and                     conducted throughout
4. Habitat on private lands is                                                       many areas in the
   conserved and enhanced             9. management of rediscovered                  historical range,
   through the use of voluntary          populations and forested                    including the Cache and
   agreements (e.g., conservation        habitats to aid recovery.                   White river basins, by
   easements, habitat                 F.		Total	Estimated	Cost	of	Recovery	          state-based groups.
   conservation plans) and public     Our limited knowledge of the
   outreach.                                                                     iii. Ivory-billed Woodpecker
                                      Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s                       survey and monitoring
5. Viability of any existing          occurrence and distribution as                  technologies were
   populations (numbers, breeding     well as of necessary long-term                  developed (including the
   success, population genetics,      actions precludes any informed                  use of helicopter surveys).
   and ecology) is analyzed.          estimate of recovery costs for                  See Appendix F.
                                      the species. See Appendix C for
6. The number and geographic          recovery expenditures to date.           b. If birds are located, develop
   distribution of subpopulations                                                 monitoring protocols to
   needed to create conditions        G.		Narrative	Outline	of						       	      assess population size and
   favorable to a self-sustaining     Recovery	Actions                            trend.
   metapopulation and to evaluate     1. Population Surveys and
   habitat suitable for species re-      Monitoring
   introduction is determined.

2. Habitat Inventory and                  intended to increase                d. Develop, as needed, a
   Monitoring                             foraging habitat.                      population viability model
                                                                                 (currently a theoretical
  Additional Ivory-bill habitat      3. Population/Habitat Models                model is available).
  inventory focused primarily
  in the Cache and White river         To facilitate survey efforts and    4. Assumption-Driven Research
  basins. Coordination and             inform potential management
  implementation of a multi-           actions, there is a need to           Given the limited information
  scale habitat inventory and          develop quantitative population       available, certain assumptions
  monitoring program are               and habitat relationship              are necessary to establish
  needed in other parts of the         models. These models should           management guidelines.
  historical range where sighting      address landscape-quality             Research directed at testing
  information indicates presence       and site-quality factors              the biological assumptions
  of the species.                      presumed to limit Ivory-billed        otherwise implicit in
                                       Woodpecker populations.               management actions is
   a. Develop additional protocols     Models and risks of uncertainty       necessary. The following
      and techniques, as needed,       will be presented as testable         tasks are designed to test
      for habitat inventory and        hypotheses. Habitat-specific          assumptions implicit in
      monitoring program.              parameters will be based on           biological goals, objectives,
                                       currently available information,      and the biological response
     i. Refine ground-based            research results, new data, and       presumed to occur from
        forest inventory               expert opinion. See Appendix          management actions.
        protocols which will           D for description of model
        identify characteristics       development.                           a. Compile and summarize
        important to Ivory-billed                                                additional literature.
        Woodpecker, including           a. As needed, refine the Cache
        disturbance history.               and White river basin              b. Assess causes of tree
                                           Ivory-billed Woodpecker               mortality, decay rates,
     ii. Conduct additional                population-habitat model              and stand-replacement
         remote sense-based                for application at larger             processes on the assumption
         (e.g., LiDAR, ASTER)              spatial scales (e.g., MAV ,           that cavities, foraging
         forest inventories to             rangewide). The outputs               habitat, and/or prey may be
         augment ground-based              from this model would be              limiting factors for Ivory-
         habitat inventories.              used to:                              billed Woodpecker and that
                                                                                 these can be evaluated by
   b. Priority search areas               1. develop a Mississippi               gathering information on
      were identified by state               Alluvial Valley                     tree mortality.
      search groups. Prioritize              population/habitat
      additional search areas                model;                             i. Gather information on
      throughout the historical                                                    naturally-occurring
      range in cooperation with           2. guide the development                 tree mortality, snag
      state search groups.                   of forest inventory/                  formation, and decay
                                             monitoring programs;                  rates across elevation
   c. Conduct habitat inventory                                                    gradients, hydrologic
      and monitoring using both           3. facilitate landscape                  regimes, and soil classes.
      ground-based techniques                characterizations and
      and remote technologies, as            assessments; and                   ii. Gather information
      needed. Forest inventories                                                    on tree mortality and
      in the Cache and White              4. refine forest                          snag formation as
      River basins were                      management to                          a result of “typical”
      completed. As needed,                  reach Desired Forest                   silvicultural treatments
      conduct forest inventories             Conditions if needed.                  (e.g., thinning) across
      in priority areas throughout      b. Refine, as needed, the                   elevation gradients,
      the range.                           range-wide potential                     hydrologic regimes, and
                                           occupancy model to                       soil classes.
   d. Develop a web-based, forest
      inventory geodatabase to             facilitate search efforts          c. Assess the relationship of
      consolidate and archive              across the southeastern               tree mortality to forage
      data. This task would allow          portion of the United                 availability. This is a focus
      web-based connection                 States.                               of current studies.
      with other bird monitoring        c. When birds are confirmed,
      databases.                                                                i. Gather information
                                           develop estimates of                    on wood-boring insect
   e. Assess the efficiency and            populations using life table            populations, life history,
      effectiveness of forest              methodology and data on                 and natural densities
      management prescriptions             available habitat quality and           and on factors which
         contribute to their              a. Conduct an assessment of       measurable population and
         density, richness and               the extent and distribution    habitat objectives cannot be
         abundance (e.g., tree               of foraging habitat (e.g.,     determined for the Ivory-
         mortality, decay rates).            stressed and dying trees)      billed Woodpecker but will be
                                             within the Cache and Lower     needed to support decision-
   ii.   Gather data on tree                 White River basins based       making for conservation and
         species mortality and               on high resolution, color      management of the species.
         decay rates and on                  infrared aerial photography.   These tasks are designed to
         beetle densities at                                                establish biological objectives
         different dead and dying         b. Develop forest type maps       (population and habitat) as
         tree stand volumes                  of the Cache and Lower         determined by biological
         and where “artificial”              White River basins using a     models. This information will
         silvicultural treatments            hydrogeomorphic (HGM)          be used to develop spatially
         (e.g., girdling, injection)         model augmented with           explicit models that define
         are used. Collect this              fall 2004 and 2006 high        the landscape conditions
         data across elevation               resolution color infrared      believed to support Ivory-billed
         gradients, flooding                 aerial photography, ground     Woodpecker populations.
         regimes, and soil classes.          survey data, multi-spectral
                                             satellite data and any other   a. Establish population
   d. Expand and re-examine                  available data.                   goals and objectives when
      research priorities when                                                 appropriate information is
      active nest trees are               c. Analyze 1938 Singer               available.
      discovered and/or when                 Tract aerial photography
      other appropriate reports              for a retrospective            b. Establish habitat goals
      occur.                                 look at Tanner’s data             and objectives to support
                                             using new ancillary               population goals and
   e. Investigate the                        data and technologies             objectives when appropriate
      ecology of Ivory-billed                (e.g., stereoscopic photo         information is available.
      Woodpecker through                     interpretation SURRGO             Habitat goals at all spatial
      detailed investigations                soils data, Saucier               scales would consider
      of appropriate surrogate               geomorphology data) and           management, protection,
      species.                               any other available data.         and restoration of extant
   f. Disseminate research                   Compare it with 1940              southern (bottomland)
      findings via symposia and              Lower White River basin           forests.
      peer-reviewed publications.            aerial photography.
                                                                            c. Develop, as needed, any
5. Landscape Characterization             d. Assess “suitable” habitat         additional forest restoration
   and Assessment                            across the MAV and the            and management guidelines
                                             historical range based            (Desired Forest Conditions)
  The ability of the Mississippi             on the application of             designed to support
  Alluvial Valley to support                 biological models to              population goals.
  recovery populations is                    currently available data
  unknown. The capacity of                   sets (e.g., FIA, NLCD,         d. Refine habitat management
  other habitats within the                  aerial photography, LIDAR,        guidance for Ivory-billed
  historical range to support                Cornell mobile search             Woodpecker.
  recovery populations is also               teams)                         e. Produce maps and
  unknown. The following tasks                                                 technical documents (e.g.,
  are intended to characterize            e. Use data obtained by
                                             remote sensing (e.g.,             management guidelines)
  the ability of the Cache/                                                    that land managers
  Lower White River basin                    ASTER, LiDAR) and
                                             population habitat models         and planners can use to
  and the Mississippi Alluvial                                                 implement conservation
  Valley Bird Conservation                   to identify forested habitat
                                             conditions that attract           programs across multiple
  Region to support Ivory-billed                                               spatial scales.
  Woodpecker populations based               and support Ivory-billed
  on current and/or projected                Woodpecker, then ground-       f. Develop decision-support
  landscape and site quality                 proof the results.                tools based on biological
  conditions. Additionally, these         f. Conduct a hydrogeomorphic         models that facilitate the
  tasks will allow assessment of             assessment of existing            delivery of conservation
  other parts of the species range           and potential wetland and         programs by maximizing
  in terms of their capability               upland habitats of the MAV.       the biological and cost
  to support Ivory-billed                                                      efficiency of management
  Woodpeckers. Abstracts of            6. Conservation Design                  actions.
  these studies are provided in
  Appendix D.                            At this time, spatially
                                         explicit, objective and

7. Education and Outreach               are possibly located. Initially,   c. Assess the need for
                                        a portion of the Cache River          intervention to enhance
  The 2005 announcement that            NWR was closed temporarily,           reproductive success,
  an Ivory-billed Woodpecker            then full access was managed          productivity and survival.
  had been encountered in               via permit. No restrictions
  the Big Woods of Arkansas             currently exist. See Appendix      d. Determine the genetic
  generated a substantial               G. These actions should be            health and viability of the
  amount of interest among the          discussed and applied, as             population.
  public. Information for the           needed, where roosting or
  general public and numerous                                              e. Implement reforestation
                                        nesting birds are documented          activities and forest
  stakeholders involved or              or a bird is confirmed.
  concerned with the recovery                                                 management practices
  of the species have been               a. Develop guidelines for            to benefit Ivory-billed
  developed. Community-                     public use and other              Woodpecker habitat.
  based programs to enhance                 activities in Ivory-billed     f. Use decision-support
  opportunities to learn about              Woodpecker habitat.               models and other biological
  and promote the conservation              Develop additional                planning tools to determine
  of the species and its habitat            guidelines, as needed, on         the need and location of
  have been provided in                     the types of use including        additional land protection
  cooperation with partners. The            the timing, amount, and           measures.
  purpose of these tasks is to              nature of activities near
  convey a consistent message               roost or nest trees and
  regarding recovery efforts                foraging habitat.
  and to facilitate those efforts
  through public awareness and           b. Develop public access and
  education.                                viewing points such as
                                            boardwalks, towers, blinds,
   a. Communication plans                   and platforms.
      and strategies have
      been developed and              9. Management of Populations
      implemented. Ensure that          Increased interest on the part
      continuing communications         of researchers will require the
      address the need for              development of research and
      information at various levels     monitoring protocols to assure
      and for various stakeholders      that adverse impacts are
      (e.g., birdwatchers, local        minimized.
      citizens, government
      agencies, industry).               a. Protect occupied habitat
                                            and priority lands needed
   b. Outreach tools to help                for recovery.
      private landowners and
      land managers must be                i. Acquire additional
      developed. See Appendix G.              acreage from willing
                                              sellers and list it in the
   c. Species identification                  public habitat inventory,
      brochures have been                     if needed.
      developed and distributed.
      Monitor future need for              ii. Acquire additional
      these products and provide               area through
      them where needed.                       voluntary agreements
                                               (e.g., conservation
   d. Coordinate and cooperate                 easements, habitat
      with the government of                   conservation plans)
      Cuba regarding the status                and public outreach to
      and recovery of the Cuban                facilitate appropriate
      population of the Ivory-                 management actions, if
      billed Woodpecker.                       needed.
8. Public Use and Access in              b. Develop guidelines for
   Occupied Habitat                         monitoring Ivory-billed
  Due to the potential for                  Woodpecker nesting,
  adverse impacts resulting                 roosting, and feeding
  from intense public interest,             behavior (e.g., permitting
  guidelines were developed to              procedures, procedures for
  manage public use where birds             researchers).

III.	 Implementation	                Abbreviations	and	Acronyms	Used	in	the	Following	Table

      Actions                        A          Factor A of reasons for listing (see Section H)
                                     ACOE       U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Recovery plans are intended to
assist the U.S. Fish and Wildlife    AGFC       Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
Service and potential Federal,       ANHC       Arkansas Heritage Commission
state, and private partners in
                                     AMWPT      Arkansas Multi-Agency Wetland Planning Team
planning and implementing
actions to recover and/or protect    CLO        University of Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
endangered and threatened            Coop.      USGS cooperative research unit with a university
species. The Implementation
Schedule that follows lists the      CSU        Colorado State University
initial recovery actions completed   E          Factor E of reasons for listing (see Section H)
and planned for the Ivory-billed
Woodpecker. It is a guide for        EA         FWS, External Affairs
meeting the recovery goals           ES         FWS, Field Office
outlined in this plan. Parties
                                     FWS        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
with authority, responsibility, or
expressed interest to implement      FY         Fiscal Year
a specific recovery action are       GOV        Other local, state, and Federal agencies
identified in the Implementation
Schedule. When more than one         K          Thousand dollars
party has been identified, the       LDWF       Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
proposed lead party is indicated
by an asterisk (*). The listing of   M          Million dollars
a party in the Implementation        MAV        Mississippi Alluvial Valley
Schedule does not require that
                                     MB         FWS, Migratory Birds
the identified party has agreed
to implement the action(s) or to     NASA       National Aeronautics and Space Administration
secure funding for implementing      NGO        Non Governmental Organization
the action(s). However, parties
willing to participate may benefit   NRCS       USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
by being able to show in their       NWR        FWS, National Wildlife Refuge
own budgets that their funding
request is for a recovery action     NWRC       U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Complex
identified in an approved recovery   PVT        Private landowners
plan and is therefore considered
                                     R2         FWS, Southwest Regional Office, Albuquerque
a necessary action for the overall
coordinated effort to recover the    R4         FWS, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta
Ivory-billed Woodpecker.             RE         FWS, Realty
Section 7 (a)(1) of the              RF         FWS, Refuges
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
                                     RT         Recovery Team
directs all federal agencies
to utilize their authorities in      Smith.     Smithsonian Institution, Museum of Natural History,
furtherance of the purposes of the              Department of Vertebrate Zoology
ESA by carrying out programs         States     State wildlife agencies within Ivory-billed Woodpecker
for the conservation of threatened              historical range
and endangered species. Any
expenditures by identified           TNC        The Nature Conservancy
agencies/partners will be            UAR        University of Arkansas
contingent upon appropriations
and other budgetary constraints.     UGA        University of Georgia
Expenditures for completed           UID        University of Idaho
tasks and research projects are
                                     UMD        University of Maryland
included in Appendix C.
                                     Unk        Unknown
                                     UNI        University researchers
                                     USDA       U.S. Department of Agriculture
                                     FS         USDA Forest Service
                                     USGS       U.S. Geological Survey

Table	1.	Implementation	Actions                                                   (*denotes lead agency)

 Task	description                            Threat Responsible	Organization Status	and	Comments
                                                          FWS            Other
 Complete and implement protocols and        E      R4, R2, ES     CLO*, States    Initial protocols and
 procedures for recording, classifying,                                            procedures are completed.
 and responding to reported Ivory-billed                                           The sightings database
 Woodpecker sightings.                                                             is established and will be
                                                                                   updated by CLO.
 Develop teams to rapidly assess the         E      R4, R2, ES,    CLO*, States    State Search Groups perform
 veracity of sightings in other areas.              RF                             this task
 Develop a repository for all previous       E      R4, ES         CLO*            Completed
 Develop survey designs for search efforts   E      R4, ES         UGA, USGS-      Completed
 throughout the range.                                             UGA Coop.
 Determine the probability of species        E      R4, ES         USGS-UID        Completed
 detection based on survey effort, search                          Coop., CLO
 area and population size.
 Implement searches in the Cache and         E      R4, ES, RF     See notes       Numerous partners are
 White River basins.                                                               involved in the search.
 Implement range-wide searches based on E           R4, R2, ES,    States, CLO,    Completed, additional
 priority areas defined in the habitat tasks.       RF             NGOs            searches will be completed
                                                                                   with partners as necessary
 Develop state-based implementation          E      R4, ES, R2     States, CLO
 Enhance existing and develop new Ivory-     E      R4, ES         CLO, USGS       Complete as needed
 billed Woodpecker survey and monitoring
 Develop monitoring protocols to assess      E      R4, ES         UNI             Implementation of this task
 population size and trend.                                                        depends on search results.
 Develop ground-based forest                 A      A,E            States, NGOs Costs are negligible since the
 inventory protocols which will identify                                        task is already a part of staff
 characteristics important to Ivory-billed                                      duties.
 Woodpecker, including disturbance
 Conduct remote sense-based (e.g., LiDAR, A         R4, R2, ES,    USGS, UMD, Initial inventories are
 ASTER) forest inventories to augment               MB*, RF        NASA,        completed
 ground-based habitat inventories.                                 States, NGOs
 Prioritize search areas in the Cache and    A, E   R4, ES, RF,    State of        Completed
 White River basins.                                MB*            Arkansas,
                                                                   CLO, TNC
 Prioritize search areas throughout the      A, E   R4, R2, ES,    States, CSU,    Completed
 historical range using information from            RF, MB*        USGS-CSU
 expert opinion and tasks                                          Coop.
 Conduct forest inventories in the Cache     A      R4, ES, RF*,   State of        Completed
 and White River basins.                            MB*            Arkansas
 Conduct forest inventories in priority      A ,E   R4, R2, ES*,   States,         Perform as needed.
 areas throughout the range.                        MB, RF         NGOs, PVT
 Characterize and assess the adequacy of     A      R4, ES,        AGFC, TNC,      Completed
 foraging habitat in the Cache and White            MB*RF          CLO
 River Basins.
 Consolidate and archive data.               A      RF, MB*        States
 Assess the efficiency and effectiveness of A       R4, ES,        USGS, USFS, Complete as needed
 forest management prescriptions intended           MB*, RF        ANHC, LDWF,
 to increase foraging habitat.                                     AGFC
                                                                                   (*denotes lead agency)

Task	description                               Threat Responsible	Organization Status	and	Comments
                                                         FWS              Other
Express Tanner’s Ivory-billed Woodpecker       E      R4, ES, MB* UGA, USGS-       Study is being completed. See
study conclusions for the Singer Tract                            UGA Coop.,       Appendix D
population as an energetic foraging model.                        USFS, NWRC
Develop a Cache-White River basin              E      R4, ES, MB* RT               Complete as needed.
Ivory-billed Woodpecker population-
habitat model to guide forest inventory
and monitoring programs and to facilitate
landscape characterizations and
Refine the Cache and White River basin         E      R4, ES, MB* RT, CSU,         Data have been developed in
Ivory-billed Woodpecker population-                               USFS, CSU-       conjunction with other tasks.
habitat model for application at larger                           Coop.
spatial scales (e.g., MAV, range-wide).
Develop a range-wide potential occupancy E            R4, R2, ES,   States, CSU,   Research project is being
model to facilitate search efforts across             RF, MB*       USGS-CSU       completed, see Appendix F
the southeastern portion of the United                              Coop.
Develop estimates of the possible existing     E      R4, ES        UAR            Complete as needed
population using Life Table methodology
and information on available habitat and
territory size.
Develop a Population Viability Model.          E      R4, ES, MB    USGS-UGA       Appendix D
Summarize and compile the existing             A, E   R4, ES, MB    Smith.         Complete
literature into a database.
Gather information on naturally-occurring      A      R4, ES,       USGS, USFS,
tree mortality, snag formation, and                   MB*, RF       ANHC, LDWF,
decay rates across elevation gradients,                             AGFC
hydrologic regimes, and soil classes.
Gather information on tree mortality and       A      R4, ES,       USGS, USFS,
snag formation as a result of “typical”               MB*, RF       ANHC, LDWF,
silvicultural treatments (e.g., thinning)                           AGFC
across elevation gradients, hydrologic
regimes, and soil classes.
Gather data on tree species mortality          A      R4, ES,       USGS, USFS, Experimental treatments
and decay rates and on beetle densities               MB*, RF       ANHC, LDWF, completed, data collection and
at different dead and dying tree stand                              AGFC        analysis is continuing
volumes and where “artificial” silvicultural
treatments (e.g., girdling, injection) are
used. Collect this data across elevation
gradients, flooding regimes, and soil
Expand and re-examine research priorities      E      R4, ES, MB,   RT, CLO        Complete as needed
when active nest trees are discovered.                RF
Investigate the ecology of Ivory-              E      R4, ES        States, UNI,   See Appendix D
billed Woodpecker through detailed                                  The Walt
investigations of appropriate surrogate                             Disney Co.
Conduct an assessment of the extent            A      ANHC          NWRC*          Completed
and distribution of foraging habitat (e.g.,
stressed and dying trees) within the Cache
and Lower White River basins based
on high resolution, color infrared aerial

                                                                                   (*denotes lead agency)

Task	description                               Threat Responsible	Organization      Status	and	Comments
                                                           FWS           Other
Develop forest type maps of the Cache          A      R4, ES, MB     ANHC*,         Completed
and Lower White River basins using a                                 USGS, ACOE,
HGM model augmented with fall 2004                                   AMWPT
and 2006 high resolution color infrared
aerial photography, ground survey data,
multi-spectral satellite data and any other
available data.
Analyze 1938 Singer Tract aerial               A      R4, ES, MB,    NWRC*,         Study being completed.
photography for a retrospective look at               RF             LDWF           Extend to other portions of the
Tanner’s data using new ancillary data and                                          historical range as needed to
technologies. Compare it with 1940 Lower                                            inform habitat management.
White River basin aerial photography.
Assess “suitable” habitat across the           A      R4, R2, ES,    CSU*, USFS,    Completed
MAV and the historical range based on                 MB*            RT, ACOE,
the application of biological models to                              ANHC
currently available data sets.
Use data obtained by remote sensing            A      R4, ES,        NWRC*,         Basic data gathered
(e.g., ASTER, LiDAR) and population                   MB*, RF        NASA, UMD
habitat models to identify forested habitat
conditions that attract and support Ivory-
billed Woodpecker, then ground-proof the
Conduct a hydro-geomorphic assessment          A      R4, ES, MB,    ANNHC*,        Completed
of existing and potential wetland and                 RF             USGS, ACOE
upland habitats of the MAV.
Establish population goals, objectives and     E      RF             States         Complete as needed
timelines for the species’ historical range.
Establish habitat goals, objectives, and       A, E   R4, R2, ES*,   RT, States     Selected members of the RT
timelines to support population goals,                MB, RF                        will assist. Costs are largely
objectives, and timelines.                                                          for RT members’ time and
                                                                                    travel and for workshop
                                                                                    development. Complete as
Develop forest restoration and                 A      R4, R2, ES,    States, USFS, Completed.
management guidelines (Desired Forest                 MB*, RF        ANHC, TNC,
Conditions) designed to support population                           USGS, PVT,
goals.                                                               NRCS
Refine habitat management guidance for         A      R4, R2, ES,    States, USFS, PVT partners include private
Ivory-billed Woodpecker.                              MB*, RF        ANHC, TNC, timber companies.
                                                                     USGS, PVT,
Produce maps and technical documents           A      R4, ES, MB* USGS, USFS        Costs for this task will continue
(e.g., management guidelines) that land                                             until recovery is completed.
managers and planners can use to                                                    These tools are part of larger
implement conservation programs across                                              bird conservation initiative.
multiple spatial scales.
Develop decision-support tools based on        A      MB*            USGS           Models will be internet-based
biological models that facilitate the delivery                                      and refined annually as habitat
of conservation programs by maximizing                                              management and restoration
the biological and cost efficiency of                                               occurs. These tools are part
management actions.                                                                 of larger bird conservation
Develop an outreach plan and strategy          A      EA*,R4, R2,    RT-Outreach    Tasks and Funding are based
which addresses community-based                       ES, MB, RF,    Team           on potential discoveries
programs that promote conservation of the             AFGC                          in other states, requiring
species and its habitat.                                                            additional outreach.
                                                                                  (*denotes lead agency)
Task	description                               Threat Responsible	Organization Status	and	Comments
                                                           FWS            Other
Communication plan and strategy                A, E   R4, ES, EA    RT-Outreach    Tasks and Funding requests
addresses the need for information                                  Team           are based on potential
at various levels and for various                                                  discoveries in other states,
stakeholders (e.g., birders, local citizens,                                       requiring additional outreach.
government agencies, industry).
Develop outreach tools to help private         A      R4, ES, EA    RT-Outreach    Tasks and Funding requests
landowners and land managers.                                       Team           are based on potential
                                                                                   discoveries in other states,
                                                                                   requiring additional outreach.
Develop and distribute species                 E      R4, R2, ES,   RT-Outreach    Tasks and Funding requests
identification brochures.                             RF, MB, EA    Team, NGOs,    are based on potential
                                                                    States         discoveries in other states,
                                                                                   requiring additional outreach.
Coordinate and cooperate with the              E                    CLO*           NGO action
government of Cuba regarding the status
and recovery of the Cuban population of
Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
Develop guidelines on the types of use         E      RF, MB        UNI, States    Guidelines will be assessed
and the timing and amount of activities                                            continually based on findings
in the vicinity of roost or nest trees and                                         and species status.
foraging habitat.
Develop public access and viewing points       E      R4, R2, ES,                The current focus is on the
such as boardwalks, towers, blinds and                MB, RF        NGOs, States Cache and White River NWRs.
Protect occupied habitat.                      A      R4, R2, ES,   States,        Complete additional land
                                                      RF            NGOs, PVT      acquisition, protection, and
                                                                                   management as needed
Develop guidelines for monitoring Ivory-       E      R4, R2, ES,   States, CLO    Initial protocols have been
billed Woodpecker nesting, roosting and               RF, MB                       developed and will be
feeding behavior.                                                                  reviewed annually or as
Assess the need for intervention               E      R4, ES*, MB CLO, NGOs        This depends on locating
to enhance reproductive success,                                                   birds for possible captive
productivity and survival.                                                         propagation. Partners such
                                                                                   as the San Diego Zoo will be
Determine the genetic health and viability     E      R4, ES        UNI            Costs are unknown and
of the population.                                                                 depend on obtaining
                                                                                   appropriate biological material.
Implement reforestation activities and         A      R4, R2, RF    States,     Complete where needed
forest management practices which will                              NGOs, NRCS, or as a part of current bird
benefit Ivory-billed Woodpecker and its                             PVT         conservation initiatives.
Use decision-support models and other          A, E   RE            NGOs           Complete where needed
biological planning tools to determine                                             or as a part of current bird
the need and location of additional land                                           conservation initiatives.
protection measures.
Protect priority lands identified in task.     A, E   RE            NGOs, PVT      Some examples for protecting
                                                                                   land are fee purchases,
                                                                                   easements, USDA agreements,
                                                                                   and voluntary landowner
                                                                                   agreements. Current
                                                                                   conservation initiatives can
                                                                                   incorporate this task.

IV.	 References
Allen, A. A. 1939. Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Pages 1-12 in Life Histories of North American Woodpeckers (A.
C. Bent, ed.). U. S. National Museum Bulletin 174.
                           . .
Allen, A. A. and Kellogg, P P 1937. Recent Observations on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Auk 54:164-184.
American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds. Sixth edition. Allen Press, Inc.,
Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.
Brown, C.R., C. Baxter, and D. N. Pashley. 1999. The Ecological Basis for the Conservation of Migratory
Birds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Pages 1-22 in Strategies for Bird Conservation: The Partners
in Flight Planning Process (R. Bonney, D. N. Pashley, R. J. Cooper, and L. Niles, eds). Cornell Lab of
Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.
Burleigh, T. D. 1958. Georgia Birds. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
Collinson, J. M. 2007. Video Analysis of the Escape Flight of Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus:
Does the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Campephilus principalis Persist in Continental North America? BMC
Biology 5:8. [online] URL:
Corning, H. 1929. Pages 40-83 in Journal of John James Audubon made during his trip to New Orleans in
1820-1821 (H. Corning, ed.). The Club of Odd Volumes, Boston.
Dennis, J. V 1948. A Last Remnant of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in Cuba. Auk 65(4):497-507.
Duever, M. J., J. E. Carlson, J. F. Meeder, L. C. Duever, L. H. Gunderson, L. A. Riopelle, T. R. Alexander, R.
L. Myers, and D. P Spangler. 1986. The Big Cypress National Preserve. Research Report No. 8, National
Audubon Society, New York.
Fitzpatrick, J. W., M. Lammertink, M. D. Luneau, Jr., T. W. Gallagher, B. R. Harrison, G. M. Sparling, K.
 .                                                     .
V Rosenberg, R. W. Rohrbaugh, E. C. H. Swarthout, P H. Wrege, S. B. Swarthout, M. S. Dantzker, R.
A. Charif, T. R. Barksdale, J. V Remsen, Jr., S. D. Simon, and D. Zollner. 2005. Ivory-billed Woodpecker
(Campephilus principalis) persists in continental North America. Science 308:1460-1462.
Fitzpatrick, J. W., M. Lammertink, M. D. Luneau, Jr., T. W. Gallagher, K. V Rosenberg. 2006. Response to
Comment on “Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) Persists in Continental North America”
(technical comment). Science 311:1555b.
                                      .                                                 .
Fleischer, R. C., J. J. Kirchman, J. P Dumbacher, L. Bevier, C. Dove, N. C. Rotzel, S. V Edwards, M.
Lammertink, K. J. Miglia, and W. S. Moore. 2006. Mid-Pleistocene Divergence of Cuban and North
American Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. Biol. Lett. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2006.0490. (Online pub.)
Garrido, O. H. and A. Kirkconnell. 2000. Field Guide to the Birds of Cuba. Cornell University Press, Ithaca,
New York. 272 pp.
Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is Ecosystem Management? Conservation Biology 8(1):27–38.
Hahn, P 1963. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus prinicipalis). Pages 236-266 in Where is that
Vanished Bird? An Index to the Known Specimens of the Extinct and Near Extinct North American
species. Royal Ontario Museum, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Hill, G. E., D. J. Mennill, B. W. Rolek, T. L. Hicks, and K. A. Swiston. 2006. Evidence Suggesting that Ivory-
billed Woodpeckers (Campephilus principalis) Exist in Florida. Avian Conservation and Ecology - Écologie
et conservation des oiseaux 1(3): 2. [online] URL:
Hasbrouck, E. M. 1891. The Present Status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Auk
Integrated Taxonomic Information System. 2008. ITIS Report for Campephilus principalis [online] URL: Last updated August 20, 2008. Accessed December 2, 2008.
Jackson, J. A. 1989. Past History, Habitats and Present Status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
(Campephilus principalis) in North America: A Final Report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service of Work
Completed. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 199 pp. + ill.
Jackson, J. A. 1996. Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Pages 103-112 In: Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida (J.
A. Rodgers, H. W. Kale II, and H. T. Smith, eds.). University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Jackson, J. A. 2002. Ivory-billed Woodpecker: Campephilus principalis. The Birds of North America, No.
711 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 28 pp. + ill.

Jackson, J. A. 2004. In Search of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C., 294pp.
+ ill.
Jackson, J. A. 2006. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis): Hope, and the Interfaces of
Science, Conservation, and Politics. Auk 123(1):1-15.
Kellison, R. C., M. J. Young, R. B. Braham, and E. J. Jones. 1998. Major Alluvial Floodplains. Pages 291-324
in Southern Forested Wetlands (M. G. Messina and W. H. Conner, eds.). Lewis Publishers, New York.
Komdeur, J. 2002. Daughters on Request: About Helpers and Egg Sexes in the Seychelles Warbler. [online]
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 270:3-11.
Lamb, G. R. 1957. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Cuba. Research report No. 1. Pan-American Section,
International Committee for Bird Conservation, New York.
Lammertink, M. 2004a. Grouping and Cooperative Breeding in the Great Slaty Woodpecker. Condor
Lammertink, M. 2004b. A Multiple-Site Comparison of Woodpecker Communities in Bornean Lowland and
Hill Forests. Conservation Biology 18(3):746-757.
Lammertink, M., K.V Rosenberg, J.W. Fitzpatrick, M.D. Luneau, Jr., T. W. Gallagher, and M. Dantzker.
2006. Detailed Analysis of the Video of a Large Woodpecker (the “Luneau video”) Obtained at Cache River
National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas, on 25 April 2004. Internet article located at http://www.birds.cornell.
edu/ivory/evidence/segments/segments. Originally published February 8, 2006. Updated February 22, 2006.
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Lammertink, M. 2007. Community Ecology and Logging Responses of Southeast Asian Woodpeckers
(Picidae, Aves). Ph.D thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
LMVJV Forest Resource Conservation Group. 2007. Restoration, Management, and Monitoring of Forest
Resources in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Recommendations for Enhancing Wildlife Habitat (R. Wilson,
K. Ribbeck, S. King, and D. Twedt, eds.). Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Lowery, G. H. 1974. Woodpeckers. Pages 415-419 in Louisiana Birds. Louisiana State University Press,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 651 pp.
Mangel, M., and C. Tier. 1994. Four Facts Every Conservation Biologist Should Know About Persistence.
Ecology 75(3):607-614.
Mattsson, B.J., R.S. Mordecai, M.J. Conroy, J.T. Peterson, R.J. Cooper, and H. Christensen. 2008.
Evaluating the Small Population Paradigm for Rare Large-bodied Woodpeckers, with Implications for the
Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Avian Conservation and Ecology - Écologie et conservation des oiseaux 3(2): 5.
[online] URL:
McIlhenny, E. A. 1941. The Passing of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Auk 58(4):582-584.
McKelvey, K. S., K. B. Aubry, and M. K. Schwartz. 2008. Using Anecdotal Occurrence Data for Rare
or Elusive Species: The Illusion of Reality and a Call for Evidentiary Standards. doi:10.1641/B580611.
BioScience 58(6):549-555.
Meffe, G. K., and C. R. Carroll. 1994. Principles of Conservation Biology. First edition. Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland, Massachusetts. 729 pp.
National Research Council. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. Committee on Scientific
Issues in the Endangered Species Act, Commission on Life Sciences. National Research Council. National
Academy Press, Washington, D. C. 271 pp.
Oberholser, H. C. 1938. The Bird Life of Louisiana. Bulletin of the Louisiana Department of Conservation
Oberholser, H. C. 1974. Ivory-billed Woodpecker, Campephilus principalis. Pages 527-530 in The Bird Life
of Texas. University of Texas, Austin, Texas.
Ojeda, V S. 2004. Breeding Biology and Social Behavior of Magellanic Woodpeckers (Campephilus
magellanicus) in Argentine Patagonia. European Journal of Wildlife Research 50:18-24.
Ruediger, B. 1971. Management Plan for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. Unpublished report for Compartment
20, Sam Houston National Forest. 6 pp.

Shackelford, C. E. 1998. A Compilation of Published Records of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Texas:
Voucher Specimens Versus Sight Records. Bulletin of the Texas Ornithological Society 31(2):34-41.
Sibley, D. A., L. R. Bevier, M. A. Patten, C. S. Elphick. 2006. Comment on “Ivory-billed Woodpecker
(Campephilus principalis) Persists in Continental North America” (technical comment). Science 311:1555a.
Snyder, N. F. R. 2007. An Alternative Hypothesis for the Cause of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s Decline.
Monograph No. 2. Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology, Camirillo, California.
Sprunt, A., and E. B. Chamberlain. 1949. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Pages 340-
342 in South Carolina Bird Life. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. 585 pp.
Tanner, James T. 1942. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Research Report No. 1. National Audubon Society,
New York. 111pp. + ill.
Tear, T. H., J. M. Scott, P H. Hayward, and B. Griffith. 1995. Recovery Plans and the Endangered Species
Act: Are Criticisms Supported by Data? Conservation Biology 9(1):182-195.
Turcotte, W. H., and D. L. Watts. 1999. Birds of Mississippi. University of Mississippi Press, Jackson,
Twedt, D. J. and W. B. Uihlein III. 2005. Landscape-level Reforestation Priorities for Forest Breeding
Landbirds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Pages 321-340 in Ecology and Management of Bottomland
Hardwood Systems: The State of Our Understanding (L. H. Fredrickson, S. A. King, and R. M. Kaminski,
eds.). Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Special Publication No. 10. University of Missouri-Columbia, Puxico,
Twedt, D. J., W. B. Uihlein III, and A. B. Elliott. 2006. A Spatially Explicit Decision Support Model for
Restoration of Forest Bird Habitat. Conservation Biology 20(1):100-110.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Priority Species Change Form: Ivory-billed Woodpecker
[unpublished]. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983a. Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidance. Federal Register 48:43098-43105.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983b. Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidelines Correction. Federal Register 48:51985.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Status Review on Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Endangered Species
Technical Bulletin 10(5):7.
U.S. Geological Survey, Unpublished Data. Retrospective Analysis of the Singer Tract. Barrow, W., L.
Handley, C. Wells, H. Baldwin, and T. Hatch. National Wetland Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana.
Wharton, M. E. 1945. Floristics and Vegetation of the Devonian-Mississippian Black Shale Region of
Kentucky. Ph.D. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
White, D. L. 2004. Deerskins and Cotton: Ecological Impacts of Historical Land Use in the Central
Savannah River Area of the Southeastern US Before 1950. Final Report to USDA Forest Service, Savannah
River, New Ellenton, SC. 324 pp.
Wilson, A. 1811. Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Pages 20-26..In: American Ornithology, Volume 4. Bradford and
Inskeep, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Winters, R. K., Putnam, J. A., and Eldredge, I.F. 1938. Forest Resources of the North-Louisiana Delta.
Miscellaneous Publication Number 309. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 50 pp.
Personal Communications
Denman, J., Forester, White River National Wildlife Refuge, St. Charles, Arkansas. Comment part of
Recovery Team member response to draft ivory bill recovery plan.
Kirkconnell, A. Curator, Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Cuba, Havana, Cuba. Personal
communication with Jon Andrew and Chuck Hunter of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the status of
the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Cuba. Conversation occurred during a seminar on Cuban birds given by
Arturo Kirkconnell at the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, on September 20-21, 2005.

Appendix A.
Members of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Team
and Their Affiliation

Laurie Fenwood, Coordinator         Steering Committee                 Biology Working Group
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service      of the Recovery Team               of the Recovery Team
Executive Committee                 Jon Andrew, Chair                  David Allen
of the Recovery Team                Regional Chief, NWRS               North Carolina Wildlife Resource
                                    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service     Commission
John Bridgeland                     Southeast Region
Civic Enterprises LLC                                                  Eric Baka
                                    Robert Cooper, Co-Chair            Louisiana Department of
Greg Butcher                        Warnell School of Forest           Wildlife and Fisheries
Audubon                             Resources, University of Georgia
                                                                       Laurel Barnhill
General Robert Crear                Tom Foti, Co-Chair                 Bird Conservation Coordinator
Army Corps of Engineers             Retired Research Chief, Arkansas   South Carolina Department of
Nancy DeLamar                       Natural Heritage Commission        Natural Resources
Vice President and State Director   David Goad, Co-Chair               Wylie Barrow
The Nature Conservancy -            Deputy Director, Arkansas Game     U.S. Geological Survey, National
Arkansas Field Office               and Fish Commission                Wetlands Research Center
Kirk Dupps                          Kenny Ribbeck, Co-Chair            Jim Bednarz
National Fish and Wildlife          Louisiana Department of            Arkansas State University
Foundation                          Wildlife and Fisheries
                                                                       Roger Clay
John Fitzpatrick                    Ken Rosenberg, Co-Chair            Alabama Division of Wildlife
Cornell Lab of Ornithology          Director, Conservation Science     and Fisheries
Sam Hamilton                        Program/ Partners In Flight
                                    Cornell Lab of Ornithology         Dwight Cooley
Regional Director,                                                     Project Leader
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,                                        Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge
Southeast Region
                                                                       Robert Cooper
Scott Henderson                                                        Co-Chair, Warnell School of
Director, Arkansas Game and                                            Forest Resources
Fish Commission                                                        University of Georgia
Tim Kelly                                                              Dean Demarest
National Geographic Global                                             Migratory Bird Management
Media Group                                                            U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Robert Nixon                                                           Southeast Region
Chairman, Earth Conservation                                           Richard Fischer
Corps                                                                  Environmental Laboratory
Regional Forester                                                      U.S. Army Engineer R & D
Southern Region, Forest Service                                        Center

Larry Wiseman                                                                  .
                                                                       Robert P Ford
American Forest Foundation                                             Supervisory Wildlife Biologist
                                                                       Memphis Migratory Bird Office
                                                                       U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                                                       Southeast Region
                                                                       Deborah Fuller
                                                                       Ecological Services
                                                                       Lafayette Field Office
                                                                       U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                                                       Southeast Region

Gary Graves                        Northeast Regional Coordinator,   Habitat Working Group
Department of Vertebrate Zoology   Cornell Lab of Ornithology        of the Recovery Team
National Museum of Natural
History, Smithsonian Institution   Dan Scheiman                      James Baker
                                   Bird Conservation Director        State Wildlife Biologist, Natural
Paul Hamel                         Audubon                           Resources Conservation Service
Center for Bottomland
Hardwoods Research                 Cliff Shackelford                 Martin Blaney
USDA Forest Service                Texas Parks and Wildlife          Arkansas Game and Fish
                                   Department                        Commission
Mike Harris
Chief, Nongame Wildlife and        Jim Tate                          Robert Bonnie
Natural Heritage Section           Retired Science Advisor to the    Environmental Defense
Georgia Department of Natural      Secretary, Department of the
                                   Interior                          George Bukenhofer
Resources, Wildlife Resources                                        Threatened and Endangered
Division                           Dan Twedt                         Species Program Manager
Richard Hines                      Wildlife Biologist                USDA Forest Service, Southern
Refuge Biologist                   US Geological Survey - Patuxent   Region
White River National Wildlife      Wildlife Research Center
                                                                     Jimmy Bullock
Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife     Michael Warriner                  International Paper Company
Service, Southeast Region          Arkansas Natural Heritage
                                   Commission                        Mike Carloss
Jerome Jackson                                                       Program Manager – Habitat
Florida Gulf Coast University      Randy Wilson                      Section, Louisiana Department
Whitaker Center, College of Arts   Lower Mississippi Valley Joint    of Wildlife and Fisheries
& Sciences                         Venture
                                                                     James Cummins
Douglas A. James                   Nick Winstead                     President, Mississippi River
Department of Biological           Bird Conservation Coordinator     Trust
Sciences, University of Arkansas   Mississippi Department of
                                   Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks    Jeff Denman
David Krementz, Arkansas                                             Forester, White River National
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife      Museum of Natural History
                                                                     Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and
Research Unit                      Mark Woodrey                      Wildlife Service, Southeast
Department of Biological           Research Coordinator/Biologist    Region
Sciences, University of Arkansas   Mississippi State University,
                                   Coastal Research and Extension    Todd Engstrom
Martjan Lammertink                                                   Florida State University
Cornell Lab of Ornithology         Center, Grand Bay National
                                   Estuarine Research Reserve        Tom Foti, Co-Chair
David Luneau                                                         Research Chief, Arkansas
University of Arkansas at Little                                     Natural Heritage Commission
                                                                     Leigh Fredrickson
David Mehlman                                                        Gaylord Memorial Laboratory
Director of Conservation                                             University of Missouri
Programs, The Nature
Conservancy, Migratory Bird                                          Larry Handley
Program                                                              National Wetlands Research
                                                                     Center, U.S. Geological Survey
Karl Miller
Florida Fish and Wildlife                                            John D. Hodges
Conservation Commission                                              Mississippi State University
Wildlife Research Library
                                                                     Chuck Hunter
Allen Mueller                                                        Regional Refuge Biologist
The Nature Conservancy,                                              U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Arkansas                                                             Southeast Region
Catherine Rideout                                                    Eric Johnson
Songbird Program Coordinator                                         Forester, Cache River National
Arkansas Game and Fish                                               Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and
Commission                                                           Wildlife Service, Southeast
Ken Rosenberg, Co-Chair
Director, Conservation Science                                       David Kulivan
Program/ Partners In Flight,                                         National Rifle Association

Bobby Maddrey                        Wendi Weber
Division Wildlife Biologist          Assistant Regional Director,
Georgia-Pacific Corporation          Ecological Services
                                     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jim Neal
Migratory Bird Management            Bently Wigley
Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife   National Council of the Paper
Service                              Industry for Air and Stream
David Pashley
American Bird Conservancy            Scott Yaich
                                     Director of Conservation
Mike Phillips                        Programs, Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
Turner Endangered Species
Fund                                 Doug Zollner
                                     The Nature Conservancy of
Bruce Reid                           Arkansas
Deputy State Director
National Audubon Society-
Mississippi State Office
Kenny Ribbeck, Co-Chair
Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries
Ron Rohrbaugh
Director, Ivory-billed Woodpecker
Research Project
Cornell Lab of Ornithology
Mike Scott
U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho
Cooperative Research Unit
Gregory J. Smith
Director, National Wetlands
Research Center, US Geological
Peter Stangel
National Fish & Wildlife
Foundation - Southeast Region
Mike Staten
Wildlife Manager, Anderson-
Tully Company
Mike Thomas
Management Chief, Louisiana
Department of Agriculture and
Forestry, Office of Forestry
Bill Uihlein
Lower Mississippi Valley Joint
Venture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Buck Vandersteen
Louisiana Forestry Association
Russell Watson
Field Supervisor, Lafayette
Ecological Services Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Southeast Region

Appendix B.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Statement on Existing Evidence
for Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis)
Occurrence in the Big Woods of Eastern Arkansas and
Elsewhere in the Southeast U.S.

Prepared by William C. Hunter,        Interpretation of the Evidence:         possible alternative explanations
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,       The Debate                              for sight records, the most likely
Atlanta, GA 30345                     One of the most significant,            alternative explanation involves
                                      yet controversial, wildlife             potential confusion with the much
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife            conservation events during the          more numerous and superficially
Service (FWS) recognizes that         first decade of the 21st Century        similar Pileated Woodpecker
substantial evidence for the          was the announcement by                 (Dryocopus pileatus). In
persistence of the Ivory-billed       Fitzpatrick et al. (2005) that at       fact, most reported sightings
Woodpecker (Campephilus               least one Ivory-billed Woodpecker       of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers
principalis) into the 21st            had been located in the Big Woods       in the past have turned out
Century emerged from recent           within the Mississippi Alluvial         to be misidentified Pileated
search efforts that began in          Valley. This announcement               Woodpeckers. Nevertheless,
eastern Arkansas (hereafter the       included the presentation of at         there are a number of sightings
Big Woods). The presentation          least seven detailed first-hand         before and since 1938 (when the
of this evidence triggered            accounts of presumably the              last definitive photo was taken
implementation of conservation        same individual male Ivory-             in the U.S.) that cannot be easily
provisions as stipulated by the       billed Woodpecker (Gallagher            dismissed raising the issue
Endangered Species Act of             2005, Rosenberg et al. 2005).           of whether all sightings were
1973, as amended. In the case         However, it was a four-second           mistakes in the past and are also
of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker,       video (“Luneau” video) of a large       mistakes in the present. That
these provisions include the          woodpecker flying away from             is an important issue described
development of a recovery plan,       the camera that has been the            elsewhere (see Appendix E).
consultation on all Federal actions   focus for most of the debate on         While detailed sightings and
proposed within the Big Woods,        whether or not this evidence was        auditory evidence remain
and working with conservation         conclusive (Jackson 2006, Sibley        important in evaluating whether
partners further searching            et al. 2006, 2007, Fitzpatrick et al.   or not Ivory-billed Woodpeckers
both in the Big Woods as well         2006, 2007, Collinson 2007).            may persist in an area, it is the
as throughout the historical                                                  Luneau video that is potentially
distribution of the species. The      Recorded auditory and repeated          the best hard evidence that at
FWS also recognizes that there        detailed sighting evidence              least one Ivory-billed Woodpecker
continues to be scientific debate     contributed to the original             was present in the Cache River
regarding the interpretation of       conclusion reached by Fitzpatrick       National Wildlife Refuge at least
this evidence. We take seriously      et al. (2005), but are not all by       in April of 2004.
our responsibility to promote         themselves considered conclusive.
conservation and potential            While recorded auditory evidence        Both Sibley et al. (2006) and
recovery of this species, while       continues to be suggestive of           Fitzpatrick et al. (2005, 2006)
recognizing that this evidence is     Ivory-billed Woodpecker (both           recognize that the identity of
not universally accepted within       “kent” calls and Campephilus-           the woodpecker in question is
the scientific community. With this   like double-knocks), careful            not inherently obvious. While
in mind, we remain committed          analyses are necessary to exclude       universal agreement on the
along with our conservation           a wide range of other alternative       identity of the woodpecker in
partners to promoting                 explanations from other plausible       the Luneau video may never
appropriate habitat protection        sources (see Jones et al. 2007          be possible, both Sibley et al.
and management based on an            and       (2006, 2007) and Fitzpatrick et
ecosystem approach that includes      ivory/multimedia/sounds/index_          al. (2006, 2007) remain confident
consideration for this very rare      html/document_view ). Sightings         that enough information can be
species, and supporting necessary     not accompanied by diagnostic           derived from the Luneau video
research to conserve this species     video or photographs, no matter         to reach an identification of the
and the ecosystem it depends          how detailed or how qualified           woodpecker in question. Sibley
upon in the Southeast U.S.            the observers, are all subject to       et al. (2006, 2007) stated that
                                      some level of doubt. While there        the video evidence is insufficient
                                      may be a wide range of remotely         to reject the null hypothesis of

a normally plumaged Pileated           support the identification of the     of known Pileated Woodpeckers,
Woodpecker and that “the               woodpecker in the Luneau video        that the Luneau video point by
evidence firmly supports this          as an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.        point does not match any known
hypothesis” in that it “cannot         These alternatives are: (1) an        normal Pileated Woodpecker.
be an ivory-billed woodpecker          abnormally white plumaged             They further concluded that there
and is consistent only with            Pileated Woodpecker, or (2) a         is broad consistency with what
a pileated woodpecker.” In             normally plumaged Pileated            would be expected with an Ivory-
contrast, Fitzpatrick et al. (2006,    Woodpecker. To date there has         billed Woodpecker.
2007) “disagree that Sibley et         been no published detailed
al. showed that the bird in the        analysis describing the bird          Sibley et al. (2006) countered
Luneau video ‘is consistent’ only      depicted in the Luneau video as       that the flapping models are not
with a pileated woodpecker,”           an abnormally white plumaged          realistic portrayals due to “stiff ”
“showed their analysis and             Pileated Woodpecker. Regardless,      wings. Instead, Sibley et al.
assumptions to be flawed or            the possibility of a white Pileated   (2006) presented an alternative
lacking on many counts,” and           Woodpecker was addressed              interpretation using mostly
“continue to regard all aspects        thoroughly by Rosenberg et            line drawings as support for
of the Luneau video as fully           al. (2006) and dismissed. The         the alternative that the bird
consistent with ivory-billed           challenge published by Sibley et      captured on film is a normal
woodpecker.“                           al. (2006) focuses on the second      Pileated Woodpecker. Since
                                       alternative by claiming the           there is extensive video footage
After weighing the various             identity of the woodpecker is         available of Pileated Woodpeckers
positions, the FWS accepts the         obscured due to the angle of the      in flight, careful review of this
interpretation of Fitzpatrick          bird relative to the camera along     footage (including videos cited by
et al. (2005, 2006, 2007). FWS         with flight mechanics.                Sibley et al. 2006) is compelling
concludes that other published                                               in demonstrating the flaws in the
interpretations by Sibley et           A critical interpretation of the      Sibley et al. (2006) interpretation
al. (2006), and by extension           Luneau video hinges on the            for the extensive amount of white
Collinson (2007), are based on         use of comparative materials.         on wings evident on most frames
misinterpretations of video            These materials include videos        in the Luneau video.
artifacts as plumage, and novel        and photographs of Pileated
interpretations of typical bird        and Ivory-billed Woodpeckers          While Sibley et al. (2006)
flight. In Collinson’s comparison      (the latter available only from       reject the use of flapping
of the Luneau video to videos of       the archives at the Cornell           models as comparable to flying
known Pileated Woodpeckers             Laboratory of Ornithology and         woodpeckers, it is instructive
in flight, we believe the              based on the work of A. A. Allen      to note that the Pileated
misinterpretations also include        and colleagues during the 1930s),     Woodpecker model closely
inappropriate comparison of            the use of mounted specimens          matches actual downstroke video
interlaced images of known             and museum skins, models, and         images of Pileated woodpeckers
Pileated Woodpeckers in flight         illustrations. Both Sibley et al.     and not the downstroke images
with the de-interlaced images of       (2006) and Fitzpatrick et al.         of the woodpecker in the Luneau
the woodpecker in the Luneau           (2006) used most of these types       video (Fitzpatrick et al. 2006,
video. While other interpretations     of comparative materials, but         Lammertink et al. 2006). The
of the Luneau video may yet            only Fitzpatrick et al. (2005)        black trailing edges on the
emerge, to date no video of an         analyzed the Luneau video using       underwing are evident in many
actual Pileated Woodpecker             customized “flapping” life-sized      frames in all these videos of
exhibits from frame to frame the       models for both Pileated and          Pileated woodpecker, regardless
same plumage characteristics and       Ivory-billed Woodpeckers.             of the quality of video or the
flight mechanics exhibited by the                                            camera angle. Even when the
woodpecker in the Luneau video.        Specifically, Fitzpatrick et al.      black trailing edge disappears
                                       (2006, also see Lammertink et         in certain frames, it quickly
FWS review of the                      al. 2006) used these flapping         reappears and is apparent in
David Luneau Video Evidence            models under conditions similar       virtually every wingbeat. This is
Support for the hypothesis             to those when the Luneau              not the case with the woodpecker
that the Luneau video captures         video was taken. This allowed         captured in the Luneau video.
an Ivory-billed Woodpecker             an experimental comparison            In all the videos of Pileated
is appropriate when possible           of what should be expected in         Woodpeckers, the consistent
alternative hypotheses have been       video images from a normally          “twisting” wing flight style as
reviewed and rejected. The null        plumaged Pileated Woodpecker          proposed by Sibley et al. (2006) is
hypothesis in this case is that the    and a normally plumaged Ivory-        undetectable. In particular, it is
Luneau video captures a Pileated       billed Woodpecker during the          the upperwing, not the underwing,
Woodpecker. There are two              wing downstroke. Fitzpatrick et       that is most apparent in both
widely suggested alternatives of       al. (2005, 2006, 2007) concluded,     upstroke and downstroke when
this null hypothesis that need to      using direct comparisons between      a woodpecker is flying level or
be rejected before it is possible to   models, specimens, and videos         rising relative to the line of sight

of the camera (as the woodpecker       and extensive white in the wings       In conclusion, the FWS accepts
does in the Luneau video).             (more than is typical for Pileated     the original Fitzpatrick et
                                       Woodpecker) could reasonably           al. (2005) interpretation of
However, some key features             escape being definitively              the Luneau video and other
proposed by Fitzpatrick et al.         photographed since 1938 (Tanner        evidence gathered during
(2005) as diagnostic are not           1942, Jackson 2004). This              the last five years as the best
necessarily so. Specifically, the      question becomes more important        information available to support
extrapolated size of the perched       as search efforts over five years,     the hypothesis that Ivory-billed
bird prior to launching (which if      while leading to additional            Woodpecker has persisted into
correct would eliminate Pileated       potential encounters, have failed      the 21st Century. On the basis
Woodpecker as a possibility) could     to reliably locate Ivory-billed        of this conclusion, the FWS will
be subject to several differing        Woodpeckers in Arkansas. Similar       continue to appropriately act
interpretations, including the         results have occurred with             on behalf of the Ivory-billed
possibility that the woodpecker        organized searches in Florida,         Woodpecker under the authority
was already in flight when it          South Carolina, Tennessee,             of the Endangered Species Act of
first appeared in the Luneau           Texas, and Louisiana (USFWS            1973, as amended.
video (Sibley et al. 2005, 2007).      2006, 2007, Hill et al. 2006), again
Nevertheless, once the video           despite similar increases in the
artifacts are dismissed, the           number of potential encounters
woodpecker in the Luneau video,        in several of these states across
when it first becomes visible, still   the historical range of the species
shows characteristics consistent       (more detail provided in Appendix
with Ivory-billed Woodpecker and       E.). So while we cannot conclude
not with Pileated Woodpecker           that a population of Ivory-billed
(i.e., lack of any indication of       Woodpeckers is established
black secondaries), regardless of      in this region, any declaration
whether it is the underwing or the     proclaiming the Ivory-billed
upperwing in view (Fitzpatrick         Woodpecker is extinct would be
et al. 2006, Lammertink et al.         premature.
2006). All videos of launching
Pileated Woodpeckers at roughly        The FWS recognizes and
comparable angles invariably           supports exchanges of views on
exhibit clear evidence of black        alternative interpretations as
secondaries.                           a part of the scientific process,
                                       and we understand that the
Conclusion                             accumulated information in
The FWS has made every
                                       Fitzpatrick et al. (2005) will
effort to objectively review
                                       continue to be questioned as
published interpretations of the
                                       constituting confirmation of the
Luneau video. Our review of the
                                       species’ persistence in eastern
presented arguments leads us
                                       Arkansas. We will review any new
to conclude that the alternative
                                       published information to ensure
interpretations of Sibley et al.
                                       that our conclusions and actions
(2006) and Collinson (2007) fail to
                                       supported by the best available
credibly support their assertion
                                       information. Although the FWS
that the woodpecker in the
                                       continues to welcome constructive
Luneau video could reasonably
                                       debate over the interpretation of
be a Pileated Woodpecker.
                                       the Luneau video, the repeated
Subsequent published analyses
                                       potential visual and auditory
with additional comparative video
                                       encounters alone in the Big Woods
footage or the use of improved
                                       of Arkansas and elsewhere within
(including computer generated)
                                       the historical range of the species
models may lead to new insights
                                       cumulatively present enough
into the identification of the
                                       evidence to support the region-
woodpecker in the Luneau video.
                                       wide search effort. In addition,
Regardless of the debate over          the potential presence of this
the Luneau video, the lack             species justifies continuing habitat
of more definitive evidence            conservation and restoration
would understandably lead to           efforts that were already well
increasing doubt about the initial     underway in eastern Arkansas
reports from 2004 and 2005. The        before any recent evidence of the
question that must be addressed        Ivory-billed Woodpecker became
is whether a large species of          known to the FWS.
woodpecker with a black body

Literature Cited
Collinson, J. M. 2007. Video Analysis of the Escape Flight of Pileated Woodpecker

Drycocopus pileatus: Does the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Campephilus principalis Persist in Continental
North America? BMC Biology 2007 5:8.

Fitzpatrick, J. W., M. Lammertink, M. D. Luneau, Jr., T. W. Gallagher, B. R. Harrison, G. M. Sparling, K. V.
Rosenberg, R. W. Rohrbaugh, E. C. H. Swarthout, P H. Wrege, and others. 2005. Ivory-billed Woodpecker
(Campephilus principalis) Persists in Continental North America. Science 308:1460-1462.

Fitzpatrick, J. W., M. Lammertink, M. D. Luneau, Jr., T. W. Gallagher, and K. V Rosenberg. 2006. Response
to Comment on “Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) Persists in Continental North
America.” Science 311:1555b.

Fitzpatrick, J. W., M. Lammertink, M. D. Luneau, K. V Rosenberg, T. W. Gallagher, and R. W. Rohrbaugh.
2007. Response to Sibley et al. 2007. Science 315:1496.

Gallagher, T. W. 2005. The Grail Bird. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

Hill, G. E., D. J. Mennill, B. W. Rolek, T. L. Hicks, and K. A. Swiston. 2006. Evidence Suggesting that Ivory-
billed Woodpeckers (Campephilus principalis) exist in Florida. Avian Conservation and Ecology 1(3):2.

Jackson, J. A. 2004. In search of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C.

Jackson, J. A. 2006. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis): Hope, and the Interfaces of
Science, Conservation, and Politics. Auk 123:1-15.

Jones, C. D., J. R. Troy, and L. Y Pomara. 2007. Similarities between Campephilus Woodpecker double-
raps and mechanical sounds produced by duck flocks. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119:259-262.

Lammertink, M., K. V Rosenberg, J. W. Fitzpatrick, M. D. Luneau, Jr., T. W. Gallagher, and M. Dantzker.
2006. Detailed Analysis of the Video of a Large Woodpecker (the “Luneau video”) Obtained at Cache River
National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas, on 25 April 2004. [Online.] Available at

Rosenberg, K. V M. Lammertink, K. Brady, S. Bass, and U. Setiorini. 2006. White Pileated Woodpecker
Documented in the Big Woods. {Online.] Available at

Sibley, D., L. R. Bevier, M. A. Patten, and C. S. Elphick. 2006. Comment on “Ivory-billed Woodpecker
(Campephilus principalis) Persists in Continental North America.” Science 311:1555a.

Sibley, D., L. R. Bevier, M. A. Patten, and C. S. Elphick. 2007. Ivory-bill or Pileated Woodpecker. Letter to
Science 315:1495.

Tanner, J. T. 1942. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Research Report Number 1. National Audubon Society,
New York, New York.

USFWS. 2006. Ivory-billed Woodpecker Search Season Summary for 2005-2006.

USFWS. 2007. Ivory-billed Woodpecker Search Season Summary for 2006-2007.

Appendix C. Expenditures and Accomplishments
to Date of This Draft Recovery Plan

Table C-1.
   Received $1,135,945
                                                    FUNDS        ORG
   Recovery Plan, Team                 EXPENDED     TARGETED     CODE    PARTNER/OFFICE                      ACCOMPLISHMENT

   NWR, RO existing staff/recovery                                                                   Planning, inventory, management,
   needs, Recovery Plan Draft          $   83,360   Refuges RO   40130   White River NWR             support stakeholder and team meetings
                                                                                                     Planning, inventory, management,
                                       $ 46,168     Refuges RO   40130   Cache River NWR             support stakeholder and team meetings
                                       $ 129,528

   Search Teams                                                                                      State Searches

                                                    Athens               Field Office, GA Dept of
   Georgia                             $   28,312   ESFO         41460   Natural Resources           Georgia Search
                                                    Charleston           Field Office, Nature
   South Carolina                      $   75,000   ESFO         42410   Conservancy                 South Carolina Search
                                                                         Field Office, LA Wildlife
                                                    Lafayette            Department, Operation
   Louisiana and Arkansas              $   51,108   ESFO         43440   Migration                   Lousianna Search, Arkansas Search
                                                                         Cornell University          Technology support and coordination by
   Louisiana and Arkansas              $ 138,000    Refuges RO   40130   Laboratory of Ornithology   Cornell, Arkansas Search
   Alabama                             $ 50,000     RO           40120   USGeological Survey         Alabama/Florida Search
                                                                         Gulf Coast Bird
   Texas                               $ 100,000    Refuges RO   40130   Observatory                 Texas Search
                                       $ 442,420

   Biological Planning
   Development of a Population                      LMV JV               University of Georgia,
   Viability Model P1                  $ 9,000.00   office       47750   Athens                      Complete-report provided
                                                                          1                          Work completed-- model assumptions
   Development of a Foraging                        LMV JV                                           and parameters developed, based on
   Energetics Model P2                 $ 9,000.00   office       47750   see above                   forest habitat inventory
   Cache/Lower White Habitat
   Characterization and Assessment                                       Arkansas Game and Fish
   Phase II L1                         $15,000.00   Refuges      40130   Commission                  Work completed--habitat mapping

                                                                                                     Preliminary layers to search teams,
                                                                                                     additional field data collection needed,
                                                                                                     next steps will develop decision support
                                                                                                     tools. Training on Data Analysis
                                                                                                     completed, large amount of data to
   MAV Habitat Characterization and                 LMV JV                                           handle, issue with geo-location on field
   Decision Support Model L2 and C1    $39,000.00   office       47750   Ducks Unlimited             data
   Ecological Dynamics of Tree                                                                       Completed, FWS contribution to $75,000
   Mortality and Forest Regeneration                LMV JV                                           project-management scenarios,
   R1                                  $ 5,000.00   office       47750   US Geological Survey        mortality--2-3 year project
   Development of a Range Wide
   Potential Occupancy Model P5 and                 LMV JV                                           Draft model developed,
   L7                                  $40,000.00   office       47750   US Geological Survey        circulated/revised

   Assessment of IBWP and other                                                                      Point count surveys completed, to be
   breeding birds relative to forest                LMV JV               Univ of AR $30,150          coupled with ground based stand
   structure and composition R5        $30,150.00   office       47750   401816J047                  inventory and lidar data

                                                                                                     Partnership with NASA, UMD, lidar
                                                                                                     flights completed, Spatial analysis of
   Cache/Lower White Forest                         LMV JV               University of Maryland,     existing conditions, support tools will
   Structure Mapping Project L4        $78,570.00   office       47750   NASA                        allow better focus of restoration efforts

                                                                                                     Under development--real time tracking of
                                                                                                     habitat conditions using forest
   Development of a Web-enabled                                                                      management and inventory data in a
   Forest Management Geodatabase                    LMV JV                                           user-friendly environment-expertise
   M3                                  $79,240.00   office       47750
                                                                         US Geological Survey        provided by USGS

   Assessment of Attack Rates and                   LMV JV               US Department of            Part of larger Forest Service Project on
   Density of Wood-boring Beetles R4   $15,000.00   office       47750   Agriculture                 tree mortality/insects

   Recovery Activities
                                                                 47      Salary, Travel, Printing    Field and Regional Office staff support--
                                                                         (includes                   coordinated recovery actions, developed
M3                                  $79,240.00   office         47750   US Geological Survey       provided by USGS

Assessment of Attack Rates and                   LMV JV                 US Department of           Part of larger Forest Service Project on
Density of Wood-boring Beetles R4   $15,000.00   office         47750   Agriculture                tree mortality/insects

Recovery Activities
                                                                        Salary, Travel, Printing   Field and Regional Office staff support--
                                                                        (includes                  coordinated recovery actions, developed
Staff time                             $72,209   ES RO          40120   ClemsonUniversity)         partnerships, assisted search efforts
                                       $49,904   ESFO           43440   Salary, Travel
                                       $63,953   ESFO           43421   Salary, Travel

TOTAL 1113 FUNDS                     $1,077,974
                                    TOTAL OBLIGATIONS


The remaining funds noted above have been used for Dec/Jan FY 07 Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Projects


Table C-2.
   Received $1,182,000
                                                       FUNDS         ORG
   Recovery Plan, Team                   EXPENDED      TARGETED      CODE    PARTNER/OFFICE                     ACCOMPLISHMENT

   RO existing staff/recovery actions,                                                                   Planning, management, support search
   technical assistance, Recovery                                                                        and team meetings, technical
   Plan Draft, and search support        $   58,482    Refuges RO    40130   Regional Office, Refuges    assistance, and analysis
                                                                                                         Planning, management, support
                                                                                                         stakeholder and team meetings, search
                                                                             Regional Office,            coordination, agreements, technical
                                         $ 146,720     ES RO         40120   Ecological Services         assistance, and analysis
                                                                                                         Manage Public Comment process, draft
   Lead Field Office Plan Support        $   77,916                          Lafayette ES Field Office   plan support
                                                                                                         Contract for Peer Review Process-
   Peer Review                           $ 18,000      ES RO         40120   The Wildlife Society        completed
                                         $ 301,118

   Search Teams                                                                                          State Searches

                                                       Athens                Transferred funds to
   Georgia                               $        -    ESFO          41460   Charleston                  Georgia Search
                                                       Charleston            Field Office, Nature
   South Carolina                        $   67,691    ESFO          42410   Conservancy , NPS           South Carolina Search
                                                                             White River National
   Arkansas                              $   54,239    WRNWR         43670   Wildlife Refuge             Arkansas Search

                                                       Conway                TNC, AUD-Arkansas,          Arkansas Search (Some funds to be
   Arkansas                              $   39,700    ESFO          43421   AFGC                        used for Helicopter search 2008)
                                                                             Cornell University
                                                       Lafayette             Laboratory of               Technology support and coordination by
   Arkansas                              $ 225,000     ESFO          43440   Ornithology                 Cornell, Arkansas Search
                                                                             US Geological Survey-       Florida Search (FWC search supported
   Florida                               $ 100,000     RO            40120   4
                                                                             Auburn University           by 2006 carryover funds-$43,000
                                                                             Gulf Coast Bird
   Texas                                 $   16,000    R2            40130   Observatory                 Texas Search
                                                       Cookeville            TN DNR, Hatchie
   Tennessee                             $    4,000    ESFO           4230   National Wildlife Refuge    Tennessee Search
                                                       Lafayette             LA Department of            Louisiana Search (Some funds to be
   Louisiana                             $   50,000    ESFO          43440   Wildlife and Fisheries      used for Helicopter search 2008)
                                                                             MS Department of
                                                       Jackson               Wildlife, Fisheries, and    Mississippi Search(Some funds to be
   Mississippi                           $   30,000    ESRO          43910   Parks                       used for Helicopter search 2008)
                                                                             Cypress Creek National
                                                                             Wildlife Refuge, IL DNR,
   Illinois                              $    9,850    R3                    IL Natural History Survey   Illinois Reconnaisance Search
                                                                                                         North Carolina Search for 2008
   North Carolina                        $   71,784    ES RO         40120   Audubon North Carolina      agreement

                                         $ 668,264

   Biological Planning

   Search Survey Design and                                                  University of Georgia,
   Development of Occupancy Model        $ 112,777     USGS          40120   Athens                      Continuing Model development
   Surrogate Species Study Pileated
   Woodpecker Productivity and                                               Arkansas State
   Ecology                               $   56,500    ES RO         40120   University                  First Year of Study completed

                                         $ 169,277

   Recovery Activities                                                                                   Field and Regional Office staff support
                                                                                                         recovery actions such as brochures,
   Outreach                                  $17,667   ES RO         40120   Salary, Travel, Printing    partnerships, web management
                                                       Tensas                                            Interpretive Kiosk plus $11,925 with RO
   Education                                 $15,954   NWR           43690   Salary, Travel              for Tensas traveling display design)
   Support Refuge Management                  $2,975   NWR                   Helicopter Use


   TOTAL 1113 FUNDS                    $1,175,255                            TOTAL OBLIGATIONS
   The remaining funds noted above have been used for Dec/Jan FY 08 Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Projects

                                                                     49      White River NWR, USDA
   Challenge Cost Share Project          $   30,000    Refuges               Forest Service              Decay and Beetle infestation study

TOTAL 1113 FUNDS                    $1,175,255                            TOTAL OBLIGATIONS
The remaining funds noted above have been used for Dec/Jan FY 08 Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Projects

                                                                        White River NWR, USDA
Challenge Cost Share Project          $    30,000    Refuges            Forest Service            Decay and Beetle infestation study

Lower Mississippi Joint Venture Line Item Projects $396,000 Appropriated

                                                                                                  Development of PNV maps for planning
                                                                                                  habitat restoration in the region, and
MAV Habitat Characterization                                                                      specifically for restoration of potential
Habitat expanded by Mapping the                                                                   Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat. This
Potential Natural Vegetation (PNV)                                      Contracted with the US    area is additional potential habitat
of the Tensas Basin and                                                 Army Corps of             outside of Arkansas, particularly in
Mississippi River in Northeastern                    LMV JV             Engineers, 5 Oaks         Louisiana and Mississippi. Study
Louisiana.                                $100,000   office     47750   Wildlife Services         underway.
                                                                        US Geological Survey,
Development of a Range Wide                          LMV JV             Colorado State
Potential Habitat Suitability Model   $24,000.00     office     47750   University                Improved model under development
Assessment of IBWP and other                                                                      Point count surveys completed, to be
breeding birds relative to forest                    LMV JV             Univ of AR $30            coupled with ground based stand
structure and composition R5          $30,150.00     office     47750   401816J047                inventory and lidar data

                                                                                                  Under development--tracking of habitat
                                                                                                  conditions using forest management and
Remotely Sensed Data                                                                              inventory data at the compartment level
Interpretation, Forest Structure                                         6                        using remotely sensed data, Forest
Mapping, Management Decision                                                                      Composition and stress mapping
Support Tool Development,                                                                         (AVIRIS), Forest structure mapping
Science Workshop, Historical                         LMV JV             National Wetlands         (LiDAR) Development of 1-2 workshops
Habitat Analysis                      $ 121,000      office     47750   Research Center           for IBWO science updates

Assessment of Attack Rates and                       LMV JV             US Department of          Part of larger Forest Service Project on
Density of Wood-boring Beetles R4     $    15,000    office     47750   Agriculture               tree mortality/insects
GIS Product Development and                          LMV JV
Data Dissemination                         $20,000   office     47750   The Nature Conservancy    Under development
                                                                                                  Development of agreements, Project
                                                     LMV JV                                       Officer and management, technology
Project Management Support            $    95,850    office     47750                             transfer, financial accountability


Table C-3.

                              $1,163,561   Appropriated
                                                          FUNDS             ORG
             Recovery Plan, Team           EXPENDED       TARGETED          CODE    PARTNER/OFFICE                    ACCOMPLISHMENT
             RO existing staff/recovery
             actions, technical
             assistance, Recovery                                                                              Planning, management, support
             Plan Draft, and search                                                 Regional Office,           search and team meetings, technical
             support                       $   55,484     Refuges RO        40130   Refuges                    assistance, and analysis
                                                                                                               Planning, management, support
                                                                                                               stakeholder and team meetings,
                                                                                    Regional Office,           search coordination, agreements,
                                           $ 152,850      ES RO             40120   Ecological Services        technical assistance, and analysis
             Lead Field Office Plan                                                 Lafayette ES Field         Manage Public Comment process,
             Support                       $ 77,916                                 Office                     draft plan support
                                           $ 286,250

             Search Teams                                                                                      State Searches
                                                          Charleston                Field Office, Nature
             South Carolina                $   76,132     ESFO              42410   Conservancy , NPS          South Carolina Search
                                                                                    White River National
             Arkansas                      $    5,000     WRNWR             43670   Wildlife Refuge            Arkansas Search
                                                                                    Cornell University          Technology support and coordination
             Arkansas and Regional                                                  Laboratory of              by Cornell, Arkansas Search, Mobile
             Search                        $ 225,000      ES RO             43440   Ornithology                Search Team
                                                                                    USGeological Survey-       Florida Search (FWC search
             Florida                       $ 101,932      ES RO             40120   Auburn University          supported by 2006 carryover funds
                                                                                    Gulf Coast Bird
             Texas                         $   93,000     R2                40130   Observatory                Texas Search
                                                                                    TN DNR, Hatchie
                                                          Cookeville                National Wildlife
             Tennessee                     $   18,000     ESFO               4230   Refuge                     Tennessee Search
                                                          Lafayette                 LA Department of           Louisiana Search (Some funds were
             Louisiana                     $   66,380     ESFO              43440   Wildlife and Fisheries     used for Helicopter search 2008)
                                                                                    MS Department of
                                                          Jackson                   Wildlife, Fisheries, and   Mississippi Search $30,000 2007
             Mississippi                                  ESRO              43910
                                                                               8    Parks                      Funds
                                                                                    Cypress Creek
                                                                                    National Wildlife
                                                                                    Refuge, IL DNR, IL
             Illinois                      $   30,000     ES RO                     Natural History Survey     Illinois Reconnaisance Search
                                                                                    Audubon North              North Carolina Search for 2008
             North Carolina                               ES RO             40120   Carolina                   agreement
                                                                                                               $71,784 2007 Funds
                                           $ 615,444

             Biological Planning
             Surrogate Species Study
             Pileated Woodpecker                                                    Arkansas State
             Productivity and Ecology      $   56,500     ES RO             40120   University                 Second Year of Study completed

                                           $   56,500

             Recovery Activities
                                                                                                               Field and Regional Office staff support
                                                                                    Salary, Travel,            recovery actions such as brochures,
             Outreach                                     ES RO             40120   Printing                   partnerships, web management
                                                                                                               Interpretive Kiosk (FY 2007 and
                                                          Tensas                                               $11,925 with RO for Tensas traveling
             Education                                    NWR                                                  display design)
             Support Refuge
             Management                         $1,500                                                         Hunt Brochures


             LMJV Projects                 $ 200,000


TOTAL 1113 FUNDS            $1,159,694                          OBLIGATIONS
FUNDS REMAINING AT END OF FY                   $3,867
The remaining funds noted above have been used for Dec/Jan FY 09 Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Projects

Lower Mississippi Joint Venture Projects $200,000 Appropriated

MAV Habitat                                                                              Development of PNV maps for
Characterization Habitat                                                                 planning habitat restoration in the
expanded by Mapping the                                                                  region, and specifically for restoration
Potential Natural                                                                        of potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker
Vegetation (PNV) of the                                          Contracted with the     habitat. This area is additional
Tensas Basin and                                                 US Army Corps of        potential habitat outside of Arkansas,
Mississippi River in                      LMV JV                 Engineers, 5 Oaks       particularly in Louisiana and
Northeastern Louisiana.         $50,000   office        47750    Wildlife Services       Mississippi. Study underway.
Development of a Range                                           US Geological Survey,
Wide Potential Habitat                    LMV JV                 Colorado State          Improved model under development
Suitability Model                         office        47750    University              (2007 Funds)
Assessment of Attack
Rates and Density of                      LMV JV                 US Department of        Part of larger Forest Service Project
Wood-boring Beetles R4     $   15,000     office        47750    Agriculture             on tree mortality/insects
Cache/Lower White
Habitat structure
Characterization and
Assessment Phase II L1     $    5,000
GIS Product Development                   LMV JV                 The Nature
and Data Dissemination          $20,000   office        47750    Conservancy             Under development
                                                                                         Development of agreements, Project
Project Management                        LMV JV                                         Officer and management, technology
Support                    $ 110,000      office        47750                            transfer, financial accountability



Table C-4.

Appendix D
Research Projects Completed or Underway
in Response to Recovery Outline/Implementation Actions

The following are abstracts of         four treatments involving            Service, Rocky Mountain
papers presented at the Ivory-         progressively greater wounds to      Research Station, Fort Collins,
billed Woodpecker Science              living trees. Wounded trees will     CO 80526
Symposium on June 10, 11, 12,          be harvested at two exposure
2008 at the National Wetlands          intervals after one wounding         ABSTRACT: Rediscovery of
Research Center in Lafayette,          and placed into emergence            once thought extinct species is
Louisiana. Most of the authors         cages. Three samples from each       more common than we may think.
plan to publish their results in the   tree will assess emergence of        Within the last few decades,
future.                                insects over a five-year period      over 30 species that were once
                                       to accommodate long-lived            thought vanquished from the
TITLE: Food of Ivory-Billed            larvae. Expected results involve     biota have been rediscovered.
Woodpecker: Experimental               determination of expected            These rediscovered species are
Determination of Attack Rates of       biomass, species composition,        often found on islands or are
Cerambycid Prey on Forest Trees        energy return, and nutritive value   local endemics. The Ivory-billed
in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley     of larval wood-boring insects        Woodpecker is an exception
                                       in early stages of infestation       to this pattern because it had
AUTHORS: Paul B. Hamel1                                                     a widespread historical range
and Nathan M. Schiff1, Ellen           after injury, when Ivory-billed
                                       Woodpeckers are believed to have     that spanned portions of up to
Green4, Annie Spikes2, Matt                                                 13 states from east Texas to
Ginzel2, Wiley C. Barrow3,             a competitive advantage over
                                       other woodpeckers in extracting      southeastern North Carolina.
Clinton W. Jeske3, Thomas C.                                                Monitoring to confirm rediscovery
Michot3, Heather Q. Baldwin3,          these foods. Generation of large
                                       numbers of the supposedly            of a wide ranging species would
Jennifer K. DiMiceli3 and                                                   benefit from searches informed
Tyson L. Hatch3. 1U. S. Forest         preferred Hardwood stump
                                       borer (Mallodon dasystomus           by measures of habitat suitability
Service, Southern Research                                                  derived from spatially extensive
Station, Center for Bottomland         dasystomus) will demonstrate
                                       how food supply for Ivory-           forest inventories. This project
Hardwoods Research, P O. Box                                                developed a range-wide habitat
227, 432 Stoneville Rd., Stoneville,   billed Woodpeckers can be
                                       enhanced by specific tree            suitability model derived from
MS 38776 USA, 2 Department of                                               historical accounts, primarily
Entomology, Purdue University,         wounding treatments. To
                                       date, approximately 180 of 192       from the Singer Tract. The model
901 W. State St., West Lafayette,                                           was structured as a decision
IN 47907-2089. 3USGS National          emergence cages have been
                                       constructed, and 24 of 96 trees      tree with threshold values for
Wetlands Research Center, 700                                               classifying U.S. Forest Service
Cajundome Blvd., Lafayette,            harvested and put into them.
                                       Additional work on pheromones of     Forest Inventory and Analysis
LA 70506,                                                  data as “suitable” or “unsuitable”, 4 Delta State       Mallodon, and energetic value of
                                       this, of the carpenter worm, and     habitat. Because food is the
University, Greenville, MS                                                  likely limiting factor affecting
                                       other species has been initiated.
ABSTRACT: This is a bundled                                                 occupancy, our model focused
project including a primary            TITLE: Searching For Where To        on attributes of foraging habitat
study of attack rates of               Search: Sifting Forest Inventories   including forest type, tree size
Cerambycid beetles and other           For Singer Tracts                    distribution, foraging substrate,
wood boring insects as potential                                            and landscape context to identify
                                       AUTHORS: Flather, Curtis             potentially suitable habitat.
prey organisms of Ivory-billed         H.†, Jeff A. Tracey‡, Barry R.
Woodpeckers, with a growing                                                 Uncertainty was incorporated
                                       Noon‡, Raymond Sheffield§, and       into the model by estimating
number of collateral projects          Michael S. Knowles*†USDA,
made possible by the initial                                                distributions of threshold values
                                       Forest Service, Rocky Mountain       for these attributes based on data
design. The primary study              Research Station, Fort Collins,
addresses the concern that food                                             from historical accounts. This
                                       CO 80526; ‡Department of             permitted the mapping of suitable
availability is a likely limiting      Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation
factor for the woodpecker. By a                                             habitat probabilities across
                                       Biology, Colorado State              the South. Spatially explicit
carefully controlled experiment        University, Fort Collins, CO
using randomly selected trees,                                              comparisons of model predictions
                                       80523; §USDA, Forest Service,        against the Big Woods search
we assess the response of              Southern Research Station,
wood-boring insects producing                                               area and historical locations
                                       Asheville, NC 28802;*Anadarko        provided initial validation of
medium and large larvae to             Industries, USDA, Forest             model performance. Probability
maps of suitable habitat were        the Pearl River by organized          ABSTRACT: The rediscovery of
generated for Alabama, South         searches during 2002, though          the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in
Carolina, Mississippi, and Florida   disappointing, was not without        the bottomland hardwood forests
to inform the 2007/2008 mobile       precedent. In contrast to all         of eastern Arkansas prompted
search teams.                        Twentieth Century reports             a reexamination of management
                                     (besides the Singer Tract), initial   practices and habitat
TITLE: Evaluating Evidence of        visual encounters during 2004         improvement efforts. Lack of
Persistence for Ivory-billed         in Arkansas were repeated             suitable foraging sites (near-dead
Woodpecker (Campephilus              by experienced observers but          trees inhabited by cerambycid
principalis) in the Southeastern     always with brief glimpses of         larvae) is often cited as one
United States From 1900 to the       a flying bird (presumably the         reason for its initial decline.
Present.                             same male bird). The public 2005      As part of an effort to increase
AUTHOR: William C. Hunter.           announcement of Ivory-billed          suitable forage for Ivory-billed
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,      Woodpecker persistence (of at         Woodpecker, we implemented
1875 Century Boulevard, Suite        least one male bird) in Arkansas      a morticulture project in which
420, Atlanta, GA 30345. 404/679      energized searches for this           614 bottomland hardwood trees
7130 (office) 770/331 4475 (cell)    species across the southeastern       were treated with girdles or                 U.S. from the Carolinas, Georgia,     glyphosate injections. Treatments
                                     Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana,      were performed in 2005 and
ABSTRACT: The persistence            Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas, and       2006, and trees were monitored
of Ivory-billed Woodpecker in        Illinois. Results thus far include    annually for signs of impending
the Twentieth Century is firmly      many additional potential visual      mortality. An associated monthly
documented with many specimens       and auditory encounters. To date,     Picidae-oriented point count
prior to 1920, two specimens and     none of these reports provide         was conducted in four of the
photos in 1924 (of a pair in east-   any better evidence than the          treatment areas. After one year,
central Florida), and a specimen     original Arkansas reports of this     24.5% of trees showed no signs
along with many photos and other     species’ continued persistence.       of decline. However, 18% of
documentation (including video       The lack of any indisputable          treated trees showed complete
and auditory recordings) during      evidence following the 2005           mortality. Within the first year
the 1930s (of a small population     announcement despite relatively       Celtis laevigata and Ulmus
in northeast Louisiana). All         extensive searching raises many       americana most frequently
other reports prior to 1950 were     questions regarding search            experienced greater than one-
only of visual encounters (most      strategies for firmly documenting     third crown dieback. Preliminary
accepted by Dr. James Tanner)        a very rare species, if present.      results suggest that greater
at locations that support the        Addressed here specifically is        crown dieback occurs within
hypothesis that small numbers        whether the current pattern           the second year. Girdling also
(populations) of Ivory-billed        differs from reports prior to the     produces greater crown mortality
Woodpeckers persisted across         1930s, between 1930 and 1960,         than herbicide injections. While
the historical range at least into   and between 1960 and 2000.            no Ivory-billed Woodpecker were
the 1940s. After 1950, reports of    Elsewhere, the history of reports     observed using these treatment
visual encounters from prominent     has been presented state-by-          areas, seven Picidae species were
ornithologists are generally         state. In this analysis, range-       recorded in treatment areas.
accepted from southern Georgia       wide reports have been compiled       Many recently dead, treated trees
and Florida, but other reports       to compare encounters within          had large amounts of insect frass
of visual encounters during this     the last 10 decades and also to       surrounding them. This work has
decade also come from South          compare these records to potential    potential implications in a variety
Carolina, Alabama, and Texas.        encounters from recent searches.      of restoration and improvement
Although generally considered        These patterns are discussed to       projects for the Ivory-billed
inconclusive after 1960, many        generate alternative hypotheses       Woodpecker and other
visual encounters, several           regarding the detection and           bottomland hardwood species.
photos, feathers, and auditory       documentation of the Ivory-billed
encounters and recordings            Woodpecker since 1940.                TITLE: Acoustic Methods in the
were reported from over most                                               Ivory-bill Search and Beyond
of the historical range through      TITLE: Morticulture Use for
                                     Ivory-Billed Woodpecker Habitat       AUTHORS: Russell A. Charif,
to the 1999 report along the                                               Harold Figueroa, Michael
Pearl River, Louisiana. During       Improvements
                                                                           Powers, Michael Pitzrick, Ron
the Twentieth Century (before        AUTHORS: Seth Pearson,                Rohrbaugh, Ken Rosenberg ,
or after 1950), at no location       TNC, Little Rock, AR; Zollner,        Martjan Lammertink, Martin
during any one decade was this       D., TNC, Little Rock, AR;             Piorkowski
species regularly reported year-     Melnechuk, M., TNC, 601 N.
after-year except at the Singer      University Ave. ,Little Rock, AR      Cornell Lab of Ornithology,
Tract in Louisiana during the        72205 501-912-9080                    Cornell University, 159 Sapsucker
1930s. Thus, failure to document     501-663-8332         Woods Rd., Ithaca, NY 14850
Ivory-billed Woodpeckers along
ABSTRACT: Acoustic methods           unobserved for long periods            bird’s former range, (2) assess
have been an integral part of        of time, making it difficult (or       relationships among occupancy,
the search for the Ivory-billed      impossible) to determine their         use, and habitat characteristics
Woodpecker since the Pearl           status (Scott et al. in press). The    at those scales, (3) eventually
River effort in 2002. The needs      human and financial resources          allow the development of a
of this search have spurred a        required to conduct surveys of         population viability model that
number of advances in hardware       sufficient magnitude to assess         depends on patch occupancy
and software technology. We will     with confidence that a species is      instead of difficult-to-measure
summarize key components of          extinct are frequently prohibitive,    demographic parameters, and
the evolving acoustic methods,       making autonomous systems              (4) be adaptive, allowing newly
including hardware, software,        an attractive alternative for          collected information to update
and data analysis and review         future endangered species              the above models and search
protocols. We will discuss           research. Furthermore, these           locations. The approach features
lessons learned from the review      systems, especially when               random selection of patches to be
and analysis of over 36,000          networked to provide real-             searched from a sampling frame
hours of audio recordings            time data, afford the ability to       stratified and weighted by patch
from bottomland hardwood             gather important population and        quality, and it requires multiple
forest habitats, including the       behavioral information on more         visits per patch. It is adaptive
discovery of unexpected “Ivory-      common species. Some example           within a season in that increased
bill impostor” sounds from           applications include monitoring        search activity is allowed in
some common species and the          migration via nocturnal flight         and around locations of strong
need for caution in interpreting     calls, determining volume and          visual and/or aural evidence,
isolated acoustic events. Finally,   composition of raptor migration,       and adaptive among seasons in
we will discuss ways in which        and identifying timing and             that habitat associations allow
technology advances resulting        causation of bird strikes at wind      modification of stratum weights.
from the Ivory-bill search may       turbines. Future successful            This statistically rigorous
benefit efforts to apply acoustic    development and application            approach is an improvement over
monitoring methods to other          of these technologies will rely        simply visiting the “best” habitat
species of conservation concern.     on strong partnerships among           in an ad hoc fashion because we
                                     biologists, engineers, and             can learn from prior effort and
TITLE: Acoustic and Digital          information systems specialists.       modify the search accordingly.
Image Technologies for Detecting                                            Results from the 2006-07
and Monitoring Ivory-billed          TITLE: Design for a Region-            search season indicate weak
Woodpeckers and Other Avifauna.      wide Adaptive Search for the           relationships between occupancy
                                     Ivory-billed Woodpecker with           and habitat (although we
AUTHORS: Ron Rohrbaugh,              the Objective of Estimating
Cornell Lab of Ornithology,                                                 suggest modifications of habitat
                                     Occupancy and Related                  measurement protocols), and a
Ithaca, NY; Charif, R., Cornell      Parameters.
Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca,                                                 very low detection probability,
NY; Farnsworth, A., Cornell          AUTHORS: Robert J. Cooper,             suggesting more visits per
Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY;      Rua S. Mordecai, Brady J.              patch are required. Sample size
Goldberg, K., U. California,         Mattsson, Univ. of Georgia,            requirements will be discussed.
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA; Song, D.,    Athens; Michael J. Conroy,             TITLE: From the Ground Up:
Texas A&M, College Station, TX;      Krishna Pacifici, James T.             Evidence for the Wide Distribution
Luneau, D., U. Arkansas, Little      Peterson, USGS Georgia                 of the IBW in the Southeast in the
Rock, AR.           Cooperative Fish and Wildlife          Archeological and Ethnographic
                                     Research Unit and UGA, Athens;         Record
ABSTRACT: Intensive search           Clinton T. Moore, Patuxent
efforts for the Ivory-billed         Wildlife Research Center, Athens,      AUTHOR: Richard Warner, Staff
Woodpecker (Campephilus              GA.                                    Archeologist, Region 4, USFWS,
principalis) have resulted                                                  1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta,
in numerous technological            Robert J. Cooper, Warnell              Georgia 30345, 404-679-7110
advancements related to bird         School of Forestry and Natural
monitoring methodologies. These      Resources, University of Georgia,      ABSTRACT: The current
include autonomous acoustic- and     Athens, GA 30602, 706-542-6066         scientific and popular literature
image-recording systems with         (phone), 706-542-8356 (fax),           on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
potential applications for remote                acknowledges the archeological
detection and constant effort                                               and ethnographic evidence
monitoring of avian populations.     ABSTRACT: We describe a                for a wide distribution of the
These devices are important for      survey design and field protocol       Ivory-billed Woodpecker, well
monitoring endangered species        for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker        beyond its known and suspected
and conducting spatially explicit    research effort that will: (1) allow   current range. This presentation
avian research. Exceedingly          estimation of occupancy, use, and      will review and evaluate the
rare species, especially those       detection probability for habitats     published archeological evidence
in remote habitats, can go           at two spatial scales within the       from the perspective of an SE
archeologist, and will conclude       NWR were photo interpreted            River, Arkansas. Planning efforts
with a distribution map that          using the National Wetlands           are underway for extensive
may be useful in assisting in the     Inventory mapping conventions.        searches to find more birds in
long-term recovery of the species.    Ancillary data sources utilized       Arkansas and other river bottoms
In addition, this presentation        include USGS topographic maps,        of the southern United States.
will include a brief overview         digital NRCS soil surveys,            Anecdotal reports of Ivory-billed
of the cultural context of the        Digital elevation models, and         Woodpeckers in the southern
Ivory-billed Wooddpecker and          2004 and 2005 digital Roth            United States continue to this day.
other woodpeckers in the pre-         quarter quads. Additionally the       Potential habitat for Ivory-billed
Columbian Southeastern United         1938 imagery was interpreted          Woodpeckers is vast throughout
States, along with a discussion of    to create a disturbance, texture,     the southeastern US and Gulf of
how Native American populations       and transportation layer. The         Mexico coastal areas.
may have had a significant            photography was interpreted
influence on the distribution of      to reveal disturbances of any         The authoritative natural history
this species over the last thousand   kind, human related or natural.       of the woodpecker is James
years.                                A texture layer was also created      Tanner’s 1942 publication.
                                      to reveal patterns that would         Accepting that work as
TITLE: Historical Ivory-billed        indicate forest growth trends         complete, accurate, and factual,
Woodpecker Habitat Mapping            as well as logging areas. A           we searched for historical
Within the Tensas National            transportation layer was created      photography with coverage of
Wildlife Refuge, 1938 and 1998.       to document transportation            approximately the same date
                                      features, including roads and         as Tanner’s field work and at
AUTHORS: Handley, L.R., C.                                                  a scale that could demonstrate
J. Wells, National Wetlands           railroad tracts which were
                                      indicative of logging activity.       habitat characteristics that
Research Center, U.S. Geological                                            Tanner reported as important
Survey, Lafayette, LA; J. Dugas,      Argos software was used to
                                      create and maintain topological       to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
R. Mouton, D. Lichtenberg,                                                  We located a private source of
National Wetlands Research            relationships between features.
                                      Habitats were classified and          photography (P2Energy, formerly
Center/IAP World Services, Inc.,                                            Tobin Aerial Surveys) that was
Lafayette, LA                         attributed on-screen using Arc
                                      Map. 1938 hard copy stereo pairs      originally taken about August of
ABSTRACT: The Ivory-billed            were viewed under a stereoscope.      1938 at the Singer Tract when
Woodpecker has always been            This allowed for higher resolution,   Tanner was conducting his field
described as rare, even before        stereo viewing of the project area.   work. Some of the important
the catastrophic loss of habitat      Polygonal features begin and          factors found on the photography
between the 1880s and 1930s.          end at the same point, contain no     included dead and dying
The woodpecker’s preferred            overshoots or undershoots, and        vegetation, very large trees, a
habitat varied by region. In          contain a single label. The 1938      heterogeneous canopy, forest
the Mississippi Delta it seems        habitat mapping photography will      canopy gaps, and disturbance.
to have preferred temporarily         provide additional information in     Limitations of the 1938
flooded, palustrine, deciduous        documenting the known historical      photography were lack of
forest dominated by sweetgum.         habitat of this rare bird. The        horizontal control, resulting in no
In the Lower Mississippi Valley       1998 habitat mapping will allow       GPS or gyroscopic positioning;
area, including the Mississippi-      a comparison with the historical      monochromatic emulsion (black
Atchafalaya distributary system,      data.                                 & white) which makes tree
the Ivory-billed Woodpecker                                                 species identification difficult;
foraged in seasonally flooded         TITLE: Habitat Characteristics of
                                      the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker In        the low altitude flight required
oak flats and adjacent oak-                                                 for high resolution, which caused
hickory uplands, and in the lower,    Louisiana: Analysis of 1938 Aerial
                                      Photography                           considerable buffeting of the
permanently flooded cypress-gum                                             aircraft with resultant camera
swamps. Photography covering          AUTHORS: Christopher Wells*,          axis differences from the ground
the Singer Tract in both 1938         Larry Handley*, Jason Degas**,        between flight lines and even
and 1998 were obtained and            Wylie Barrow* PhD, Tommy              between individual frames;
photointerpreted. Habitat data        Michot* PhD, National Wetlands        and extremely problematic
dating from 1938 were derived         Research Center, * United States      ground control points for
from 1:18,000 scale, black and        Geological Survey, ** IAP World       rectification. Finally, since the
white, aerial photography. The        Services, Inc. U. S. Geological       1938 photography was taken
1938 photography was scanned          Survey, National Wetlands             during the growing season, we
and rectified using Leica Imagine     Research Center, Lafayette,           were unable to observe either
software. 1998 habitat data           Louisiana 70506.                      the middle stories or the ground
were derived from USGS NAPP                                                 cover except under the most
1:40,000 scale, color infrared,       ABSTRACT: The Ivory-billed            unusual circumstances.
aerial photography, digital           Woodpecker, long suspected to be
ortho quarter quads. Using this       extinct, is now known to persist      We developed a statistically valid
photography, areas of Tensas          in remnant lowlands of the Cache      method of stereo-photographic
analysis that allowed the            quads of the area using ERDAS          erythrocephalus), Yellow-shafted
quantification of many factors of    Imagine software. A mosaic             Flicker (Colaptes auratus),
interest in describing the habitat   of the rectified photographs           Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
requirements of the Ivory-billed     was exported to ArcMap and             (Sphyrapicus varius), and
Woodpecker in the early 20th         boundaries were drawn of 7             Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides
Century. This method required        Ivory-billed Woodpecker home           villosus). The effective survey
some compromises that we             ranges (mean = 871 ha, range           distance varied by species,
believe are tolerable, especially    = 501 ha – 1369 ha) and 3 “best        season and area. Except for the
given the paucity of actual data     areas” (Tanner 1942, p. 38 and p.      Hairy Woodpecker, we were able
regarding the habits and habitats    91; respectively). Boundaries of       at least to estimate 1 season-
of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.      an additional 7 randomly selected      specific density per species which
                                     areas were created (each area          ranged from a low of 9 (95% CI
TITLE: Ivory-Billed Woodpecker       = 871 ha) to delineate areas not       4.5 – 18.1) Pileated Woodpeckers/
Habitat Relations for the Singer     used by Ivory-bills during the         km2 during winter 2007 to a high
Tract, Louisiana: A Retrospective    breeding seasons 1934-1939. We         of 161 (95% CI 144.2 – 180.6)
Analysis.                            described categories of dead and       Red-bellied Woodpeckers/ km2
AUTHORS: Wylie C. Barrow, Jr.,       dying trees, forest disturbance,       during spring 2007. Densities of
Christopher P Wells, Thomas C.       canopy texture, canopy gaps,           Downy Woodpecker and Red-
Michot, James B. Grace, Larry R.     super-emergent trees, and habitat      bellied Woodpecker were about
Handley, Heather Q. Baldwin1.,       types in areas used and not used       five times greater than Pileated
Tyson L. Hatch1., and Jason          by Ivory-bills. Results provide        Woodpecker densities across
Dugas1., U. S. Geological Survey,    insight into how Ivory-bills used      seasons. We were only able
National Wetlands Research           the Singer Tract, and will inform      to estimates winter densities
Center, and 1.IAP World Services,    forest restoration/management          for Red-bellied Woodpecker,
Inc., Lafayette, Louisiana 70506.    and searches for potential Ivory-      Yellow-bellied Sapsucker and
                                     bill habitat.                          Yellow-shafted Flicker. Our
ABSTRACT: Currently, there                                                  estimated woodpecker densities
are no known Ivory-billed            TITLE: Woodpecker Densities and        usually exceeded comparable
Woodpecker activity areas that       Habitat Use in the Big Woods of        species-specific densities from
can be carefully delineated and      Arkansas.                              other study sites, indicating that
studied to determine habitat         AUTHORS: David G. Krementz             the Big Woods may be unique
relations. Work conducted on the     - USGS Arkansas Coop Unit,             in attracting and/or holding
last known populations by James      Dept. Biological Sciences, Univ.       woodpeckers. Our next step
Tanner (Singer Tract, Louisiana;     Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, Jason      will be to relate woodpecker
1930s) and George Lamb (Cuba;        D. Luscier – Dept. Biological          abundance and distributions
1950’s), have provided thirteen      Sciences, Univ. Arkansas,              to habitat variables thought
known locations of Ivory-billed      Fayetteville, AR                       important to woodpeckers.
Woodpecker home ranges. Aerial
photographs corresponding            ABSTRACT: To understand                TITLE: LiDAR “Images” of Forest
to the dates and locations of        the potential habitat use of the       Structure: Will They Help Us
their studies are known to           Ivory-Billed Woodpecker better,        Improve Wildlife Habitat Quality?
exist. We created an ArcMap          we investigated the habitat use of     AUTHORS: Helen J-H Whiffen,
GeoDatabase of the Singer Tract      all woodpeckers in the Big Woods       PhD and Ken Reinecke, PhD,
by combining interpreted 1938        of Arkansas. With the Big Woods        Lower Mississippi Valley Joint
aerial photographs (mapped           Ivory-billed habitat inventory         Venture, Vicksburg, MS, USGS
and sampled stereoscopic             sampling scheme as a sampling          – National Wetlands Research
interpretation) and ancillary        frame, we used a stratified            Center, Lafayette, LA, USGS
historical data (e.g., 1815-55       sampling approach to select            – Patuxent Wildlife Research
surveyor’s maps, 1830 – 1943         92 sites across 3 areas (Cache         Center, Laurel, MD
Madison Parish tax records, 1863     River NWR, White River NWR,
confiscated Confederate Army         AR Game & Fish Comm.). We              ABSTRACT: Quality wildlife
maps, 1935 and 1941 Singer Tract     surveyed each site 5 times during      habitat – forested acreage is
maps created by James Tanner,        spring 2006 and winter and spring      not enough. To thrive, wildlife
and 1931-1938 topographical quad     2007 (15 surveys per site total) for   requires specific forest structure
maps) to characterize habitat        woodpecker use. We estimated           and other habitat conditions. To
used by Ivory-bills. For the         density by species using the           improve wildlife habitat quality
photo-interpretation, we used        program DISTANCE. We                   in these fiscally thin times,
panchromatic photography of the      recorded 3,585 detections across       managers need to know where
Singer Tract that was flown in       the following species: Pileated        to apply management actions to
August 1938 at a nominal scale       Woodpecker, Downy Woodpecker           induce optimal wildlife responses.
of 1:18,000. All photographs         (Picoides pubescens), Red-
were scanned at high resolution      bellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes         What is the quality of the existing
(12 microns) and rectified to        carolinus), Red-headed                 forest habitat? To answer this
the 2004 digital ortho quarter       Woodpecker (Melanerpes                 question, foresters, wildlife

biologists – land managers – need     Woods Road, Ithaca 14850.            1York University Las Nubes
a scale-relevant, affordable,         E-mail: 2         Project, Faculty of Environmental
accurate and robust means of          The Evergreen State College,         Studies, 4700 Keele Street,
monitoring the vertical structure     2700 Evergreen Parkway NW,           Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3.
of the forest over space and time.    Olympia, Washington 98505.           E-mail:
The hypothesis: large footprint,      E-mail:
waveform LiDAR (Light                                                      2Cornell Laboratory of
Detection and Ranging) provides       ABSTRACT: Temporary                  Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker
an innovative means for these         concentrations of dead and dying     Woods Road, Ithaca NY 14850.
land managers to quantify forest      trees are important as feeding       E-mail:
structure and, consequently,          sites for Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
                                      Hurricane impact, a major agent      3Congaree National Park, 100
evaluate wildlife habitat quality.                                         National Park Road, Hopkins SC
                                      of concentrated tree death in the
To assess this hypothesis             southeastern U.S., is generally      29061. E-mail: theresa_thom@
NASA – Goddard Space Flight           expected to benefit the species. 4York University
Center, in conjunction with           In February 2002 we conducted        Las Nubes Project, Faculty of
Drs. Dubayah and Hofton,              point counts to assess woodpecker    Environmental Studies, 4700
University of Maryland, flew          densities in mature bottomland       Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario
the Region of Rediscovery in          forests of the Pearl River basin,    M3J 1P3. E-mail: jaguar@yorku.
June, 2006, collecting large          Louisiana. In 2005 these forests     ca
footprint, waveform LiDAR             were severely damaged by the         ABSTRACT: A mechanical
(Light Detection and Ranging)         Katrina and Rita hurricanes.         device for imitation of double-
data over 1.2 million acres to map    We repeated our Pearl River          knock drums of Campephilus
the forest structure of potential     point counts in February 2006,       woodpeckers was developed
Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat.      2007, and 2008 to monitor the        at the Cornell Laboratory of
Direct products from LiDAR data       hurricane impact on woodpecker       Ornithology. Thirty copies of
collection (e. g., forest canopy      populations. No Ivory-billed         the device have been distributed
height, percent canopy cover)         Woodpeckers were observed.           to aid Ivory-billed Woodpecker
have already been used to inform      Following Tanner, we used density    surveys across the southeastern
Ivory-billed Woodpecker search        of Red-bellied Woodpecker            U.S. We examined whether use
and planning efforts.                 and Pileated Woodpecker as           of the double-knocker device
                                      a proxy for habitat suitability      improves the detection rate
We continue to assess the abilities   for Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
of LiDAR data to                                                           of Campephilus woodpeckers,
                                      Densities of these woodpeckers       and whether it causes undue
Quantify forest basal area            were greatly reduced in all of       disturbance to these birds, using
                                      the three post-hurricane years.      the Pale-billed Woodpecker
Quantify forest biomass               Red-headed Woodpecker has            (C. guatemalensis) as a model.
                                      disappeared from the area.           Experiments were conducted
Quantify the vertical structure of    Standing hurricane-killed trees
the forest                                                                 between late September 2007
                                      were in an advanced state of         and early February 2008 in the
Assist managers to visualize          decay as soon as 18 months after     Alexander Skutch Biological
complete forest stands in 3D          the hurricanes. We conclude          Corridor, Southern Pacific Slope
                                      that bottomland forests in the       of Costa Rica. We conducted 49
Assist managers with land             full impact zone of a hurricane      tests with the double-knocker,
management decisions                  path are too severely damaged to     under a variety of conditions, in
                                      benefit woodpecker populations.      three Pale-billed Woodpecker
Merge with other types of             Historically, in a contiguously
remotely sensed data (e.                                                   home ranges. Responses
                                      forested landscape, any hurricane    were detected in 45% of the
g., Hyperion, ASTER) and              left moderately damaged forests
accurately describe forest                                                 experiments. Often the first
                                      peripheral to its pathway that       detection cue was the sound
structure and composition.            may well have benefited Ivory-       of wing beats of a woodpecker
Our presentation will illustrate      billed Woodpeckers. This is no       coming in to investigate.
our findings.                         longer the case with the present     Responses were most prevalent
                                      fragmented distribution of           when the woodpeckers were
TITLE: Are Hurricanes Good for        the bottomland forests of the        confirmed to be in the immediate
Ivory-bills? Impact of Hurricanes     Southeast.                           vicinity (<100 m) at the time
on Woodpecker Populations in the                                           of the experiment. The device
Pearl River Basin, Louisiana          TITLE: Imitation of Double-knock
                                      Drums in Ivory-billed Woodpecker     also proved successful in
AUTHORS: Martjan                      Surveys: Tests with Pale-billed      generating responses from
Lammertink, Utami Setiorini1,         Woodpeckers in Costa Rica            birds not confirmed to be in the
and Alison Styring                                                         vicinity prior to the experiment,
                                      AUTHORS: Chris Saker1,               especially in hours of high bird
1Cornell Laboratory of                Martjan Lammertink2, Theresa         activity in the early morning
Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker            Thom3, and Howard Daugherty4         and late afternoon. Comparisons
with similar experiments using       boles of live trees (vigorous to       ecology of large woodpeckers in
vocalization and double-knock        decadent). Nest and roost sites        bottomland hardwood forests
recording playbacks, showed          contained more trees >50 cm            in the southeastern U.S. We
a greater rate and intensity         dbh than did availability plots.       present preliminary findings
of response when the double-         Foraging observations were             on large woodpecker ecology in
knocker tool was used. Pale-         conducted in 31 territories of         bottomland hardwood habitats,
billed Woodpeckers generally         radio-tagged and non-radio-            using Pileated Woodpeckers
resumed routine activities within    tagged Pileated Woodpeckers.           as our model species. These
30 minutes after use of the          Pileated Woodpeckers spent             data suggest that certain
double-knocker, and no birds left    the highest proportion of their        characteristics of nest trees,
territories or roost holes after     foraging time excavating (58%),        cavity trees, and forage trees
use of the device. In conclusion     followed by pecking (14%),             selected by large woodpeckers
the double-knocker proved to be      gleaning (14%), scaling (7%),          were different between the
an effective and safe means for      berry-eating (4%), and probing         lower and higher bottomland
improving detection probability      (3%) on trunks with bark,              habitats. Specifically, Pileated
of Campephilus woodpeckers,          (41%) dead branches (27%), live        Woodpeckers nested in trees
making it a promising tool in        branches (13%), trunks without         that were shorter, had a smaller
the search for Ivory-billed          bark (10%), and vines (9%).            dbh, and were more advanced in
Woodpeckers.                         Woodpeckers preferred bitter           decay than trees they selected
                                     pecan, avoided sugarberry, and         as roosts. In 2007, we estimated
TITLE: Ecology of Pileated           used overcup oak in proportion         mean spatial use patterns in
Woodpecker (Dryocopus Pileatus)      to availability. They avoided dbh      9/13 radio-marked Pikeatd
Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging      classes 10-20, selected dbh classes    Woodpeckers as 264.4 ha (range
and Saproxylic Beetles in Partial    50-70, and used dbh classes 30-40      = 22.4 – 994.3 ha). In addition,
Cut and Uncut Bottomland             in proportion to their availability    nesting, roosting, and foraging
Hardwood Forests                     in most treatments. In partial         locations were documented for
AUTHORS: Patricia Newell1            cuts, extremely large trees (dbh       radio-marked and unmarked
and Sammy L. King2, 1School of       classes 80-90+) were selected.         individuals. Adult Pileated
Renewable Natural Resources,         Pileated Woodpeckers either            Woodpeckers exhibited smaller
LSU Ag Center, Baton Rouge,          avoided vigorous and decadent          home-ranges ( = 27.3 ha) than
LA 70803 2Louisiana Cooperative      trees for foraging or used them        reported in the literature (ca. 53–
Fish and Wildlife Research           in proportion to their availability.   160 ha), suggesting high-quality
Unit, USGS, 124 School of            Woodpeckers preferred trees            habitats. Four of 13 radio-marked
Renewable Natural Resources,         in early stages of decay in all        individuals were depredated in
LSU AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA        treatments, but in two-year-           the lower bottomland habitat:
70803                                old partial cuts they preferred        perhaps dispersal or mate
                                     trees in late stages of decay. The     searching is very dangerous
ABSTRACT: Relative abundance         mean proportion of thatching           in this environment. Most
and species richness of saproxylic   ant individuals was (44 ± 7.1),        recent Ivory-billed Woodpecker
beetles and nesting, roosting,       followed by unknown seeds (26.6        sightings occurred in these lower
and foraging ecology of Pileated     ± 5.4), poison ivy seeds (15.4         bottomland habitats. Further, we
Woodpeckers were studied in          ± 2.7), carpenter ants (10.6 ±         documented nest depredation,
recent partial cuts and uncut        3.9), and beetles (4.9 ± 1.4). The     which could be another limiting
forest during 2006 and 2007.         proportion of food items in scat       factor affecting Ivory-billed
Relative abundance of saproxylic     did not vary among treatment           Woodpecker population growth, if
beetles was greater in partial       types.                                 extant.
cuts than in uncut forest in both
years but species richness was       TITLE: Pileated Woodpecker             TITLE: Using Hydrogeomorphic
the same. The number of dead         Nesting Ecology in the Big Woods       Community Maps to Better
trees and period of capture also     of Arkansas: Possible Inferences       Understand Potential Ivory-billed
influenced beetle abundance.         to Limiting Factors Affecting Ivory-   Woodpecker Habitat in Arkansas
Partial cuts and uncut forest        billed Woodpecker Population           and Louisiana
provide similar habitat for          Growth?
                                                                            AUTHORS:Thomas Foti,
nesting and roosting Pileated        AUTHORS: Brandon L Noel;               Charles Klimas, Jody Pagan and
Woodpeckers. Woodpeckers used        Bednarz, J. C.; Rowe, Z. F.,           Elizabeth Murray
a variety of species of trees that   Arkansas State University, State
were between 42 and 150 cm           University, AR. bnoelmarinebio@        ABSTRACT: Varying flow
diameter at breast height (dbh)                            regimes and depositional
for nesting (n = 24, 60.5 ± 3.02;                                           environments throughout the
mean ± SE) and roosting (n =         ABSTRACT: One significant              Quaternary Period have left
15, 70.3 ± 7.03). Bald cypress       obstacle to the recovery of            a subtly complex landscape of
was selected in all treatments.      Ivory-billed Woodpeckers is            depositional features within
Nests (22 of 24) and roosts (12      the lack of information about          the Mississippi Alluvial Valley
of 15) were predominantly in         this species’ biology and the          (MAV). Those variations
produce spatial complexity and        valuable insight particularly           female induced, on average, 0.4-
diversity, with the distribution      when used in conjunction with           3.2% (range: 0-28%) reduction
of plant communities reflecting       descriptions by scientists such as      in extinction rate. Increasing
abiotic site characteristics          Tanner, early forest inventories,       initial population size from 5-30
such as geomorphology, soil,          General Land Office surveys, and        drove extinction rate <0.05
hydrology and topography.             other sources. A limitation of the      under limited conditions: 1) all
Recent studies have established       HGM approach is that it is based        input values were intermediate,
hydrogeomorphic (HGM) criteria        in part on flood frequency maps         or 2) Allee effect was present
for wetland classification over a     that are somewhat uncertain even        and annual adult survival was ≥
large part of the MAV Detailed,       with modern data; projecting site-      0.8. On the basis of our model,
spatially explicit geomorphology      specific conditions into the past       these species can persist as rare
and soils data are available over     must be approached with caution.        (as few as 5 females), and thus
the entire MAV along with flood                                               difficult-to-detect, populations
frequency maps at varying levels      TITLE: A Stochastic Population          provided they maintain ≥ 1.1
of detail. Therefore the tools        Viability Analysis for Rare Large-      recruited females annually per
exist to apply HGM principles to      bodied Woodpeckers, with                adult female and an annual
develop maps of potential plant       Implications for the Ivory-billed       adult survival rate ≥ 0.8. While a
community distribution based          Woodpecker                              demographic-based PVA is useful
on identifiable combinations of       AUTHORS: Brady J. Mattsson              to predict how extinction rate
abiotic characteristics of sites,, Rua S.                 changes across scenarios for life
whether they are currently            Mordecai (rstob@warnell.                history attributes, the next step
forested or in agriculture or, Michael J. Conroy             for modeling these populations
other use. These Potential            (, James T.             should incorporate more easily-
Natural Vegetation (PNV)              Peterson (jpeterson@warnell.            acquired data on changes in patch
maps provide an indication of, Robert J. Cooper              occupancy to make predictions
the multi-scale complexity that       (, and          about patch colonization and
once characterized the MAV and,       Hans Christensen (ssphanc@              extinction rates.
can serve as planning tools for
restoration. PNV maps have been                                               TITLE: Causes of the Ivory-bill’s
completed for most of the MAV in      ABSTRACT: Six large-bodied              Decline
Arkansas; the approach currently      (i.e., ≥120 g) woodpecker species       AUTHOR: Noel F.R. Snyder
is being applied to northeastern      are listed as near threatened
Louisiana, and it can be expanded     to critically endangered by the         ABSTRACT: In most modern
to the entire MAV   .                 IUCN. The small population              accounts the endangerment of
                                      paradigm assumes that these             the Ivory-billed Woodpecker has
These maps provide insight into       populations are likely to become        been attributed mainly to (1)
the composition and distribution      extinct without an increase in          feeding specialization leading
of forests occupied by Ivory-billed   numbers, but the combined               to a dependency of individuals
Woodpeckers along the Tensas          influences of initial population size   on huge areas of pristine forest,
River of Louisiana ca. 1940 and       and demographic rates (annual           and (2) the logging of nearly
in the area of rediscovery along      adult survival and fecundity)           all virgin forests in the species’
the White and Cache rivers in         may drive population persistence        original range. However, the
Arkansas at present. The maps         for these species. We applied a         direct evidence for feeding
are particularly useful in the        stochastic, stage-based single-         specialization in the Ivory-bill is
Tensas area since much of the         population model to available           weak, and early reports strongly
forest there has been cleared or      demographic rates for Dryocopus         suggest the species was once
substantially altered since the       and Campephilus woodpeckers.            common in bottomland forests.
time of Tanner’s studies in the       In particular, we determined the        The Ivory-bill did show evidence
Singer tract. His studies provided    change in predicted extinction          of sparse populations and often
considerable detail on habitat        rate (i.e., proportion of simulated     a close association with remnant
relationships of the Ivory-billed     populations that went extinct           virgin forests as it closely
Woodpecker at that time, but          within 100 years) to proportional       approached extinction, but these
typically his descriptions were       changes in six input parameters.        features may have been caused
general and his detailed tables       To our knowledge, this is the first     by factors other than difficulties
of composition and structure          study to evaluate the combined          with food procurement. In
cannot be extrapolated to the         importance of initial population        particular, human depredations
entire area or to specific sites.     size and demographic rates for          on the species provide a plausible
Therefore questions remain as         the persistence of large-bodied         alternative explanation for decline
to the distribution, composition      woodpeckers. Under a worse-             that poses no inconsistencies
and structure of the forests at       case scenario, the median time          with early abundance of the
that time. HGM mapping can            to extinction was 8 years (range:       species. At the same time,
provide insight into the first        1-50). Across the combinations          human depredation is as good
two questions. Maps produced          of other input values, increasing       an explanation for last habitat
through this process can provide      initial population size by one          associations of the species as are
problems with food procurement        of the historical floodplain, thus    dependent wildlife species.
because remote virgin forests         affecting the delivery of water       However, forest loss,
were likely the regions least         and nutrient-rich sediments.          fragmentation, and hydrological
impacted by depredations.             These flood control activities also   change have markedly altered
Human depredations also               have altered river stage which        habitat conditions within
provide a plausible explanation       can affect the water table at a       bottomland forests such that
for the disappearance of some         variety of spatial and temporal       some species of concern (e.g.,
populations prior to logging and      scales. The overall goal of this      Ivory-billed Woodpecker,
for long persistence of the last      study is to quantify hydrologic       Louisiana black bear (Ursus
known Cuban population in spite       and geomorphic processes              americanus luteolus),and some
of logging. Better survival of        within and among floodplains          migratory songbirds) have been
the Pileated Woodpecker to the        and determine their influence on      severely impacted. To provide
present may have resulted mainly      forest community composition          habitat for these and other
from lesser vulnerability of this     and tree growth. The study area       priority wildlife species, we
species to human depredations,        is located in NWRs and WMAs           advocate forest conditions that
not to any foraging superiority.                    .
                                      in the LMAV Study sites are           are conducive to the continued
Logging’s most negative impact        uneven-aged forests selected          viability of this suite of priority
on the Ivory-bill may not have        along a flooding gradient and         wildlife species. Forest-dependent
been decreases in food supplies       stratified by geomorphic feature      (silvicolous) wildlife is responsive
but increases in depredations,        (ridge, swale, and flat). We will     to habitat conditions at multiple
resulting from enhanced access        present initial results from a        spatial scales (e.g., landscape
to, and increased human densities     dendroecological study comparing      quality and site quality).To
in, forested areas. Under the         green ash growth between ridges       address this issue, we define
human depredations hypothesis,        and swales at White River NWR,        Desired Forest Conditions as
there is no reason to assume          Arkansas. We also compare             those forested landscapes that
Ivory-bills were limited to old-      Nuttall oak growth between three      meet both Desired Landscape
growth forests, had huge range        ridges, swales, and flats at Bayou    Conditions and Desired Stand
requirements, or were a “disaster     Cocodrie NWR, Louisiana. Trees        Conditions. Traditional forest
species” highly dependent on          selected for dendrochronological      management has focused on
food-enhancing catastrophes such      analysis were overstory trees         production of forest products
as fire or storm damage of forests,   from 30 sample plots per              (i.e., lumber or pulp) through
as suggested by some observers.       geomorphic feature. Time-series       silviculture that promotes optimal
Conservation priorities under a       analysis was used to compare          growth and vigorous health
human depredations hypothesis         tree growth with climate              of economically desirable tree
are quite different from              (temperature, precipitation,          species. Often these traditional
conservation priorities under a       and Palmer Drought Severity           silvicultural methods are not
feeding specialization hypothesis.    Index) and river stage. Future        optimal for silvicolous wildlife.
                                      plans include quantifying fine        Indeed, quality habitat for
TITLE: Spatial and Temporal           scale hydrology (surface and          priority wildlife species likely
Dynamics of Tree Growth in Two        subsurface) in monitoring wells       requires some sacrifice in timber
Floodplain Forests                    across each geomorphic feature        production and the retention
AUTHORS: Hugo K. W. Gee1,             and historical flooding regime at     of less healthy trees. Even so,
Sammy L. King2                        water wells extrapolated from         commercially viable, wildlife-
                                      nearby gauges.                        oriented silviculture (i.e., wildlife
1 LSU AgCenter, 227 School of                                               forestry) employing variable
Renewable Natural Resources,          TITLE: Restoration and                retention harvests can be used
Baton Rouge, LA 70803, hgee1@         Monitoring of Forest Resources        in conjunction with forest, 2 USGS Louisiana             in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley:   restoration, regeneration, and
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife         Recommendations for Enhancing         natural processes to achieve
Research Unit, 124 School of          Wildlife Habitat                      desired forest conditions
Renewable Natural Resources,          LMVJV Forest Resource                 within bottomland hardwood
Baton Rouge, LA 70803,                Consservataion Working Group.         forests. The recommendations                       2007:.                                contained within this report
                                                                            were developed specifically to
ABSTRACT: Hydrologic and              AUTHORS: Edited by R. Wilson,         address issues surrounding
geomorphic processes that             K. Ribbeck, S. King, and D.           restoration, management, and
structure floodplain forests of the   Twedt.                                monitoring of forest resources in
Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley                                                     .
                                                                            the MAV However, the working
(LMAV) have been altered at           ABSTRACT: The conservation            group believes that these
the regional, landscape, and local    objective in the Mississippi          recommendations are applicable
level. Levees, channelization, and    Alluvial Valley is to provide         to other bottomland hardwood
other flood control activities have   forested habitat capable              systems across the southeastern
eliminated or altered overbank        of supporting sustainable             United States provided
and backwater flooding in much        populations of all forest-            users consider differences
in geomorphology, soils, and           Big Woods more systematically.        initially encouraged by the
hydrology where applicable.            Although >35,000 hours were           identification of some stands
                                       logged (at a cost of ~$1.6            that had not been searched in
This document provides                 million), only 12% of the area        previous seasons. Nevertheless,
technical guidance for the             was searched. Continued failure       after scouting some areas,
restoration and management of          to document the bird, high costs      searches were discouraged by
bottomland hardwood forests            associated with systematic            the lack of conformity of the
where conservation of wildlife         sampling, and the acquisition         sites to perceptions of Ivory-bill
resources is a central purpose and     of stand and site-scale habitat       habitat and the similarity of those
objective. As such, the document       data within the region prompted       locations to marginal and suitable
integrates habitat conditions for      searchers to seek a prioritization    forest stands. Future attempts
priority wildlife with technical       tool that could focus search areas    to develop a search prioritization
recommendations for the                on locations with the highest         tool should use biological data
restoration and management of          habitat quality. Twenty habitat       to set objective thresholds for
bottomland hardwood forests. To        variables derived from three          marginal, suitable, and optimal
achieve these habitat conditions       sources (National Landcover           habitats to restrict potential
requires managers to reassess          Dataset, field-based sampling,        search areas more effectively
traditional methods of silviculture,   and LiDAR) representing three         to sites with the best potential
placing greater emphasis on            scales (landscape, stand, and         habitat.
retaining and promoting forest         site, respectively) were identified
structure and senescence to            as potential model parameters.        TITLE: Field-based Forest
benefit priority wildlife. We          We asked six experts to rank          Structure Mapping Cache Lower
envision these recommendations         these variables and provide           White River
will aid on-the-ground managers        threshold values for non-habitat,
and program managers                                                         AUTHOR: Jeff Denman,
                                       as well as marginal and suitable      USFWS, White River NWR
responsible for managing forest        habitat quality. We weighed these
resources in implementing              variables equally within scales       ABSTRACT: The announcement
forest management strategies           and weighed each scale equally        of rediscovery of the Ivory-billed
for wildlife conservation.             to develop a single, preliminary      Woodpecker in the Cache/Lower
Furthermore, we anticipate that        model for review at an August         White River basin of Arkansas set
these recommendations will be          2007 meeting. Attendees at that       in motion a series of conservation
instructive to private landowners      meeting dropped consideration         actions. As Cornell and their
targeting wildlife conservation        of landscape-scale factors due to     partners continued to search and
as part of their overall land          their inability to inform searches    document evidence (e.g., sightings
stewardship objectives, especially     (i.e., there was little variability   and sound recordings), it was
on lands under conservation            in landscape-scale factors across     imperative that a concurrent
easement.                              the search area). Additionally,       habitat inventory and assessment
TITLE: Modeling Ivory-billed           they preferred to use the             be conducted to facilitate the
Woodpecker Habitat Quality             information hierarchically (i.e.,     search efforts and to document
to Prioritize Search Areas in          individual models for each scale)     existing habitat conditions.
Arkansas                               rather than combine the data
                                       into a single model. Five factors     This inventory quantifies current
AUTHORS: John M. Tirpak1,              were identified for inclusion in      habitat conditions on public lands
Amy S. Keister1, Helen J-H.            the stand-level model: three          within proximity to recent Ivory-
Whiffen2, and Blair E. Tirpak3.        associated with forage availability   billed Woodpecker sightings
1Lower Mississippi Valley Joint        (density of trees with moderate to    and audio recordings and areas
Venture, 2524 South Frontage           heavy bark disfiguration, density     perceived likely to harbor Ivory-
Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180              of trees exhibiting crown dieback,    billed Woodpecker on the basis
USA; 2USGS National Wetlands           and the density of recently           of information provided by local
Research Center, 2524 South            dead trees) and one (density of       land managers. These data were
Frontage Road, Vicksburg,              trees >24” dbh) associated with       used to: (1) develop a spatially-
MS 39180 USA; 3The Nature              appropriate timber size class.        explicit decision support model
Conservancy, 2524 South                Threshold values for optimal,         to facilitate search efforts, (2)
Frontage Road, Vicksburg, MS           suitable, and marginal habitat        provide ground-truth data to
39180 USA;         were determined via quantiles         enhance accuracy of remotely-
                                       for all model parameters related      sensed data, and (3) provide land
ABSTRACT: Initial searches             to forage. Stands with >7.5           managers with a basis for making
for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker        trees/acre with a dbh <24” were       management decisions.
in the region of rediscovery           considered marginal habitat. At
predominantly focused on                                                     The habitat inventory covered
                                       the site-scale, two variables were    bottomland hardwood forest
locations in the immediate             used in the model: canopy height
vicinity of previous sightings. In                                           (excluding reforestation and
                                       and canopy cover. Searchers           bodies of water—for example,
the following years, a concerted       approached the results with
effort was made to search the                                                oxbow lakes—within the
                                       guarded optimism and were
boundaries of the individual            amount of variation expressed in
WMAs and NWRs. Due to the               the replicates and also produced
large acreage of interest, the          acceptable levels of precision.
inventory was sample-based.             None exceeded 15%.
To accomplish this, individual
management compartments                 Given the current funding
within the area of interest were        constraints, availability of
broken down into homogenous             manpower, the large area of
stands approximately 500 acres          interest in the Big Woods of
in size. Each management                Arkansas (Cache River NWR,
compartment and stand was               White River NWR, and Dagmar
digitized to create a GIS shapefile     WMA) and the desire to maintain
for use in the allocation process,      an acceptable level of precision
as well as in analysis of the data.     (i.e., low CV values) in parameter
As with any sampling effort,            estimates, a sample size of 4
there are trade-offs in terms of        clusters per sampling unit, for
cost (e.g., number of samples and       example, a stand, appears to be
manpower) and the reliability of        the best option. That is, sample
the data. One means of assessing        sizes of ≤3 clusters were not
these trade-offs was to examine         sufficient to produce a high level
pilot data collected from the area      of precision consistently. Sample
of interest to generate summary         sizes ≥4 clusters produced
statistics which provided insight       precise parameter estimates with
into distributional properties          sample sizes ≥6 clusters being
of the data. To facilitate the          very precise in the parameter
determination of sample size            estimates. A closer examination
requirements for conducting             reveals that a sample size of four
habitat inventories for Ivory-          clusters is sufficient to maintain
billed Woodpeckers (e.g., the           the desired level of precision in
density of large diameter trees         parameter estimates.
[≥24inches]; density of dead/
dying trees), pilot data from
White River NWR was subjected
to sensitivity analyses to assess
precision—that is, stability
of the coefficient of variation
values—under different sample
sizes. To accomplish this, we
subjected the pilot data (n=15
clusters of 5, 1/5th acre plots) to
simulation models that randomly
selected clusters of points
at varying sample sizes and
generated summary statistics
for the parameter of interest,
for example, density of trees
≥24 inches in diameter at breast
height (dbh). In these simulations,
CV values were calculated for
sample sizes of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and
10 clusters by randomly selecting
clusters and then replicating the
procedure 10 times. Simulations
resulted in the calculation of 10
CV values for each sample size
(Fig. 2). The simulations revealed
great variation in precision
estimates (e.g., CV values)
for sample sizes ≤3; whereas
sample sizes ≥6 demonstrated
little variation in the precision
estimates. Precision estimates
calculated for sample sizes of 4
and 5 clusters were similar in the
Appendix E.
Interpreting Historical Status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
with Recent Evidence for the Species’ Persistence in the
Southeastern United States.
Prepared by William C. Hunter         which persisted in many parts         With his study of this small
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service        of the Southeast into the early       remnant population and search
Atlanta, GA 30345                     1900s. However, associations          of other areas likely to support
                                      between forested wetland              the bird, Tanner was the last to
Regardless of the debate over         systems and this species may be       document thoroughly the range of
the meaning of evidence for the       only part of the story leading to     this species. He also documented
persistence of the Ivory-billed       the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s         the reduction of their numbers, by
Woodpecker (Campephilus               demise in the Southeast.              the mid-1940s, to about 20 birds
principalis) into the 21st Century                                          scattered in Louisiana (the Singer
as described in Appendix B, was       In addition to habitat loss, by the   Tract), the Gulf coast of Florida
this species difficult to relocate    late 1800s the species was already    (from Apalachicola River basin
once located through time going       targeted as a valuable commodity      to the Lower Suwannee River
back to 1800? Was the Ivory-          for collectors and trophy hunters     basin and adjacent swamps), the
billed Woodpecker truly resident      as something very rare and            Highlands Hammock and Big
in local areas or more periodically   unusual (Snyder 2007). This           Cypress regions of south Florida,
nomadic than previously realized?     already rare species became even      and central South Carolina (the
Specifically, is there strong         rarer, especially in remaining        “Santee” River region, now
evidence in the historical record     suitable habitat. By the early        fragmented by Lake Marion, and
that once located, this species       1900s, it was generally thought       adjacent swamps).
could be reliably relocated from      extinct in continental North
one year to the next within a         America until Dr. Arthur Allen        There has not been an
decade and across decades,            and his wife documented a pair        undisputed report of Ivory-billed
throughout much of its historical     in central Florida in 1924. When      Woodpeckers in the United States
distribution? The following           that pair was collected by local      since 1944, when an individual of
sections provide an historical        taxidermists, this species again      the small population studied at
summary of reports and of the         disappeared from science.             the Singer Tract, Louisiana, was
species’ status.                                                            last seen. Reputable sightings
                                      By the time conservationists          of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers
Historical Summary-1800 to 1944       began to raise the alarm about        continued in and near the Singer
The Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s         the future survival of the            Tract at least until 1946, and
decline since the 1800s is well       Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the        possible encounters continued into
documented in several resources       early 1900s, most remaining           the 1980s, but nothing has been
(Allen and Kellogg 1937, Tanner       populations already were doomed       considered definite since 1944.
1942, Jackson 2002, Jackson 2004,     to extirpation from habitat
Hoose 2004, Gallagher 2005).          fragmentation, demographic            However, since the end of World
Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the       isolation, and shooting. This point   War II, numerous reports have
United States formerly ranged in      was driven home with what was         surfaced elsewhere across the
the coastal plain stretching from     later to be understood as the last    Southeastern U.S. suggesting
eastern Oklahoma and Texas            known Ivory-billed Woodpecker         the persistence of at least some
eastward into North Carolina,         population in the United States       Ivory-billed Woodpeckers well
southward to include all of           being studied by Allen and            after the 1940s in areas such
Florida, and in the Mississippi       Kellogg (1937) and particularly       as the Piney Woods of eastern
Alluvial Valley northward to the      by Dr. James Tanner (1942). As        Texas, the Atchafalaya Basin of
confluence with the Ohio River        Allen and Tanner documented           southern Louisiana, the Delta
and then eastward on the Ohio         behavior and habitat use of the       in Mississippi, the coastal plain
River bordering Kentucky and          birds at the Singer Tract, the        of South Carolina, and Florida.
Illinois (with archaeological         habitat surrounding the study         Most of these reports occurred
evidence that Ivory-billed            area was disappearing at an           before the 1970s with some having
Woodpecker may have occurred          alarming rate. These researchers      been shown to be more credible
northward to the Missouri River       understood that without               than others, but none represented
confluence and eastward to            immediate conservation action         firm documentation that Ivory-
southern Ohio at least 300 years      this remaining population would       billed Woodpeckers still occur in
prior to European settlement).        be lost.                              the Southeastern United States.
The best understood habitat for                                             Without any additional tangible
this species is expansive, mature                                           evidence, this essentially remains
(“old-growth”) forested wetlands                                            true today outside of Arkansas.

Potential Encounters-1944 to 1999     alive and not a mounted specimen      However, in the spring of 1968
Since the 1940s, Ivory-billed         secured to each of the two trees.     the tree in question blew over
Woodpeckers have existed              The pose is similar on both trees     and feathers were found. The
essentially as ghost birds of the     and neither the bill nor feet are     feather of most interest was a
swamps. Reports regularly             visible in either photograph,         secondary that was subsequently
come in of fleeting glimpses          both of which are also grainy in      identified by the Smithsonian
between dense stands of mature        quality. The photograph was           Institution as that of an Ivory-
or regenerating forests and of        recently revealed to be taken by      billed Woodpecker and considered
mysterious noises sounding            Mr. Fielding Lewis of Franklin,       relatively fresh and not worn
like tin horns or loud pounding       Louisiana (Gallagher 2005). Both      (see pages 407-410 in Stevenson
double-raps on wood emanating         Lowry and Dr. Van Remsen              and Anderson 1994). However
from across a bayou. Most of the      (Lowry’s successor at the LSU’s       intriguing this feather is, its
sightings upon investigation can      Museum of Natural History)            age remains unknown, so it is
be quickly assigned to Pileated       treated these photographs             relatively useless in establishing
Woodpeckers (Dryocopus                as reasonably firm evidence           a date at which the Ivory-bill
pileatus) or Red-headed               that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers         was extant in central Florida.
Woodpeckers (Melanerpes               persisted at least into the early     (A different secondary feather
erythrocephalus). The tin-horn        1970s. As is often the case with      identified as that of an Ivory-
sounding “toot” calls possibly        evidence concerning this bird,        billed Woodpecker purportedly
could be assigned to Blue Jays        however, many ornithologists          from the Appalachicola region
(Cyanocitta cristata) that have       doubt the authenticity of these       found during the 1980s remains
been observed and taped giving        photographs. In essence, no           mysterious.)
“toots” considered very similar       evidence since World War II has
but not identical to known Ivory-     undisputedly documented that          Despite these reasonably credible
billed Woodpecker calls. The          Ivory-billed Woodpeckers persist      reports, no firm documentation
source of double-raps may be of       in Louisiana.                         has ever been received to confirm
any sort in the woods, including                                            that a pair or even an individual
other woodpeckers, limbs              After 1950 and the demise of          bird persisted in Florida after
rubbing against each other under      Louisiana’s Singer Tract, many        World War II. Reputable
breezy conditions, colliding duck     searchers came to consider            observers contend that the
wingtips, or even vehicles going      Florida the most likely State         species could still exist in Florida,
over bumps on a distant highway.      to support this species, due to       and a recent analysis of bill marks
                                      the extensive amount of remote        (grooves) at the cavity entrance
Despite all of these potential        forested wetlands that persisted,     where feathers were found in
explanations for what people have     despite most of these areas being     1968 was determined to be in
seen or heard, there remain a         cut over at least once. Florida,      line with bill marks from known
number of reports that are not        despite a rapidly growing             Ivory-billed Woodpecker cavities
easily dismissed but which lack       population, still had large areas       .
                                                                            (P Sykes, USGS, pers. comm.).
detail to constitute firm evidence    of remote swampland and mature
that the species persists. Interest   forests throughout the State (at      In South Carolina, credible
generally has been restricted to a    least until the 1970s). The most      reports continued into the 1930s
few large areas in the Southeast      consistent area of observations       in the vicinity of the Santee
U.S., especially in Louisiana, but    and credible sightings come from      River swamp in Georgetown
also in Florida, South Carolina,      the Apalachicola and Chipola          County, but there has been no
and Texas.                            Rivers in the Florida Panhandle,      confirmed report since then. In
                                      at least through the 1950s.           1971, Mr. Robert Manns, then
After the loss of the Singer                                                with the National Audubon
Tract, attention in Louisiana         The most intriguing reports after     Society, reported a bird calling in
shifted to the remote reaches of      the 1950s are from 1967 to 1969       response to a tape recording as
southern Louisiana, particularly      (Agey and Heinzmann 1971).            an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, again
the Atchafalaya Delta south           These reports involved birds          along the Santee River but this
of Interstate 10, which many          using a cavity in central Florida     time near Columbia. However,
authorities believe is the most       as a roost site. Although at least    all followup surveys resulted in
likely place a population of Ivory-   one Ivory-billed Woodpecker was       no confirmation that Ivory-billed
billed Woodpeckers could escape       seen in the vicinity of this cavity   Woodpeckers persisted in the
notice. In 1971, Dr. George           tree on eleven separate days,         swamps of South Carolina.
Lowry from Louisiana State            as well as a bird thought to be
University came into possession       calling from within the cavity, no    Elsewhere in the Southeast
of two color photographs of an        photograph or convincing tape         U.S., for a period of about a
Ivory-billed Woodpecker perched       recording was ever produced (a        decade between 1965 and 1975,
half-way up the side of two very      tape was produced that Cornell        numerous reports of Ivory-
large trees. However, critics         Laboratory of Ornithology             billed Woodpeckers emerged
pointed out that it was not clear     audio experts identified as a         from the Piney Woods of eastern
the bird involved was actually        call of Pileated Woodpeckers).        Texas, in the vicinity of what
                                                                            is now Big Thicket National
Preserve, between the Trinity        the Southeastern U.S. Jackson’s      decade of relative silence, it came
and Neches rivers. One of the        findings were inconclusive as        as a great surprise to many in the
sightings was by Mr. John Dennis     he found no hard evidence to         conservation community that an
(who was principally involved        confirm the species’ existence       apparently solid report of a pair
in the rediscovery of Ivory-         but discussed in some detail his     of birds had been observed in the
billed Woodpeckers in Cuba           own possible encounters with         late 1990s, this time along the
during the late 1940s) and Mr.       the species. Jackson provides        Pearl River on the Louisiana side.
Manuel Armand Yramategui in          two accounts of his experiences,
1966 along the Neches River.         one along the Noxubee River          Mr. David Kulivan, a wildlife
Also along the Neches River,         in Alabama just across the           student at Louisiana State
Dennis in 1968 recorded what         Mississippi state line and the       University, waited a couple of
he believed was an Ivory-billed      other in Mississippi along the       weeks after his wild turkey
Woodpecker, which was analyzed       Yazoo River confluence with          hunting adventure during the
by Hardy (1975) who concluded        the Mississippi River. For           spring of 1999 at the Pearl River
it could have been an Ivory-billed   the Noxubee River account            WMA, but he finally contacted
Woodpecker or possibly a Blue        he glimpsed what he thought          Van Remsen at the Museum of
Jay. Recent analysis of this tape    could have been an Ivory-billed      Natural History, Louisiana State
by the Cornell Laboratory of         Woodpecker in 1973, but no           University to discuss what he
Ornithology determined that          further evidence has emerged         had observed. He claimed to
the calls could have been made       since the 1970s in Alabama. For      have observed two Ivory-billed
by an Ivory-billed Woodpecker,       the Yazoo River account, Jackson     Woodpeckers, one adult male
a White-breasted Nuthatch            and his graduate student, Mr.        and one adult female, foraging
(Sitta carolinensis), or a Blue      Malcolm Hodges (who now works        together for about 10 minutes.
Jay. In addition to the Dennis       for The Nature Conservancy           Although he had a camera with
tape, Mr. George Reynard used        in Georgia), reported hearing a      him, he claimed he was too much
for his “Bird Songs in Cuba”         bird in 1987 that in their view      focused on observing the birds
record, a recording apparently       closely matched the Cornell tape     to move an inch from his hunting
of a “double-knock” attributed       recording of the species. The        position. After several hours of
to an Ivory-billed Woodpecker        bird in question apparently was      interviews, Remsen concluded
he heard from the Big Thicket        responding to their playing of the   that the details in Kulivan’s
in 1969. Dr. Jerome Jackson          Cornell tape, but never came in      report were the most solid
(2004) asked Tanner to review        close enough for a visual contact,   evidence he had heard in 22 years
this tape, and he concluded          and Jackson and Hodges had no        of keeping track of information to
that he did not think the noise      capability to record what they       suggest Ivory-billed Woodpeckers
recorded is the double rap of        heard.                               are still extant (Williams 2001,
the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.                                              Gallagher 2005).
In addition, Reynard donated         In sum, there have been
                                     numerous reports of Ivory-billed     Once Kulivan’s sighting was
copies of two slides to VIREO                                             announced to the general public
purporting to show a female          Woodpeckers since the 1940s,
                                     and Jackson’s plea for the public    nearly a year later, numerous
Ivory-billed Woodpecker at a                                              expeditions were organized
cavity that were taken by Mr.        to provide information during
                                     his status review resulted in        to search for Ivory-billed
Neil Wright during the 1960s                                              Woodpeckers at Pearl River
(see Collins 1970, also Jackson      hundreds of letters and phone
                                     calls to Service biologists. Most    WMA. Many folks believed
2004). So despite the credentials                                         they glimpsed Ivory-billed
of these two ornithologists          of these reports again were
                                     dismissed easily as misidentified    Woodpeckers or heard their calls
making observations in Texas,                                             far in the distance during various
credible evidence of Ivory-billed    Pileated Woodpeckers and
                                     in some cases Red-headed             searches. Large cavities and
Woodpeckers at any time during                                            stripped bark aroused curiosity
the mid-1900s in the vicinity        Woodpeckers. Still, as suggested
                                     above, tantalizing reports           as to their makers and occupants.
of Big Thicket remains a hotly                                            Finally as a last effort to locate
debated issue to this day.           including photographs, tape
                                     recordings, and a feather suggest    this species, a well-funded
In part due to the Big Thicket       that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers        corporately-sponsored team
reports, the Southwest Region        could have persisted in very         of searchers during January-
of the Service during the late       low numbers in highly isolated       February, 2002, raised everyone’s
1980s initiated a range-wide         locations at least till the late     interest when they reported and
status review for the Ivory-billed   1980s. Nevertheless, near the        taped a mysterious rapping sound
Woodpecker and contracted            end of the 20th Century there        that could have been a large
Jackson (2004) to conduct the        was absolutely no undisputed         woodpecker but upon analysis
work. Jackson’s report provides      evidence acceptable to the           proved to be semi-automatic
a thorough review of all past        scientific community to back         pistol fire. Once again, despite
reports and an assessment            up any claim that Ivory-billed       this promising lead and very
of whether the Ivory-billed          Woodpeckers persisted past the       intensive searching, no further
Woodpecker could still persist in    1940s. Thus, after more than a       hard evidence was produced to

document persistence of this most      prior and post 1940) encounters       where reports in Tanner lacked
endangered bird in the United          may reveal important patterns         references to specimens found
States. Even some of those who         useful for guiding any future         in Hahn with the same date and
have raised doubts, claiming that      organized searches. Perhaps           location. Other reports were
Mr. Kulivan’s report was “too          as important, this assessment         matched successfully to location,
detailed,” admit it is possible the    should generate important             collector, or name of owner
Ivory-bill is still extant, but hard   research questions that should        (museum, collection, etc.), but
evidence again is lacking. More        be considered with respect to         were off by year or decade (e.g.,
recently, Hurricane Katrina            searching for any rare, widely        1897 as opposed to 1898, or 1898
has produced numerous snags            occurring, and/or otherwise           versus 1889; one or the other
and damaged trees in the Pearl         difficult to detect species           reference apparently contained a
River basin but also toppled           requiring conservation attention.     typographic error). Since Tanner
over nearly all of the older and                                             was the primary reference, his
larger hardwoods in the area. It       For consistency, Tanner’s             treatment of such reports took
remains to be seen whether on          geographical regions are used         precedence, but documentation
balance the quality of habitat here    for all reports: (1) Carolina, (2)    of discrepancies are provided as
has improved or decreased for          Georgia-northern Florida, (3)         appropriate (many of these were
Ivory-billed Woodpecker after          southern Florida, (4) Alabama         in fact corrected by Tanner in
Katrina.                               (including the Florida panhandle      his unpublished 1989 update to
                                       west of the Apalachicola River        his report). In addition, multiple
Treatment of Recent along with         and also drainages in Mississippi     specimens often were collected at
all Previous Documented and            outside the Delta, (5) lower          the same location during the same
Potential Encounters                   Mississippi Delta (Louisiana          decade; some are identified by
After the 2005 Arkansas                and adjacent Mississippi),            Tanner, but some were revealed
announcement, organized search         (6) upper Mississippi Delta           only when compared with
efforts were initiated across the      (Arkansas, Missouri, and adjacent     Hahn. In such cases, notations
historical range to include (in        Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky,     and treatments are based on a
addition to Arkansas) Texas,           and Illinois), (7) Arkansas (west     combination of these two primary
Louisiana, South Carolina, and         of the Delta)-Oklahoma, and (8)       sources.
Georgia. Additionally, several         east Texas. Within each region,
reports since 2005 surfaced from       subregions are identified which       All specimens collected were
areas initially not considered         are composed of groups of             prior to 1940, and Jackson (2004)
from southern Illinois, western        locations and serve again as the      presents a summary of the
Tennessee, southeastern North          basis for comparing patterns of       number of specimens collected
Carolina, the Florida panhandle,       occurrence within each region,        per decade now in museum
and extreme south Florida.             each decade, and among regions.       collections. This information
Organized search efforts spread                                              is used to make comparisons
to these locations, along with         The smallest common unit used         between reports accepted, but
additional areas included in the       in this treatment is location         without specimens, during the
Cornell Lab’s Mobile Search            of report(s) within a decade,         decades prior to 1940 with reports
Team efforts over several              following and building upon           after 1940 where no universally
years. As of 2009, no better           the list of locations provided in     accepted documentation exists
documentation has come forth           Tanner. A data point represents       beyond the reputations of the
than what had been announced           at least one report from a location   involved observers. There are
in 2005, but with this combined        had occurred during a specified       two exceptions to this rule where
effort a relatively high number of     decade. Confirmation of a report      photographs have been widely
credible-sounding reports were         is established at locations when      accepted as documentation.
compiled compared with any             a specimen is identified as           These are also locations where
other post-1930s decade.               having been collected from that       specimens were known to have
                                       location during the decade in         been taken during the same
If any of these potential              question. Specimens serving           decade (Taylor Creek, FL, in the
encounters, added to those             as documentation of occurring         1920s and the Singer Tract, LA, in
between 1944 and 1999, are             at a location during a decade         the 1930s, respectively). All other
considered in the realm of what        are identified in Tanner (1942),      reports are considered potential
is possible, then it is possible       Hahn (1963), and Jackson (2004).      encounters of varying quality
that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker       An attempt was made here              depending upon the authority of
may persist in isolated locations      to cross-reference specimens          the observer as judged by Tanner,
throughout the historical              listed with dates and locations       Jackson, and other authoritative
distribution mapped by Tanner          of collections presented in these     ornithologists.
(1942). Conducting a decade-by-        three major references. Most
decade assessment of documented        such reports of specimens listed      Here, a potential encounter is
(by specimen and/or universally        in Tanner were successfully           defined as a report not easily
accepted video or photograph; all      identified in Hahn, but there         explained as something other
prior to 1940) and potential (both     were some inconsistencies             than an Ivory-billed Woodpecker

on the basis of description of          Tanner himself prior to 1940 are        In summary, there is no evidence
the bird, the type of habitat in        provided in Tanner (1942, with          that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
which it was encountered, and           cross-reference to location on his      was ever widely or consistently
distribution. After the Arkansas        maps, his figures 3-10) and are so      relocated in the same areas from
announcement was made, post-            noted here.                             year to year or from decade to
1944 reports were compiled                                                      decade prior to 1940, despite the
prior to the 2005 announcement          Results and Discussion                  impression one may have about
of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker           The number of locations with            birds at the Singer Tract during
being sighted in Arkansas. A            Ivory-billed Woodpecker reports         the 1930s. Actually, during
map was produced of these               peaked between 1880 and 1910,           Tanner’s study the chore in
potential encounters in Service         the same period when most               locating birds often took days or
brochures. These potential              specimens were collected (Figures       weeks even where pairs or family
encounters were based on those          1, 2). The number of locations          groups were known to occur from
discussed by Jackson (2004)             with potential reports after            previous years (and actually only
or otherwise in Service files as        1940 generally dropped below            one nesting pair at John’s Bayou
“probably reliable,” defined here       the number of locations with all        was consistently relocated during
as not obviously another species.       reports between 1900 and 1940.          his entire study). Whether the
A review of other published             However, when including only            birds were truly more nomadic
literature and files maintained         potential encounters between 1900       than previously thought, or
by some State working groups            and 1939, the range in number           whether the low percentage of
included other potential                of locations among decades was          repeated locations historically has
encounters that are cited and           roughly similar to the number of        been due to the search patterns
used in this treatment (both            locations with potential encounters     of ornithologists and collectors
before and after 1950). Excluded        in the decades between 1940 and         is unclear. What is clear is that
from further consideration were         2009, only dropping below 10            the present pattern of reports
reports that likely described           locations during the 1990s. The         that do not effectively document
other species (especially Pileated,     number of locations within each         occurrence of the species has
but also Red-headed and                 decade with multiple reports            been repeated from decade to
sometimes other woodpecker              among years never exceeded 10           decade for more than a century
species), as well as those reports      per decade prior to the extensive       and that the number of locations
outside the historical range            efforts underway after 2005 to          with potential encounters within
of the species (as depicted in          search for this species.                the same decade has varied little
Tanner 1942) and in unlikely            Prior to 1940, only a small             since the 1870s.
habitats such as golf courses and       percentage of locations from
backyards. The reports between                                                  Whether or not many or all post-
                                        decade to decade provided the           1944 reports pertain to actual
1945 and 2005 considered further        source of reports from multiple
vary in detail, with some accepted                                              Ivory-billed Woodpeckers will
                                        years within any one decade,            continue to be debated in some
based solely on the credibility         ranging from 12 to 28 percent of
and reputation of the observer.                                                 circles, and it also is possible that
                                        all locations with birds reported       some of the reports dismissed
Reports since April 2005 (i.e.,         within each decade (Figures 3,
the Arkansas announcement)                                                      for purposes of this treatment
                                        4). After 1940, there was a slight      perhaps should not have been
are similarly treated, but at least     increase in the percentage of
one diagnostic field mark had                                                   discounted so lightly. However,
                                        locations with multi-year reports       the pattern of credible-sounding
to be observed (most often the          in the later decades, ranging from
white trailing edges on a flying or                                             reports accepted for this
                                        9 to 51 percent of all locations with   treatment from locations without
perched large woodpecker).              birds reported within each decade.      firm documentation was from
It is important to understand the       Despite this increase in locations      decade to decade slightly lower
type and level of documentation         with reports from multiple              between 1940 and 2009 than the
accepted for this species’              years there was no definitive           pattern recorded between 1890
persistence at the time when most       documentation of persistence at         and 1939. Most interestingly, the
collecting of specimens began to        any of these locations. Similarly,      exceptional increase in locations
trail off (i.e., after 1900) compared   a very low percentage of locations      with potential encounters during
with those reports which were           with reports spanning more than         the present decade is on the
accepted without question               one decade is documented in             surface similar to what was
previously. While most previous         the historical record, but again        recorded during the 1930s, given
treatments break down reports           with a slight increase during the       both of these decades experienced
by State, here it is believed that      latter decades (Figures 5, 6).          a notable increase in amount
important insights can be made          Reports continue to come from           of effort to firmly document
by comparing reports, type and          most of Tanner’s regions into the       the persistence of this species
level of documentation, by decade       present day with an obvious shift       (with similar results despite
starting with the 1800 and ending       from those regions that included        substantially fewer observers
with the present. References for        Florida to regions elsewhere            involved in the 1930s than in the
those reports besides those of          (Figure 7).                             present decade).

       1. Numerical summary of locations with Ivory-billed Woodpecker reports.
Figure E-1. Numericalsummary of all locations with Ivory-billed Woodpecker reports.
 Figure 1. Numerical summary of all locations with Ivory-billed Woodpecker reports.

Figure 2. Total locations with at least one specimen known from that location, that decade,
 Figure 2. Total locations with at least one specimen known from that location, that decade,
Figure E-2. Total locations with at least one specimen known from that location, that decade, range-wide


       3. Percent of reported locations with multiple reports within the same decade.
Figure E-3. Percentof reported locations with multiple reports within the same decade.
Figure 3. Percent of reported locations with multiple reports within the same decade.

Figure 4. Percent of locations with multiple reports within one decade during multiple decade
Figure 4. Percent of locations with multiple reports within one decade during multiple decade
time blocks.
 Figure E-4. Percent of locations with multiple reports within one decade during multiple decade time blocks.
time blocks.


       5. Number of locations with reports across two decades.
Figure E-5. Numberof locationswith reports across two decades.
Figure 5. Number of locations with reports across two decades.

Figure 6. Percent of locations with reports across two decades during multiple decade time
blocks.6. Percent of locations with reports across two decades during multiple decade time
Figure E-6. Percent of locations with reports across two decades during multiple decade time blocks.

Figure 7. Total locations with reports in each Tanner region
Figure E-7. Total locations with reports in each Tanner region

Reports of Ivory-billed               1800-1849                            1870-1879
Woodpecker by Geographic              (A-1) 12 miles north of              (B-1*) Cheraw, SC (spec.; another
Region                                Wilmington, NC; about 1800 (#1;      specimen with unknown date);
(October 10, 2009)                    specimen at Smithsonian said to      April 1876 (#2)
                                      be from Wilmington, NC; possibly
Locations alpha-numeric codes         collected by Wilson who reported     (F-2) Johnson’s, Pritchard’s,
in green bold type represent          taking three in February 1809)       and Edding Islands, SC; 1880
reports from more than one year                                            and before (#13; Hasbrouke
within the decade; * indicates at     (C-1*) Cypress swamp north           1891 is more specific in citing a
least one specimen known from         of Charleston, SC (spec.,            letter from W. Hoxie whereby
that location during that decade.     presumably same area where           a specimen was taken, and now
Unless otherwise indicated,           two other spec. collected without    unaccounted for, from Johnson’s
reference to Tanner is for his 1942   date, but Hasbrouke 1891 reports     Island in 1879 or 1880)
report and reference to Hahn is       that G. N. Lawrence received
for his 1963 list of specimens and    two specimens from J. G. Bell        1880-1889
where they were housed.               apparently sometime in the late      (B-1) Pee Dee River, near Cheraw,
                                      1840s or early 1850s); 1840 (#9)     SC; April 1889 (#2)
Carolina Region (#’s where
indicated are cross-referenced to     (G-1) Frequently between             (F-2) Johnson’s, Pritchard’s,
Figure 3 in Tanner), subregions:      Augusta and Savannah along           and Edding Islands, SC; 1880
(A) Wilmington, NC, (B) Pee           the Savannah River; about 1800       and before (#13; Hasbrouke
Dee-Waccamaw, SC-NC, (C)              (#11; three specimens listed by      1891 is more specific in citing a
Lower Santee (including the           Hahn are from Georgia and dated      letter from W. Hoxie whereby he
Black River which is actually a       1806, 1807, and 1809; collected by   reports a sighting on Pritchard’s
tributary of the Pee Dee), SC,        Wilson?)                             Island during the winter of 1886-
(D) Upper Santee (including                                                1887, but Hoxie refers elsewhere
Congaree and Wateree), SC, (E)        1850-1859                            that his last report was 1884)
Edisto, SC, (F) Coosawhatchie-        (C-2) Pine Barrens of SC; about
                                      1850 (#3)                            (G-1) Miller’s Island, Column
Broad-Mary rivers, SC, (G)                                                 lake, 30 miles north of Savannah
Savannah (including Ogeechee
                                      1860-1869                            (“shot” by C. B. Prescott); 1886
and Canochee), SC-GA                  (F-1) Hunting Id., Beaufort          (Jackson 2004)
                                      County, SC; before 1870 (#12)

1890-1899                             warden,” both reported to J.         evidence from followup by P.
(G-2) Savannah River, Barnwell        Dennis); 1959 (USFWS 2007)           Sykes); 1970 (Jackson 2004)
County, SC; 1898 (#10; Jackson
2004 has as location “near Beldoc,    1960-1969                            (D-1) Congaree Swamp,
Allendale County” for what            (C-8) Six reports within the         Richland County, SC (reported
appears to be the same report)        Francis Marion National Forest       to have nested by T. Dabbs); 1970
                                      and Cape Romain National             (Jackson 2004)
1900-1909                             Wildlife Refuge, Berkeley County
(G-2) Savannah River, Allendale       area:                                (D-2) Upper Santee Swamp,
County, SC; September 1907                                                 vicinity of Broadwater Creek
(#10)                                 Bulls Island, Cape Romain NWR,       about 40 miles northeast of
                                      Berkeley County, SC (three           Francis Beidler Forest in Four
1910-1919                             separate reports by H. Mills, H.     Holes Swamp (a response to
None                                  Waller, and a “Brookline, MA,        Singer Tract tape by R. Manns,
                                      Bird Club member” according          reportedly recorded but doubts
1920-1929                             to A. Sprunt, L. Vaughan, and D.     on what was heard by Manns
(C-1) Fairlawn Plantation,            Crompton in replies to J. Dennis);   expressed by Jackson; several
Charleston County, SC (two            January to December 1960             media references to a report of a
separate reports); 1929 (Sprunt       (USFWS 2007)                         pair by Audubon staff and photos
and Chamberlain 1949)                                                      implied to be associated with
                                      West of Summerville (Great           these reports actually pertain
(C-3) Santee Swamp, near St.          Cypress Swamp?), Dorchester
Stephens, SC; about 1925 (#5)                                              to Fielding Lewis’s photos from
                                      County, SC (sighting by L. Rush      Louisiana during this same year);
1930-1939                             according to Sprunt in reply to      February 1971 (Jackson 2004,
(C-4) Black Oak Island, near St.      J. Dennis); spring 1962 (USFWS       USFWS 2007)
Stephens, Clarendon County, SC;       2007)
about 1930 (#4)                                                            (G-3) Ogeechee River, 25 miles
                                      Iron Swamp Road, west of US          west of Savannah, Chatham
(C-5, C-6, C-7) Santee Swamp,         Highway 17, Cape Romain NWR          County, GA (C. D. Gerow); July
Georgetown and lower Berkeley         and Francis Marion National          1973 (Jackson 2004)
Counties, SC; 1930-1937 (# 6,         Forest, Berkeley County, SC (one
7, and 8; in addition Post and        seen flying crossing road by J.      1980-1989
Gauthreaux 1989 state that a          Edwards); April 1963 (USFWS          (B-2) Lower Waccamaw River,
report of two birds by Murray         2007)                                Georgetown County, SC (a report
and Sanders in 1938 at Wadmacon                                            from B. Doyle given to L. Short);
                                      Near McClellanville (“Buck Hall”     unclear date perhaps 1980s
was the “last official” sighting in   area), Francis Marion National
SC)                                                                        (Jackson 2004)
                                      Forest, lower Santee River
(E-1) Four Holes Swamp, Edisto        system, Berkeley County, SC          (C-11) Black River, eastern
River, Orangeburg County, SC          (two birds observed on pines by      portion of Clarendon County,
(SC Audubon); 1930s (SCIBWO           E. DeBold); May 1967 (USFWS          SC (one supposedly seen but
Working Group Files 2009)             2007)                                observer not named); 1981
                                                                           (Jackson 2004)
1940-1949                             (D-1) Cedar Creek, Congaree
(C-3 through 7) Santee region,        Swamp, Richland County, SC           (D-1) Congaree National Park,
SC (Figure 13 in Tanner; reach        (“aerial sighting…of a bird in       Richland County, SC (multiple
between Black Oak Island              flight” by J. Dennis and two         reports); 1982 (near RCW cluster,
and Atlantic Ocean; unknown           additional reports to J. Dennis      S. Pfaff), 1987 (W. Sweeny)
number); 1940s (Tanner)               [one of a pair]; also reported to    (SCIBWO Working Group Files
                                      have nested by T. Dabbs); 1964-      2009)
(C-8) Coastal Highway 17              1966, 1969 (Dennis 1966, Jackson
(Francis Marion National Forest,      2004, USFWS 2007)                    (D-2) Near confluence of Little
Berkeley County?), SC (report                                              Congaree (Wateree?) and Santee
from Chuck Horn for John Lynes        1970-1979                            River, Sumter County (one heard
to Cornell); 1945 (SCIBWO             (C-9) Lower Santee River, 2          and seen by J. Williams) another
Working Group Files 2009)             miles south of Greeleyville,         near Camden Kershaw County
                                      Williamsburg County, SC              (one apparent female by Sara
1950-1959                             (seen by D. Hill as reported to      Davis-Hyman), SC; September
(C-8) Francis Marion National         D. Chamberlain); late 1970s          1984 (USFWS 2007), 1988
Forest between Awendaw and            (SCIBWO Working Group Files          (SCIBWO Working Group Files
Moore’s Landing (Bull Island          2009)                                2009)
Ferry), Berkeley County, SC (two
separate reports: one heard and       (C-11) Black River, eastern          1990-1999
briefly seen by L. Vaughan, P.        portion of Georgetown County,        (D-1) Congaree National Park,
W. Smith, and D. Crompton and         SC (two heard and silhouettes        Richland County, SC (seen by
the other reported by a “game         seen by T. Dabbs, no additional      L. Askins); May 1998 (SCIBWO
                                                                           Working Group Files 2009)
(D-2) Wateree River, Poinsett         2001, 2002, March 2003 (SCIBWO       (G-3*) Oklawaha River swamp,
State Park, Sumter County,            Working Group Files 2009)            FL (two specs.); March 1879
SC (single male seen by park                                               (#42)
naturalist) and Upper Santee          (E-2) Near Four Holes Swamp,
River swamp, Lone Star, Calhoun       Edisto Drainage, Dorchester          (G-4*) Lake George, FL (spec.);
County, SC (seen by J. Pittard);      County, SC (one seen by B.           July 1877 (#44)
1993 and April 1997 (SCIBWO           Teagardin); December 2006
                                      (SCIBWO Working Group Files          (G-10*) Near Palatka, FL (two
Working Group Files 2009)                                                  specs.); March 1878 (Hahn)
2000-                                                                      1880-1889
(B-3) Green Swamp, Brunswick          (F-3) Near Grays, Coosawhatchie
                                      River, Jasper County, SC (three      (A-3) Frederica River, St. Simons
County, NC (pair seen by J.                                                Island, Glynn County, GA (a pair
Condrey); 2005 (SCIBWO                seen by D. Hamilton); June 2005
                                      (SCIBWO Working Group Files          seen in flight by R. Brasher); late
Working Group Files 2007)                                                  1880s (Jackson 2004)
(B-4) Little Pee Dee River,                                                (B-2) Okefenokee region, GA;
Marion County, SC (female             (F-4) Rosehill Plantation between
                                      Mary and Colleton Rivers,            1888 (#6)
seen both times by F. Ervin);
September 2004, September 2006        Beaufort County, SC (heard and       (D-1) Chattahoochee River, a
(SCIBWO Working Group Files           seen by D. Dunlap); October 2006     day’s journey south of Columbus,
2009)                                 (SCIBWO Working Group Files          GA; 1887 (#8)
(B-5) Woodbury Tract, Great                                                (D-2) Bristol (Apalachicola
Pee Dee River, Marion County,         Georgia-northern Florida Region      River), FL; December 1889
SC (female seen by J. Godbold);       (#’s where indicated are cross-      (#9; Hasbrouke 1891 mentions
March 2007 (SCIBWO Working            referenced to Figure 4 in Tanner),   a specimen at the Smithsonian
Group Files 2009)                     subregions: (A) Altamaha, GA, (B)    apparently from Bristol taken
                                      Okefenokee (including Satilla,       during this time period, but it is
(B-6) Lumber River, Robeson           Pinhook Swamp, Oseola NF),           now unaccounted for)
County, NC, north and west of         GA-FL, (C) Red Hills, GA-FL, (D)
Lumberton (large woodpecker           Apalachicola-Chipola (including      (D-3) Apalachicola River swamp,
with bold black and white pattern     Chattahoochee), FL-GA-AL, (E)        FL; March 1887 (#10)
on the wings and white trailing       Wakulla-Aucilla, FL, (F) Lower
edge seen while conducting a NC       Suwannee, FL, (G) North Peninsula    (E-1) St. Marks River (several
Wildlife Resources Commission         (including lower St. John’s River    miles upstream), FL; April 1886
aerial waterbird survey by A.         and tributaries, Ocala National      (#14; Hasbrouke 1891 states that
Houston); April 2008 (reported to     Forest), FL                          H. A. Kline killed one in March
W. Golder with Audubon North                                               of 1886, but if so specimen is
Carolina 2008)                        1800-1849                            unaccounted for)
(C-8) Wabmaw Creek Wilderness,                                             (E-2) St. Marks, FL; March 1885
Francis Marion National Forest,       1850-1859                            (#15)
Berkeley County, SC (a pair well      (A-1) Altamaha Swamp, GA; after
                                      1853 (#2)                            (F-2*) Rosewood, FL (five specs.);
described in 2007 in comparison                                            1881-1883 (#32; Hahn also lists
with pair of Pileateds by J. Cork);   (F-1*) Cedar Key, FL (spec.);        specimen taken 1885 included in
September 2007 (SCIBWO                January 1859 (#33)                   total here)
Working Group Files 2009)
                                      1860-1869                            (F-3*) Gulf Hammock, Levy
(C-10) Near Cross, Lower Santee       (A-1) Altamaha Swamp, GA;            County, FL (five specs.); August
River, Berkeley County, SC            before 1865 (#2)                     1883 and March 1887 (#35;
(seen by L. Riney); January 2005                                           Hahn also lists specimens taken
(SCIBWO Working Group Files           (B-1*) Okefenokee, GA (spec.);       December 1881 included in total
2009)                                 1860 (#4)                            here)
(D-1) Congaree National Park,         (G-1*) Volusia, FL (three specs.);   (G-5*) St. John’s River, north of
Richland County, SC (multiple         February 1869 (#45; all three        Green Cove Springs, FL (three
visual reports and recordings);       listed in Hahn with possibly an      specs.); 1887 (#38; appears to
2005-2009 (SCIBWO Working             additional specimen listed at        be same report listed as 1877 in
Group Files 2009)                     University of Michigan Museum        Hahn, acknowledged later by
                                      of Zoology with same date and        Tanner as a possibility in an 1989
(D-2) Wateree and Congaree            location)
river confluence, Sumter County,                                           update to his 1942 report)
SC (several observations by C.        1870-1879                            (G-6) Juniper Creek, Marion
Reed) and Upper Santee River          (G-2) St. John’s and Oklawaha        County, FL; March 1886 (#43)
swamp, Lone Star, Calhoun             Rivers, FL; 1873 (#41)
County, SC (seen by J. Pittard);

1890-1899                             (F-9*) Old Town, FL (four specs.);   apparently a 1912 specimen
(B-3) Small tributary of the          April 1892 (#30; Hahn lists three    is from Craven Island in the
Satilla River, 20 miles southeast     specimens dated April 1892,          Philadelphia Academy of Science
Blackshear, GA; about 1895 (#3)       an additional specimen dated         collection, but not clear in Hahn
                                      February 1897 included in total      though cited by Tanner in his
(D-2*) Bristol (Apalachicola          here)                                1989 update to his 1942 report)
River), FL (two specs.);
November 1894 (Hahn)                  (F-10) Suwannee Hammock, Levy        (B-2*) Waycross (Okefenokee
                                      County, FL; 1893 (#31; Jackson       region), GA (spec.); April 1913
(E-3) Waukeenah River, Jefferson
                                      2004 adds two sight records by F.    (Hahn; specimen is a skeleton;
County, FL; April 1894 (#16)
                                      Chapman at Vista Creek in 1890       acknowledged by Tanner in his
(E-4*) Wacissa River region,          and near Fort Fanning in 1891)       1989 update to his 1942 report)
Jefferson County, FL (eleven
                                      1900-1909                            (B-7*) Baker County
specs.); February to June 1894
                                      (B-4) Minnie’s Lake Island,          (Okefenokee-Pinhook region),
(#17; includes two specimens
                                      Okefenokee, GA; 1903 (in             FL (four specs.); February 1914
from Cow Creek taken February
                                      Tanner’s 1989 update, citing         (#37; Tanner listed this report
1894 listed in Hahn, who also
                                      Elliott 1932, to his1942 report)     without dates or references to
lists a specimen taken April
                                                                           specimens that are listed in Hahn;
1896 included in total here; also     (E-2*) St. Marks, FL (spec.);        acknowledged by Tanner in his
Hasbrouke 1891 reports that in        January 1900 (#15; Tanner does       1989 update to his 1942 report)
March 1890 “Captain” Gregg            not indicate that a specimen
had killed two but these were         was taken, while Hahn lists one      (E-4*) Jefferson County (Wacissa
discarded)                            specimen taken in 1901; these        region), FL (spec.); January 1910
                                      likely refer to the same event       (Hahn)
(E-5*) Aucilla River, FL (spec.);
                                      as the one cited by Tanner
March 1894 (#19)                                                           (E-5*) Aucilla River, FL (spec.);
                                      from Pennock 1901 entitled
                                      “Recent capture of Ivory-billed      May 1917 (#19)
(E-6) Big Muddy swamp, Taylor
County, FL; February 1894 (#20)       Woodpeckers in Florida)              (E-11) Wakulla Springs, FL
                                      (E-4*) Jefferson County (Wacissa     (a pair seen by H.L. Beadle;
(F-4*) Pumpkin swamp, Dixie
                                      region), FL (spec.); June 1905       reported by Stoddard to Sprunt);
County, FL (spec.); April 1893
                                      (Hahn)                               April 1918 (Sprunt 1954;
(#25; neither Tanner nor Hahn
                                                                           acknowledged by Tanner in his
list a specimen with specific
                                      (E-7) Leon County, FL; about         1989 update to his 1942 report)
location or date for this location,
                                      1900 (#13)
but such a specimen is listed at                                           (F-10) Suwannee Hammock, Levy
the Smithsonian collected by H.       (E-8) Taylor County, FL; January     County, FL; 1917 (#31)
Parker)                               1900 (#21)
                                                                           (G-8) Alachua County, FL; about
(F-5) California swamp, Dixie         (E-9*) Taylor County, FL (two        1910 (#39)
County, FL; February 1893 (#26)       specs.); March 1904 (#22; Tanner
                                      does not indicate that specimens     (G-2) Between Welaka and
(F-6*) California swamp,                                                   Rodman, FL; 1916 (#41)
                                      were taken, while Hahn lists two
Lafayette County, FL (two
                                      specimens from January 1904          1920-1929
specs.); 1893 (#27; Tanner cites
                                      included in total here)              (A-2) Altamaha River, Tattnall
MCZ as having a specimen from
1893, but this was not found in       (F-11*) Stephensville, Taylor        County, GA; around 1925 (#1)
Hahn which lists two specimens        County, FL (spec.); January 1901     (B-4) Okefenokee (Minnie’s
from this location during March       (#23)                                Island), GA (still nesting
1896 housed at Bowling Green
                                      (F-12*) Lafayette or Dixie           according to B. Carter); 1924
State University, OH, included in
                                      County, FL (three spec.); 1905       (S. Willis, pers. comm., USFWS
total here)
                                      (#24; Hahn also lists specimen       2007)
(F-7) Branford, FL; April 1892        taken February 1904 included in      (D-4) Apalachicola River Swamp,
(#28)                                 total here)                          FL; 1920 (#11)
(F-8*) Suwannee River, near           (F-13) Otter Creek, Gulf             (E-10) Wacissa River Swamp, FL;
Old Town, FL (six specs.); 1890       Hammock, Levy County, FL;            1923 (#18)
and 1893 (#29; Hahn 1963 up           about 1905 (#34)
to fourteen collected according                                            (F-10) Suwannee Hammock, Levy
to accounts by Brewster and           (G-7) Micanopy, FL; 1909 (#40)       County, FL; about 1925 (#31)
Chapman [one] in 1890 and
                                      1910-1919                            (G-3) Oklawaha River Swamp,
Wayne [thirteen] in 1893)
                                      (B-1*, B-4, B-5) Okefenokee          FL; 1923 (#42)
                                      Swamp (Craven Island, Minnie’s
                                      Lake Island, Suwannee Canal),
                                      GA; 1910-1915 (#4, 5, and 7;

1930-1939                              (G-9) Silver Spring swamp near       to Eastman); December 1963
(B-4) Okefenokee (Minnie’s             Ocala, FL (pair seen by L. L.        (USFWS 2007)
Lake Island), GA (possible             Henniger); October 1949 (Sprunt
nesting C. Elliot); 1931 (Jackson      1954; acknowledged by Tanner         1970-1979
2004; various other references         in his 1989 update to his 1942       (D-3) Apalachicola National
during the 1930’s give conflicting     report)                              Forest, Liberty/Gulf County, FL
interpretations but suggesting                                              (pair with female sticking head
persistence with Greene 1936           1950-1959                            out of cavity by J. Stevenson);
and especially Burleigh 1958           (A-2) Altamaha River, Tattnall       March “late 1970s” (Stevenson
quoting F. Hebard that not until       County, GA (H. Stoddard              2006, letters between D. Pashley,
the “great fire” of 1932 was this      observed one from plane); 1958?      C. Hunter and H. Stevenson 1990-
species noted since 1912, and with     (Stoddard 1969, Jackson 2004,        1991, USFWS 2007 [see 1980s])
Jackson recounting that Tanner         USFWS 2007)
had spoken with E. Adams,              (C-1) Red Hills, Thomas County,      (D-3) Apalachicola National
a technician for the refuge,           GA (H. Stoddard observed two         Forest, Liberty/Gulf County, FL
about his sighting presumably          birds feeding in beetle killed       (J. Stevenson reported finding
in the mid-1930s, but with             spruce pine); Spring 1952            breast and secondary feathers
Tanner himself treating these          (Stoddard 1969; Crawford 1998,       inside the cavity of the same
as “rumors” and on the basis of        Jackson 2004)                        tree as in previous decade that
what he did observe of the habitat                                          was blown down November 1985
in 1939 he considered to look          (D-5) Chipola River, Calhoun         from Hurricane Kate, [location
unsuitable, mostly pond cypress)       County, FL (numerous observers,      of feathers are at present known
                                       most prominent H. M. Stevenson       to J. Stevenson and the museum
(D-4) Apalachicola River Swamp,        along with R. West); 1950-1951
FL; about 1935 (#11)                                                        curator who identified them
                                       (Stevenson and Anderson 1994,        as from Ivory-bill; also in the
(E-11) Wakulla County, FL; June            .
                                       J. V Dennis 1967, 1979, and          aforementioned correspondence,
1936 and January 1937 (#12)            W. Eastman 1958; the original        H. Stevenson describes a possible
                                       reports doubted by both Stoddard     sighting in the same general area
(E-4, E-10) Wacissa River              and Tanner, who were aware at        himself in 1985 or 1986]); Spring
Swamp, FL; December 1932 up to         the time, but did not discount,      1986 (Stevenson 2006, letters
1937 (#17 and 18)                      Stevenson’s observation during       between D. Pashley, C. Hunter
                                       the same time period)                and H. Stevenson 1991, USFWS
(F-14) Sim’s Ridge, Gulf
Hammock, Levy County, FL;              (E-12) Wakulla County, FL (flying    2007 [see 1970s])
1932-1934 (#36)                        across road between Wakulla          1990-1999
                                       Station and St. Marks by S.          (D-3) Lower Chipola-Apalachicola
1940-1949                              Grimes along with R. Hallman);
(A-2) Altamaha River, GA; 1940s                                             River (reports given to J. Jackson
                                       July 1952 (Stevenson and             considered “tantalizing”); 1990-
(Stoddard 1969)                        Anderson 1994; acknowledged by       1991 (Jackson 1996)
(B-5) Suwannee Canal,                  Tanner in his 1989 update to his
Okefenokee, GA; 1941-1942, 1946,       1942 report)                         (F-8) Lower Suwannee River,
1948 (Loftin 1991, Jackson 2004)                                            Gilchrist County, FL (possible
                                       (E-5) Taylor County, FL (female      multiple sightings by M. Rupp
(D-2 through D-4) Apalachicola         1 mile east of Aucilla River, west   and E. Rupp); May 1995 (USFWS
region, FL (Figure 16 in Tanner;       of Perry, by W. L. Rhein); 1959      2007)
reach from Bristol to Apalachicola     (Jackson 1996)
Bay; 4 individuals estimated on                                             2000-
                                       1960-1969                            (D-3) Lower Apalachicola River
the basis of Tanner’s assessment       (B-6) Stephen Foster State
of “carrying capacity of region                                             (heard possible kent calls by
                                       Park, Okefenokee Swamp,              Spahr); January 2003 (Spahr
and reports of natives;” also a pair   Charlton County, GA (supposedly
reported by Eastman in March                                                2006)
                                       photographed by Park
1949); 1940s (Tanner)                  Superintendent and Nova Scotia       (E-13) Between Aucilla River
(F-2 through F-13) Gulf                naturalist [names?] relayed to       and Exit 35 (Highway 221 to
Hammock-Suwannee region,               J. J. Shoman and then to L. R.       Greenville) along I-10, Madison
FL (Figure 15 in Tanner; area          Short); 1965? (USFWS 2007)           County, FL (female fly-over
from Steinhatchie River to                                                  female seen flying across highway
                                       (C-1) Red Hills, Thomas County,      in front of vehicle and then briefly
Gulf Hammock; 4 individuals            GA (G. B. Reynard); 1963
estimated on the basis of Tanner’s                                          from the side of same vehicle,
                                       (Jackson 2004)                       rear of bird, as it entered woods,
assessment of “carrying capacity
of region”); 1940s (Tanner)            (D-6) West of Apalachicola, FL       by S. Willis); April 2007 (USFWS
                                       (bird flew across road near Indian   2007)
                                       Pass and flew north to Lake
                                       Wimico, J. H. Merritt reported

Southern Florida (#’s where            (A-4) Turnbull Swamp or               only specimen from Kissimmee as
indicated are cross-referenced to      Hammock, Volusia County; 1872         housed at the Peabody Museum
Figure 5 in Tanner), subregions (all   (#8; Hasbrouke 1891 cites this        of Natural History at Yale
restricted to FL): (A) East-Central    report as from New Smyrna             University with date January 15,
(including upper St. John’s River      Beach)                                1890; however, Hahn does list
and tributaries), (B) North-Central                                          two specimens from an unknown
(including Orlando, Green Swamp,       (A-5*) Merritt Island (spec.);        location at the Field Museum
and upper Kissimmee River), (C)        1870 (#22; Tanner did not list        with the year 1887 and the
Chassahowitzka to Tampa Bay, (D)       a specimen, but Hahn lists a          Field Museum itself does list a
Lower Kissimmee-Highlands-Lake         specimen from “Brevard” in            specimen from Kissimmee dated
Okeechobee, (E) Charlotte Harbor-      April 1870, presumably the same       October 1892)
Fort Myers, (F) Big Cypress-           report as Merritt Island is within
Everglades, (G) Loxahatchee            Brevard County)                       (B-10*) Near Orlando (two
                                                                             specs.); April 1886 (Hahn)
1800-1849                              (B-1*) Panasofkee Lake, Sumter
None                                   County (spec.); spring 1876 (#3;      (C-1) Mouth of Withlacoochee
                                       Tanner did not list a specimen,       River; 1879-1880 (#1)
1850-1859                              but Hahn lists a specimen from
(A-1) Enterprise (now Benson           February 1876)                        (C-3*) Crystal River, Citrus
Springs), Volusia County;                                                    County (spec.); July 1889 (#2)
about 1859 (#5; Hahn lists four        (C-1) Mouth of Withlacoochee
                                       River; 1879-1880 (#1)                 (C-4*) Cypress swamp near
specimens from “April” with no                                               Tarpon Springs (five specs.);
year nor collector listed, but in      (C-2*) Hernando County (two           March 1887 (#24; Hahn lists
the collection records for MVZ         specs.); March 1876 and January       three specimens from March
one specimen [107106] has Bryant       1877 (#10)                            1887, but also one from October
as the collector whom Tanner                                                 1886 and one from April 1889,
references for this report)            1880-1889                             included in total here)
                                       (A-2) Sanford; around 1885 (#6)
1860-1869                                                                    (C-5) Clearwater; 1880 (#26)
(A-1*) Enterprise (now Benson          (A-3*) Wekiva River (three
springs), Volusia County (spec.);      specs.); about 1885 (#4; Tanner       (C-6*) Tampa (two specs.);
March 1869 (#5; Tanner did not         did not list any specimens, but       September 1883 (#27)
list a specimen, but Hahn lists        Hahn lists two specimens with
a specimen from March 1869             dates of February 1883 and one        (C-7*) Southeast of Tampa (three
taken by J. Allen whom Tanner          March 1883)                           specs.); 1883-1889 (#28; Hahn
references for this report)                                                  lists specimens dated October
                                       (A-6*) Indian River (spec.);          27, 1881, February 10, 1885, and
(A-2*) Hawkinsville and Lake           February 1885 (#9)                    1885)
Jessup (two specs., one each from
each location); March and winter       (B-2*) Linden (spec.); March 1886     (C-8*) Manatee County (four
1869 (#6; Hasbrouke 1891 reports       (#11)                                 specs.); March 1889 (#30; Hahn
from essentially an anonymous                                                lists three specimens collected in
                                       (B-3*) Polk County (spec.); 1889      March 1889, two specifically listed
author, “W.A.D. of Hawkinsville,       (#13; Tanner cites the Museum of
that he and his brother collected                                            as collected at Mill Creek; Hahn
                                       Comparative Zoology at Harvard        also lists one taken in May 1885)
20 to 25 for a taxonomist in           College as housing this specimen,
Palatka, possibly during the           possibly from Brewster as cited       (E-1) Punta Rassa; 1889 (#40)
1870s with the last bird seen          by Hasbrouke 1891, but Hahn
during May 1885, but no specific       does not list a specimen with         (E-2*) Fort Myers (#38; spec.);
locations or dates for any of the      either this location or date there,   winter 1887-1888 (Hahn)
specimens)                             while listing a specimen from Polk    (E-3*) Caloosahatchie River
1870-1879                              County not otherwise cited by         (spec.); 1881 (#39; Hahn)
(A-3*) Wekiva River (twelve            Tanner collected by John Lamb
specs.); June 1878 (#4; Tanner         on March 28, 1899, not 1889,          (E-5*) Desoto County (six specs.);
cites one specimen being at MCZ,       and housed at the Charleston          1886-1887 (#35; Tanner listed
but Hahn lists two there with the      Museum, Charleston, SC)               no date but cited Hargitt 1890
date of June 1876 with another                                               entitled “Catalogue of birds of
                                       (B-4*) Davenport (spec.); June        the British Museum,” and Hahn
two specimens with date August         1889 (#14)
1876; in addition Hahn lists from                                            1963 lists a total of five specimens
other collections three specimens      (B-5*) Kissimmee (spec.); 1887        from the British Museum at this
dated July 1876, one with date         (#17; Tanner cites the Field          location with one December 1886,
of July 1877, two with dates of        Museum at Chicago [Hahn refers        three February 1887, and one
August 1877, and two with dates        to this as the Chicago Natural        May 1887; another specimen is
of dated September 1877)               History Museum) as housing this       listed at the American Museum
                                       specimen, but Hahn lists as the       dated February 1887)

(F-7*) Big Cypress, Dade County         the other at Milwaukee Public        (F-9*) Everglades, interior (two
(three specs.); May 1889 (Hahn;         Museum dated March 1893)             specs.); 1890 and November
there is some confusion over                                                 1896 (Hahn; neither mentioned
what constitutes the Big Cypress        (D-1) Fort Drum; May 1899 (#34)      in Tanner with the 1890 report
in Dade County as this county           (D-2*) Lake Okeechobee (three        from Wayne of a skeleton and the
overlaps the very peripheral            specs.); May 1898 (#36)              November 1896 specimen said
eastern edge of the swamp,                                                   to be from the “Florida keys;”
perhaps this location is best           (E-2*) Fort Myers (six specs.);      the latter is housed at Cornell
considered the “eastern” Big            November and December 1891           University and is actually dated
Cypress; Hasbrouke 1891 does            (#38)                                November 1898 and may not
cite Brewster as the source of this                                          refer to the Florida Keys but to
report and specimens)                   (E-3) Caloosahatchie region;         the “keys” from the interior of
                                        1891 (#39; Stevenson and             the Everglades and is treated this
(F-8*) Everglades, coastal,             Anderson 1994 state that Scott’s     way here)
“Marco” (spec. by W. Calhoon            observations spanned from 1891
at Smithsonian, presumably              to 1892)                             1900-1909
Marco Island, presently in Collier                                           (A-4) Turnbull Swamp or
County, not listed in Tanner nor        (F-1*) Big Cypress (three specs.);   Hammock, Volusia County; 1907
Hahn), Chatham Bay (presently           February 1898 (#43; Tanner           (#8)
Chevalier Bay), Monroe County           cites Ridgway 1898 and states
(spec.); March 1886 and July            that the U.S. National Museum        (A-7*) Taylor Creek, (three
1888 (Hahn 1963, Stevenson and          [Smithsonian] housed the             specs.); December 1907 (#20,
Anderson 1994)                          specimen with date of collection     Hahn lists two specimens housed
                                        February 15, 1898, while             at the Field Museum taken
(F-9*) Everglades, interior (two        Ridgway reported collecting two      on December 20, 1907, one
specs.); 1884 (Hahn; no mention         specimens on successive days;        specifically lists Orange County,
of these specimens in Tanner            Hahn does not list specimens         but there is some question
and it is unclear what area             at the U.S. National Museum          whether this and location A-9
specifically is being referenced,       specific to Big Cypress, but         [Tanner’s #19) were both either
but it is assumed here that when        does list two specimens from         in Orange or Osceola County,
the “Everglades” is listed as the       “Corbett’s” in Florida collected     as raised by Jackson 2004 with
location it is likely in reference to   on February 16 and 18, 1898,         the 1924 report by Allen; a third
the forested “keys” in the interior     which appear to be at nearly         specimen with date March 20,
of the Everglades, such as Long         the time Ridgway’s birds             1907, housed at the Field Museum
Pine Key and Paradise [Royal            were collected but no collector      is listed from “Halfway Cypress,
Palm Hammock] Key)                      is named in Hahn; further            Orlando, Osceola County, but
                                        complicating the picture, two        Orlando is in Orange and not
1890-1899                               skeletons in the same collection     particularly close to Osceola
(A-13) Chuluota, Seminole               are attributed to Ridgway            County)
County; 1896-1899 (Stoddard             and are both dated February
1969; between 12 and                    16, 1898, from “Okalocoochee         (A-8*) Brevard County (two
                                        Slough,” Okaloacoochee Slough        spec., one specifically from Lake
15 observed prior to 1900 by                                                 Washington); 1901-1902 (#23)
Stoddard, who was between seven         near Immokalee, Collier County,
and ten years old; acknowledged         is indeed within the vicinity        (B-5) Kissimmee; 1900 (#17)
by Tanner in his 1989 update to         of the Big Cypress where
his 1942 report)                        Ridgway appears to have been         (B-7*) Lake County, various
                                        searching, but it remains unclear    locations including “near
(B-6) Reedy Creek; October 1892         whether the skeletons and skins      Clermont” (two specs., also egg
(#16)                                   are from the same birds and          collected); March 1904 and March
                                        whether “Corbett’s” is the same      1905 (#12; Tanner cites Hoyt
(B-10*) Near Orlando (spec.);           as Okaloacoochee Slough; in          1905 for this report and did not
December 1894 (Hahn)                    addition, Hahn lists one specimen    list any specimens, other than the
(C-9*) Eastern Hillsborough             dated January 2, 1899, again with    egg, but Hahn lists two specimens
County (two specs.); March 1890         no name given for the collector)     with dates of February 1906, with
and March 1893 (#29; Tanner                                                  Hoyt named as the collector)
                                        (F-3*) Big Cypress, Lee County
cited Scott as the collector and        (two specs., prior to 1930 Collier   (B-8*) Gotha, Orange County
the specimen housed at the              and Hendry Counties were part        (five specs.); 1906 (#15)
American Museum of Natural              of Lee County and this location is
History, where no specific date         presumably near or in Corkscrew      (D-2*) Lake Okeechobee (two
is listed; two other specimens          Swamp, now in Collier County);       specs.); February 1904 (#36)
are listed by Hahn, but no name         March 1896 (#42, Hahn; not
of the collector: one at Regar                                               (D-3) Kissimmee River, 50 miles
                                        mentioned in Tanner, but two         below Kissimmee; November
Memorial Museum, Anninston,             specimens listed from “Lee
AL, dated March 1890, and                                                    1908 (#33)
(E-1*) Punta Rassa (nine specs.);    that yet another record of a          report mentioned by Robertson to
February 1904 (#40)                  specimen taken in 1919 reported       Jackson?); (Sprunt 1954, Jackson
                                     from “Long Key” was potentially       2004); March 1938
(E-4*) Punta Gorda (two specs.);     misinterpreted as from Dry
January 1904 (#37)                   Tortugas when it possibly             (F-6) Big Cypress, East Crossing
                                     referred to Long Pine Key in the      region; around 1937 (#46)
(E-6*) Charlotte Harbor (two
specs.); March 1904 (Hahn)           Everglades)                           (F-8) Shark River and Lostman’s
                                     1920-1929                             River; around 1935 (#47)
(F-2*) Naples (two specs.); April
1902 (#41)                           (A-7*) Taylor Creek, (photo and       1940-1949
                                     specs. of nesting pair); April 1924   (D-5) West-central, Highlands
(F-4*) Big Cypress, Lee County       (#20; same general area as #19,       County (2 individuals estimated
(spec., near Deep Lake, now part     but there is confusion on whether     based on Tanner accepting that
of Collier County); February 1908    reports along Taylor Creek were       they were “Known to be there
(Hahn)                               in Orange or Osceola County,          in late 1937 by O. E. Baynard”);
                                     or both; a report of four birds       1940s (Tanner)
1910-1919                            seen by W. H. Mann on Taylor
(A-4) Turnbull Swamp or              Creek in Osceola County 1923 not      (F-3 through F-6) Big Cypress
Hammock, Volusia County; 1911        mentioned by Tanner, but was by       area, Collier and Hendry
(#8)                                 Howell 1932 and Jackson 2004,         Counties (Figure 14 in Tanner;
(A-9) Taylor Creek, Osceola          likely sparked Allen’s interest in    6 individuals estimated based on
County; about 1916 (#19; north of    visiting this area the following      Tanner’s assessment of “carrying
area visited by Allen in 1924, may   year; the whereabouts of the          capacity of region and locations of
be Orange County?)                   pair collected soon after Allen       reports,” one report of a female
                                     left Taylor Creek in April 1924       at Deep Lake [F-4] May 1941;
(B-8) Bear Bay, west Orange          remains a mystery with Jackson        Meyer de Schauensee 1941);
County; October 1913 (#15)           suspecting that the pair of birds     1940s (Tanner)
                                     at the Florida Natural History
(D-4) “Fort Capron” near             Museum labeled as being taken         (F-9) 12 miles southwest of
Kissimmee River (specific location   at Bull Creek, Osceola County         Homestead, Dade County (one
not known); 1916 (Tanner)            more than 20 miles to the south       report of a female apparently
                                     of Taylor Creek, about June 1925,     near Royal Palm Park today
(F-3) Big Cypress, Lee County                                              within the Everglades National
(near or at Corkscrew Swamp,         is in his view likely the Taylor
                                     Creek pair; further confusing the     Park; Meyer de Schauensee
now in Collier County); March                                              1941); May 1941
1911 and March 1913 (#42)            issue, Tanner in his 1989 update
                                     to his 1942 report added Bull         1950-1959
(F-4*) Big Cypress near Deep         Creek 1925 to his list of Reports,    (C-9) Polk-Hillsborough County
Lake (spec.); February 1914 (#44;    suggesting that he considered         line (male flying across road by W.
Hahn lists Kennard’s specimen as     these specimens to be separate        Eastman); March 1954 (Eastman
taken in March 1914)                 from Allen’s Taylor Creek birds)      1958, USFWS 2007)
(F-5) Near Everglades; 1917          (A-10) Wolf Creek, Osceola            (C-10) Eight miles south of
(#45; J. Ellis who reported this     County; 1920s? (#21)                  Homosassa Springs, near Citrus
location gave his residence as                                             and Hernando County line (a pair
Chokoloskee and Everglades City      (A-12) Lake Poinsett, along the
                                     St. Johns River, Brevard County       seen flying across US 19 by J.
and his accounts of birds foraging                                         Terres); April 1955 (Terres 1986,
in dead pines and nesting in         (a pair by D. J. Nicholson; Howell
                                     1932); February 1924                  Stevenson and Anderson 1994,
cypress suggests the specific                                              Jackson 1996)
locations of his reports was         1930-1939
somewhere in the vicinity of         (A-11) Jim Creek, Orange              1960-1969
present-day Collier-Seminole         County; December 1936 (#18)           (B-9) Green Swamp north of
State Park to Everglades City)                                             Haines City, Polk County (visual
                                     (B-3) Northwest of Polk City, Polk    of female flying across road at
(F-9) Royal Palm Park,               County; about 1930 (#13)              close range by D. Lee); Summer
Paradise Key, Long Pine Key, all                                           1967 (Jackson 2004)
Everglades interior (pair with       (B-6) Reedy Creek, Polk County;
young, other reports); May 1917,     about 1930 (#16)                      (D-5) Highland Hammock State
1919 (Howell 1932, Sprunt 1954,                                            Park (F. C. Davis); fall 1968
Stevenson and Anderson 1994,         (D-5) Highlands Hammock,              (USFWS 2007)
Jackson 2004; several authorities    Highlands County; 1937 (#32)
including later Howell himself                                             (D-6) South Central, Highlands
                                     (F-4) Deep Lake, Big Cypress          or Polk County (multiple reports
doubted the original 1917 report,    10 miles north of Tamiami Trail
but Jackson adds the 1919 report                                           including a cavity that held a
                                     (flew over Highway 29 seen by A.      secondary identified as “fresh not
from the same area as a potential    Cruickshank; same as the 1950’s
encounter along with speculation                                           worn” by Alexander Wetmore,

but not known how old the feather     Alabama (#’s where indicated         (D-2) Big Black River, MS (one
was when found; both now at           are cross-referenced to Figure       pair reported by M. Vaiden); 1908
Florida Museum of Natural             6 in Tanner), subregions: (A) FL     (Jackson 2004, USFWS 2007)
History); 1967-1969 (Agey and         Panhandle, FL-AL, (B) Lower
Heinzmann 1971, Jackson 2004)         Tombigbee-Alabama-Mobile             1910-1919
                                      rivers, AL, (C) Upper Tombigbee      None
1970-1979                             River, AL-MS, (D) Pascagoula
None                                                                       1920-1929
                                      River and coastal Mississippi, MS,   (D-3) Pascagoula Swamp, Jackson
1980-1989                             (E) Pearl River, MS-LA               County; December 1921 (#11)
(A-3) Wekiva River (two               1850-1859
independent reports given to J.                                            1930-1939
                                      (B-1) Near the Alabama River         (A-2) Escambia River, FL; 1936
Jackson); 1987 and 1988 (Jackson      and Selma, Dallas County, AL;
2004)                                                                      (Weston 1965, Stevenson and
                                      around 1850 (#6; two specimens       Anderson 1994)
(F-4) Fakahatchee Strand, Collier     now unaccounted for, but two
County (two independent reports       specimens in Hahn dated “abt.        1940-1949
given to J. Jackson); 1980s           1850” may refer to these at the      (A-3) Perdido River, FL; 1945
(Jackson 1996)                        collection in Kessel, Germany)       (Weston 1965, Stevenson and
                                                                           Anderson 1994)
(G-1) Loxahatchee River,              1860-1869
Jonathan Dickinson State Park         (B-2) Tombigbee River, Marengo       1950-1959
(D. G. Garratt); April 1985           County, AL (Tanner mistakenly        (D-4) About 30 miles north of
(Jackson 2004)                        listed MS); 1865 (#5; specimen       Meridian, MS (B. Chauncey);
                                      now unaccounted for)                 1953 (Moore 1954, Jackson 2004)
(F-4) Fakahatchee Strand,             1870-1879                            (E-2) East side of Pearl River,
Collier County (several reports       None                                 adjacent to lock #1, St. Tammany
given to J. Jackson considered                                             Parish, LA, Hancock County,
                                      1880-1889                            MS (one male foraging on sweet-
“tantalizing”); 1990-1991 (Jackson    (A-6*) Blackwater River, FL
1996)                                                                      gum, by J. Merritt); October 1955
                                      (two specs.); March 1883 (Hahn;      (USFWS 2007)
2000-                                 Tanner did mention this report
(F-4) Fakahatchee Strand, Collier     but did not know location nor the    1960-1969
County (three independent             date)                                (A-4) Eglin Air Force Base near
reports given to J. Jackson); since                                        Yellow River, FL (two birds seen
                                      (B-3) Cypress Slough, 10 miles       Boiling Creek; B. Brown and J.
1999 (Jackson 2004)                   west of Greensboro, Hale County,     Sanders reported to Dennis);
(F-8) Shark River, Lostman’s          AL; 1886 (#4; specimen now           August 1966 (Jackson 2004)
River, Whitewater Bay, Monroe         unaccounted for)
County (several reports of large                                           (D-5) Leaf River swamp (1 mile
                                      (B-4) Wilcox County, AL; 1889        north of US Hwy 98), Perry
black woodpecker unlike Pileated      (#7)
Woodpecker, including one by W.                                            County, MS (2 seen briefly in
Hodge with view of underwing          (C-1) Monroe County, MS; 1885        “big gum” trees); December 1960
which was white along the leading     (#1)                                 (USFWS 2007)
and trailing edge with black                                               1970-1979
band separating the white in          (C-2) Crump Springs, Lamar
                                      County, Buttahatchie River, AL;      (C-4) Noxubee River, near
2003 and another seen in 2007                                              junction with Tombigbee River,
from above with more white on         1886 (#2)
                                                                           Sumter County , AL (possible
wing tops than a typical Pileated,    (C-3) Clay County, MS; 1885 (#3)     flyby by J. Jackson); March 1973
larger than Pileated, and with a                                           (Jackson 2004)
straight flight while conducting      (E-1) Near Bay St. Louis, MS;
an Everglades National Park           1885 (#9)                            (D-6) Near where Black Creek
aerial waterbird survey by L.                                              joins Pascagoula River, Jackson
Oberhofer); February 2003             1890-1899                            County, MS (one possible heard
and January 2007 (reported            (D-1*) Mississippi City, Harrision   “kenting” but never seen by R.
to S. Snow and S. Bass with           County, MS (two specs.); March       Sauey and C. Luthin); January
Everglades National Park)             1893 (#10; Hahn 1963 also lists      1978 (Jackson 2004)
                                      a specimen taken in April 1893
                                      included in total here)              1980-1989
                                                                           (D-3) West side of Pascagoula
                                      1900-1909                            River, north of Vancleave, Jackson
                                      (A-1) Conecuh Swamps, north of       County, MS (two birds in a pine
                                      Troy, Pike County AL; 1907 (#8;      by M. Morris); February 1982
                                      specimen now unaccounted for)        (Jackson 2004)

(E-2) Pearl River, St. Tammany         1870-1879                            (C-2*) Cow Bayou, Iberville
Parish, LA (a male observed one        None                                 Parish, LA (two specs.); March
year, a female the following year,                                          1906 (#15)
both by N. Higginbotham); 1986,        1880-1889
1987 (Steinberg 2008)                  (A-1) Sunflower Delta, MS; about     (D-1) Avery Island, Iberia Parish,
                                       1888 (#1)                            LA; 1900-1909 (#17)
                                       (B-8*) Tensas River, East            1910-1919
(E-2) Pearl River, St. Tammany
                                       Carroll Parish, LA (spec.); spring   (B-4) Boeuf River swamp, West
Parish, LA (a pair reported seen
                                       1888 (#6; Tanner did not list a      Carroll Parish, LA; about 1912
for 10 minutes by D. Kulivan
                                       specimen was taken, but one,         (#4)
while turkey hunting; extensive
followup searches in subsequent        possibly two, listed in Hahn)
                                                                            (D-1) Avery Island, Iberia Parish,
years unsuccessful); April 1999        1890-1899                            LA; 1910-1919 (#17)
(Jackson 2004)                         (A-2) Yazoo River Delta, MS; 1890
                                                                            (D-2) Lafourche Parish, LA; 1918
2000-                                  (#2)
(A-5) Choctawhatchee River,            (B-2*) Madison Parish, LA
FL (multiple visual and auditory                                            1920-1929
                                       (spec.); 1891 (#8)
encounters by many observers,                                               (B-6) Bayou Macon Swamp, West
including many recordings of           (B-3*) Roaring Bayou, Franklin       Carroll Parish, LA; 1926 (#5)
putative kents and double-knocks       Parish (four specs.), LA; July
                                                                            (B-7) Tensas Parish, north of
and a very poor video); 2005-2007      1899 (#10; Tanner did not
                                                                            St. Joseph, LA; May 1929 (#11;
(Hill et al. 2006, Hill 2007)          mention a specimen, but it is
                                                                            Hasbrouke 1891 referenced a
                                       listed in Hahn along with three
(E-2) Pearl River WMA – Stennis                                             report from G. Marbett from this
                                       additional specimens listed at
Space Center, St. Tammany                                                   location with no date, but must
                                       LSU collected by Beyer 1900,
Parish, LA, Hancock County,                                                 have been at least 39 years prior
                                       who reported taking seven
MS (multiple sightings, several                                             to Tanner’s citation)
very poor but at least one                                                  (C-3) Bayou des Ourses, St.
suggestive video in 2006 of a large    (D-1*) Avery Island, Iberia
                                                                            Martin Parish, LA; about 1920
woodpecker, possibly lacking           Parish, LA (two specs.); 1892,
red in the crest; a more recent        1895 (both specs.) (#17)
video of a woodpecker in flight                                             (C-4) Catahoula, St. Martin
in 2009 was determined to be a         1900-1909
                                                                            Parish, LA; about 1920 (#16;
Red-headed woodpecker, a 2008          (B-2*) Madison Parish (six
                                                                            not Catahoula Lake as listed
video is still undergoing review       specs.), LA; December 1908, (#8;
                                                                            in Tanner, which is in La Salle
by M. Collins and others); 2000,       specimens and dates listed in
2005-2009 (USFWS 2007; Collins         Hahn are two taken in December
2005-2009)                             1908 and four taken in March and     (D-1) Avery Island, Iberia Parish,
                                       April 1909)                          LA; 1920-1923 (#17)
Lower Mississippi Delta (#’s
where indicated are cross-             (B-4) Bowling Green, West            1930-1939
referenced to Figure 7 in              Carroll Parish, LA; August 1903      (B-5) Near Bear Lake, Madison
Tanner), subregions: (A) Lower         (#4)                                 Parish, LA; September 1937 (#7)
Yazoo Basin, MS, (B) Northeast         (B-5) Bear Lake, Madison Parish,     (B-8) Tensas River swamp, East
Louisiana (includes Tensas River,      LA; February 1904 (#7)               Carroll Parish, LA; about 1930
lower Red River, and south to                                               (#6)
Lake Ophelia), LA, (C) Upper           (B-10*) Holly Ridge 18 miles
Atchafalaya, LA, (D) Lower             north of “station” (?), Richland     (B-9*) Tensas River Swamp
Atchafalaya_Deltaic (includes          or West Carroll Parish, LA;          [i.e., Singer Tract], Madison
coastal forests), LA                   1907 (specimen attributed to E.      Parish, LA (spec.); 1930-1939 (#9;
                                       L. Moseley and housed at the         one spec. collected in 1932, not
1800-1849                              University of Michigan Museum        specifically mentioned by Tanner,
(C-1) Bayou Sara, West Feliciana       of Zoology, while Tanner in his      was mounted and is now housed
Parish, LA; June 1821 (#13)            1989 update to his 1942 reported     at the state Headquarters for LA
1850-1859                              it to be from West Carroll Parish    Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries; in
(B-1*) Prairie Mer Rouge (spec.),      and housed at the Smithsonian        addition many photos, movie, and
LA; Sept.1853 (#3; Tanner did          and acknowledged Hahn [no            recordings)
not list a specimen taken, but it is   specific reference was found in
                                       Hahn; the specimen appears           1940-1949
listed in Hahn)                                                             (B-9) Singer Tract (i.e., Tensas
                                       to have been collected near the
                                       Beouf River where the Parish         River Swamp), Madison Parish,
                                       line between Richland and West       LA (6 individuals estimated
                                       Carroll is directly north of the     as “five individuals observed
                                       town Holly Ridge])                   and sign of at least one other
In addition to Tanner’s report,       1980-1989                             (C-1) Junction of Ohio and
Jackson (2004) lists other reports    (A-3) Yazoo River confluence          Mississippi Rivers; about 1825
(none supported by photographs        with Mississippi River, north of      (#2)
or other hard evidence) as follows:   Vicksburg, Warren County, MS
                                      (one possibly heard for about         (C-6) Along Mississippi River,
R. Peterson (2 females); 1942         20 minutes after playing Singer       either Carlisle or Hickman
                                      Tract tape, but never seen, by        County, KY (reports by Audubon);
R. Pough (1 female); 1943-1944                                              early 1800s (Jackson 2004)
                                      J. Jackson and M. Hodges); and
D. Eckelberry (1 female [sketch       March 1987 (heard kent calls,         1850-1859
made]); 1944, the last generally      but not seen, by W. Davis and F.      (C-2) White County, 40 miles
accepted sighting of the species in   Sibley); August 1988 (Jackson         south Mount Carmel, IL; about
the United States                     2004)                                 1852 (#1)
R. Peterson (reported to Peterson     (A-4) Headwaters of Yazoo             1860-1869
that one remained); 1946              River near confluence with            None
                                      Yalobusha River, LeFlore County,
A. MacMurray (one or a pair           Mississippi (one possibly seen and    1870-1879
“believed to be in the region,” as    heard giving a “rhythmic” tooting     (B-4*) St. Francis River (near
reported to Tanner); 1948             by C. Bryson); May 1988 (Jackson      Helena?), Phillips County, AR
The draft Recovery Plan               2004)                                 (two specs.); 1870 (Hahn)
(USFWS 2007) adds the following       (B-9) Singer Tract, Madison           (C-3) Fulton County, KY; 1872-
reports, again none confirmed by      Parish (G. Heinrich and C. Welch      1874 (#4)
photographs:                          possibly heard on two occasions);
                                      November 1981, April 1982             1880-1889
G. Bick and J. Parker (three seen                                           (A-1) Newport, Jackson County,
in John’s Bayou area, including       (Jackson 2004)
                                                                            AR; about 1885 (#6)
apparent female hatch-year            (D-3) Near Duck Lake,
young; Bick 1942, J. Tanner pers.     Atchafalaya Basin, St. Martin         (B-1) Osceola, Mississippi
comm.); August 1941                   Parish (T. Michot and D. Hankla);     County, AR and Northeast AR;
                                      April 1981 and Duck Lake,             1887 and 1888 (#5)
J. Tanner (an adult and juvenile
female on); 21 and 28 December,       Atchafalaya Basin, LA (E.             (B-2) Marked Tree, Poinsett
1941                                  Broussard, LWFD); April 1986          County, AR; March 1889 (#7)
                                      (USFWS 2007)
J. Baker (single female; Peterson                                           1890-1899
1948); November 1942                  1990-1999                             (B-3*) Bolivar County, MS (two
                                      None                                  specs.); March 1893 (#9)
None                                  2000-                                 (C-4) Little River, Stoddard
                                      (D-3) Bayou Sorrel and near           County, MO; November 1895
1960-1969                             Patterson, St. Mary Parish,           (#3; Jackson 2004 clarifies
(B-9) Singer Tract, Tensas River      LA (former, one seen from             that allegedly a bird was shot
near Tallulah, Madison County, LA     flyover by R. Boustany, latter        near Morley, Scott County,
(one possibly heard and glimpsed      multiple sightings and auditory       then brought to St. Louis from
by L. Binford, B. Monore, D.          encounters); 2005-2006 (Steinberg     Stoddard County, supposedly
Berrett, and K. Arnold); March        2008)                                 mounted but there is no longer any
1962 (Jackson 2004)                                                         record of the mount ever existing)
                                      Upper Mississippi Delta (#’s where
1970-1979                             indicated are cross-referenced to     1900-1909
(C-5) Atchafalaya Basin, I-10         Figure 8 in Tanner), subregions:      (C-5) Ullin, Pulaski County, IL
(flyover, R. Hamilton and flyover,    (A) White-Cache rivers (i.e., Big     (one possibly heard by B. Gault);
R. Bean); one 1973 and the other      Woods), AR, (B) Mississippi           1900 (Jackson 2004)
November 1974 (Jackson 2004)          mainstem from MS-AR-TN north
                                      to Reelfoot, (C) Ohio River to        1910-1919
(D-3) Atchafalaya Basin, south        confluence with Mississippi south     (B-4) Helena, Phillips County,
of US 90 (several sightings, two      to include Reelfoot, MO-TN-KY-IL      AR; 1912 (#8)
diagnostic photos by F. Lewis
given to G. Lowrey); May 1971         1800-1849                             1920-1929
(for photos, some suggest they        (B-6) Along Mississippi River,        None
could have been staged; Jackson       north of Fulton, Lauderdale
2004, Gallagher 2005); and (J.        County, TN (reports by Audubon        1930-1939
Maroney and B. Crider following       but not clear which side of the       (B-3) Nine miles south of
up on report from hunter, heard       river, possibly Mississippi County,   Rosedale, Bolivar County (6
calls, also one possibly seen from    AR); November 1820 (Jackson           pairs present until World War
helicopter); March 1978 (Jackson      2004)                                 II until logged over to support
2004)                                                                       war effort); 1930s (Jackson 2004,
                                                                            USFWS 2007)
1940-1949                             one brief sighting by R. Everrett,   (B-1) near Gainesville, Cooke
(B-3) Nine miles south of             one brief sighting by A. Mueller,    County, TX; 1849 (Oberholser
Rosedale, Bolivar County (6           multiple kents [many recorded        1974, Shackelford 1998;
pairs present until World War         by hand-held video camera] and       acknowledged by Tanner in his
II until logged over to support       double-knocks [several recorded      1989 update to his 1942 report)
war effort); 1930s (Jackson 2004,     by ARU]); December 2006-May
USFWS 2007)                           2007 (USFWS 2007)                    (C-1) Near the “falls” of the
                                                                           Canadian River, OK; 1820 (#2)
1950-1959                             (B-5) Hatchie River, Lauderdale
None                                  and Tipton Counties, TN              1850-1859
                                      (followup to reports from the        (B-1) near Gainesville, Cooke
1960-1969                             1990s, numerous auditory             County, TX; 1851 (Oberholser
None                                  encounters, both kents and           1974, Shackelford 1998;
                                      double-knocks, one visual            acknowledged by Tanner in his
1970-1979                                                                  1989 update to his 1942 report)
None                                  encounter by R. Ford); January
                                      2006 (continued searching            (C-2) Timber of the Arkansas
1980-1989                             in February resulted in no           River, OK; 1850 (#1)
(A-1) Near Diaz in Village Creek      additional reports, but additional
floodplain, Jackson County, AR        sounds detected in January 2007;     1860-1869
(possible visual encounter by H.      USFWS 2007)                          None
Hagar); October 1985 (Jackson
2004, USFWS 2007)                     (B-7) Moss Island WMA, Dyer          1870-1879
                                      County, TN (several brief            (B-1) Cooke County, TX; about
1990-1999                             sightings by multiple observers of   1875 (#5)
None                                  large woodpeckers with extensive
                                      white in wings, numerous double-     (B-2) Old Boggy Depot, Atkoa
2000-                                 knocks, one series recorded          County, OK; 1870-1874 (#3)
(A-2) South end of White River        thought by some to possibly be a
NWR and adjacent properties                                                1880-1889
                                      response to distant simulations);    (B-3) Blue River, near Caddo,
Desha/Phillips/Arkansas Counties      2007-2009 (TN Working Group,
County, AR (visual encounter of                                            OK; 1883-1884 (#4)
                                      Pulliam 2009)
female by M. Scott [but not seen                                           1890-1899
by others present]; multiple kents    (C-5) Cache River, Pulaski           (B-4) Bonham area, Fannin
heard and large woodpecker            County, IL (several independent      County, TX; 1890 (Oberholser
briefly seen by J. and B. Denman;     visual reports of large black        1974, Shackelford 1998;
visual encounter of one bird by       woodpeckers with extensive           acknowledged by Tanner in his
S. Sietler; multiple recordings of    white trailing wing edges, most      1989 update to his 1942 report)
possible vocalizations and double-    notably by J. White in 2005
knocks;) March 2003 (Gallagher        and by A. Albores in 2008; also      1900-1909
2005; USFWS 2007), 2004 (Refuge       inconclusive reconyx images and      None
Staff), and January-December          auditory encounters by G. Erdy;
2005 (Rosenberg et al. 2005,          a color photograph by S. Sheridan    1910-1919
USFWS 2007) [search through           reportedly taken in June 2007        None
White River refuge files by D.        of an unknown woodpecker,            1920-1929
Sharp and interviews of retired       examined and determined              (E-1) Red River Parish (birds
staff by J. Denman, Refuge            unlikely to be of an ivory-billed    seen by S. Christopher whose
Forester, revealed references to      woodpecker, was latter exposed       description convinced J. Jackson
previously unknown reports from       as a doctored image); 2005-2008      that she had observed this
the 1920s, May 1952, and 1979]        (USFWS 2007)                         species); 1927-1928 (Jackson
(A-3) Bayou de View, Cache            Arkansas-Oklahoma (#’s where         2004)
River NWR, Monroe County, AR          indicated are cross-referenced to    1930-1939
(multiple visual reports of male      Figure 9 in Tanner), subregions:     None
bird, possible vocalizations and      (A) Ouachita and Saline Rivers,
double-knocks, and a 4-second,        AR-LA, (B) Red River, OK-TX, (C)     1940-1949
poor, grainy (and controversial)      Canadian and Arkansas Rivers,        None
video of woodpecker of unknown        OK-AR, (D) Red and Little Rivers,
sex; many observers); February        AR-OK, (E) Red River, LA
2004 to December 2005                                                      None
(Fitzpatrick et al. 2005, Gallagher   1800-1849
                                      (A-1) Ouachita River, near           1960-1969
2005, Rosenberg et al. 2005,                                               None
USFWS 2007)                           junction of Saline (Tanner said
                                      Caddo, but shows Saline River);      1970-1979
(A-4) Wattensaw WMA, Prairie          1834 (#6)                            None
County, AR (one 10-minute and

1980-1989                             1870-1879                           by Tanner in his 1989 update to
(D-1) Porter Tract near Millwood      None                                his 1942 report)
Lake and Grassy Lake, Little
River County (possible visual         1880-1889                           (C-6) Boisd’Arc Island, Trinity
encounter with pair by R.             (B-1) Neches River, Jasper          River bottoms, Dallas Co. (W. A.
Weaver); late 1980s or early1990s     County, TX; May 1885 (#1)           Mayer); 1910 (Oberholser 1974,
(USFWS 2007)                                                              Shackelford 1998; acknowledged
                                      (B-2) Russell Creek area,           by Tanner in his 1989 update to
1990-1999                             Tyler County, TX; about 1880        his 1942 report)
None                                  (Oberholser 1974, Shackelford
                                      1998; acknowledged by Tanner        (C-8) Spring Creek, Harris
2000-                                 in his 1989 update to his 1942      County (F. Schneider); June 1913
(A-1) Within and near Felsenthal      report)                             (Oberholser 1974, Shackelford
NWR, Ashley County, AR                                                    1998)
(several visual reports by Refuge     (C-3) Northern Harris County,
staff, the most detailed from         TX; about 1880 (#5)                 1920-1929
the Saline River where refuge                                             (B-7) Tyler County, (B. M. Reid);
                                      (C-4) Northern Montgomery           April 1929 (Oberholser 1974,
forester L. Threet and a private      County, TX; 1880-1881(Oberholser
citizen reportedly saw two birds                                          Shackelford 1998)
                                      1974, Shackelford 1998)
at close range, one with a black                                          (C-6) Bois d’Arc Island, Trinity
crest the other with possibly a       (D-2) Brazos River, TX; around
                                                                          River bottoms, Dallas or
small amount of red in the crest,     1880 (#7)
                                                                          Kaufman County, (collected by
otherwise described as large          1890-1899                           J.E. Stillwell, but specimen not
woodpeckers with extensive white      None                                located); about 1920 (Oberholser
in the wings dorsally and flying                                          1974, Shackelford 1998;
like crows); August 2007 (USFWS       1900-1909                           acknowledged by Tanner in his
2007)                                 (B-3) Near Sour Lake, Hardin        1989 update to his 1942 report)
                                      County (J. H. Gaut); March-
(D-1) Near Pond Creek NWR,            April 1905 (Oberholser 1974,        (C-9) Mouth of East Fork, Trinity
Sevier County, AR (visual by B.       Shackelford 1998)                   River, Kaufman County (caught
Petersen, while deer hunting,                                             in trap by B. C. Hays, examined
of large black woodpecker with        (B-4) Neches River bottoms (R.      by E. R. Huck, specimen
extensive white trailing edge         Gann); pre-1910 (Oberholser 1974,   not preserved); winter 1927
when the bird swoop up into a         Shackelford 1998; acknowledged      (Oberholser 1974, Shackelford
cypress stand); October 2007          by Tanner in his 1989 update to     1998)
(USFWS 2007)                          his 1942 report)
                                                                          (D-3) Near Brazoria, Brazos
East Texas (#’s where indicated       (C-5*) Tarkington, Liberty          County, Brazos River bottoms
are cross-referenced to Figure        County, TX (2 spec., total of six   (one found freshly killed by
10 in Tanner), subregions: (A)        birds observed); November 1904      F. C. Clarkson, specimen not
Sabine and southwest Louisiana        (#3)                                preserved); May 1927 (Oberholser
(including Calcasieu River), LA-TX,   (C-6*) Bois d’Arc Island, Trinity   1974, Shackelford 1998);
(B) Neches and Angelina rivers        River bottoms, Dallas Co., (1
(includes Big Thicket), (C) Trinity                                       1930-1939
                                      spec.; collected by W. A. Mayer,    (B-8) Junction of Village Creek
and San Jacinto rivers, (D) Brazos    spec. #6216 at Dallas Museum
River                                                                     and Neches River, Hardin
                                      of Natural History); 1900           County (C. H. Hooks and B. M.
1800-1849                             (Oberholser 1974, Shackelford       Reid); 1933 (Oberholser 1974,
(C-1) Buffalo Bayou, San Jacinto      1998)                               Shackelford 1998)
River, Harris County, TX;             (C-7) Tarkington road, east of
around 1840 (#6; Jackson states                                           (B-9) Angelina River, Jasper
                                      Cleveland, Liberty County (J.
1837 and Audubon considered                                               County (B. M. Reid); 1934
                                      H. Gaut); April 1905 (Oberholser
the species abundant there                                                (Oberholser 1974, Shackelford
                                      1974, Shackelford 1998)
as well as at nearby Ft. Bend                                             1998)
County; Shackelford 1998 notes        1910-1919
that Audubon secured several          (B-5) Near Lufkin, Angelina         (B-10) lower Neches River
specimens but these are now           County (J. Shotwell); 1910-1915     bottoms, Jefferson-Orange county
unaccounted for)                      (Oberholser 1974, Shackelford       line (B. M. Reid); May 1937
                                      1998; acknowledged by Tanner        (Oberholser 1974, Shackelford
1850-1859                             in his 1989 update to his 1942      1998)
None                                  report)                             (B-11) Orange County (B. M.
1860-1869                             (B-6) Near Marshall, Harrison       Reid); 1938 (Oberholser 1974,
(C-2) Trinity River, TX; 1864 (#4)    County (A. D. Martin); March        Shackelford 1998);
(D-1) Brazos River, TX; May 1864      1918 (Oberholser 1974,
(#8)                                  Shackelford 1998; acknowledged

(B-12) Bunn Bluff area, Jefferson    Big Thicket National Preserve       (C-10) Raven District, Sam
County (B. M. Reid); prior to        area (recording of double-knock     Houston National Forest, San
October 1938                         by G. Reynard); 1969 (Reynard       Jacinto County (up to four
                                     and Garrido 1988 [“Bird Songs       sightings and calls heard on two of
(Oberholser 1974, Shackelford        of Cuba”], Jackson 2004 [not        them by collectively W. Ruediger,
1998)                                thought to be Ivory-bill by         F. Wojcik, B. Ruediger, and T.
1940-1949                            Tanner], Shackelford 1998)          Davis; led to development of forest
None                                                                     management plan for the District);
                                     (B-8) Big Thicket area of Hardin    December 1970-February 1971
1950-1959                            County including the following      (USFWS 2007)
(B-4) Big Thicket area (B. M.        accounts:
Reid); March 1956 (Oberholser                                            (C-11) Tanner Bayou of lower
                                     Sternberg Tract on Village Creek    Trinity River bottoms, Liberty
1974, Shackelford 1998)              in Neches River bottoms, Hardin     County (flyover by L. Risner);
1960-1969                            County (sighting and kent calls     July 1972 (Fisher et al. 1972,
(A-1) Sabine River valley, along     heard and recorded by J Dennis,     Shackelford 1998)
State Highway 87 between             M. Isleib, G. Watson); February
Evadale and Kirbyville, Newton       1968 (Hardy 1975 [recording         1980-1989
County (bird flushed off of large    deemed inconclusive but             (A-3) Toledo Bend Reservoir,
rotting log by R. Parker); spring    favored Ivory-bill], Dennis 1967,   Sabine River, north of Pendleton
1968 (USFWS 2007)                    Shackelford 1998)                   Bridge, compartment 101 of
                                                                         Sabine National Forest, Sabine
(A-2) Navasota River, near           Village Creek area of Big           County (family group [4-5 birds],
Highway 158 bridge (several          Thicket National Preserve,          at least one bird observed for
observations including R. Lys and    Hardin County (J. Dennis); 1968     more than 10 minutes, bill gray-
M. Steward); 1968-1969 (perhaps      (Shackelford 1998)                  ivory, trailing edge of wing white
to 1972; USFWS 2007)                 Big Thicket area, presumably        both above and below, observer
                                     near Silsbee, Hardin County (a      familiar with Pileateds, J. Hyde);
(B-4) Big Thicket area of Tyler
                                     pair reported and photographed,     summer 1985 (USFWS 2007)
and Jasper counties including the
following accounts: Neches River     nesting attempted but               (A-4) Calcasieu River, LA (H.
bottoms, Dam B Reservoir area,       unsuccessful each of three years;   Ardoin, heard notes like child’s
Tyler and Jasper Counties (by        at least two slides of apparent     tricycle horn); May (?) 1986
J. Dennis and A. Yramatequi);        female protruding from a cavity     (USFWS 2007)
February 1966 (Dennis 1967)          in hackberry by N. Wright [one
                                     of the observers interviewed in     (B-8) Silsbee, Big Thicket area,
Near Evadale in Neches River                                .
                                     previous accountby P Sykes, but     Hardin County (pair of birds seen
bottoms, Tyler and Jasper            he was not made aware of these      twice, presumably same, first
Counties (followup to initial        slides at the time] copied by G.    time feeding on loblolly pines
sighting by O. Lloyd, heard kents    Reynard who donated them to         killed by pine beetles and in direct
on three separate days and poor      VIREO); 1967-1969 (Collins 1970,    comparison with many Pileateds
view of one bird with distinct       Jackson 2004, Hunter et al. in      in view by A. McKinnon); July
white trailing edge to wings by      prep.)                              and October 1981 (USFWS 2007)
J. Dennis and A. Yramatequi);
December 1966 (Dennis 1967,          (B-13) Between Trinity and          (B-15) Multiple locations
1979, Shackelford 1998, USFWS        Neches rivers (2 pairs, one lone    including Big Thicket, Steinhagen
2007)                                female, and others noted by W.      Lake, (reports in all areas with
                                     Eastman); 1960-1963 (Oberholser     observer searching in “old-
North of Evadale in Neches           1974, Shackelford 1998)             growth areas” located from
River bottoms, Jasper County                                             soil conservation service maps,
(observed by K. Newsom); April       (B-14) Pine Island Bayou,           including a pair with 2 young
1967 (Dennis 1967, Shackelford       Hardin County (G. Watson and        [which location?] by E. Allen);
1998)                                D. Watson); December 1968           May, June, and November 1985
                                     (USFWS 2007)                        (USFWS 2007)
Neches River bottoms, Jasper
County; February 1967 (Dennis        1970-1979                           (B-16) Chireno, southeast
1967, Shackelford 1998)              (B-15) Near Wolf Creek by           Nacogdoches County (5-7 minute
                                     Steinhagen Reservoir, Jasper        observation, extensive white
Neches River, Tyler and Jasper       County (two sightings by W.
counties (multiple sightings                                             in wings and bill dirty white
                                     Mounsey and students from “The      otherwise similar to Pileateds,
and kent calls heard by five         University of the Wilderness”);
separate observers interviewed                                           with 1-note calls given by W.
                                     May 1976 (Dennis 1979,              Whitehead); February 1985
by J. Dennis; three of these         Shackelford 1998)
observers were also interviewed                                          (USFWS 2007)
by P Sykes, who did not consider                                         1990-1999
these reports reliable); 1967-1969                                       None
(USFWS 2007)
2000-                                Historic locations north, east,      Reports from southern Missouri;
None                                 and west of distribution as          into the 1930s and as late as 1949
                                     defined by Tanner (1942) along       (AOU 1931, Jackson 2002, Moore
Extralimital (with respect           the Mississippi and Ohio             1949 [G. E. Moore, Elusive Ivory-
to Tanner’s 1942 range map)          drainages:                           bills. Bluebird 16(12):1])
published reports of Ivory-billed    Near Stanford, Lincoln County,
Woodpeckers in the United States     KY (two observed, one of these       Historic locations west or north
                                     collected, by Col. W. Fleming);      of distribution as defined by
Historic documented locations                                             Tanner (1942) in Oklahoma:
north or west of distribution as     March 1780 (Schorger 1949,
                                     McKinley 1958, Jackson 2004;         Alluwee, along the Verdigris
defined by Tanner (1942) along                                            River, Nowata County, OK (stated
Atlantic seaboard:                   acknowledged by Tanner in his
                                     unpublished 1989 update to his       by G. Sutton as northward range
Fort Macon, near Morehead                                                 limit); (Sutton 1967, Jackson 2004)
City, NC ; 1878 (Hasbrouke 1891,     1942 report)
Jackson 2004; single sighting        Ross, Scioto, and Muskingum          House Creek, Pawnee County, OK
reported to Coues and Yarrow         county, OH (tarsometatarsi found     (one seen by S. W. Woodhouse);
by “an apparently respectable        from an excavated archaeological     October 1849 (Jackson 2004;
source…the statement given for       sites and argued likely to have      Sutton apparently thought
what it is worth, no specimen…”)     not been trade items); dated from    Woodhouse collected the bird he
                                     1100s to 1500s (Wetmore 1943,        saw, but Jackson could not find a
Fairchance, Moundsville,                                                  tagged specimen Sutton thought
Marshall County, WV (two             Peterjohn 2001, Jackson 2004;
                                     acknowledged by Tanner in his        was at the Academy of Natural
lower bill sections recovered in                                          Sciences in Philadelphia)
midden debris, not a burial site,    unpublished 1989 update to his
suggesting it could be either        1942 report)                         Historic locations west or south
discarded trade item or locally      Franklin and Monroe counties,        of distribution as defined by
acquired); 0-200 A.D. (Parmalee      IN (reported to have occurred, a     Tanner (1942) in east Texas:
1967, Jackson 2002)                  specimen from Franklin County is     San Marco and Guadalupe rivers
                                     mentioned but not now known to       and from New Braunfels, Comal
Between Martinsburg, WV and ,                                             County, all south-central TX
Winchester, VA (one reported         exist); prior to 1869 and possibly
                                     during the 1890s (Jackson 2004)      (multiple reports including a
collected by A. Wilson); prior to                                         bird killed but not preserved);
1810? (Hall 1983, Jackson 2004)      Along the Mississippi River north    around 1900 (at least for one of
Doddridge County, WV; about          to near the confluence with the      these reports; Shackelford 1998,
1900 (Hall 1983, Jackson 2004)       Missouri, MO and IL (reported        Jackson 2004)
                                     by Audubon); early 1800s
Maryland (statement attributed       (Jackson 2004)
to Audubon from Audubon and
Chevalier, The Birds of America,     Cahokia, Madison County
Volume 4, that “now and then an      near East St. Louis, IL
individual may be accidentally       (tarsometatarsus found from
found in Maryland); prior to 1844    excavated site, not part of the
(Jackson 2004)                       skull suggesting it was locally
                                     acquired and not a trade item);
Reedy River, Greenville County,      1500s or earlier (Parmalee 1958,
SC (in the Piedmont, to the west     Jackson 2004; acknowledged by
of Tanner’s boundary, nest with      Tanner in his unpublished 1989
eggs collected by E.J. DeCamps,      update to his 1942 report)
later lost); May 1896 (listed by
Sprunt and Chamberlain 1949, as      Near the confluence of the
only known “definitive” nesting in   Missouri and Mississippi rivers
South Carolina)                      at Forest Park (spec. near St.
                                     Louis), MO, May 8, 1886 (Hahn
Etowah Mounds, near                  1963, Jackson 2004; acknowledged
Cartersville, Bartow County,         by Tanner in his unpublished 1989
GA (in the Ridge and Valley of       update to his 1942 report)
northern Georgia, well north
and west of Tanner’s boundary,       Along the Missouri River from
archeological specimens at           at Fayette and Kansas City,
Smithsonian Institution,             central to western MO (scattered
presumably considered not to be      reports); late 1800s and early
a trade item, but requires further   1900s (Cooke 1888, Jackson 2004)
discussion); pre-Columbian
(Richard Warner, USFWS, pers.

Literature Cited
Agey, H. N., G. M. Heinzmann. 1971. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker Found in Central Florida. Fla. Nat.
44 (3):46–47, 64. (Available here:; http://www.;
               . .
Allen, A. A., P P Kellogg. 1937. Recent Observations on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Auk 54: 164–184.
Audubon, J. J. 1835-38. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker. In: Birds of America 4. ISBN 0-8109-2061-1 (H. N.
Abrams 1979 edition – The book itself is in the public domain; ivory-bill entry available here: http://www.
Beyer, G. E.. 1900. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Louisiana. Auk 17:97–99.
Bick, G. H. 1942. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers and Wild Turkeys in Louisiana. Auk 59: 431–432.
Collins, G. F. 1970. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Texas. Unpublished manuscript, Texas A&M University.
35 pages. (Available here: )
Collins, M. 2005-2010. Log of Search Efforts Along the Pearl River, MS/LA:
Cooke, W.W. 1888. Report on Bird Migration in the Mississippi Valley in the Years 1884 and 1885. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Division of Economic Ornithology Bulletin 2. 313 pp.
Crawford, R. L. 1998. The birds of Thomas County, Georgia: revised through 1997. Oriole 63:1-28.
Dennis, J.V 1966. A Preliminary Report on the Woody Plants, Birds, and Mammals of the Congaree Swamp,
South Carolina. Report to National Park Service, Congaree National Park, Hopkins, South Carolina.
Dennis, J.V 1967. The Ivory-bill Flies Still. Audubon 69:38-44.
Dennis, J.V 1979. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Avicultural Magazine 85:75-84.
Eastman, W. 1958. Ten-Year Search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Atlantic Nat. 13: 216–228.
Fitzpatrick, J. W., M. Lammertink, M. D. Luneau, Jr., T. W. Gallagher, B. R. Harrison,
                    .                                                 .
G. M. Sparling, K. V Rosenberg, R. W. Rohrbaugh, E. C. H. Swarthout, P H. Wrege, and others. 2005.
Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) Persists in Continental North America. Science
Fisher, C. D., D. D. Hall, H. L. Jones, J. D. McCullough, A. P McDonald, E. S. Nixon, J. R. Singer, and J.
E. Coster. 1972. A survey of the environmental and cultural resources of the Trinity River. Unpublished
report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Worth, Texas. Pages 336-337.
Gallagher, Tim W. 2005. The Grail Bird: Hot on the Trail of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Houghton Mifflin,
Boston. ISBN 0-618-45693-7
Hahn, P 1963. Where is that vanished bird? Royal Ontario Museum, University of Toronto Press, Toronto,
Hall, G. A. 1983. West Virginia Birds. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Special Publication No. 7.
Pittsburgh, PA. 180 pp.
Hardy, J. W. 1975. A tape recording of a possible Ivory-billed Woodpecker call. American Birds 29 (3): 647-
Hasbrouck, E. M.. 1891. The Present Status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis).
Auk 8: 174–186.
Hill, Geoffrey E.; Mennill, Daniel J.; Rolek, Brian W.; Hicks, Tyler L. & Swiston, Kyle A. 2006. Evidence
Suggesting that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Campephilus principalis) Exist in Florida. Avian Conservation
and Ecology - Écologie et conservation des oiseaux 1:2. (Available here:
Hill, Geoffrey E. 2007. Ivorybill Hunters: The Search for Proof in a Flooded Wilderness. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, N.Y. ISBN 978-0-19-532346-7
Hoose, Phillip M. 2004. The Race to Save the Lord God Bird. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York. ISBN
Howell, A. H.. 1932. Florida Bird Life. Florida Dep. Game Fresh Water Fish, Tallahassee.

Jackson, J. A. 1996. Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Pp. 103–112 in Rare and endangered biota of Florida (J. A.
Rodgers, Jr., H. W. Kale II, and H. T. Smith, eds.). Univ. Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Jackson, J. A. 2002. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). In The Birds of North America,
No. 711 (A Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 28 pages.
Jackson, J. A. 2004. In Search of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Smithsonian Institution Press. ISBN
Loftin, R. W. 1991. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers Reported in Okefenokee Swamp in 1941–42. Oriole 56:74–76.
McKinley, D. 1958. Early record for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Kentucky. Wilson Bulletin 70:379-380.
Meyer de Schauensee, R. 1941. Rare and extinct birds in the collections of the Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. XCIII: 281-324.
Moore, G. E.. 1949. Elusive Ivory-bills. Bluebird 16:1.
Oberholser, H. C.. 1974. The Bird Life of Texas (edited by E. B. Kincaid). Vol. 1. Univ. of Texas Press,
Austin, Texas.
Parmalee, P W. 1958. Remains of rare and extinct birds from Illinois Indian sites. Auk 75: 169–176.
Parmalee, P W. 1967. Additional noteworthy records of birds archaeological sites. Wilson Bull. 79:155–162.
Pennock, C.J. 1901. Recent Capture of Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Florida. Proc. Del. Valley Ornith. Club
Peterjohn, B. G. 2001. The Birds of Ohio. The Wooster Book Company. Wooster, OH. 637 pp.
Peterson, R. T. 1948. Birds over America. Dodd, Mead, and Company, New York.
Post, W., and S. A. Gauthreaux, Jr. 1989. Status and Distribution of South Carolina Birds. Contributions
from the Charleston Museum 18. 83 pp.
Pulliam, B. 2009. Notes from Soggy Bottoms Blog: describing the Moss Island search. Posts from July 31,
2009-November 9, 2009.
Reynard, G. B., and Garrido. 1988. Bird Songs in Cuba. 2 Records, 33 1/3 RPM. Cornell Laboratory of
Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.
Ridgway, R.. 1898. The Home of the Ivory-bill. Osprey 3:35–36.
Rosenberg, K. V R. W. Rohrbaugh, and M. Lammertink. 2005. An Overview of Ivory-billed Woodpecker
(Campephilus principalis) Sightings in Eastern Arkansas in 2004-2005. North American Birds 59:198-206.
Schorger, A. W. 1949. An early record and description of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Kentucky. Wilson
Bulletin 61:235.
Shackleford, C.E. 1998. A Compilation of Published Records of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Texas:
Voucher Specimens Versus Sight Records. Bull. Texas Ornithol. Soc. 21:34-41.
Spahr, T. 2005. Searches for Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) in the Apalachicola River
basin in Florida in 2003. North American Birds 59:210-215.
Sprunt, A. 1954. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Pages 282-285 In: Florida Bird Life.
Coward-McCann Inc., New York and the National Audubon Society
Sprunt, A., and E.B. Chamberlain. 1949. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Pages 340-342
In: South Carolina Bird Life.University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. 585 pp.
Snyder, Noel. 2007. An Alternative Hypothesis for the Cause of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s Decline.
Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology, Camarillo, California.
Stevenson, H.M. and B.H. Anderson. The Birdlife of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida. 1994.
Stoddard, H. L. 1969. Memoirs of a Naturalist. Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
Sutton, G. M. 1967. Oklahoma Birds. Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
Tanner, J. T. 1942. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker. National Audubon Society, N.Y.
Tanner, J. T. 1980. Unpublished update to The Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Division of Rare Manuscripts
Collections at the Cornell University Library, Ithaca, NY
Terres, J.K. 1986. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. Linnaean Society of New York Newsletter 40:1-2.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Draft Recovery Plan for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus
principalis). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. (Available here:
IBWDraftRecoveryPlan.pdf )
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Ivory-billed Woodpecker Search Season Summary for 2006-2007.
(Available here: )
Weston, F. M. 1965. A survey of the birdlife of Northwestern Florida. Bulletin of Tall Timbers Research
Station. Number 5. 147 pages.
Wetmore, A. 1943. Evidence of the former occurrence of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Ohio. Wilson Bull.
55: 55.
Williams, J. J. 2001. Ivory-billed Dreams, Ivory-billed Reality. Birding 33: 514–522.

Appendix F.
Protocol to Estimate Occupancy and Related Parameters
for the Region-wide Search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker

Michael J. Conroy, USGS Georgia      Background                            to learn about the ecology of this
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife        The Ivory-billed Woodpecker           species. To this point, significant
Research Unit and Warnell            was once relatively abundant          money and effort have been spent
School of Forestry and Natural       in floodplain forests of the          on searching. Although great
Resources, University of Georgia,    southeastern U.S. By 1900,            advances have been made on
Athens                               its range and numbers had             search techniques and associated
                                     declined precipitously due to         technology, little information
Robert J. Cooper, Warnell            habitat loss and various types of     useful to management and
School of Forestry and Natural       maltreatment. The last known          recovery has been obtained.
Resources, University of Georgia,    population was studied in a
Athens                               remnant patch of old-growth           An Ivory-billed Woodpecker
                                     forest known as the Singer Tract      recovery team has been formed
Brady J. Mattsson, Warnell                                                 and a recovery plan has been
School of Forestry and Natural       in northeast Louisiana in the
                                     late 1930s by Tanner (1942). The      written. Among the recovery
Resources, University of Georgia,                                          actions in that plan are at
Athens                               tract was subsequently logged,
                                     and since that time, numerous         least a dozen that pertain to
Clinton T. Moore, Patuxent           individual sightings have             developing an adaptive search
Wildlife Research Center,            occurred, mostly in and near the      design, estimating occupancy and
University of Georgia, Athens.       few remaining large patches of        detection probability, assessing
                                     contiguous bottomland forest          habitat associations, and modeling
Rua S. Mordecai, Warnell             (Figure 1). Also since that time,     population viability. The
School of Forestry and Natural       however, a number of bottomland       approach we advocate will begin
Resources, University of Georgia,    forest patches have come under        to address all of these actions.
Athens                               public protection and have grown      Justification for the Occupancy
James T. Peterson, USGS Georgia      to mature forests, and others         Estimation Approach
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife        have been reforested under            There are several problems
Research Unit and Warnell            several large-scale conservation      with searching only in what are
School of Forestry and Natural       efforts (e.g., Twedt et al. 2006).    believed to be the best places.
Resources, University of Georgia,    The stunning rediscovery of the       For example, (1) optimal sites
Athens                               Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the        have not been confirmed, so that
                                     Cache-lower White River Basins        it is not known what and where
Objective Statement:                                                       those places are, (2) searching
The purpose of this document         initiated a new search effort. The
                                     primary objective of the search       only in the “best” places does not
is to describe a survey design                                             permit inferences about places
and field protocol for the Ivory-    has been to find the bird and
                                     document its existence, searching     not searched; that is, one cannot
billed Woodpecker search effort                                            make an inference about the
that will: (1) allow estimation of   mostly those locations that were
                                     believed—mainly on the basis          larger population because the
occupancy, use, and detection                                              selection of search locations lacks
probability for habitats at two      of the limited data provided
                                     by Tanner—to be optimal.              randomization, (3) one cannot
spatial scales within its former                                           estimate occupancy, use, detection
range, (2) assess relationships      Meanwhile, other searches
                                     were initiated in other locations     probability, or the sampling
between occupancy, use, and                                                effort required to estimate
habitat characteristics at those     within the former range where
                                     unsubstantiated sightings have        those parameters, (4) in order to
scales, (3) allow the development                                          understand habitat associations,
of a population viability model      been reported in recent decades,
                                     again focusing on places that         a range of habitat values needs
that depends on patch occupancy                                            to be represented in the sample
instead of difficult-to-measure      were believed to have the best
                                     chance of being occupied. Some        being analyzed, and until this
demographic parameters, and                                                happens (5) it is not possible
(4) be adaptive, allowing newly      observations and other promising
                                     data have been collected in           to build predictive habitat and
collected information to update                                            population models, or to learn in a
the above models and search          these places, but many other
                                     observations were made in areas       systematic, repeatable way from
locations. A more statistically                                            the data collected how to improve
detailed version of this document    that were not consistent with
                                     prior expectations (i.e., smaller     the search.
will undergo peer review by the
USGS.                                tracts, few large trees and snags).
                                     It is apparent that we have much
Rather than focus solely on            prior belief of their suitability and   randomly on the basis of recent
finding the bird, we advocate          results from existing searches; so      historical sightings. Remaining
a primary focus of estimating          that most but not all effort is still   basins in the sampling frame
occupancy and use, from which          expended in the “best” locations        should be randomly selected
many other useful parameters           (see below).                            with weights based on the
and products can be obtained,                                                  subjective probability of Ivory-
and in the process of conducting       This approach is substantially          billed Woodpeckers occurring
the surveys with that paramount        different from what is being            in the area. This process will
objective, follow good leads and       done now, although the field            yield many basins with high
find the bird.                         methodology is not. Field               occupancy probability and few
                                       methodology can include any of          with low occupancy probability.
Occupancy is the actual                the major techniques now being          Eventually, exact criteria for
occurrence of an animal at a           used (e.g., ground surveys for          selection will be developed jointly
site of interest, as opposed to        birds, cavities or feeding sign,        by experts in order to gain
its detection or non-detection,        recording devices, aerial surveys).     consensus. A step towards this
and is defined as the probability      Costs may be slightly higher (see       consensus was attained at the
that a randomly selected site is       below), but the benefits in terms       recent Congaree meeting.
occupied; alternatively, it is the     of the quality of information
proportion of sites in an area of      obtained will be a substantial          Secondary level. Within selected
interest that are occupied by a        improvement over current                river basins, sampling units
species (MacKenzie et al. 2006).       approaches. We believe that the         in the secondary level will be
It is possible (arguably likely)       additional costs will be more than      defined as approximately 2km2
that one can visit a site that is      justified by the gain in the quality    patches of land. As individual
occupied and not detect a bird on      of inference obtained under this        birds are almost certain to
a given occasion (a false negative).   approach. The approach does not         use areas greater than 2km2,
Thus, one does not know if an          detract from efforts to document        the secondary level will be
“absence” (i.e., non-detection) is     the bird’s existence; indeed, we        estimating probability of a unit
actually due to non-occurrence,        suggest that our approach may           being used. These patches can
or rather the failure to detect the    even increase the likelihood of         be a consistent square or some
species when it is in fact present.    finding birds at multiple locations.    other shape in a grid as in Figure
This problem is addressed by                                                   3, or a variable shape and, to
multiple visits to a site, which       Approach                                some extent, size in order to
allows estimation of detection         The following represents our            follow existing features of the
probability, which is then used        thinking now, after one search          landscape such as water features
to “adjust” occupancy estimates.       season (2006-07) and could be           or management compartments.
If an animal is likely to move in      modified in the future; however,        Squares can be problematic if, for
and out of the surveyed area, and      data collected under this plan will     example, they include both sides
that movement is random, it is         be useful under future variations       of a watercourse large enough to
also possible to apply the same        of this design. Survey sites            prevent easy crossing. The 2km2
methodology used to estimate           will be defined and selected at         size was chosen because it seems
occupancy, only in this case it will   two levels or spatial scales, the       functional, and it is currently
estimate the probability of use        primary level (river basins) and        in use as part of the Lower
(MacKenzie et al. 2006). Habitat       secondary level (patches within         Mississippi Valley Joint Venture
variables are also measured in         river basin).                           habitat survey (LMVJV refers
each site. Occupancy can be            Primary level. The primary site         to these patches as stands, which
related to habitat variables using     will be a river basin within the        are subunits of management
a variation of typical logistic        former range of the Ivory-billed        compartments on public land in
regression corrected for detection     Woodpecker (Figure 2). Many             the survey). Feedback from most
probability.                           of those can be eliminated from         groups that used this sampling
                                       further consideration due to            design in the 2006-07 search
In order to develop occupancy                                                  season supports this patch size.
models, sites must be randomly         their (believed) complete lack of
chosen to make inferences              suitability. Culling unsuitable         Again, patches that are
that can be generalized to the         sites will help to create a defined     inaccessible due to logistics or
entire population. Inaccessible        sampling frame. River basins            landowner permission can be
sites and sites that are judged        with consistent sightings and/          omitted from the sampling frame,
to be entirely unsuitable for          or sound recordings (i.e., high         as will completely unsuitable
woodpeckers (e.g., non-forested        quality evidence) will always           patches; the resulting system
sites) can be eliminated from          be selected to survey. At this          of patches constitutes the
the sampling frame (the list of        point those would be the Cache/         sampling frame at the secondary
sample units in the population         lower White in Arkansas, the            level. Selection of patches will
that could potentially be included     Choctawhatchie in Florida,              occur in a similar fashion to the
in the sample). Further, selection     and the Congaree/Wateree in             primary level except no patches
of patches can be weighted by          South Carolina. Other river             in the sampling frame will be
                                       basins may also be selected non-
guaranteed selection. Patches           models that involve multiple river     are done for a patch, they do not
will be randomly selected with          basins (i.e., the primary level).      need to be done again, unless
weights based on the probability        Investigators that make extensive      additional or different data
of Ivory-billed Woodpecker              use of ARUs or other methods           are required, or the patch has
use. Exact criteria for selection       unique to particular river basins      undergone significant change
eventually will be developed by         can use those data to develop          since the last survey.
expert consensus.                       basin-specific models, but results
                                        may not be comparable with other       Database and Data Entry
Note that an investigator in            sites unless those areas also used     All data should be entered into
a particular area can survey            similar survey methods.                the centralized database within
additional patches not selected                                                two months of the end of the
in the sample. However, because         Habitat surveys                        field season. Long-term data
of the need for randomization, in       The habitat protocol stems from        storage options are currently
our approach only the patches           the LMVJV habitat measurement          being discussed with a strong
selected in the sample will be          protocol, which involves taking        possibility that data for the 2007/8
included in the analysis. As            many measurements on 4                 field season will be entered into
an approximate rule of thumb,           “transects” of 5 plots each, or        the USGS point count database
about 90% of overall search effort      n=20 plots per patch. Circular         (
should be done in randomly              plots are 0.2 acres (0.08 ha) in
selected patches. If new                size, with a 52.7’ radius. However,    Literature Cited
information is obtained, such as        this level of time commitment          Fitzpatrick, J. W., M.
a hunter reporting a bird in a          may not be within the means of         Lammertink, M. D. Luneau, Jr.,
patch that is not in the sample,        all investigators. In this case, a     B. R. Harrison, G. M. Sparling, K.
then the design can and should be       reduced number of measurements          .
                                                                               V Rosenberg, R. W. Rohrbaugh,
modified on the basis of the new        can be taken on these plots. We        E. C. H. Swarthout, M. S.
information. Eventually, a formal       suggest that, as a minimum,            Dantzker, R. A. Charif, T. R.
set of protocols will be developed      density of large (>24” dbh and
that will allow searchers this          >36” dbh) trees, density of snags,                    .
                                                                               Barksdale, J. V Remsen, S.
flexibility in a truly adaptive         and dominant tree species should       D. Simon, and D. Zollner.
search design. For now, if this         be recorded. Based on feedback         2005. Ivory-billed Woodpecker
situation (i.e., new or ‘found’ data)   from searchers in the 2006-07          (Campephilus principalis)
should arise, then the search team      season, we believe that most of        Persists in Continental North
should consult with the UGA             the data on dominant tree species      America. Science 308:1460-1462.
team as to how the design might         can be obtained using remotely
be altered.                             sensed data, so tree species does      MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols,
                                        not need to be recorded.               J. A. Royle, K. H. Pollock, L. L.
Field Procedures                                                               Bailey, and J. E. Hines. 2006.
Searches                                However, two additional                Occupancy Estimation and
Again, field methodology                measurements requiring more            Modeling. Academic Press, New
can include any of the major            precision must be made. Rather         York.
techniques now being used (e.g.,        than measuring all trees, only
ground or canoe/kayak surveys           trees >24” dbh and >36” dbh            Royle J.A. and W.A. Link. 2006.
for birds, cavities or feeding sign,    and all snags >10” dbh are             Generalized Site Occupancy
recording devices, aerial surveys).     counted, using one or several 52.7’    Models Allowing for False
However, in order to develop            sections of cord to ascertain the      Positive and False Negative
models that use and learn from          plot boundary, and a Biltmore          Errors. Ecology 87(4):835-841.
data collected from multiple river      stick to assess dbh class quickly.     Tanner, J. T. 1942. The Ivory-
basins, it would be better to have      We estimate that, with a little        billed Woodpecker. Research
comparable field methods to help        practice, a plot such as this should   Report No. 1, National Audubon
build more rigorous detection           take < 5 minutes to complete by        Society, New York.
models. We suggest that active          one person.
ground surveys for birds and sign                                              Twedt, D. J., W. B. Uihlein, III,
should be the standard approach         The 20 plots per patch should          and A. B. Elliott. 2006. A Spatially
that all surveys use. In the 2007-      be randomly located and                Explicit Decision
08 search season, this design           established using a GPS unit.
may be altered to include active        They can be located using simple       Support Model for Restoration
double-raps using sticks and a          random sampling or systematic          of Forest Bird Habitat.
resonating wooden box.                  random sampling. The latter            Conservation Biology 20:100-110.
                                        is likely to be more practical if
Standard survey units can also          double-rapping is to be done
be developed for techniques             systematically throughout the
such as autonomous recording            patch anyway. Alternatively,
units (ARUs), but it is likely that     habitat surveys can all be done in
only a few sites will use ARUs in       the middle of the day at random
quantities large enough to use in       locations. Once habitat surveys
Figure F-1. Possible encounters since 1944 are primarily in large patches of contiguous bottomland forest.


Figure F-2. River basins within the former range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
Figure 2. River basins within the former range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.


Figure F-3. Example grid of survey units for basin surrounding Congaree National Park. Boundaries
shown as crosshatched area. Colors represent percent of square classified as swamp and/or bottomland
hardwood (0-10%: white, 10-40%: yellow, 40-70%: orange, 70-100%: red) by the 2001 National Landcover
Dataset (NLCD).

Figure 3. Example grid of survey units for basin surrounding Congaree National Park.
Boundaries shown as crosshatched area. Colors represent percent of square classified as
swamp and/or bottomland hardwood (0-10%: white, 10-40%: yellow, 40-70%: orange, 70-
100%: red) by the 2001 National Landcover Dataset (NLCD).


ADDENDUM. Implementation of         Justification:                        Visual Encounter Ranking System
Adaptive Design for Ivory-billed    We have modified the survey           Any large woodpecker falling into
Woodpecker Occupancy Protocol       design to allow for additional        either of the following categories:
                                    information coming from outside
Michael J. Conroy, USGS Georgia     sources, e.g. hunter sightings,       Category 1—an encounter
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife       which potentially would not be        with documentation that can be
Research Unit and Warnell           from areas surveyed originally.       repeatedly interpreted the same
School of Forestry and Natural      We have also updated the protocol     way by independent observers,
Resources, University of Georgia,   to allow for more effort in areas     such as where definitive
Athens                              with defensible detections of         photographic evidence is collected
                                    Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. The         by the field observer.
Robert J. Cooper, Warnell
School of Forestry and Natural      allocation of more effort is two-     Category 2 - an encounter with at
Resources, University of Georgia,   fold, 1) we have allocated more       least two diagnostic field marks
Athens                              patches, specifically, adjacent       clearly observed and described,
                                    patches to be searched when a         and the bird remaining in view
Brady J. Mattsson, Warnell          high-quality detection has been       long enough for the observer
School of Forestry and Natural      made or confirmed, and 2) we          to reconfirm the observed field
Resources, University of Georgia,   have allocated an increase in         marks, but no independently
Athens                              repeat visits in those patches with   verifiable evidence such as a
                                    a high-quality detection and in       photograph. Diagnostic field
Clinton T. Moore, Patuxent          the adjacent patches. We believe
Wildlife Research Center,                                                 marks include:
                                    these modifications increase our
University of Georgia, Athens.      overall flexibility and ultimately    a. White trailing edge of wing
Rua S. Mordecai, Warnell            our probability of observing a           on either the dorsal or ventral
School of Forestry and Natural      bird.                                    surface.
Resources, University of Georgia,   Approach:                             b. White ‘shield’ formed by folded
Athens                              The original approach will stay          wings over the lower back of a
Krishna Pacifici, USGS Georgia      intact at both the primary and           perched bird.
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife       secondary level.
                                                                          c. White lines starting behind the
Research Unit and Warnell           The survey design will change            eye, continuing down the neck
School of Forestry and Natural      only when a specific type of             and onto the back of the bird.
Resources, University of Georgia,   encounter is confirmed. This
Athens                              specific encounter will be called     d. Black chin
James T. Peterson. , USGS           a trigger. A trigger can be of        e. Large woodpecker with one
Georgia Cooperative Fish and        several forms: visual detection,         of the above diagnostic field
Wildlife Research Unit and          auditory detection, or detection         marks and clearly heard giving
Warnell School of Forestry and      from helicopter survey.                  ‘kent’ calls or double knocks.
Natural Resources, University of    Visual Detections:
Georgia, Athens                                                           Category 3—an encounter that
                                    A visual detection trigger is any     includes the description of one
Objective:                          visual detection of category 1,       definitive or several partial or
As we originally intended for the   category 2, or category 3 on the      poorly observed field marks.
survey design and field protocol    CLO visual encounter ranking
for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker     system (see below and pages 21        Auditory Detections:
to be adaptive, we have             and 31 of RFP). These visual          An auditory detection can be used
augmented the current protocol      detection triggers can come from      as a trigger only if it meets the
to incorporate newly collected      the following sources:                following criteria:
information. In response to         1. a randomly selected patch          1. It is a clear double-knock or
feedback from search teams             within secondary level                kent call, and
regarding search behavior and          sampling frame,
specific concerns about effort,                                           2. It was made by personnel
we have also updated our survey     2. a patch searched during the           with extensive experience and
design in an attempt to increase       25% allocated free time in            training (i.e. member of the
the chance of finding the bird         either primary or secondary           search team).
while maintaining the current          sampling frame, or outside of
probabilistic framework and            the primary sampling frame or,     3. Does not displace more than
scientific rigor. This document                                              25% of the search time for the
provides the minor modifications    3. an outsider’s report (e.g. a          original occupancy protocol.
to the survey design and field         hunter) and potentially in
                                       a patch not in primary or          Auditory detections can be
protocol.                                                                 followed at any time during
                                       secondary level sampling frame
                                       and not originally intended to     the search period regardless of
                                       be surveyed.                       whether it originates in a selected

sample plot or in a plot within           If no additional triggers are
the sampling frame, given that it         found, return to the random
meets the above criteria.                 patches originally selected for
                                          the occupancy model.
Helicopter Survey Detections
At this time we are not addressing      5. Continue process to create
the sampling procedure and/or              network of patches until no
approach for helicopter surveys.           new triggers have been found.
We can however give procedures             This will result in edge patches
for the incorporation of high-             (Figure 3).
quality detections (CLO visual
encounter category 1, 2, or 3)          6. Follow the normal occupancy
from a helicopter survey. The              protocol for all other
high-quality detections will be            detections.
used in the same manner as found        Time Allocation
data from an outside source             The adaptive augmentation
(e.g. a hunter) to reallocate the       described here will not come out
sampling effort. This can be            of allocated free time and will be
done for helicopter detections in       considered as part of the directed
any area regardless of whether          occupancy protocol (75% of the
it is in the primary or secondary       total time spent searching). If
sampling frame. The site of the         Category 3 visual detections
detection (gps units) will be used      become abundant and are
to determine the appropriate            requiring a significant amount of
initial trigger plot. The protocol      the search team’s time (> 25%)
will then follow the steps outlined     the search team should consult
below.                                  with the University of Georgia
Adaptive Field Procedure                Research Team to modify the
Once a detection trigger has            protocol as needed.
been confirmed the protocol will
change in the following fashion.
1. The patch containing the
   trigger and the four adjacent
   patches in the cardinal
   directions (North, East, South,
   and West) will be searched.
   If the patches are not square,
   but are of some other shape
   dictated by landscape features,
   then the adjoining or most
   adjacent patch in each of the
   four cardinal directions should
   be surveyed (Figures 1 and 2).
2. These five patches (trigger
   patch plus four adjacent
   patches) will be visited a total
   of five times instead of the
   original three visits.
3. Any new trigger detections
   in the adjacent patches will
   constitute a new trigger and
   the three adjacent patches of
   the new trigger patch will be
   surveyed a total of five times
   (Figure 3).
4. If at least one more trigger
   follows the initial trigger,
   reallocation of search effort will
   be left up to each search team
   with the provision that the
   adaptive protocol is followed.
Figure F-4. Initial detection trigger identified and confirmed.

                           Figure 4. Initial detection trigger identified and confirmed.

                           Figure 4. Initial detection trigger identified and confirmed.
Figure F-5. Four adjacent patches plus initial trigger patch searched five times.

                           Figure 5. Four adjacent patches plus initial trigger patch searched five times.

                           Figure 5. Four adjacent patches plus initial trigger patch searched five times.


Figure F-6. New trigger found during visit to adjacent patch. Three patches adjacent to new trigger patch
searched five times. Process continues until no new triggers are found. This will result in edge patches.

            Figure 6. New trigger found during visit to adjacent patch. Three patches adjacent to new
            trigger patch searched five times. Process continues until no new triggers are found. This will
            result in edge patches.

                                                   102        96
Guidelines for Ivory-billed         is being tested with Pale-billed         at times of day with high bird
Woodpecker Searches in the 2007-    Woodpeckers (Campephilus                 activity, typically early or late in
2008 Season                         guatemalensis) from September-           the day, but on crisp, clear winter
Recommendations from Cornell        December 2007, to assess                 days bird activity can remain
Lab of Ornithology                  response patterns. First results         high, permitting DK sessions
                                    indicate that the Pale-bill is highly    to be conducted throughout the
Double Knock Imitations and the     responsive to these imitated             day. If a searcher plans to be at
Double Knocker Loan Program         sounds, much more so than to             one spot for an extended period
For the 2007-08 search season no    Pale-bill calls or double knocks         (i.e., a stationary watch, lunch
large-group searches are planned    played through a speaker from a          break, vegetation sampling) it is
as in previous years in Arkansas    recording.                               recommended that a DK session
and Florida. Instead, small                                                  be initiated at the beginning of
teams of searchers will explore     During the summer of 2007, the           this period.
priority areas. Although areas      carpentry shop at Congaree
cannot be searched exhaustively     National Park produced 30                A DK session consists of a bout
with a small team, broadcasting     double knocker (DK) tool sets            of seven double knocks spaced
of double knock playbacks           after the CLO design. These              10 seconds apart, a 4-minute
can increase the effective area     double knockers are now                  pause, and another bout of seven
searched. Tanner (1942) reported    available as part of the equipment       double knocks at 10 second
a higher response rate of Ivory-    loan program for Ivory-billed            intervals. This temporal spacing
billed Woodpeckers to double- or    Woodpecker searches in the 2007-         of double knocks is modeled after
single-knock imitations than        08 season and can be requested           recordings of other Campephilus
to kent-call imitations. Other      by sending an e-mail to Marty            drum signals. The spacing is
Campephilus species generally       Piorkowski <mp362@cornell.               on the high end of the range
also readily respond to double-     edu>. Instructions for using the         observed in recordings, aiming
knock imitations. Because of a      DK tool set will be distributed          to arouse the attention of a bird
large carrying distance, double-    with each loan.                          if present. If working in a team,
knock imitations sample a larger                                             and if the team uses Garmin GPS
search area than kent-call or       Double Knocker Use Protocol              units with radio function, several
double knock playbacks through      We recommend using double-               minutes in advance of a DK
a speaker system. For these         knock imitations frequently to           session a searcher should send
reasons, double-knock imitations    try to elicit a response when            out the coordinates and timing of
appear a more suitable technique    exploring areas with suitable            the session so that co-searchers
than playbacks.                     habitat and/or recent reports of         are aware of the upcoming
                                    Ivory-bills. If an Ivory-bill is         imitations and can listen for
During the 2006-2007 season,        confirmed or strongly suspected          responses. Sessions should start
the Mobile Search Team of           to be present, double knock              at the top of a minute according to
the Cornell Laboratory of           imitations should be avoided             standardized, satellite-corrected
Ornithology (CLO) in cooperation    or used very rarely to avoid             time on a GPS unit. A log must
with D. Martin developed and        potential harassment.                    be kept of all imitated double
tested a mechanical device                                                   knocks, so that if members of the
designed to imitate double          The DK tool set can be carried in
                                    a small day backpack, permitting         public or team members who are
knocks. It consists of a wooden                                              beyond radio reach report double
box, open on two sides, which       each member of a field team to
                                    have a DK tool set with them.            knocks, these can be compared
is strapped to a tree trunk and                                              with the log of broadcasts.
rapped upon with a hand-held        DK sessions should be conducted
                                    along the searcher’s route of            The log should contain GPS
tool consisting of two wooden                                                coordinates of the broadcast site
dowels that are attached in such    travel and are best done in areas
                                    of good visibility, such as open         and exact time of the onset of the
a way as permits them to pivot                                               two one-minute imitation bouts of
independently of each other. The    forest. Working from a lightly
                                    elevated location (i.e. a hill or high   a session. It is recommended that
angle and length difference of                                               each searcher perform between 3
the dowels causes them to strike    river bank or fallen tree) will help
                                    facilitate sound travel and permit       and 6 DK sessions per day.
the box in succession, producing
a signal with the sound quality,    a better line of sight [this is said     If a double knock or kent call
spacing, and amplitude ratio of a   again below]. If an unprovoked           is heard, or an Ivory-billed
large Campephilus woodpecker        double knock is heard during             Woodpecker flies in: (1) prepare
double knock. The signal carries    the course of regular searching          your camera, (2) if the sound
400-600 m in denser woods with      and attempts to see the bird             or bird is close and the forest
foliage, and up to 1.4 km in        fail, then a DK series should be         navigable, leave your double
more sparse winter woods and        conducted immediately. In Pale-          knocker box strapped to the tree
under ideal weather conditions.     billed Woodpeckers it has been           and carefully approach the bird,
In collaboration with C. Saker      found that birds already engaged         (3) take the picture or video, (4)
of York University, Toronto, a      in drumming are especially               clean up your pants; alternatively,
double knocker of CLO design        responsive to DK imitations. DK          if the source cannot be found, or if
                                    imitations should be concentrated
the landscape prevents approach,     falls within the boundaries of the     Conducting Helicopter Searches
try bringing the bird closer with    patch, and the name of the specific    for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
occasional double knocks, each       locality must match the name of
separate by about one minute. To     the patch. After November 15,          Background
avoid harassment, interactions       2007, an electronic file from which    In April 2005, rediscovery of
should preferably remain under       a data sheet can be printed for        the endangered Ivory-billed
30 minutes, and should never         daily bird data, consisting of a       Woodpecker on Cache River
extend beyond 60 minutes.            species checklist and the required     NWR in Monroe County, east-
                                     data fields, can be requested from     central Arkansas was announced.
Keeping a List of Bird               Marty Piorkowski <mp362@               In September 2006, additional
Observations               >.                          evidence for the persistence
In the 2007-2008 season, each                                               of the Ivory-bill in Florida
searcher is asked to keep a          What to Do in Case of an Ivory-        was presented by a group
daily record of the number of        billed Woodpecker Find                 of researchers from Auburn
individuals of each bird species     If an Ivory-billed Woodpecker          University.
seen for entry into the eBird        is convincingly seen in a search
project database (http://ebird.      area (with two or more diagnostic      Thousands of hours of intensive
org). Special emphasis is on the     characters reported) but not           searching using a variety of
keeping of records on species of     documented with an image (i.e., a      techniques (boats, walking,
conservation concern, i.e. Rusty     Category 2 sighting), the dilemma      blinds, cameras, sound recording
Blackbird, Swallow-tailed Kite,      arises whether continued search        units) during the 2004-05 and
and Swainson’s Warbler, as well      effort should continue with a          2005-06 field seasons produced
as on woodpeckers, because           small team or whether a larger         only six additional observations
woodpecker abundance can be          team should be formed. A small         in Arkansas. Intriguing sound
used as a measure of habitat         team minimizes the risk of             recordings and a number of
suitability for Ivory-billed         disturbance but undermines the         possible sightings were also
Woodpecker. If two searchers         chances for repeated encounters        documented, but this massive
travel together, for instance in a   and documentation. Conversely,         search effort with few positive
shared canoe, only one list should   a large team brings risks of           results demonstrates the difficulty
be kept. Along with the daily        disturbance but increases the          of finding this charismatic and
checklist of birds the following     chances for documentation. As          elusive bird.
data should be recorded:             a compromise, it was decided           No state search group is
                                     during the July 2007 Atlanta           compelled or required to perform
(1) length of the day’s route by     meeting of Ivory-bill searchers
non-motorized means, during                                                 helicopter surveys. The following
                                     that in case of an undocumented,       guidelines are the result of
daylight hours, according to your    plausible find, both methods will
GPS track,                                                                  several conference calls and
                                     be tried, in sequence. A small         review by a sub-set of the search
(2) the coordinates of the central   team of 4-6 people, typically          groups’ membership with interest
(mid-way) point of the track (in     the team that made the original        and expertise in aerial surveys.
decimal degrees, not UTMs – to       find, will try daily for up to 4       These guidelines may be used to
get these, temporarily switch the    weeks after the initial sighting       help formulate an appropriate,
coordinate format in your GPS        to obtain an image of the bird.        consistent strategy if helicopters
settings at the end of the day),     If that fails, additional teams        are used at some point during the
                                     that are active with searches in       2007 search season.
(3) start time of the survey,        other states should be called in
                                     to assist. The contact persons         Rationale
(4) duration of the survey in        to discuss expansion of search         Adding aerial helicopter searches
hours,                               effort towards the end of the          can make the total regional,
(5) main observer and co-            initial 4-week small team              multi-state effort more efficient,
observers,                           effort are Laurie Fenwood              by systematically covering a
                                     <>               larger area, and/or accessing
(6) mode of transportation           and Ron Rohrbaugh <rwr8@               areas inaccessible via ground
(walking, canoe, etc),     >. Developments             techniques (due to hurricane
                                     will be treated with appropriate       damage, lack of roads, lack of
(7) name of the general area and     discretion. Credits for the original   flooding for water access, no
state (e.g., Congaree NP SC),        discovery, and decisions how and       public right of way, etc.), thereby
(8) specific location of the         when to release the discovery          increasing the chance of locating
searched area (e.g., Boggy Gut).     information, remain with the           a center of activity for the Ivory-
                                     original finders.                      bill.
If the day’s efforts include
exploration of a 200-ha patch for                                           The feasibility of using fixed-wing
the Occupancy Model, a separate                                             ultra-light aircraft for Ivory-billed
track and list must be kept for                                             Woodpecker aerial searches was
the part of the search route that                                           tested on a portion of the White

River NWR in the winter of 2006.        Safety                                 observers should have a high
From this slow aircraft, common         Aircraft are mechanical devices        quality SLR camera pre-set/
forest birds could be identified        that can malfunction or be             focused and ready to point and
and video imagery collected;            affected by wind, weather, and         shoot still images of flushed
however, the ultra-light aircraft       earth-based objects such as trees      Ivory-bills. Observations will
were unstable at low altitudes          and hills; therefore, safety must      likely be brief, no more that
with even slight winds produced         be the number one priority. Our        two-three seconds, and the
over the forest. This finding led       decision-makers for this will be       observers will have to be familiar
to the recommendation to use            the helicopter pilots. Additionally,   and very proficient with SLR
the more powerful and stable            Federal and state resources are        use. Additionally, there should
helicopter. Other commonly              bound by strict requirements,          be a high-definition video camera
available fixed-wing options            and acceptable contractors will be     mounted to the helicopter.
do not maximize the ability to          required to meet these standards       Preferably, the camera will be
fly close to the canopy at lower        as determined by the hiring/           fitted with a wide angle lens
airspeeds to enable identification      acquisition agency. Occupants          directed down and forward
and photo-documentation of              of the helicopter must adhere          of the flight path, capturing
flushed birds.                          to all required safety rules and       constant video footage of the area
                                        respective agency requirements         immediately in front of the ship.
Helicopter searches and surveys         while conducting the surveys.          In addition to documenting Ivory-
are an accepted, cost effective                                                billed Woodpecker sightings, the
means for locating and counting         Search Areas                           video imagery will be a way to
wildlife or finding habitat             Each state search group will           record and later to assess habitat
features. Though population             determine geographic priorities        characteristics in inaccessible
estimates derived from this             using historical information,          areas.
type of aerial survey frequently        recent and reliable reports of
underestimate the actual                sightings, and habitat information     Transects
number of individuals present           (see Request for Proposals             The pilot will fly previously
due to visibility bias (i.e., not all   Criteria). Additionally, selection     defined transects downloaded
animals are sighted), helicopter        of areas will depend on several        into GPS units monitored by
searches can be used to document        variables including the type of        the pilot and cockpit observer.
the presence of at least one            helicopter as well as its cost and     Transects will be defined using
individual. This can be followed        availability, logistics for aerial     landform characteristics and
up with a thorough ground search        and ground crews, local weather        shape of the survey area with
of areas where the Ivory-billed         conditions, issues associated          consideration for making the
Woodpecker is documented.               with public lands management or        most efficient use of available
                                        private lands, season of search,       flight time on individual flights.
The first objective of a helicopter     and accessibility. Randomization       Individual flights should last no
search is to locate and capture         can be included for development        more than 2 to 2.5 hours in order
definitive still camera or video        of the occupancy model.                to minimize observer and pilot
imagery of an Ivory-bill.                                                      fatigue. Flights can be planned to
Widely accepted proof would be          Search Guidelines                      take place during the hours 0900
invaluable in resolving differences     Observers and Cameras                  through 1600, to take advantage
of opinion within the scientific        If searches involve low altitude       of maximum sunlight. Additional
community over the rediscovery          helicopter flights, a total of 3-4     flights can be scheduled in early
of this species as well as in           observers including the pilot          or later daylight hours depending
promoting appropriate, effective,       should be used, depending on           on effective times for flushing and
on-going conservation efforts.          the type and capacity of the           observing birds. Flight times and
                                        aircraft and pilot discretion. Pilot   duration can be varied according
If Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are         observations will be subordinate
located during the aerial search,                                              to local needs and issues.
                                        to flight operations. Safety will      Adaptive changes are expected
ground crews can be deployed to         be the first priority for all of the
a much smaller area to focus on                                                as the crew learns from initial
                                        flights. In addition to looking        efforts.
roosting or nest cavity location.       actively for flushed Ivory-bill, the
Locating these important habitat        port side cockpit observer can         Transect spacing can be varied
elements will enable researchers        help coordinate the operation, and     to allow adequate observation of
to gather information that could        monitor on-board or handheld           flushed birds. Airspeed should
make significant contributions          GPS equipment. Ideally, there          be consistently maintained, if
to the knowledge and recovery           will be two observers positioned       possible. Depending on the ship
of the species. This sharper            in the back seat of the ship with      used, slower airspeeds (40 miles
focus can be expected to be much        doors removed. These observers         per hour) will aid observers.
more efficient and likely to yield      will be tethered to the ship with      Altitudes will depend on local
results, since searching habitat on     safety harnesses. In addition to       issues and safety concerns. The
the ground is difficult and time-       scanning constantly for flushed        pilot can adjust flight parameters
consuming. Smaller areas can be         Iviroy-bills, each of the back-seat    and transect orientation to
searched more intensively.
maximize viewing ability and           balance calculations for each        cause energy expenditure and
adapt to local conditions and          flight. An analysis of aerial        stress. Again, the trade-off is
safety considerations.                 hazards will be done prior to        explicit between the management/
                                       searches, and maps displaying        conservation need to find and
Preliminary test flights can           aerial hazards will be provided to   document the bird, then reliably
help determine what will work,         the pilot.                           locate a roost or nest cavity
adapting for optimum results,                                               and a temporary disturbance of
then maintaining a flight pattern,     Timeline                             extremely short duration. Under
speed, and altitude that are as        Air searches are best conducted      the Endangered Species Act,
consistent as possible. These test     during leaf-off condition in order   harm or “take” of a listed species
flights would ideally use a ground     to have the greatest chance of       without a permit is expressly
crew making simultaneous               detecting and capturing still or     prohibited. In this case, the
observations of flushed and/or         video imagery of a flushed Ivory-    “take” potentially occurring is
hiding birds during the helicopter     bill. Due to the high costs of       harassment via disturbance of
run.                                   ferry time the helicopter searches   whatever activity the bird was
                                       should be completed in blocks        engaged in prior to flushing.
Crew and Pilot                         of use. Late January, February,
Onboard GPS units monitored            and March are expected to be the     The 2007 helicopter searches will
by the pilot and cockpit observer      most effective months.               be performed by state search
will record waypoints of Ivory-bill                                         groups in cooperation with
sightings, waypoints of habitats       Issues                               the Fish and Wildlife Service.
of interest, and track logs of all     Waterfowl                            Barring an aerial strike, which
flights.                               The primary purpose for much of      will be avoided by the pilot
                                       the NWR lands to be searched is      for obvious reasons, the only
Crew members may come from             to provide habitat and protection
partner agencies. Completion of                                             disturbance that will occur is
                                       for wintering waterfowl.             flushing one or more birds to
AMD Basic Aviation Safety (B-3)        Conducting the flights at any
online training is mandatory for                                            flight. Currently, all search
                                       time during the leaf-off period      and monitoring activities which
all Federal flight crew members.       will temporarily disturb and
All personnel should wear an                                                may potentially harass a bird
                                       displace waterfowl in the specific   are permitted via the Service’s
approved flight helmet, nomex          area where the flights take
clothing and gloves, and leather                                            own Section 10(a)1(a) permit
                                       place. The disturbance will be a     or the Cornell Laboratory of
boots during the flight. If flights    short-duration, single-day event
are to be made over water, an                                               Ornithology permit. Location of
                                       and should not offer significant     ground searchers in response to a
aircraft, approved, personal           impacts to wintering waterfowl.
flotation device will be worn by all                                        helicopter sighting may allow the
                                       For example, January through         location of a nest or active roost
occupants when flying beyond the       mid-February are the peak
glide slope of the land. During                                             which can result in additional
                                       months of wintering waterfowl        disturbance/harassment. The
all surveys the two observers          use on the Arkansas refuges;
positioned in the back seat of                                              unlikely worst case scenario
                                       scheduling after this time period    would include nest abandonment,
the ship will remain tethered to       would offer the least disturbance
the ship with approved safety                                               although this is extremely
                                       to wintering waterfowl.              unlikely. Additional minor
harnesses. On-board radio
communication between the              Local managers have a good           impacts would include flushing
pilot and flight crew will be          understanding of how seasonality,    the bird(s) repeatedly. Given the
maintained via flight helmet           weather, and water levels            habitat conditions and results of
voice activated microphones.           concentrate wintering waterfowl.     the last two years of intensive
Air-to-ground communication            Where wintering waterfowl            searching, birds will likely
between the helicopter search          concentration has been identified    temporarily leave the immediate
team and ground search teams           as an issue, input from local        area. Care will be required in
will be established via cell phone     managers should be used to           the observation, monitoring,
after Ivory-bill encounters. If        modify flight plans and avoid        and photography of a cavity
needed, additional air-to-ground       areas of waterfowl concentration.    believed to be a roost or nest.
communication capability                                                    Requirements are documented
will be maintained between             Ivory-billed Woodpecker              in the current region-wide
the helicopter search team             Helicopter Ivory-bill sightings      Cornell permit and should be
and ground search team via             would enable immediate               adhered to for follow-up, focused,
programmable handheld radio.           redirection of searchers to          ground searches. The intra-
                                       areas of Ivory-bill encounters.      service Section 7 consultation
All project flights will file flight   Accurately located sightings will    for this permit resulted in a
plans using the FAA Flight             help search teams dramatically       Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Service or Agency Flight               increase chances of locating an      determination by the Regional
Dispatch Offices. The pilot is         active roost or nest cavity. This    Office and was concurred with
responsible for the accurate           means the bird(s) will be flushed.   by three Ecological Services
performance, and weight and            Flushing an animal to flight does    Field Offices (Conway, Panama

City, Lafayette). Copies of the         about government intrusion,
permit are held by the Fish and         lack of confidence in assurances
Wildlife Service and Cornell            that no trespassing will occur,
Laboratory of Ornithology, with         and fear of potential regulation
specific requirement information        associated with owning habitat
available from Ron Rorbaugh,            used by endangered species
Cornell University and Laurie           make this a sensitive issue. Some
Fenwood, US Fish and Wildlife           over-flight of private lands will
Service.                                be unavoidable as the helicopter
                                        makes turns to follow transects
Other Wildlife                          determined for surveys focused
If extensive areas are flooded,         only on public land. Potential
some unsubmerged lands may              negative reactions to this can be
harbor wildlife concentrations          managed by assuring adjacent
which could be disturbed                landowners that public lands are
by a low-flying helicopter.             the focus of the flights. Over-
This disturbance will be of             flights on private lands are not
short duration, and if large            illegal and are largely constrained
concentrations of sensitive             only by safety concerns (via
species are noted by local officials/   FAA regulations and advisories).
coordinators, these areas could         However, good sense and gauging
be avoided. Most migratory,             local reactions must prevail in
non-waterfowl species will not          each case in order to promote
have arrived in the bottomland          the long-term conservation of
hardwood habitats. Resident             this species, which will depend
species will, however, be in a          on appropriate private land
relatively stressful period of the      management. A public outreach
year. Recognition of these trade        effort should be undertaken
offs should be made. Where              where needed.
compatible with the primary
objective, efforts to minimize
disturbance and fulfill additional
objectives, such as eagle surveys,
can be accomplished.
Dates chosen for the flights
will have an impact on whether
this disturbance is an issue.
Any disturbance will be of
short duration, though flushing
waterfowl from the immediate
area can affect the availability
of animals to shoot. Depending
on the closeness of hunters or
hunting blinds to the flight path,
impact varies from none (similar
to crop dusting/seeding) to
significant (ducks gone for the
day). No impact is anticipated if
hunting seasons are closed.
Private Lands
Efforts to locate the Ivory-
billed Woodpecker ideally would
include all lands within what
is now (to the best of current
understanding) considered
suitable habitat. However, in
many areas observing private
lands via low altitude helicopter
flights might generate negative
reactions from landowners
or those who worry about
landowner rights. Suspicion
Appendix G.
Example of Action Plan and Private Lands Considerations
for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker

Action Plan In the Event of           evidence of the species will be       and clarity of the observation,
Definitive Information of the         forthcoming.                          and context of the sighting
Presence of the Ivory-billed                                                (habitat type, location, observer
Woodpecker In Arkansas                Sighting information collected        credibility). Several years
                                      in association with the winter        of experience have provided
Need for Action Plan                  search effort could significantly     an education in assessing
The search for the Ivory-billed       inform species management and         the significance of reported
Woodpecker is on-going in             any associated public use. There      encounters, and such is done
Arkansas, with intensive search       is a need to describe how this        routinely by Service and Cornell
efforts occurring from December       information is handled in the         personnel.
through April. Search activities      short term, including how and
continue to be more specific          when to convey the information to     This Action Plan is in effect to
and highly targeted with each         the general public and the media.     streamline a swift and effective
search season as search areas                                               response to the identification
incorporate several years of          This brief action plan is an          of the location of Ivory-billed
sighting data, search experience      attempt to map out a sequence         Woodpecker(s) by Service and
and narrowing of the field of         of events that should take place      ESA permittee decision-makers.
search, as well as investigations     if significant information on the     It is not valuable or effective to
in previously untargeted areas        status of the species is obtained.    respond to each and every Ivory-
through use of occupancy model        Definition of Events                  bill sighting report according
protocols. Search activity is         It is considered likely that          to the Response Sequence laid
significantly enhanced annually       information on the rediscovery        out in this document, but rather
and more focused on the basis         will result from the efforts of the   to those judged to be actual
of information gained from            search teams under permit. It         observations of the species
the each previous field season.       is, however, quite possible that      and with significant behavioral
Searches are conducted by             significant information could         components likely to lead to
professional employees from           be obtained from independent          further observations. Therefore
several organizations, as well as     parties. To maintain awareness        sightings which are judged to
volunteers. Cornell Laboratory        of possible independent sightings     be ‘Confirmed Encounter with
of Ornithology (CLO), Audubon         the various list serves used          Documentation’ or ‘Probable
Arkansas (AA), The Nature             by the birding public will be         Encounter’ will initiate the
Conservancy of Arkansas               monitored daily. Management           Action Plan Response Sequence.
(TNCA) and Arkansas Game &            of the response in these cases        Less definitive sighting reports
Fish Commission (AGFC) are            is dependent on obtaining             (‘Possible Encounter’, ‘Putative
participators in the organized        information from parties who          Encounter’) will be shared among
search effort. All search efforts     may or may not be willing to          primary agency and permittee
are unified under the field           share it. Given the high degree       representatives, but will not
coordination and permits of CLO.      of interest, it is likely that any    initiate the Response Sequence.
It is anticipated that there will     significant information will come     Particular attention will be given
continue to be a great number         to the attention of the search        to this shared information if the
of birders and curiosity seekers      teams or government officials in a    sighting report investigator is
in the field, as has occurred in      matter of days or less. Therefore,    inclined to believe that the report
previous years. Traditional users     we will consider the sequence of      is likely to lead to ‘Confirmed’
such hunters and anglers will         events to be the same regardless      or ‘Probable’ encounters, given
also be in the field and are aware    of the source of information,         further investigation. The
of the search for the Ivory-billed    with the response dependent on        Response Sequence is, in effect,
Woodpecker. Additionally, a cash      the quality of the information        the equivalent of calling ‘the red
reward (initially $10,000 and         received.                             phone’ to notify the Incident
currently $50,000 for leading                                               Response Team of a significant
an official to an Ivory-billed        Ivory-billed Woodpecker sighting      event which will require team
Woodpecker) has been offered          reports are no longer infrequent      decision-making.
to the public for locating the        in the Big Woods of Arkansas.
bird, and this incentive has          Reports vary tremendously in          Possible Significant Events
raised both public awareness and      credibility due to differences        Significant events could take
participation. It is therefore more   such as observer experience,          several forms. For purposes of
likely than ever that additional      field marks observed, length          developing appropriate responses

the following scenarios are            e. White trailing edge of wing       Action 1—Communicate
considered here:                          on either the dorsal or ventral   Information to Initial Response
                                          surface.                          Team (Attachment 2):
1. Fly-by Ivory-bill - Credible                                             The below persons will be
   sighting reports of a bird flying   f. White ‘shield’ formed by folded   considered members of the Initial
   by a location with no known            wings over the lower back of a    Response Team. This group is
   focus of activity.                     perched bird.                     kept to a minimal size to facilitate
2. Foraging Ivory-bill -               g. White lines starting behind the   quick response and decisions.
   Documentation is received of           eye, continuing down the neck     Membership is dictated primarily
   IBWO feeding in a specific             and onto the back of the bird.    by legal requirements (access and
   area, possibly on an identified                                          permits) and those in the lead
   food resource. Flood killed         h. Black chin                        on conducting the search. Team
   trees or possibly one of the                                             members will be responsible
                                       e. Large woodpecker with one         for informing other personnel
   “morticulture” sites could             of the above diagnostic field
   result in attracting a bird or                                           within their program/agency as
                                          marks and clearly heard giving    appropriate.
   birds on a regular basis.              ‘kent’ calls or double knocks.
3. Roosting Ivory-bill - A bird                                             All the members of the Initial
                                       Category 3                           Response Team will be informed
   or birds are documented             An encounter that includes the
   frequenting a roost tree.                                                of the information as soon as
                                       description of one definitive or     possible regardless of where
4. Nesting Ivory-bill - A bird or      several partial or poorly observed   the definitive record occurs in
   birds are observed exhibiting       field marks.                         Arkansas. Contact should be
   nesting behavior at a cavity        Category 4                           made by phone if possible and
   tree.                               An encounter based solely on         backed up by e-mail. Emphasis in
                                       the observer’s impression of the     order of contact should be based
5. Dead or Injured Ivory-bill                                               on the location of the sighting,
   - The remains of a bird are         bird with no identifiable field
                                       marks unambiguously observed;        e.g., on Cache River NWR
   recovered or an injured bird is                                          priority should go to contacting
   recovered.                          encounter lacks sufficient
                                       information to make qualitative      Jonathan Windley first.
There are of course other possible     assessment about the identity of     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
scenarios or combinations but          the bird.
these five likely encompass most                                            Primary Contacts:
of the general types of situations     In conveying information on
which could be encountered.            sightings use should be made of      ?????
                                       the categories above so all team
Encounter Classifications:             members are aware of the degree      Arkansas Game and Fish
Each sighting will undergo an          of confirmation with regard to the   Commission
assessment led by CLO personnel        sighting.                            Primary Contacts:
to determine the degree of
confirmation of the particular         Response Sequence                    ?????
encounter. The review will result      (Attachment 1.):
in a classification of the encounter   For confirmed Ivory-bills fly-       Arkansas Natural Heritage
into one of four categories:           bys or probable encounters,          Commission
                                       notification of the Initial
Category 1                             Response Team members should         Primary Contact:
An encounter with documentation        be made, and the need for any        ?????
that can be repeatedly                 management action should be
interpreted the same way by            assessed via a conference call or    Cornell Laboratory of
independent observers, such as         meeting.                             Ornithology
where definitive photographic
evidence is collected by the field     The following numbers may be         Primary Contacts:
observer.                              used at any time to convene a
                                       conference call:                     ?????
Category 2                                                                  Action 2: Convene Initial
An encounter with at least two         Phone number = ?????
                                                                            Response Team
diagnostic field marks clearly         Passcode = ?????                     An Initial Response Team
observed and described, and                                                 Meeting will be convened. It is
the bird remaining in view             For all other definitive sightings   expected that this meeting will
long enough for the observer           information (e.g., confirmed         be convened within hours of the
to reconfirm the observed field        or probable nesting, roosting,       information becoming available.
marks, but no independently            feeding, dead or injured) the        Representatives of the following
verifiable evidence such as a          following actions should be taken:   shall be present if feasible: FWS-
photograph. Diagnostic field                                                Refuges, Ecological Services
marks include:                                                              and External Affairs programs,
State of Arkansas (individuals         in question should be included        similar to that employed for Bald
to be identified by State of           in the initial response meeting.      Eagles. Management actions and
Arkansas), the Cornell Search          Likewise, State of Arkansas Law       permitted activities in the vicinity
Team leaders or their designees,       Enforcement personnel should be       of the nest tree will be limited to
and the person(s) providing the        offered the opportunity to attend     those necessary to assure the well
information or sightings.              the meeting.                          being of the bird or birds present.
                                                                             Research methods will be non-
The purpose of the meetings            If an injured bird or abandoned       invasive in nature.
will be quickly to review the          nestling (e.g., from a fallen nest
information received, confirm the      tree) is encountered, speedy          Public use and viewing should
validity, and determine the initial    assessment will provide the           be discouraged in the initial
steps which would need to be           best chance for recovery. The         response. Once the behavior
taken to assure protection of the      welfare of the bird should be         of the birds and the terrain
bird or birds being observed.          the primary concern, but notify       surrounding the sighting are
                                       the Initial Response Team and         more clearly known, options for
If the sighting occurs on              law enforcement officials as          some type of public viewing could
public lands, such protective          soon as possible–preferably           be evaluated.
measures may include cessation         before transport of the bird. If
or modification of public use          the nature of the injuries bird       In the event the birds are using
activities, management programs,       warrant it, e.g., gun shot wounds,    private lands, discussion with
search effort, or any other activity   notify State and Federal law          the land owner on how best to
that may be deemed to have an          enforcement officials immediately     provide protection for the bird(s)
adverse impact on the birds.           and be careful to preserve any        as well as the interests of the
                                       evidence of a crime. The bird         land owner will be necessary.
If the definitive sighting                                                   Involvement of the Corridor of
information is on private              should be conveyed to the facility
                                       identified in Attachment 1 as soon    Hope Conservation Team should
land, a meeting of the Initial                                               be considered when dealing
Response Team should                   as practicable.
                                                                             with private land owners. Their
still be convened as soon as           Contact information for injured       involvement will be somewhat
possible and should include            birds or nestlings:                   dependent on the circumstances,
the land owner if the person           The initial response meetings         e.g., the desires of the private
is willing and circumstances           will continue at least once per       land owner. In addition, should
allow. The presence of Ivory-          day or as agreed to until no          trespass issues develop, Federal
billed Woodpecker on private           longer needed. Involvement of         or State law enforcement
lands will obviously create a          other conservation partners in        could assist with this to assure
different scenario in terms of         these meetings may be expanded        thatdisturbance to the bird(s)
protective measures that can           following the initial response and    does not occur and that the
be implemented. Involvement            placement of protective measures      private property owner is not
of members of the Corridor of          should an y be needed.                adversely impacted. Discussions
Hope Team should be considered                                               with the private landowner
depending on the circumstances.        Concurrent with the convening         regarding future management
Special consideration should be        of the Initial Response Team,         and liability avoidance as well as
given to the desires of the private    bird list serves such as Bird         incentives for management and
land owner to maintain privacy         Chat and Rare Bird Alerts such        protection of his/her land will be
and protect his/her property and       as will be           required.
activities from birders or others.     monitored to evaluate awareness
                                       in the birding community.             Action 4: Review Permit
An assessment of the methods                                                 Requirements and Issue Permits
for monitoring activity will be        Action 3: Implement Protective        as Appropriate
necessary. In general, the least       Measures                              Permits (ESA and refuge/
obtrusive methods should be            Put protective measures in            State) for work proposed by
used. Remote cameras or blinds         place. This may require tasking       researchers or other personnel
should be considered. The need         enforcement personnel, signage        will be evaluated and permits
for predator control devices           or other measures. In some cases      issued as appropriate. A separate
such as snake guards should            there may be minimal need for         ESA permit may be required for
be assessed. Deployment will           these actions. The response will      work in association with a nest or
depend on the location of the nest     be tailored to fit the particular     roosting bird(s), although this is
and time of year, among other          situation. It is not possible         dependent on the nature of the
factors.                               to identify the combination of        anticipated activity. In addition,
                                       protective measures that may          if the event occurs on State or
If a dead bird or parts of a bird      or may not be needed until the
are recovered, the events above                                              Federal land there may be a need
                                       specific location of the activity     for an additional permit from the
should still take place, but the       is known. In the case of a nest
Office of Law Enforcement and                                                land-managing entity.
                                       or roost tree it is likely a buffer
the refuge officers for the area       zone approach will be used that is

Action 5: Notify Public of               greatly by the specific
Significant Information                  characteristics of the individual
Once protective measures are in          case. It may be necessary
place, notify the public. External       to deploy remote cameras.
Affairs personnel of the FWS             Some type of monitoring
and the State will have the              will probably be needed for
lead with coordinating media/            research and protection
public outreach in consultation          purposes.
with members of the Initial
Response Team. The Outreach            4. Development/revision of
and Communications Committee              Section 7 guidelines and all
formed under the Recovery Team            other ESA compliance may be
could serve as an appropriate             necessary.
vehicle for disseminating              5. Compatibility determinations
information over the longer term.         and refuge step down plans
Action 6: Monitor Response of             for public use, forestry
Birds and Public and Adjust as            management, and other
Necessary                                 management will need review
Action 5 will complete the initial        to assure they are consistent
response. This does not mean              with the recovery and
that the events which follow the          management of Ivory-billed
initial response will be predictable      Woodpeckers.
or manageable. It will be
necessary to monitor and evaluate
the situation continuously as it
develops and to adjust permitting,
protection, and communication as
Long-Term Management
Longer term management of the
birds and the habitat used will
require additional discussion and
review. The following factors
should be considered with regard
to the longer-term management
1. Long-term public use
   management—this will evolve
   as we learn more about the
   habits and behavior of the
   bird(s). Management actions
   considered necessary as an
   initial response may not be
   needed later in the process.
   Conversely, there may be a
   need to expand protective
2. Research needs will be an
   important consideration, but
   they must be balanced against
   the welfare of the bird(s).
   Learning more about the
   ecology, habitats and behavior
   of the species would greatly
   benefit recovery efforts and
   search methodologies.
3. Some means of providing
   access for viewing should be
   considered for nests or roost
   trees. This will be influenced

  Figure G-1. Functional chart for Initial Response for Action Plan: In the Event of Definitive Information
Table 1. Functional chart for Initial Response for Action Plan: In the Event of Definitive Information
   of the Presence of the Ivory billed Woodpecker in Arkansas.
of the Presence of the Ivory billed Woodpecker in Arkansas.

Living With the Ivory-billed            Recent Surveys                       with little or no information on
Woodpecker: Private Landowner           Efforts to document the presence     the focal point of activity. In any
Considerations                          of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers have     of these cases, the immediate
                                        been underway since late winter      question will be “What should the
“The plain lesson is that to be a       of 2004. Additional surveys have     landowner do?”
practitioner of conservation on a       taken place in 2005, 2006, 2007,
piece of land takes more brains,        and 2008. Since much of the best     Private landowners who believe
and a wider range of sympathy,          remaining forested habitat is        they may have Ivory-billed
forethought, and experience,            found on public lands, search        Woodpeckers on their land
than to be a specialized forester,      efforts have been focused in         should be encouraged to share
game manager, range manager,            areas such as Cache and White        such information with the Fish
or erosion expert in a college or a     River NWRs, and State lands          and Wildlife Service or the
conservation bureau.”                   on Dagmar and Rex Hancock/           appropriate state fish and game
- Aldo Leopold, 1934                    Black Swamp WMAs in Arkansas,        agency (contacts are listed at
                                        Congaree National Park in South      the end of this paper). The
Background                                                                   following concepts help assure
The announcement of the                 Carolina, Municipal Water District
                                        land on the Choctawhatchee           that landowner interests will be
rediscovery of the Ivory-                                                    protected and that the bird is
billed Woodpecker on Cache              River in Florida, the Big Thicket
                                        areas in Texas, Pearl River in       conserved:
River NWR was made on
April 28, 2005. This was the            Mississippi and Louisiana and        1. Don’t kill, harm, wound, or
first scientifically documented         the Atchafalaya River Basin             harass a listed species such as
sighting of a magnificent bird          in Louisiana, as well as the            the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
that had not been seen for              Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia.            Such things are prohibited
almost 60 years. The Recovery           While some of these areas have          under the Endangered
Team was established; the               yielded intriguing sightings            Species Act (ESA). Habitat
Corridor of Hope Conservation           and vocalizations, no additional        destruction or removal may
Team was convened; Town Hall            photographic or videographic            constitute a violation of the
meetings were held to involve           evidence has been obtained.             ESA. Cooperation and seeking
public citizens. Additionally,          Debate in the scientific community      opportunities for partnership
there has been consultation             continues regarding if and where        are the best approach to
with ornithological experts, an         Ivory-billed Woodpeckers exist.         conserving listed species, which
assessment of habitat in the Big        Rediscovery of an Ivory-billed          is the real purpose of the law.
Woods, communication exchanges          Woodpecker on Private Land              Through cooperation, potential
among scientists about the              A significant amount of private         concerns can be addressed,
Ivory-billed Woodpecker, and            land could support the Ivory-           and the habitat conditions
discussions about survey and land       billed Woodpecker. Some of this         supporting this rare and
acquisition needs.                      land is intermixed with public          elusive bird can be maintained
                                        land or adjacent to it. It is           and improved.
The most important conservation
discussion continues. How can           possible that use of private lands   2. Existence of a resident bird
we manage for the needs of this         by Ivory-bills could be occurring       is a good indicator that the
species? While the Recovery             and the search team or private          landowner’s current use,
Plan is still undergoing review,        landowners may find evidence of         management, and protection of
the reality is that we all have the     such activity. Increased search         the land has offered something
opportunity to work together            intensity during 2006 and 2007          attractive to the Ivory-billed
towards recovery. The Ivory-            added to the general awareness          Woodpecker. The Fish and
billed Woodpecker presents all of       of the possible presence of the         Wildlife Service, other Federal
us with real challenges, mainly         Ivory-bill and improved the             and state agencies, and private
because there is so little biological   likelihood of its discovery on          conservation organizations
information about its ecology, life     private lands.                          will be interested in providing
history, nutritional requirements,      Rediscovery could take several          financial and technical
habitat preferences, and current        forms. A landowner sees a bird          assistance to the landowner
threats. James Tanner’s 1942            feeding on private forest land. A       aimed at continuing these
work provides us with perhaps           roost tree or even nesting of a         benefits.
the best information we currently       pair of Ivory-bills could also be
have.                                                                        3. Providing information about
                                        documented. Evidence of past            a bird passing through the
As Jerome Jackson writes in the         nesting could be discovered.            area may mean that the larger
ending of his book on the Ivory-        The characteristic call of the          landscape is still capable
billed Woodpecker “If there is          Ivory-billed Woodpecker, which          of supporting Ivory-billed
habitat, there is hope. If there        resembles the “toot-toot” of a          Woodpeckers. This information
are Ivory-bills out there, there is     toy tin horn, could be detected.        will assist ongoing search and
hope” (Jackson, 2004). We all now       Potentially, a bird could be seen       location efforts, lending to the
know there is hope.                     flying through private property         recovery of this species.

4. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife        1. As with any endangered             candidate or other at-risk
   Service’s goal is to find ways        species, there are obligations     species. It is designed as
   for you to maintain your              to avoid “take” which is           a program whereby states
   traditional use of the property       defined in the Federal             can provide technical and
   while protecting this species.        Endangered Species Act as          financial assistance to private
   Hunting, fishing, and other           follows: “….to harass, harm,       landowners who desire to
   recreational activities are           pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,        undertake habitat management
   unlikely to present a problem         kill, trap, capture, or collect,   or restoration for federally
   and timber management                 or to attempt to engage in any     listed endangered, threatened
   activities may be compatible          such conduct.” Frequently,         and other at-risk species.
   as well. It is impossible to          existing land use activities can   The Service administers
   predict in advance the exact          be continued with little or no     this program; funds are
   situation or circumstances that       change. The Fish and Wildlife      competitively awarded to the
   may arise on any particular           Service is ready to work with      states and tribes to establish
   piece of property, so we cannot       landowners to help avoid “take”    a LIP program as well as for
   make blanket promises about           and to continue their current      implementing an LIP program.
   a particular land use activity.       land use to the greatest extent    State agencies with primary
   However, no private lands             practicable.                       responsibility for fish and
   have been taken or condemned                                             wildlife may submit proposals,
   by any government agency           2. Because the rediscovery of         although other agencies or
   to protect this species, and          this bird is so spectacular and    organizations may partner with
   we have no intention of               such an exciting conservation      or serve as a sub-grantee of the
   doing so. Our goal is to work         opportunity, conservation          fish and wildlife agency. The
   cooperatively with private            groups will be very interested     States must provide a minimum
   landowners to meet their needs        in assisting any private           of 25 percent non-federal
   and the needs of the bird.            landowner who has an               matching funds; applications
                                         Ivory-billed Woodpecker            that propose a higher matching
The following website provides           regularly using their property.    amount will score better, since
identification tips. (http://www.        Federal, state and private         matching funds beyond the          conservationists will be anxious   required amount is one of the
                                         to work with these landowners      ranking criteria.
To report a sighting, visit http://      to assure that conservation             opportunities are implemented      Arkansas received an LIP
identifying                              to protect the bird. The           grant in FY 2005 to initiate
Conservation Options                     landowner may have a potential     an on-the-ground Landowner
Private lands are vitally                entrepreneurial enterprise         Incentive Program. Rare
important to the future of               providing viewing opportunities    plants and animals (birds,
endangered, threatened and               of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker,    fish, mammals, insects, and
other at-risk species in the             with the requirement that the      crustaceans) that are identified
United States. For example,              bird be fully protected. There     by each state include state
approximately half of all                are many direct assistance         and federally listed species,
Federally listed endangered              programs available to fund         and other species with small
species depend on private lands          conservation activities,           and/or declining numbers in
for 80 percent of their habitat          purchase easements, and            the state. These species may
needs (Clark and Downes,                 provide other financial            be prevented from becoming
1995). Private lands, at the same        incentives for conservation to     “listed” as endangered
time, are under tremendous               the landowner. Some of these       or threatened under the
pressures for development, and           are described below.               Endangered Species Act by
fragmentation of habitat is a                                               timely habitat or population
                                      Federal Programs Available for        enhancement on private lands.
major conservation issue. Local       Endangered Species Conservation
conservation groups as well                                                 It is expected that LIP funds
as Federal and state agencies         U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service        will be used in conjunction
recognize that they cannot and        1. Landowner Incentive Program        with other conservation efforts
should not rely solely on land                                              such as Federal farm program
acquisition for conservation.           The Landowner Incentive             conservation initiatives and
Many new incentives have                Program (LIP) program               non-governmental organization
been established for private            provides financial assistance to    funding.
landowners that desire to               states and tribes to establish
                                        or implement programs               This program helps to:
undertake actions to help improve
conservation for imperiled              that protect and restore            n   Encourage private
species.                                habitat on privately-owned              landowners to conserve and
                                        lands to benefit federally              manage important habitat
There are two major points that         listed endangered and
all landowners should know:             threatened species, proposed,

   n    Protect habitat through         benefit federally protected or        certain situations and can serve
        conservation easements          candidate species, migratory          a valuable role in the recovery
                                        birds, or other trust resources,      of endangered and threatened
   n	   Prevent rare or declining       such as wetlands and stream           species. For more information
        species from being “listed”     habitats. Applications are            about such an opportunity,
        For more information:           received continuously.                discuss plans with the local                                           Fish and Wildlife Service office.
                                        In Fiscal Year 2005 (from
        lip/lip.htm                     October 1, 2004 through             4. North American Wetlands
2. Partners for Fish and Wildlife       September 30, 2005),                   Conservation Act (NAWCA)
   Program                              approximately $2.3 million
                                        was available for habitat             The North American Wetlands
  The Partners for Fish and             improvement projects in the           Conservation Act is a Federal
  Wildlife (Partners) Program,          Southeast Region. Detailed            grants program that funds
  established in 1987, restores,        information can be found on the       partnership projects for
  improves, and protects fish           Internet Site at: http://www.         wetland restoration, wetland
  and wildlife habitat on private            management or acquisition for
  lands through voluntary                                                     waterfowl throughout North
  partnerships between the            3. Conservation Banks                   America. There are two major
  Service, other agencies and                                                 types of NAWCA grants,
                                        Conservation banking is a             standard grants ($50,000 -
  organizations, and private            relatively new practice that
  landowners, while leaving the                                               $1,000,000) and small grants
                                        is becoming more attractive           (<$50,000), and the grant
  land in private ownership. The        to private landowners and
  Partners Program operates in                                                requests for proposals are
                                        developers who are interested         generally open twice a year.
  every state and can assist with       in protecting endangered and
  habitat projects in all habitat                                             Competition for these grants
                                        threatened species and their          is keen; potential applicants
  types where trust resources           habitat to achieve a market
  are involved. The Partners’                                                 are strongly encouraged to
                                        enterprise. A conservation            coordinate with the “Joint
  Program works with private            bank is basically a tract of land
  landowners by providing                                                     Venture” contact for their
                                        that the landowner has decided        area (
  technical and financial               to protect for the benefit of a
  assistance with a flexible goal                                             birdhabitat/NAWCA/jvdir.
                                        particular species; in return         htm). Specific criteria apply,
  of achieving 50% of the total         for protecting the land in
  project costs from partners.                                                and a minimum of a 1:1 non-
                                        perpetuity, the landowner             Federal to Federal match
  Partners’ projects include those      achieves “credits” that can be        is required. The Service
  on private and non-Federal            sold to others who need to off-       administers this program,
  lands that conserve native            set the environmental impacts         but the North American
  vegetation, hydrology and             of their development projects.        Wetlands Conservation Council
  soils associated with imperiled       However, conservation banks           establishes the policies that
  ecosystems such as bottomland         are not appropriate when the          govern the grant selection
  forest wetlands, longleaf pine,       lands in question are already         process. For more information
  native prairies, marshes, rivers      protected for conservation;           visit:
  and streams, or otherwise             conservation banks may                birdhabitat/NAWCA/grants.
  provide an important life             also not be effective if they         htm
  requisite for a rare, declining       are small in size and neglect
  or protected species. Typical         landscape-level planning. It        5. Willing Seller Purchase of
  projects include: planting            is often quite costly to restore       Easement or Fee Title
  of bottomland hardwood                and protect conservation
                                        bank lands; and long-term             Should a landowner be
  wetlands and other wetland                                                  interested in sale of his/
  restoration; site preparation         management needs sometimes
                                        are difficult to address. On          her property, two sources
  and planting of longleaf pine                                               of Federal funding are
  and subsequent prescribed             the other hand, a conservation
                                        bank provides needed or               available. The Land and Water
  burning; fencing cattle out of                                              Conservation Fund (LWCF)
  streams; in-stream habitat            improved habitat for the
                                        species in question; it reduces       can be used to purchase land
  re-establishment; planting of                                               for addition to the National
  riparian vegetation; and many         risks for developers by
                                        providing regulatory avenues          Wildlife Refuge System.
  other projects that result in the                                           Approximately one- quarter of
  restoration and enhancement           for mitigation; it can simplify
                                        Federal and State permitting,         Cache River NWR has been
  of important fish and wildlife                                              acquired using these funds. It
  habitat. Interested landowners        thus improving efficiency; and
                                        it can provide economic return        is also possible to purchase
  should contact their local Fish                                             easements with these funds
  and Wildlife Service Ecological       for the owner of the bank.
                                        Conservation banking is a             although the cost of easements
  Service’s Office. Projects must                                             often approaches the value
                                        new tool that is appropriate in
  of purchase in fee title and is,      where soils are highly erodible,      State WHIP Plan, and thus,
  therefore, infrequently used.         cropped wetlands, or on other         the program works towards
                                        lands with high environmental         addressing State wildlife
  The Migratory Bird                    values (e.g., riparian corridors;     habitat priorities. Landowners
  Conservation Fund (Duck               wetland protection areas).            may apply at any time to this
  Stamp Fund) has been used             Contracts may be for 10 – 15          program. The NRCS will work
  to purchase about 75 percent          years. For more information,          with the landowner to develop
  of Cache River NWR. Funds             contact: http://www.fsa.usda.         a wildlife habitat development
  are generated through                 gov/dafp/cepd/crp.htm                 plan, and this is used in the
  the purchase, primarily                                                     development of the cost-share
  by waterfowl hunters, of            2. Wetlands Reserve Program             agreement. Agreements
  the Federal Duck Stamp.                                                     typically run from 5 – 10 years.
  Purchases made with these             The Wetlands Reserve
                                        Program (WRP) is a                    The NRCS reimburses up
  funds are generally focused on                                              to 75 percent of the wildlife
  lands and waters of value to          voluntary landowner program
                                        administered by the Natural           restoration costs, but cost-
  waterfowl.                                                                  share approval may not exceed
                                        Resources Conservation
  Some landowners may not               Service that offers financial         $10,000 per contract. For more
  want to sell their land. In these     and technical assistance to           information: http://www.nrcs.
  instances it may be possible          those interested in restoring,
  for private landowners to work        protecting and enhancing            4. NRCS Environmental Quality
  with conservation organizations       wetlands on their property that        Incentives Program (EQIP)
  on easements or other ways            were converted to cropland
  to facilitate achievement of          or pasture prior to December          The Environmental Quality
  protecting or conserving Ivory-       23, 1985. Landowners restore          Incentives Program
  billed Woodpeckers and their          the wetlands and may develop          (EQIP), also administered
  habitat.                              wildlife recreation on the            by the Natural Resources
                                        lands. In return, NRCS may            Conservation Service, and is
U.S. Department of Agriculture          provide easement payments,            designed to address a variety
A number of Department of               cost-share financial assistance       of conservation issues including
Agriculture programs provide            for wetland restoration, and          air quality, water quality, soil
funding that can be used to             technical assistance. Three           health, and at-risk wildlife
improve wildlife habitat on             types of agreements are               habitat. The EQIP program
private lands. The Conservation         available: 10 year restoration        pays up to 75 percent of the
Reserve Program, Wetlands               cost-share agreements, 30 year        project costs (more in some
Reserve Program and                     easements, and permanent              cases) and is competitive at
Conservation Enhancement                easements. For more                   the State level. Applications
Program are all set-aside               information, contact: http://         can be filed at any time; upon
programs while other programs            selection, NRCS will work with
are designed to address on-the-         wrp/                                  the landowner to develop the
ground habitat improvements.                                                  conservation practices. This
Short summaries are provided          3. Wildlife Habitat Incentives          program has funded important
below, but for further information       Program (WHIP)                       conservation projects such as
about each of these programs                                                  fencing cattle out of streams,
we urge private landowners              The Wildlife Habitat
                                        Incentive Program (WHIP)              prescribed burning, wetland
to contact their local NRCS                                                   habitat restoration, and stream
representative.                         provides financial and
                                        technical assistance to private       habitat improvement. For
1. Conservation Reserve Program         landowners who voluntarily            more information, contact:
                                        desire to improve or restore
  The Conservation                      their lands for fish and wildlife     programs/equp/
  Reserve Program (CRP)                 habitat. The program is
  is administered by the                                                    5. Conservation Reserve
                                        administered by the Natural            Enhancement Program.
  Commodity Credit Corporation          Resources Conservation
  working with the Department           Service’s district offices,           In 2001, the Department of
  of Agriculture’s Farm Service         and funding is provided               Agriculture and Arkansas
  Agency. This program is               by the Commodity Credit               initiated a $10 million
  designed to provide cost-             Corporation. The State                Conservation Reserve
  share assistance and annual           Conservationist in each State         Enhancement Program
  rental payments to private            seeks input from the State            (CREP) to benefit the Bayou
  agricultural landowners who           Technical Committee during            Meto Watershed in five
  voluntarily wish to establish         the development of the State          counties in central Arkansas,
  long-term cover on their lands.       WHIP Plan. The ranking                including Arkansas, Jefferson,
  Criteria apply and the program        criteria for applications to this     Lonoke, Prairie and Pulaski
  focuses on enrolling croplands        program are derived from the          Counties. Two of these

  counties are located within       businesses to establish local          interested in acquiring and
  the Big Woods, Arkansas           groups that can protect land.          protecting ecologically-valuable
  and Prairie. The CREP             Some of the main tools used to         lands. Through this program,
  provides landowners with          achieve these goals include land       the Conservancy identifies and
  the option of removing land       trusts, conservation easements,        purchases target properties
  from agricultural production      private reserves and incentives.       within priority conservation
  and planting trees or other       In addition, a Private Lands           areas, or in zones that buffer
  vegetation to improve soil        Program was developed by The           and surround core natural
  conditions, water quality and     Nature Conservancy to use our          areas. The Conservancy then
  wildlife habitat. In return,      experience in the United States        widely and publicly markets
  the landowners receive            in developing land conservation        the property, seeking a buyer
  rental payments and other         tools internationally.                 committed to protecting the
  financial incentives. The                                                property’s important natural
  program is administered by        Acquiring Land                         values and willing to ensure the
  the Farm Service Agency. For      In the United States, The              land’s long-term conservation by
  more information, contact:        Nature Conservancy uses land           placing a conservation easement          acquisition as a principal tool        on the land. The value of the land
  pas/publications/facts/html/      of its conservation effort. The        before and after the conservation
  crepar01.htm                      Conservancy helps to protect           easement restrictions is
                                    approximately 15 million acres in      established by professional,
6. Healthy Forests Reserve          the United States. Outside the         independent appraisals. The
   Program                          U.S., the Conservancy does not         Conservancy prohibits sales of
                                    generally acquire land for its own     conservation lands to any related
  The Healthy Forests Reserve       protection but instead works with
  Program was established                                                  parties.
                                    local communities and national
  to help restore forest            governments to encourage the           National Fish and Wildlife
  ecosystems. Its focus is          protection of ecologically sensitive   Foundation
  on restoring or enhancing         land.                                  The National Fish and Wildlife
  habitat for endangered,                                                  Foundation (NFWF), a non-
  threatened and rare species,      Conservation Easements                 profit tax-exempt organization,
  increasing biodiversity in our    Conservation easements are one         established by Congress in 1984
  nation’s forests, and serving     of the most powerful, effective        to assist the Fish and Wildlife
  as an incentive for carbon        tools available for the permanent      Service in the development of
  sequestration. The program is     conservation of private lands.         partnerships with others for the
  open to private landowners who    Their use has successfully             conservation of fish and wildlife
  voluntarily desire to implement   protected millions of acres of land    and plants. The Foundation
  conservation practices and        while keeping it in private hands      has worked with many different
  place an easement on their        and generating significant public      partners over the years, as
  forest lands. Easement options    benefits.                              demonstrated by the fact that it
  include 10 year agreements,                                              has awarded over 7,000 grants
  30 year agreements, and 99        A conservation easement is a
                                    restriction placed on a piece of       to 2,600 organizations and has
  year agreements. For more                                                leveraged over $300 million
  information, contact: http://     property to protect its associated
                                    resources. The easement is either      in Federal funds into more                                               than $1 billion dollars worth of
                                    voluntarily donated or sold by
Private Incentives Available for    the landowner and constitutes          conservation projects (NFWF,
Endangered Species Conservation     a legally binding agreement            2005).
In addition to Federal and State    that limits certain types of uses      The NFWF issues general
programs, there are a number        or prevents development from           requests for proposals
of private organizations that       taking place on the land in            three times per year and
are engaged in conservation of      perpetuity while the land remains      has numerous special grant
endangered species, protection      in private hands. Conservation         opportunities, ranging from
of biological diversity, and land   easements protect land for             Refuge Friends Group
protection efforts. These offer     future generations while allowing      opportunities to grants that
more alternatives for private       owners to retain many private          enhance carbon sequestration
landowners to consider.             property rights and to live on and     efforts. They prefer on-the-
                                    use their land, at the same time       ground conservation projects,
The Nature Conservancy              potentially providing them with
Private lands conservation is an                                           and most grantees provide a
                                    tax benefits.                          2:1 (two private dollars to every
innovative tactic that leverages
the increasing interest of the      Conservation Buyer Projects            Federal dollar) matching fund
private sector to take part in      In recent years, the Conservancy       ratio. Project criteria depend on
conservation. The Conservancy       has begun working with private,        the type of grant one is seeking.
works with landowners,              conservation-minded individuals,       The NFWF does not fund
communities, cooperatives and       or “conservation buyers,”              advocacy, litigation, shortfalls in

government budgets, overhead         Florida                           National Park Service
and indirect costs, multi-year       Fish and Wildlife Conservation    Congaree National Park
projects or research. They do,       Commission                        100 National Park Road
however, provide funding for         620 South Meridian Street         Hopkins, SC 29061
land acquisition, conservation,      Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600        803/776 4396, ext. 0
restoration and creative new         850/488 5460            
approaches that could serve to
stimulate similar environmental                                        Non-Government Contacts:
projects in other areas. Their       U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service    The Nature Conservancy
contribution to the conservation     Ecological Services               South Central Division Office
of fish and wildlife resources has   Panama City Field Office          601 N. University Avenue
been remarkable.                     1601 Balboa Avenue                Little Rock, AR 72205
                                     Panama City, FL 32405-3721        Phone: 501/663 6699
Contact Information                  850/769 0552
Private landowners are                                                 National Fish and Wildlife
encouraged to explore the            Louisiana                         Foundation
options in this paper and contact    Department of Wildlife and        1120 Connecticut Ave NW
the organizations below if they      Fisheries                         Suite 900
desire more information or           2000 Quail Drive                  Washington, DC 20036
are interested in supporting         Baton Rouge, LA 70808             Phone: 202/857 0166
conservation of the Ivory-billed     225/765 2800                      Fax: 202/857 0162
Woodpecker or other fish and
wildlife.                            U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Contacts                    Ecological Services
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service       Lafayette Field Office
Recovery Coordinator                 646 Cajundome Boulevard
Refuges and Wildlife                 Suite 400
Management                           Lafayette, LA 70506
1875 Century Blvd, Suite 420         Phone: 337/291 3100
Atlanta, GA 30345                    Mississippi
Phone: 404/679 4016                  Mississippi Wildlife, Fish, and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service       Parks
Assistant Regional Director –        1505 Eastover Drive
Ecological Services                  Jackson, MS 39211-6374
1875 Century Blvd, Suite 200         Phone: 601/432 2400
Atlanta, GA 30345          
Phone: 404/679 7085                  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Arkansas                             Ecological Services
Arkansas Fish and Game               Jackson Field Office
Commission                           6578 Dogwood View Parkway
Endangered and Threatened            Suite A
Species                              Jackson, MS 39213
2 Natural Resources Drive            601/321 1122
Little Rock, AR 72205                South Carolina
Phone: 501/223 6300                  South Carolina Department of
Or 800/364 4263                      Natural Resources                  Rembert C. Dennis Building
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service       1000 Assembly Street
Ecological Services Arkansas         Columbia, SC 29201
Field Office                         Phone: 803/734 3886
110 South Amity Road, Suite 300
Conway, AR 72032                     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Phone: 501/513 4470                  Ecological Services                  Charleston Field Office
arkansas%2Des/                       176 Croghan Spur Road Suite 200
                                     Charleston, SC 29407
                                     843/727 4707

Literature Cited:
Clark, Dana and David Downes. What Price Biodiversity? Economic Incentives and Biodiversity
Conservation in the United States. Center for International Environmental Law, July, 1995 In Noah, Emily
and YinLan Zhang. 2001. Compendium of State Landowner Incentive Programs for the Conservation of
Biological Diversity, Yale University Environmental Protection Clinic, Yale University, Connecticut.
Jackson, Jerome A. 2004. In Search of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Smithsonian Institution, Smithsonian
Books, Washington, D.C. 294pp.
Meine, Curt. 1988. Aldo Leopold: His Life and Work. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 2005. Website Information.
Tanner, James T. 1942. The Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Research Report #1, National Audubon Society,
Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, New York. 111pp.

Appendix H.
Ivory-billed Woodpecker Habitat Inventory and Assessment:
Public Lands in the Big Woods of Arkansas

Randy Wilson, Kenny Ribbeck,          land managers with information        Study Areas
Jeff Denman, Eric Johnson, and        to facilitate future management       The areas inventoried included
Martin Blaney with statistical        decisions.                            public lands in proximity to
assistance from Ken Reinecke                                                previous sightings and audio
                                      To accomplish this habitat            recordings in the Big Woods
Introduction                          inventory, the U.S. Fish and          area of eastern Arkansas; which
In 1942 James Tanner provided         Wildlife Service utilized existing    included the Bayou DeView
the most comprehensive life           infrastructure (e.g. Forest           area of Cache River National
history account of the Ivory-         Resource Working Group) within        Wildlife Refuge, Jacks Bay
billed Woodpecker throughout          the Lower Mississippi Valley          and Prairie Lake area of White
its historical range and the only     Joint Venture partnership to          River National Wildlife Refuge
in-depth, ecological investigation    design, implement, collect, and       and portions of Dagmar WMA.
conducted on a population             analyze habitat data within           In addition to these primary
of Ivory-billed Woodpecker.           the Cache/Lower White River           locations, additional areas
Tanner’s observations of the          basin. By utilizing this existing     perceived by local land managers
Singer Tract population led him       partnership, the U.S. Fish and        well-acquainted with existing
to hypothesize that foraging          Wildlife Service and Arkansas         forest conditions to be “suitable”
habitat was the limiting factor of    Game and Fish Commission              Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat
habitat occupancy and possibly        were able to lead a multi-            were inventoried. These locations
of population growth. Tanner          agency team representing              included other areas on White
went on to describe foraging          staff from several NWRs and           River and Cache River NWRs,
habitat as recently dead trees        the Service’s Migratory Bird          Bayou Meto WMA, Wattensaw
(<4 years) with 84% of the            Program, the Arkansas Forestry        WMA, Rex Hancock/Black
foraging observations occurring       Commission, Arkansas Game             Swamp WMA, and Henry Gray/
on trees 12-36 inches in diameter.    and Fish Commission, Louisiana        Hurricane WMA.
Unfortunately, this is the only       Department of Wildlife and
published work detailing habitat      Fisheries, and the U.S. Geological    Sampling Framework
characteristics associated with       Survey to complete the habitat        This habitat inventory was
the occupancy of Ivory-billed         inventory.                            conducted in bottomland
Woodpecker.                                                                 hardwood forest (excluding
                                      Objectives                            reforestation and bodies of
Since Tanner’s publication, there     The purpose of this inventory         water; e.g., oxbow lakes) within
have been numerous reports            was to quantify current habitat       the boundaries of the individual
of Ivory-billed Woodpecker            conditions on public lands within     WMAs and NWRs previously
sightings across the southeast,       proximity to recent Ivory-billed      identified. Within these public
but none have had the benefit         Woodpecker sightings, audio           lands, the inventory focused
of being confirmed by a series        recordings, and areas perceived       primarily on areas with evidence
of “re-sightings” or by locating      likely to harbor Ivory-billed         of Ivory-billed Woodpecker
a “base-activity” site (i.e., roost   Woodpecker on the basis of local      existence (e.g., sightings and
or nest site). The confirmed          land manager knowledge. These         or auditory recordings): Bayou
rediscovery of the Ivory-billed       data will be used to: (1) develop a   DeView area of Cache River
Woodpecker in the Cache/              spatially-explicit decision support   NWR, Jack’s Bay and Prairie
Lower White River basin of            model to facilitate search efforts;   Lakes region of White River
Arkansas has set in motion a          (2) provide ground-truth data to      NWR, and a large portion
series of conservation actions.       enhance accuracy of remotely-         Dagmar WMA. Additional
Key among these activities is the     sensed data; and (3) provide land     areas were also assessed in a
continued search effort led by        managers with a basis for making      preemptive manner to facilitate
Cornell Lab of Ornithology. As        future management decisions.          search efforts to locate the
Cornell staff continue to search      Furthermore, it is hoped that         bird(s).
and document evidence (e.g.,          these data will also facilitate and
sightings and sound recordings),      enhance our understanding of          Due to the large acreage
it is imperative that a concurrent    Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat       of interest, the inventory
habitat inventory and assessment      relationships.                        was sample-based. That is,
be conducted to facilitate the                                              sampling effort was allocated
search efforts, document existing                                           and conducted in such a manner
habitat conditions, and to provide                                          as to reduce the amount of

time, manpower cost, and              Figure H-1. Schematic demonstrating: (A) the delineation of
potential disturbance, all the        management compartments within a management area; and (B) the
while maintaining a level of          delineation and allocation of sampling units within stands across a
statistical precision in the data.    management compartment.
To accomplish this, individual
management compartments
within the area of interest were
broken down into homogenous
forest stands approximately
500 acres in size (Fig. 1). Each
management compartment and
stand was digitized to create
a GIS shapefile for use in the
allocation process, as well as in
analysis of the data.
Sample Size Determination
As with any sampling effort,
there are trade-offs in terms of
cost (e.g., number of samples and
manpower) and the reliability
of the data. That is, collect too
few samples and the data lack
statistical power to provide
precise parameter estimates. On
the other extreme, there is a point      Figure 7. Schematic demonstrating: (A) the delineation of management
where no additional precision            compartments within a in
                                       density of trees >24 inches management area;high level the delineation and
                                                                                produce a and (B) of precision
can be obtained regardless of          diameter at breast height [dbh]).        consistently. However, sample
the number of samples taken.             allocation of sampling units within stands acrossproduced
                                       In these simulations, CV values          sizes > 4 clusters
                                                                                                     a management
One means of assessing these             compartment.for sample sizes
                                       were calculated                          precise parameter estimates with
trade-offs is to examine pilot         of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 clusters by sample sizes > 6 clusters being
data collected from the area of        randomly selecting clusters and          very precise in the parameter
                    Sample Size Determination
interest to generate summary           then replicating the procedure           estimates. Due to the constraints
statistics that provide insight into 10 times. Simulations resulted             described above, it seems
                    As with the        in the calculation of 10 trade-offs       terms of to opt for sample
distributional properties ofany sampling effort, there are CV values inreasonablecost (e.g.,anumber of samples
data. In particular, the coefficient and the reliability of the data. That is, of 4 or 5 too few samples and the data
                    and manpower) for each sample size (Fig. 2).                size collect clusters, given that
of variation (CV) is the population The simulations revealed great              both continuously produced
                    lack statistical power to provide precise parameter estimates. On the other extreme, there is a
quantity on which sample size          variation in precision estimates         acceptable levels of precision (e.g.,
                    point where                    precision can be obtained regardlesscloser examination samples
depends when one desires to no additional values) for sample sizes
                                       (e.g., CV                                CV 15%). A
                                                                                                of the number of
                    taken. One
control the relative precision means of assessing thesesizes >6
                                       of 3; whereas sample                     of CV values for data collected
                                                                 trade-offs is to examine pilotthese two samplefrom the
                    area 1992;
of the data (Thompson of interest to demonstrated little variation in that provide insight into distributional
                                        generate summary statistics             sizes reveals nearly identical
Sampling. John Wiley and Sons
Inc. 343pp).
                                       the precision estimates (Fig. 2).         of values produced is the
                    properties of the data. In particular, the coefficientCV variation (CV) duringpopulation
                                       Precision estimates calculated for simulation analyses, suggesting
                                         sample size 4 and 5 clusters                    to control the relative precision of
                    quantity on whichsample sizes ofdepends when one desiressample size of four clusters
                                                                                that a
To facilitate the determination
                    the data (Thompson 1992; Sampling. John Wiley and Sons Inc. maintain the
of sample size requirements for        were similar in the amount               is sufficient to 343pp).
conducting habitat inventories for     of variation expressed in the            desired level of precision in
                    To facilitate      replicates and also produced requirements for conducting habitat inventories
Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (e.g., the determination of sample size                parameter estimates.
the density of large diameter          acceptable levels of precision (i.e.,
                    for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (e.g., the density of large diameter trees [>24inches]; density
                                       none exceeded 15%).                      Allocation of Samples
trees [>24inches]; density of                                                   From the subjected to sensitivity analyses
                    of dead/dying trees), pilot data from White River NWR wassensitivity analyses
dead/dying trees), pilot data          Given the current funding                of pilot data, it was determined
from White Riverto assess precision (i.e., stability of coefficient of variation values) under different sample
                     NWR was           constraints, availability of             that cluster sampling yielded
                    sizes. To accomplish this, we subjected the pilot data (n=15 or higherof 5, 1/5th acre plots) to
subjected to sensitivity analyses      manpower, the large area of              equivalent clusters levels of
to assess precision (i.e., stability                                            precision at varying sample sizes
                    simulation models that randomly selected clusters of points in parameter estimates and
                                       interest in the Big Woods of
of coefficient of variation values)    Arkansas (Cache River NWR,               than a (e.g., density of trees
                    generated summary statistics for the parameter of interestsimple random sampling >24 inches in
under different sample sizes. To       White River NWR, and Dagmar
                    diameter at                                                 scheme. Thus, were calculated for sample
                                        height [dbh]). In these simulations, CV valueswe allocated
accomplish this, we subjected breastWMA) and the desire to maintain             samples within a stand using
                    sizes of 2, 3,      6, 8, and 10 clusters by randomly selecting clusters and then replicating the
the pilot data (n=15 clusters of 4, 5,an acceptable level of precision          cluster-sampling procedures. For
5, 1/5th acre plots) to simulation times. Simulations resulted in the calculation plots were allocated each sample
                    procedure 10       (i.e., low CV values) in parameter       example, of 10 CV values for
models that randomly selected Theestimates, a sample size of 4 variation inpoint-transects where (e.g., CV
                    size (Fig. 2).      simulations revealed great              using precision estimates
clusters of points at varying                    per sampling unit (e.g.,
                                       clustersof 3; whereas sample sizeseach demonstrated little variation in the
sample sizes and generated sample sizesappeared to be the best
                    values) for                                                  >6 transect contains five,
                                       stand)                                   1/5th acre plots (52.7 ft radius)
                    precision          option. 2). is, sample estimates calculated for sample sizes of 4 and 5
summary statistics for the estimates (Fig. ThatPrecision sizes of               spaced four chains (264 ft) apart
parameter of interest (e.g.,           3 clusters were not sufficient to        (Fig. 3) and each stand contains

four randomly allocated point-     Figure H-2. Sensitivity analysis to assess implications of sample size
transects (Fig. 1B). Additionally, (e.g., number of clusters) on the coefficient of variation for density
                                   of large trees amount of variation expressed from replicates
the use of cluster sampling were similar in the(≥24inches dbh) based on pilot datain theWhite Riverand
                       clusters                                                                                 also produced
reduced the amount of travel time NWR.
required to move from point to levels of precision (i.e., none exceeded 15%).
point, thus increasing the overall
cost efficiency of the inventory.
Parameters Collected
The data provided by Tanner
and discussions with Martjan
Lammertink, (Cornell Lab of
Ornithology Post-Doctorate
Student), who is leading the
Cornell search efforts in
Arkansas, support the assumption
that site-scale Ivory-billed
Woodpecker habitat occupancy
is influenced by the density of
large diameter trees (>24 inches
dbh) and the density of recently
dead/dying or severely stressed
trees. To inventory and assess
habitat in the areas of interest
(e.g., sightings and/or sound
recordings) and other areas
perceived to meet these criteriaSensitivity analysis to assess implications of sample size (e.g., number of clusters)
                        Table 2.
(as noted by local land managers)
                        on the coefficient of variation for density of large trees (≥24inches dbh) based on pilot data
we collected data on a variety
of forest metrics thatfrom White River NWR. Schematic of a point-transect depicting a cluster of five,
                         address          Figure H-3.
forest structure, composition, and 1/5th acre plots spaced four chains (264 ft) apart upon which habitat
health. Though our knowledge current funding constraints, availability of manpower, the large area of interest in
                        Given the         metrics were sampled
is limited in this area, we believe
                        the Big Woods of Arkansas (Cache River NWR, White River NWR, and Dagmar WMA) and
that these metrics provide
                        the desire to maintain an acceptable level of precision (i.e., low CV values) in parameter
both a quantitative estimate
                        estimates, a sample size of 4 clusters per sampling unit (e.g., stand) appeared to be the best
of parameters of interest, as
well as additional qualitative That is, sample sizes of 3 clusters were not sufficient to produce a high level of
estimates that would facilitate
                        precision consistently. However, sample sizes > 4 clusters produced precise parameter
the characterization of Ivory-
                        estimates with sample sizes
billed Woodpecker habitat. Parameters Collected > 6 clusters being very precise in the parameter estimates. Due
                        to the constraints described above, it seems reasonable to opt for a sample size of 4 or 5
Furthermore, these data are also
expected to provide additional given that both continuously produced acceptable levels of precision (e.g., CV 
benefits in terms of assessingFigure 8. Schematic of a point-transectacreage inventoried in the Big Woods of
                                                                     and of forest a cluster of acreage inventoried
               Table 3. Location, number H-1. Location, number depictingstands and five, 1/5th acre plots nearly identical
                                          Table of forest of
                        15%). A closer examination stands values for these two sample sizes reveals
habitat quality for other(through 2006). Big (264 ft) ofCVupon which habitat metrics were sampled.
                            priority          chains Woods apart
                                 spaced fourthe
               Arkansas                   in                    Arkansas (through 2006).
wildlife species (e.g., CV values produced during simulation analyses, suggesting that a sample size of four
Warbler, black          clusters is sufficient to maintain the desired level of precision in parameter estimates.
bears, etc.).                                                                            Number
                                 The data provided by Tanner and discussions with Martjan Lammertink, (Cornell Lab of
                                 Ornithology Post-Doctorate Student), who is leading the Cornell search efforts in Arkansas,
                        Allocation of Samples                                                of           Total
                                 support the assumption that site-scale Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat occupancy is
                                                   Location                                Stands       Acreage*
                          Cacheinfluenced by the density of large diameterittrees (>24 inches dbh) and the density of recently
                                  River NWR – Bayou DeView                                                   27,515
                        From the sensitivityseverely stressed trees. To inventory and assess 43 clusterareas of interest
                                 dead/dying or analyses of pilot data, was determinedhabitat in the sampling yielded
                                  Riverhigher levels ofBay/Prairie and other estimates to meet these criteria (as
                                          NWR – Jacks precision in parameter                    241
                          White(e.g., sightings and/or sound recordings)Lakes areas perceivedthan a 152,260
                        equivalent or                                                                       simple random
                          Dagmar WMA land managers) we collected data on a variety of14
                        sampling scheme. Thus, we allocated samples within a standforest metrics that address
                                 noted by local                                                                7,532
                                                                                                    using cluster-sampling
                                        structure, Swamp WMA                                       6           2,698
                          Rex Hancock/Blackcomposition, and health. Though ourpoint-transects where each transect
                                 forestFor example, plots were allocated using knowledge is limited in this area, we
                                 believe thatth
                                              these metrics provide both a quantitative estimate of4parameters 2,091
                        contains Gray/Hurricaneplots (52.7 ft radius)would facilitatechains (264 ft) of interest, as 3) and
                          Henry five, 1/5 acre Lake WMA
                                 well as additional qualitative estimates that
                                                                                                                apart (Fig.
                                                                               spaced four the characterization of Ivory-
                                                                                                   6 1B). Additionally,
                          Trusten Holder WMA habitat. Furthermore, these data are also expected to provide additional the use
                        each stand contains four randomly allocated point-transects (Fig.
                                 billed Woodpecker
                                                                                                   3             843
                        ofWattensaw WMAreduced the amount of travelother priority wildlife species (e.g.,point to point,
                           cluster sampling of assessing habitat quality for time required to move from
                                 benefits in terms
                          Bayou Meto the overall costbears, etc.). of the inventory. 10
                        thus increasingWMA
                                 Swainson’s Warbler, black efficiency                                          5,244
                                                                         Total           327         201,045
                                     * Represents total acreage within forest stands including bodies of
                                  water that were not stands including bodies of water that were not
            * Represents total acreage within forest inventoried.
            inventoried. Summary of Results                       130
                             During the months of September and October in 2005, foresters and biologists spent greater
Table H-2. Parameters and definitions of metrics collected during the habitat inventory and assessment
project in the Big Woods of Arkansas, September-October 2005.

         Parameter        Sample Area                        Value                                Comments
 Tree Species             1/5th Acre      Alpha Code for Tree Species; Appendix 4       All trees ≥ 10” dbh
 DBH                      1/5th Acre      2” classes (9.0” – 10.9” = 10”)
 Length in feet or # of   1/5th Acre      Dead or down wood: 5’ increment. Cruiser Required for dead wood.
 logs                                     option: 1 – 4.5 in half-log increments if Cruiser option on # of logs.
                                          sawlog, 5’ increment for pulpwood.
 Crown Class              1/5th Acre      D = Dominant         C = Co-dominant
                                          I = Intermediate     S = Suppressed
                                          X = Dead
 Tree Condition           1/5th Acre      1 = No dieback (not very common)
                                          2 = Lower crown dieback, natural pruning
                                          3 = < 1/3 top crown dieback
                                          4 = > 1/3 top crown dieback
                                          5 = Recently dead, retains many twigs
                                          6 = Dead, retains only large limbs
                                          7 = Dead, only bole remains, ≥ 5’ tall
                                          8 = Down wood ≥ 8” @ 3’ from base
 Stress Factor:           1/5th Acre      1 = Little to None (<20% of bole)             Bole is portion of tree beneath
 Epicormic Branching                      2 = Moderate (20% - 50% of bole)              the crown.
                                          3 = Heavy (≥ 50% of bole)
 Stress Factor: Bark      1/5th Acre      1 = Little to None (<20% of bole)             Ex: Red Oak w/ blocky bark;
 Disfiguration: Ex:                       2 = Moderate (20% - 50% of bole)              Ash w/ smooth bark; Rot; Bare
 bleeds, tannin stains;                   3 = Heavy (≥ 50% of bole)                     wood from beaver, skinning,
 bug holes; frass,                                                                      etc.
 Overstory Canopy         Visible Range   1 = < 50%    2 = 50% - 80%        3 = > 80%   Vertical sunlight blockage
 Midstory Cover           Visible Range   1 = < 25%    2 = 25% - 60%        3 = > 60%   Horizontal vision blockage, 10’
                                                                                        – 30’ height
 Understory Cover         Visible Range   1 = < 25%    2 = 25% - 60%        3 = > 60%   Horizontal vision blockage, <
                                                                                        10’ height
 Vines                    Visible Range   1 = Sparse (<25% [1 of 4 overstory trees])    # of dominant or co-dominant
                                          2 = Moderate (25-50% [2 of 4 trees])          trees with vines on the bole &/
                                          3 = Heavy (>50% [3 of 4 overstory trees])     or canopy
 Cane                     Visible Range   1 = None
                                          2 = Sparse (1% - 25% area coverage)
                                          3 = Heavy (> 25% area coverage)
 Station Option           Visible Range   Alpha Code for Tree Species; Appendix 4       Sufficient presence to occur if
 Intolerant                                                                             released
 Potential IBW Cavity     Incidentally    A = very large irregular oval or rectangle,   Cavity size follows Cornell Lab
                          on Unlimited    4.5” x 5.5”. Record tree species, DBH,        of Ornithology.
                          Area            height to cavity, face (north, west, etc.)
                                          and GPS coordinates (UTM, NAD 83).
 Potential IBW Bark       Incidentally    Extreme horizontal gouges of tight bark.
 Scaling                  on Unlimited    Record tree species, DBH, height to
                          Area            cavity, face (north, west, etc.) and GPS
                                          coordinates (UTM, NAD 83).
 IBW sighting or          Incidentally    Record GPS coordinates UTM, NAD 83.
 hearing of kent calls    on Unlimited    Also direction and estimated distance
 or double knocks         Area            to sighting or sound. ASAP contact
                                          inventory coordinator

Figure 9. Preliminary analysis of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat inventory data (i.e. density of
Figure H-4. Preliminary analysis of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat inventory data (i.e. density of trees
trees ≥24inch dbh), Cache River NWR and Dagmar WMA, September-October 2005.
≥24inch dbh), Cache River NWR and Dagmar WMA, September-October 2005.

                                                                               Cache River NWR
                                                                                Bayou DeView

                                                                          Dagmar WMA

Summary of Results                    the remaining portion of White
During the months of September        River NWR, additional acreage
and October in 2005, foresters        on Cache River NWR, Dagmar
and biologists spent greater than     WMA and other parcels of public
1,200 man-hours inventorying          land in proximity to Ivory-billed
over 1200,000 acres of potential      Woodpecker sightings and/
Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat       or sound recordings will be
(Table 1). Data gathered              inventoried.
in the field was sent to the
Lower Mississippi Valley Joint
Venture Office for entry and
analysis. Summary statistics
were generated for parameters
of interest by forest stand
then entered into a geographic
information system to produce
spatially explicit maps depicting
stand conditions. Additionally,
these forest stand maps were
used in overlay models to develop
preliminary decision-support
models to facilitate search efforts
in the Big Woods area. Currently,
plans are being developed
to inventory the remaining
bottomland forest stands during
the summer of 2006. Specifically,
     Figure 10. Preliminary analysis of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat
     inventory data (i.e. density of trees ≥24inch dbh), White River NWR,
Figure H-5. Preliminary analysis of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat inventory data (i.e. density of trees
     September-October 2005.
≥24inch dbh), White River NWR, September-October 2005.

                       White River NWR

           Jack’s Bay

                                                                                    Prairie Lakes

Appendix I.
Habitat Conditions across the Historical Range
of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker

The Forest Products Industry           U.S.). Because of variability in      production (Smith et al. 2003).
The forest products industry           management approaches and             That year, industrial forests
consists of companies and              resulting forest structure, site-     provided 29% of the Nation’s
individuals that operate primary       specific conditions and habitat       timber harvest and private
wood-using facilities and/             opportunities for conservation        forests in total provided 92%
or manage forests they own             of Ivory-billed Woodpecker will       (Smith et al. 2003). Therefore,
or control primarily for wood          differ among companies.               the current trend is for increasing
products (Society of American                                                wood production from private
Foresters, 1998). In the United        Over the last several decades,        lands in the southern U.S. (Wear
States, the forest products            ownership of industry land has        and Greis 2002).
industry directly employs about        become even more complex, as
1.7 million people in wood and         many forest products companies        Existing Habitat Conditions
paper production, or about 1.1%        have sold lands to organizations      for Ivory-billed Woodpecker
of the U.S. workforce (American        that manage timberlands on            To characterize the area and
Forest and Paper Association           behalf of institutional (e.g.,        structural characteristics of
and Clemson University, 2001).         pension funds, foundations,           forests on private lands and all
For every job that is directly         endowments) and other types           ownerships that potentially could
forest-related, another two            of investors. Known as timber         support Ivory-billed Woodpecker,
jobs are related indirectly (e.g.,     investment management                 we summarized USDA Forest
transportation, distribution,          organizations (TIMOs) or real         Service Forest Inventory and
sales); thus, about 5.7 million jobs   estate investment trusts (REITs)      Analysis data for counties listed
in the U.S. are linked to the forest   (Ravenel et al. 2002, Stanturf et     in Table 1. Because forest
products industry. This industry       al. 2003), some of these ventures     products companies harvest wood
can be vital to rural economies        seek to optimize economic return      on lands they own and purchase
such as Mississippi where 8.5% of      within a much shorter time frame      wood from non-industrial private
all jobs in the state are forestry-    (e.g., 10–15 years) than forest       landowners, the characteristics
related, and during 2006 forestry      products companies and may            of all private ownerships is
contributed 17.4 billion dollars to    include non-timber objectives,        particularly relevant to Ivory-
the Mississippi economy.               such as real estate sales, as a       billed Woodpecker recovery. In
                                       primary motivation. Thus, a           all listed counties, we totaled
(        growing number of companies no        the acres of forestland and
forestryfactsflyer.pdf).               longer own forest lands. Rather       timberland, number of live trees,
                                       they purchase wood from non-          and volume of live trees (ft3) by
The considerable complexity of         industrial private landowners         state and ownership for selected
the industry is due to the variable    (NIPFLOs), REITs, TIMOs, and          forest types and physiographic
size, character, and objectives        others.                               classes (Tables 2 and 3). For
of its constituent companies,                                                counties in Arkansas, Louisiana,
including ownership (individuals/      In the United States, over 57%        North Carolina, South Carolina,
families or stockholders) and          of forests are privately owned        and Texas, we also totaled volume
source of wood supply (extent to       with about 26.9 million ha of land    (ft3) of annual net growth,
which timber is purchased from         owned by the forest industry,         mortality, and removals. Growth,
public or non-industrial private       comprising about 9% of total          mortality, and removals are
forests). Companies that require       forest ownership (Smith et al.        available only in these five states.
wood for solid products often          2003). About 88.0% of forest land     Original sources of data are
recommend or manage using              in the South is privately owned       described in Table 4.
uneven-aged systems or even-           (71.3% owned by NIPFLOs,
aged systems with rotations of 30      16.7% owned by industry). Most        In counties for which FIA
years or more, using thinnings to      industry ownership (14.5 million      data were available, there are
remove wood for paper products         ha) is in the USDA Forest             more than 20.1 million acres of
as part of the silvicultural system    Service’s Southern region where       forestland and 19.8 million acres
to achieve larger, higher quality      industry owns about 3 times           of timberland in the forest types
trees. Companies that primarily        the area of national forests and      and physiographic classes of
require wood for paper products        almost 1.5 times that in all public   interest (Table 5). Approximately
generally favor even-aged              ownerships (Smith et al. 2003). In    88.6% of all forestland is privately
systems with short rotations           2001, the South supplied 58.0%        owned. Similarly, 89.9% of all
(<20 years in the southern             of America’s total roundwood          timberland is privately owned,

including 93.7% of pine types and     Volume of live trees is                 and 0.6% of live tree volume in
84.3% of hardwood types. Public       approximately 27.4 billion ft3 on       that diameter class on private on
and private timberlands differ in     private timberland and 4.9 billion      public timberlands, respectively.
species composition. Of the 17.8      ft3 on public timberland (Table         Mortality of large-diameter
million acres of privately owned      5). On private timberland, this         pines was 13.9% of net growth
timberland in the counties, 37.6%     volume is split almost equally          in that diameter class on private
is in hardwood forest types and       between pine and hardwood               timberland and 19.0% on public
62.4% is in pine types. Of the 2.0    types (49.6% of total volume in         timberland. For large-diameter
million acres in public timberland,   pine versus 50.4% in hardwood).         hardwoods, mortality was
62.6% is in hardwood types and        On public timberland, however,          approximately 0.9% of live tree
37.4% is in pine types.               volume is predominantly in              volume on both private and public
                                      hardwood forest types (3.5 billion      timberlands. Mortality of large-
The area of privately owned pine      ft3 for hardwood forests versus         diameter hardwoods was 50.3%
timberland is approximately           1.4 billion ft3 for pine). On private   of net growth in that size class on
equivalent in small-, medium-,        timberland, most volume is in the       private timberland and 57.2% on
and large-diameter size classes       large-diameter size class for both      public timberland.
(35.4, 32.1, and 32.4% of             pine and hardwood types (61.1%
private pine timberland area,         for pine and 80.5% for hardwood),       For hardwood forests on private
respectively) (Table 5). Area of      with 33.2% and 16.4% of total           timberlands, removals were
private hardwood timberland,          pine and hardwood volumes,              similar in the small- (44.2%)
however, is predominantly in          respectively, in the medium-            and large-diameter (39.0%)
the large-diameter size class         diameter class. Volume on public        classes and least in the medium-
(60.2% of private hardwood            lands also is predominantly in          diameter class (16.8%; Table 6).
timberland area) with much            the large-diameter class for both       In contrast, almost all removals
less area in medium- (23.4%)          forest types (80.3% for pine and        (99.4%) on public timberland
and small-diameter (16.4%)            93.2% for hardwood).                    were in the large-diameter class.
size classes. Public timberland                                               Removals for pines on private
area is predominantly in large-       Net growth in hardwoods and             lands were mostly in the small-
diameter-class forests for pine       pines on private timberland was         diameter class (65.7%), but on
and hardwood types (60.7%             primarily in the large-diameter         public lands were mostly in the
and 81.6% of publicly owned           class (Table 6); this was most          large-diameter class (66.9%). On
pine and hardwood timberland,         especially true for hardwoods.          private timberland, volume of
respectively).                        For hardwoods on private                large-diameter stems removed
                                      timberland, 71.9% of total volume       was 1.7 times greater for pines
In counties of interest, there are    growth was in the large-diameter        than hardwood. On public
approximately 11.4 billion live       class, 19.9% was in the medium-         timberland, however, the trend
stems on private timberland and       diameter class, and only 8.1% was       was reversed with total volume
1.0 billion on public lands (Table    in the small-diameter class. For        removed 2.3 times greater for
5). On private timberland, pine       pines, however, 46.8% of total          hardwoods than for pines. For
stems are most numerous in the        volume growth was in the large-         large-diameter pines, removals
medium-diameter class (40.0% of       diameter class, 37.5% was in            were approximately 1.7% and
all pine stems) and less abundant     the medium-diameter class, and          1.3% of live tree volume in that
in the small- (31.2%) and large-      15.8% was in the small-diameter         diameter class on private on
diameter classes (28.8%).             class. On public lands, net growth      public timberlands, respectively.
Hardwood stems on private             was predominantly in the large-         Removals of large-diameter
timberland are most numerous in       diameter class for both pine and        pines were 47.0% of net growth
the large-diameter class (50.0% of    hardwood types (76.7% and 87.6%         in that diameter class on private
all pine stems) and less abundant     of total net growth, respectively).     timberland and 45.0% on public
in the medium- (29.1%) and small-                                             timberland. For large-diameter
diameter (20.9%) classes. On          Most mortality for both pines           hardwoods, removals were
public timberland, number of live     and hardwood types was in the           approximately 0.8% of live tree
stems is similar in the medium-       large-diameter class for both           volume on private timberlands
diameter class for pine and           private (71.8% and 74.5% of total       and 1.0% on public timberland.
hardwood timberland (22.8% and        mortality, respectively) and public     Removals of large-diameter
21.1% of all pine and hardwood        timberland (76.8% and 95.9%,            hardwoods was 42.2% of net
stems, respectively). However,        respectively; Table 6). Total           growth in that size class on
hardwood timberland on public         mortality of hardwoods on private       private timberland and 66.4% on
lands has fewer small-diameter        timberland was approximately            public timberland.
stems than pine timberland (4.4%      2.3 times that for pines, while
for hardwood as over against          for public lands mortality on           Forest characteristics on private
31.2% for pine) and more stems        hardwoods was 3.7 times as great        and public ownerships are
in the large-diameter class (74.5%    in hardwood types than in pine          described by state in Tables 7
for hardwood versus 46.0% for         types. For large-diameter pines,        through 13.
pine).                                mortality was approximately 0.5%

Potential Contributions               Literature Cited
of the Industry to Recovery           American Forest and Paper Association and Clemson University.
The Endangered Species Act does       2001. U.S. forests facts & figures, 2001. American Forest and Paper
not require private landowners        Association, Washington, DC.
to contribute to recovery of listed   NavigationMenu/Forestry/Forestry_Facts_and_Figures/Forestry_
species. Nevertheless, several        Facts_and_Figures.htm
capacities of the forest products
industry could potentially be         Ravenel, R., M. Tyrrell, and R. Mendelsohn. 2002. Institutional
brought to bear upon issues           timberland investment: A summary of a forum exploring changing
surrounding recovery of the           ownership patterns and the implications for conservation of
Ivory-billed Woodpecker. For          environmental values. Global Institute of Sustainable Forestry, School
example, the forest products          of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University. New Haven,
industry often purchases wood         Connecticut. YFF Review 5(2).
from NIPFLOs, and interacts                          .
                                      Smith, W. B., P D. Miles, J. S. Vissage, and S. A. Pugh. 2004. Forest
with them through landowner           resources of the United States, 2002. USDA Forest Service General
assistance programs and other         Technical Report NC-241. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
avenues. Personnel who work           Forest Service, North Central Research Station.
for land-owning forest products
companies commonly interact           Society of American Foresters. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry
with adjoining landowners and         (Helms, J. A., ed.). Bethesda, Maryland. 210pp.
others interested in the landscape
where their lands are located.        Stanturf, J. A., R. C. Kellison, F. S. Broerman, and S. B. Jones. 2003.
These contacts offer many             Productivity of southern pine plantations: Where are we and how did
opportunities to communicate          we get here? Journal of Forestry 101(3):26-31.
about silvicultural practices,        Wear, D. N., and J. G. Greis. 2002. Southern forest resource
conservation of rare species such     assessment: summary report. USDA Forest Service General Technical
as Ivory-billed Woodpecker, and       Report SRS-54.
other topics. The industry has
the capability of recommending
and implementing alterations in
stand structure through active
forest management without
the procedural encumbrances
sometimes encountered on public
lands or by natural resource
agencies. Thus, there may
be opportunities for industry
to contribute to large-scale
management objectives for
the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
through active management and
interactions with NIPFLOs.
The potential contributions of
industry to recovery of this
species will become more evident
as Ivory-billed Woodpecker birds
and populations are identified
and as management guidance is
developed and refined.

                  The following Data Tables reflect analysis completed in 2005.

The following Data Tables reflect analysis completed in 2005.
 Table 5. Counties included in analysis of USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and
Table I-1. Counties included in analysis of USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis data.
 Analysis data.
 State              County Name
 Alabama            Baldwin, Choctaw, Clarke, Mobile, Monroe, Washington
 Arkansas           Arkansas, Ashley, Bradley, Calhoun, Chicot, Clark, Cleveland, Craighead,
                    Crittenden, Cross, Dallas, Desha, Drew, Grant, Hempstead, Hot Spring,
                    Howard, Independence, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lawrence, Lee,
                    Lincoln, Little River, Lonoke, Miller, Monroe, Nevada, Ouachita, Phillips,
                    Pike, Poinsett, Prairie, Saline, Sevier, St. Francis, Union, White, Woodruff
 Florida            Baker, Bay, Calhoun, Citrus, Columbia, Dixie, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf,
                    Hamilton, Hernando, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Liberty,
                    Madison, Marion, Nassau, Taylor, Taylor, Wakulla
 Georgia            Appling, Brantley, Brooks, Bryan, Bulloch, Burke, Charlton, Chatham,
                    Clinch, Colquitt, Cook, Echols, Effingham, Glynn, Grady, Jeff Davis,
                    Long, Lowndes, McIntosh, Mitchell, Montgomery, Richmond, Screven,
                    Tattnall, Thomas, Toombs, Ware, Wayne, Wheeler
 Louisiana          Ascension, Assumption, Avoyelles, Beauregard, Calcasieu, Caldwell,
                    Catahoula, Concordia, East Carroll, Franklin, Iberia, Iberville, La Salle,
                    Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, Ouachita, Pointe Coupee, Rapides,
                    Richland, Sabine, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Landry, St. Martin, St.
                    Mary, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa , Tensas, Union, Vernon, Washington,
                    West Baton Rouge, West Feliciana
 Mississippi        Adams, Bolivar, Claiborne, Coahoma, Copiah, De Soto, George, Greene,
                    Hancock, Hinds, Humphreys, Issaquena, Jackson, Jefferson, Jefferson
                    Davis, Lawrence, Marion, Pearl River, Perry, Rankin, Sharkey, Simpson,
                    Tunica, Walthall, Warren, Washington, Wilkinson, Yazoo
 North              Brunswick, Columbus, Robeson
 Oklahoma           McCurtain
 South              Aiken, Allendale, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley, Calhoun, Charleston,
 Carolina           Chesterfield, Clarendon, Darlington, Dillon, Florence, Georgetown,
                    Hampton, Horry, Jasper, Kershaw, Marion, Marlboro, Richland, Sumter,
 Texas              Angelina, Bowie, Chambers, Hardin, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Newton,
                    Orange, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler


                      Table 6. USDA Inventory and Forest physiographic
Table I-2. USDA Forest Service Forest Forest ServiceAnalysisInventory and tree species/species group
codes used as a filterAnalysis physiographic tree species/species group codes
                      in the analysis.
                   used as a filter in the analysis.
                   Code       Description
                   601        Swamp chestnut oak/cherrybark oak
                   602        Sweet gum/Nuttall oak/willow oak
                   605        Overcup oak/water hickory
                   607        Bald cypress/water tupelo
                   701        Black ash/American elm/red maple
                   702        River birch/sycamore
                   703        Cottonwood
                   704        Willow
                   705        Sycamore/pecan/American elm
                   706        Sugarberry/hackberry/elm/green ash
                   708        Red maple/lowland
                   709        Cottonwood/willow
                   141        Longleaf pine
                   142        Slash pine
                   161        Loblolly pine
                   403        Longleaf Pine/Oak
                   406        Loblolly Pine/Hardwood
                   407        Slash Pine/Hardwood


Table I-3. USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis physiographic class codes used as a filter
  Table 7. USDA Forest Service is the general effect of land form, physiographic class codes used
in the analysis. Physiographic class Forest Inventory and Analysis topographical position, and soil on
  as a filter in the to trees.
moisture available analysis. Physiographic class is the general effect of land form, topographical
 position, and soil on moisture available to trees.
 Code Class name                                Description
 Mesic sites (normally moderate but adequate available moisture)
 21       Flatwoods                             Flat or fairly level sites outside of flood plains.
                                                Excludes deep sands and wet, swampy sites.
 24       Narrow Flood                          Flood plains and bottomlands less than 1/4-mile
          plains/Bottomlands                    in width along rivers and streams. These sites
                                                are normally well drained but are subjected to
                                                occasional flooding during periods of heavy or
                                                extended precipitation. Includes associated
                                                levees, benches, and terraces within a 1 mile
                                                limit. Excludes swamps, sloughs, and bogs.
 25       Broad Floodplains/Bottomlands         Floodplains and bottomlands less than ¼ mile
                                                or wider along rivers and streams. These sites
                                                are normally well drained but are subjected to
                                                occasional flooding during periods of heavy or
                                                extended precipitation. Includes associated
                                                levees, benches, and terraces within a ¼ mile
                                                limit. Excludes swamps, sloughs, and bogs with
                                                year-round water problems within the ¼ mile
 29       Other Mesic                           All moderately moist physiographic sites not
                                                described above.
 Hydric sites (normally abundant or overabundant moisture all year)
 31       Swamps/Bogs                           Low, wet, flat, forested areas usually quite
                                                extensive that are flooded for long periods
                                                except during periods of extreme drought.
                                                Excludes cypress ponds and small drains.
 32       Small Drains                          Narrow, stream-like, wet strands of forest land often
                                                  without a well-defined stream channel. These areas
                                                  are poorly drained or flooded throughout most of
                                                  the year and drain the adjacent higher ground.
 33       Bays and wet pocosins                   Low, wet, boggy sites characterized by peaty or
                                                  organic soils. May be somewhat dry during periods
                                                  of extended drought. Examples include sites in the
                                                  Lake States with lowland swamp conifers.
 34       Beaver ponds.                           Beaver ponds
 35       Cypress ponds.                          Cypress ponds
 39       Other hydric                            All other hydric physiographic sites


 Table I-4. Sources of USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis data used for this analysis.
                         Table 8. Sources of USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis data
                         used for this analysis.
                         State                    Data source                    Availability
                         Alabama                  2003 Annual and Analysis data
                         Table 8. Sources of USDA Forest Inventory
                         Arkansas analysis.
                         used for this            2004 Annual                          Y
                         Florida                  1995 Periodic              GMR  1

                         State                    2003 Annual
                                              Data source                 Availability
                         Louisiana            2003 Annual
                                                  2003 Annual                          Y
                         Arkansas             2004 Annual                      Y
                         Mississippi              1994 Periodic
                         Florida              1995 Periodic
                         North Carolina
                         Georgia                  2002 Periodic
                                              2003 Annual                              Y
                         Louisiana                1993 Periodic
                                              2003 Annual                      Y
                         South Carolina
                         Mississippi              2001 Annual
                                              1994 Periodic                            Y
                         North                    2003 Annual
                                              2002 Periodic                    Y       Y
                         Oklahoma             1993 Periodic mortality, and removals. Y =
                             Availability of data for growth,
                         South Carolina Yes, 2001 Annual                       Y
                                               data are available for the state.
                         Texas                   2003 Annual                        Y
                            Availability of data for growth, mortality, and removals. Y =
                                        Yes, data are available for the state.

 Table I-5. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in
Table 9. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
 Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas.
Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas.
   Table 9. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
                                                Public Ownerships                                              Private Ownerships
   Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas.
Variable         Size              Pine              Hardwood
                                              Public Ownerships               Total                             Hardwood
                                                                                                    Pine Ownerships
                                                                                                    Private                                   Total
   Variable        Size           Pine           Hardwood            Total               Pine           Hardwood             Total
Acres           Small
                 Class              132,829               70,390               203,219             3,941,352            1,107,110            5,048,462
   Acres         Small             132,829            70,390             203,219       3,941,352         1,107,110          5,048,462
   Forestland   Medium              193,337              206,826               400,163             3,581,273            1,571,284            5,152,557
                 Medium            193,337           206,826             400,163       3,581,273         1,571,284          5,152,557
                Large               528,677            1,170,874             1,699,551             3,614,348            4,051,957            7,666,305
                 Large             528,677         1,170,874         1,699,551         3,614,348         4,051,957          7,666,305
                                                       1,448,090 2,302,933
                                                                        2,302,933       11,136,973
                                                                               11,136,973        6,730,351
   Acres      Small
               Small                130,683
                                   130,683                43,155 173,838173,838
                                                      43,155                    3,941,352 3,941,352
                                                                                                 1,101,864              1,101,864
                                                                                                                            5,043,216        5,043,216
                Medium              164,085
                                   164,085               188,226
                                                     188,226                          3,575,509 3,575,509
                                                                         352,311352,311                1,571,284        1,571,284
                                                                                                                            5,146,793        5,146,793
                Large              456,024
                                    456,024            1,023,795 1,479,819
                                                   1,023,795                    3,607,623 3,607,623
                                                                        1,479,819                4,043,138                  7,650,761
                                                                                                                        4,043,138            7,650,761
                 Total             750,792         1,255,176         2,005,968        11,124,484         6,716,286         17,840,770
                Total               750,792            1,255,176             2,005,968          11,124,484              6,716,286           17,840,770
   No. Live Small              134,813,748        26,288,801       161,102,549     2,370,055,051       793,248,878       3,163,303,929
       Live Small
No.Trees                        134,813,748           26,288,801           161,102,549      2,370,055,051             793,248,878         3,163,303,929
Trees            Medium         98,408,012       124,450,893       222,858,905     3,037,017,159      1,107,150,711      4,144,167,870
                Large            98,408,012 440,419,011
                               198,534,365     124,450,893      222,858,905
                                                          638,953,376           3,037,017,159
                                                                       2,190,384,501               1,107,150,711
                                                                                       1,902,966,598    4,093,351,099 4,144,167,870
                 Total          198,534,365 591,158,705 1,022,914,830 7,597,456,711
                               431,756,125     440,419,011      638,953,376    2,190,384,501           11,400,822,898 4,093,351,099
   Vol. Live Total              52,075,981
                                431,756,125         591,158,705 64,714,796
                                                  12,638,815                  770,413,505 427,383,743
                                                                    1,022,914,830 7,597,456,711          1,197,797,248 11,400,822,898
   Trees (ft3)
Vol. Live       Small
                                 52,075,981 223,401,122
                                                                        4,508,677,562    2,262,286,839
Trees (ft3)
                 Large        1,123,160,136     3,240,317,084     4,363,477,220    8,306,398,524      11,090,209,654     19,396,608,178
                Total           229,375,572      223,401,122      452,776,694    4,508,677,562     2,262,286,839
                              1,404,611,689 3,476,357,021 4,880,968,710 13,585,489,591 13,779,880,236 27,365,369,827 6,770,964,401
                Large         1,123,160,136        3,240,317,084         4,363,477,220      8,306,398,524        11,090,209,654           19,396,608,178
                Total         1,404,611,689        3,476,357,021         4,880,968,710      13,585,489,591       13,779,880,236           27,365,369,827



  Table I-6. Net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina,
  South Net growth, mortality,
 Table 1. Carolina, and Texas.and removals by size class in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
                                        Public Ownerships                                Private Ownerships
 Variable      Size          Pine          Hardwood            Total           Pine          Hardwood           Total
 Net          Small         1,963,233           72,173         2,035,406   102,899,014        22,330,079      125,229,093
              Medium        8,142,626        7,156,669       15,299,295    244,978,464        54,765,335      299,743,799
              Large        33,309,907       51,236,605       84,546,512    305,428,197       197,582,342      503,010,539
              Total        43,415,766       58,465,447      101,881,213    653,305,675       274,677,756      927,983,431
 Mortality    Small           610,865          171,852          782,717       7,478,633        5,897,618       13,376,251
              Medium        1,305,897        1,067,327         2,373,224      9,100,347       28,134,709       37,235,056
              Large         6,341,342       29,306,732       35,648,074      42,311,763       99,299,409      141,611,172
              Total         8,258,104       30,545,911       38,804,015      58,890,743      133,331,736      192,222,479
 Removals     Small         4,017,463                0         4,017,463   380,795,078        94,456,640      475,251,718
              Medium        3,414,295          190,993         3,605,288     54,945,206       35,934,745       90,879,951
              Large        14,987,420       34,050,244       49,037,664    143,624,047        83,417,887      227,041,934
              Total        22,419,178       34,241,237       56,660,415    579,364,331       213,809,272      793,173,603

   Table I-7. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in
   Alabama (2003 Annual Survey).

                                        Public Ownerships                                Private Ownerships
Variable       Size           Pine         Hardwood            Total          Pine           Hardwood          Total
Acres         Small                  0           2,593            2,593       124,536           82,009          206,545
              Medium            11,101               0           11,101       137,157           94,227          231,384
              Large             10,319          30,756           41,075       202,774          173,234          376,008
              Total             21,420          33,349           54,769       464,467          349,470          813,937
Acres         Small                  0           2,593            2,593       124,536           82,009          206,545
              Medium            11,101               0           11,101        137,157           94,227        231,384
              Large                  0          30,756           30,756        202,774          173,234        376,008
              Total             11,101          33,349           44,450        464,467          349,470        813,937
No. Live      Small                  0       2,458,165        2,458,165     89,342,203       23,881,789    113,223,992
              Medium          200,419                0          200,419     89,438,713       64,635,932    154,074,645
              Large                 0       17,985,123       17,985,123    121,227,442       71,756,471    192,983,913
              Total           200,419       20,443,288       20,643,707    300,008,358      160,274,192    460,282,550
Vol. Live     Small                 0          190,576          190,576     34,220,929       44,199,332     78,420,261
Trees (ft3)
              Medium          334,810                0          334,810    137,929,872      231,325,509    369,255,381
              Large                 0      120,446,448      120,446,448    470,911,429      634,729,192    1,105,640,621
              Total           334,810      120,637,024      120,971,834    643,062,230      910,254,033    1,553,316,263

Table I-8. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and
 Table 10. by size class in and timberland, number and volume of live
removals Acres of forestland Arkansas (2004 Annual Survey). trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class
 in Arkansas (2004 Annual Survey).
                                             All Ownerships                                   Private Ownerships
 Variable       Size          Pine             Hardwood          Total            Pine            Hardwood            Total
 Acres         Small                    0          19,241            19,241        732,619           192,583            925,202
               Medium            16,421            39,146            55,567        629,942           389,409          1,019,351
               Large             26,721           363,877           390,598      1,079,064          1,112,315         2,191,379
               Total             43,142           422,264           465,406      2,441,625          1,694,307         4,135,932
 Acres         Small                    0          11,235            11,235        732,619           192,583            925,202
               Medium                8,372         39,146            47,518        629,942           389,409          1,019,351
               Large             26,721           335,399           362,120      1,079,064          1,112,315         2,191,379
               Total             35,093           385,780           420,873      2,441,625          1,694,307         4,135,932
 No. Live      Small                    0        8,046,600       8,046,600     476,018,032         92,527,119       568,545,151
               Medium         7,678,895         24,788,980      32,467,875     636,571,797        231,171,824       867,743,621
               Large        14,616,778        119,670,875      134,287,653     741,864,893        446,278,863      1,188,143,756
               Total        22,295,673        152,506,455      174,802,128    1,854,454,722       769,977,806      2,624,432,528
 Vol. Live     Small                    0        2,654,730       2,654,730     200,509,772         39,734,505       240,244,277
 Trees (ft3)
               Medium       15,087,245          48,750,697      63,837,942     785,722,124        484,346,496      1,270,068,620
               Large        53,289,436       1,204,991,531    1,258,280,967   2,331,886,730     2,892,340,914      5,224,227,644
               Total        68,376,681       1,256,396,958    1,324,773,639   3,318,118,626     3,416,421,915      6,734,540,541
 Net growth    Small                    0          86,959            86,959     29,895,911          4,762,852        34,658,763
               Medium          695,335           3,266,168       3,961,503      65,215,557         17,825,536        83,041,093
               Large          2,626,962         19,546,012      22,172,974     106,001,203         62,181,891       168,183,094
               Total          3,322,297         22,899,139      26,221,436     201,112,671         84,770,279       285,882,950
 Mortality     Small                    0               0                0         351,882          1,527,324         1,879,206
               Medium                   0               0                0       2,934,382          3,666,691         6,601,073
               Large           450,022           8,124,791       8,574,813      12,123,265         27,120,763        39,244,028


Table I-9. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Georgia
(2003 Annual Survey). and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Georgia (2003 Annual
  Table 11. Acres of forestland
                                            Public Ownerships                                    Private Ownerships
  Variable       Size           Pine           Hardwood            Total              Pine           Hardwood            Total
  Acres         Small              33,977            14,069            48,046        1,025,410           162,650         1,188,060
                Medium             47,567            24,195            71,762        1,110,180           151,012         1,261,192
                Large             127,845            27,178           155,023          476,892           260,586           737,478
                Total             209,389            65,442           274,831        2,612,482           574,248         3,186,730
  Acres         Small              33,977                 0            33,977        1,025,410           162,650         1,188,060
                Medium             40,232             7,767            47,999        1,110,180           151,012         1,261,192
                Large             102,446            27,178           129,624          475,313           260,586           735,899
                Total             176,655            34,945           211,600        2,610,903           574,248         3,185,151
  No. Live      Small          16,338,329                 0       16,338,329      510,953,466        146,873,152       657,826,618
                Medium         28,313,098        11,672,196       39,985,294      749,859,890        154,915,398       904,775,288
                Large          41,254,395        10,083,360       51,337,755      251,885,758        134,727,140       386,612,898
                Total          85,905,822        21,755,556      107,661,378     1,512,699,114       436,515,690      1,949,214,804
  Vol. Live     Small           5,141,872                 0        5,141,872      149,468,857         45,573,377       195,042,234
  Trees (ft3)
                Medium         79,491,513        24,860,300      104,351,813     1,469,177,133       241,315,605      1,710,492,738
                Large        278,327,670         89,436,004      367,763,674     1,155,108,662       978,595,831      2,133,704,493
                Total        362,961,055       114,296,304       477,257,359     2,773,754,652     1,265,484,813      4,039,239,465

  Table 12. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class
  in Louisiana (2003 Annual Survey).
                                            Public Ownerships                                    Private Ownerships
  Variable        Size           Pine           Hardwood              Total            Pine           Hardwood            Total


                Medium            79,491,513        24,860,300       104,351,813         1,469,177,133           241,315,605      1,710,492,738
                Large         278,327,670           89,436,004       367,763,674         1,155,108,662           978,595,831      2,133,704,493
                Total         362,961,055          114,296,304       477,257,359         2,773,754,652          1,265,484,813     4,039,239,465

Table I-10. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and
removals by size class in Louisiana (2003 Annual Survey). trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class
  Table 12. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live
  in Louisiana (2003 Annual Survey).
                                                Public Ownerships                                             Private Ownerships
  Variable        Size              Pine           Hardwood                 Total                 Pine            Hardwood               Total
  Acres          Small                  5,038              24,325             29,363               539,045            271,680             810,725
                 Medium               25,424               89,667            115,091               473,621            518,452             992,073
                 Large                82,627              590,426            673,053               627,583           1,624,244           2,251,827
                 Total               113,089              704,418            817,507              1,640,249          2,414,376           4,054,625
  Acres          Small                  5,038              24,325             29,363               539,045            266,434             805,479
                 Medium               25,424               89,667            115,091               473,621            518,452             992,073
                 Large                82,627              541,893            624,520               627,583           1,624,244           2,251,827
                 Total               113,089              655,885            768,974              1,640,249          2,409,130           4,049,379
  No. Live       Small              3,385,222        12,502,325         15,887,547           261,162,164          147,619,601       408,781,765
                 Medium            10,061,234        50,529,840         60,591,074           404,244,553          298,555,337       702,799,890
                 Large             33,191,041       237,511,525       270,702,566            308,367,936          740,517,322      1,048,885,258
                 Total             46,637,497       300,543,690       347,181,187            973,774,653         1,186,692,260     2,160,466,913
  Vol. Live      Small              1,811,628            6,479,326          8,290,954         23,620,772           61,651,843        85,272,615
  Trees (ft3)
                 Medium            24,482,340        53,322,420         77,804,760           459,042,277          647,187,066      1,106,229,343
                 Large            200,693,797     1,499,395,941      1,700,089,738          1,431,910,521        3,936,554,152     5,368,464,673
                 Total            226,987,765     1,559,197,687      1,786,185,452          1,914,573,570        4,645,393,061     6,559,966,631
  Net growth     Small                     0               -58,516            -58,516         19,354,479             5,184,974       24,539,453
                 Medium             2,259,333            2,065,145          4,324,478         26,330,562           16,179,225        42,509,787
                 Large              8,000,553        24,488,940         32,489,493            63,345,629           79,974,580       143,320,209
                 Total             10,259,886        26,495,569         36,755,455           109,030,670          101,338,779       210,369,449
  Mortality      Small                     0              171,852            171,852              2,413,284           610,718            3,024,002
                 Medium                    0              555,578            555,578              1,725,218        16,448,954        18,174,172
                 Large              1,267,526        16,580,581         17,848,107                9,297,470        49,639,612        58,937,082
                 Total              1,267,526        17,308,011         18,575,537            13,435,972           66,699,284        80,135,256
  Removals       Small                     0                    0                    0        75,940,948           28,008,326       103,949,274
                 Medium              384,995              190,993            575,988          15,352,341           13,749,078        29,101,419
                 Large              1,096,239        13,491,464         14,587,703            28,176,218           31,835,313        60,011,531
                 Total              1,481,234        13,682,457         15,163,691           119,469,507           73,592,717       193,062,224

         Table 13. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class
         in North Carolina (2002 Periodic Survey).
                                                         Public Ownerships                                          Private Ownerships
         Variable          Size            Pine              Hardwood               Total                Pine           Hardwood                 Total
         Acres            Small                      0                  0                     0           269,026               56,364            325,390


               Medium             384,995              190,993            575,988          15,352,341         13,749,078           29,101,419
               Large             1,096,239        13,491,464         14,587,703            28,176,218         31,835,313           60,011,531
               Total             1,481,234        13,682,457         15,163,691           119,469,507         73,592,717          193,062,224

     Table I-11. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and
     removals by size class in North Carolina (2002 Periodic Survey).
       Table 13. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class
       in North Carolina (2002 Periodic Survey).
                                                      Public Ownerships                                           Private Ownerships
       Variable          Size            Pine            Hardwood                 Total               Pine            Hardwood                 Total
       Acres            Small                    0                  0                     0            269,026                56,364            325,390
                        Medium                   0                  0                     0            103,908                17,570            121,478
                        Large                 6,963              3,924              10,887             165,764                50,119            215,883
                        Total                 6,963                 148
                                                                 3,924              10,887             538,698            124,053               662,751
       Acres            Small                    0                  0                     0            269,026                56,364            325,390
                        Medium                   0                  0                     0            103,908                17,570            121,478
                        Large                 5,191                 0                 5,191            165,764                50,119            215,883
                        Total                 5,191                 0                 5,191            538,698            124,053               662,751
       No. Live         Small                    0                  0                     0      189,312,013           93,994,009         283,306,022
                        Medium                   0                  0                     0          75,103,043        19,510,989          94,614,032
                        Large            2,562,006                  0             2,562,006          86,418,045        38,472,999         124,891,044
                        Total            2,562,006                  0             2,562,006      350,833,101          151,977,997         502,811,098
       Vol. Live        Small                    0                  0                     0      101,667,967           70,790,979         172,458,946
       Trees (ft3)
                        Medium                   0                  0                     0      142,536,262           27,785,924         170,322,186
                        Large           13,139,059                  0            13,139,059      473,216,571          202,033,023         675,249,594
                        Total           13,139,059                  0            13,139,059      717,420,800          300,609,926        1,018,030,726
       Net growth       Small                    0                  0                     0          15,093,147         1,592,130          16,685,277
                        Medium                   0                  0                     0          10,851,922           391,042          11,242,964
                        Large             319,011                   0              319,011           23,703,452         4,614,169          28,317,621
                        Total             319,011                   0              319,011           49,648,521         6,597,341          56,245,862
       Mortality        Small                    0                  0                     0            722,619            500,293              1,222,912
                        Medium                   0                  0                     0            625,695                    0             625,695
                        Large                77,401                 0               77,401            2,912,322         1,060,302              3,972,624
                        Total                77,401                 0               77,401            4,260,636         1,560,595              5,821,231
       Removals         Small                    0                  0                     0          47,166,239         3,923,987          51,090,226
                        Medium                   0                  0                     0           2,151,275                   0            2,151,275
                        Large                    0                  0                     0           4,613,716         2,923,402              7,537,118
                        Total                    0                  0                     0          53,931,230         6,847,389          60,778,619

Table 14. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class
in South Carolina (2001 Annual Survey).
                                             Public Ownerships                                           Private Ownerships
Variable        Size             Pine           Hardwood                 Total                Pine           Hardwood                  Total
Acres          Small               93,814                5,002             98,816              808,575              247,489            1,056,064


                         Total                     0                  0                   0          53,931,230          6,847,389       60,778,619

Table I-12. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and
removals by size class in South Carolina (2001 Annual Survey).
 Table 14. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class
 in South Carolina (2001 Annual Survey).
                                               Public Ownerships                                          Private Ownerships
 Variable        Size              Pine           Hardwood                Total               Pine             Hardwood              Total
 Acres          Small                93,814               5,002             98,816             808,575              247,489          1,056,064

                Medium               68,872              35,221            104,093             780,932              313,429          1,094,361
                Large               205,088             106,477            311,565             612,400              446,173          1,058,573
                Total               367,774             146,700
                                                                    149 514,474               2,201,907           1,007,091          3,208,998
 Acres          Small                91,668               5,002             96,670             808,575              247,489          1,056,064
                Medium               67,376              33,049            100,425             780,932              313,429          1,094,361
                Large               188,083              75,880            263,963             612,400              446,173          1,058,573
                Total               347,127             113,931            461,058            2,201,907           1,007,091          3,208,998
 No. Live       Small            115,090,197           3,281,711     118,371,908          564,598,954          196,645,563       761,244,517
                Medium            36,292,790        22,559,833        58,852,623          732,854,138          279,267,039     1,012,121,177
                Large             81,106,640        49,710,655       130,817,295          347,369,707          278,423,577       625,793,284
                Total            232,489,627        75,552,199       308,041,826      1,644,822,799            754,336,179     2,399,158,978
 Vol. Live      Small             45,122,481           3,314,183      48,436,664          205,018,866          140,258,565       345,277,431
 Trees (ft3)
                Medium            99,519,137        76,567,684       176,086,821      1,149,032,060            529,298,027     1,678,330,087
                Large            395,950,357      301,729,220        697,679,577      1,482,909,746           1,574,308,268    3,057,218,014
                Total            540,591,975      381,611,087        922,203,062      2,836,960,672           2,243,864,860    5,080,825,532
 Net growth     Small              1,963,233             43,730           2,006,963        24,155,671             8,662,143       32,817,814
                Medium             4,436,631           1,902,121          6,338,752       117,157,850           16,768,069       133,925,919
                Large             15,725,846           5,252,048      20,977,894           78,156,571           28,649,941       106,806,512
                Total             22,125,710           7,197,899      29,323,609          219,470,092           54,080,153       273,550,245
 Mortality      Small               610,865                   0            610,865            2,868,789           2,792,458          5,661,247
                Medium              823,549             223,776           1,047,325           3,574,344           7,029,237       10,603,581
                Large              3,364,828           4,122,259          7,487,087        12,114,688           12,286,667        24,401,355
                Total              4,799,242           4,346,035          9,145,277        18,557,821           22,108,362        40,666,183
 Removals       Small              4,017,463                  0           4,017,463        86,984,223           39,582,861       126,567,084
                Medium              966,370                   0            966,370         12,589,312             3,752,517       16,341,829
                Large              5,627,617                  0           5,627,617        26,475,370           11,459,584        37,934,954
                Total             10,611,450                  0       10,611,450          126,048,905           54,794,962       180,843,867

        Table 15. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class
        in Texas (2003 Annual Survey).
                                                        Public Ownerships                                           Private Ownerships
        Variable          Size            Pine             Hardwood               Total                Pine             Hardwood             Total
        Acres            Small                      0              5,160              5,160               442,141             94,335             536,476


Table I-13. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and
  Table 1. Acres of forestland and (2003 Annual Survey).
removals by size class in Texastimberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals
  by size class in Texas (2003 Annual Survey).
                                      Public Ownerships                                 Private Ownerships
  Variable      Size          Pine        Hardwood                 Total         Pine         Hardwood        Total
  Acres         Small                 0             5,160              5,160       442,141        94,335        536,476
                Mediu            23,952            18,597             42,549       345,533        87,185        432,718
                Large            69,114            48,236            117,350       449,871       385,286        835,157
                Total            93,066            71,993            165,059     1,237,545       566,806      1,804,351
  Acres         Small                 0                 0                  0       442,141        94,335        536,476
                Mediu            11,580            18,597             30,177       339,769        87,185        426,954
                Large            50,956            12,689             63,645       444,725       376,467        821,192
                Total            62,536            31,286             93,822     1,226,635       557,987      1,784,622
  No. Live      Small                 0                 0                  0   278,668,219     91,707,645 370,375,864
                Mediu        15,861,576     14,900,044         30,761,620      348,945,025     59,094,192 408,039,217
                Large        25,803,505          5,457,473     31,260,978      333,250,720    192,790,226 526,040,946
                Total        41,665,081     20,357,517         62,022,598      960,863,964    343,592,063    1,304,456,0
  Vol. Live     Small                 0                 0                  0    55,906,342     25,175,142    81,081,484
  Trees (ft3)
                Mediu        10,460,527     19,900,021         30,360,548      365,237,834    101,028,212 466,266,046
                Large      181,759,817      24,317,940        206,077,757      960,454,865    871,648,274    1,832,103,1
                Total      192,220,344      44,217,961        236,438,305      1,381,599,04   997,851,628    2,379,450,6
                                                                                          1                           69
  Net           Small                 0                 0                  0    14,399,806      2,127,980    16,527,786
                Mediu           751,327            -76,765           674,562    25,422,573      3,601,463    29,024,036
                Large         6,637,535          1,949,605         8,587,140    34,221,342     22,161,761    56,383,103
                Total         7,388,862          1,872,840         9,261,702    74,043,721     27,891,204 101,934,925
  Mortality     Small                 0                 0                  0     1,122,059       466,825      1,588,884
                Mediu           482,348           287,973            770,321       240,708       989,827      1,230,535
                Large         1,181,565           479,101          1,660,666     5,864,018      9,192,065    15,056,083
                Total         1,663,913           767,074          2,430,987     7,226,785     10,648,717    17,875,502

Glossary                               Note: Size class code, which is
                                       derived by an algorithm, is a
Annual mortality - The average         classification of the predominant
annual volume of sound wood in         (based on stocking) diameter class
growing-stock trees that died          of live trees within the condition.
from natural causes during the         Size class is assessed at the
period between inventories.            plot condition level, not the tree
Annual removals - The net              level. Large diameter trees are
volume of growing-stock                at least 11.0 inches diameter for
trees removed from the                 hardwoods and at least 9.0 inches
inventory during a specified           diameter for softwoods. Medium
year by harvesting, cultural           diameter trees are at least 5.0
operations such as timber stand        inches diameter but not as large
improvement, or land clearing.         as large diameter trees. Small
                                       diameter trees are less than 5.0
Annual growth - Net annual             inches diameter.
sound cubic-foot growth of a
live tree on timberland. The net       Timberland - Forest land that
change in cubic-foot volume per        is producing or is capable of
year of this tree (for remeasured      producing crops of industrial
plots (V2-V1)/(t2-t1)). Because        wood and not withdrawn
this value is net growth, it may       from timber use by statute or
be a negative number. Negative         administrative regulation.
growth values are usually due          Note: Areas qualifying as
to mortality (V2=0) but can also       timberland are capable of
occur on live trees that have a net    producing in excess of 20
loss in volume because of damage,      cubic feet per acre per year of
rot, or other causes.                  industrial wood in natural stands.
Physiographic class - The              Currently inaccessible and
general effect of land form,           inoperable areas are included.
topographical position, and soil on
moisture available to trees.
Stand-size class - A classification
of forest land based on the size
class of all live trees in the area.
The classes include:
  Small diameter - Stands with
  an all live stocking value of at
  least 10 (base 100) on which at
  least 50 percent of the stocking
  is in small diameter trees
  Medium diameter - Stands
  with an all live stocking of at
  least 10 (base 100); with more
  than 50 percent of the stocking
  in medium and large diameter
  trees; and with the stocking
  of large diameter trees less
  than the stocking of medium
  diameter trees.
  Large diameter - Stands with
  an all live stocking of at least
  10 (base 100); with more than
  50 percent of the stocking in
  medium and large diameter
  trees2; and with the stocking of
  large diameter trees equal to
  or greater than the stocking of
  medium diameter trees.

Appendix J.
Species Names and Acronyms Used in the Recovery Plan.

Plants                                Animals                         IBWO
American Elm (Ulmus americana)        Barred Owl (Strix varia)        Ivory-billed Woodpecker
Ash (Fraxinus spp.)                   Beaver (Castor canadensis)      LDWF
Baldcypress (Taxodium spp.)                                           Louisiana Department of
                                      Black Woodpecker (Dryocopus     Wildlife and Fisheries
Bitter Pecan (Carya aquatica)         martius)
Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii)      Great Horned Owl                Light Detection and Ranging
                                      (Bubo virginianus)
Cotton (Gossypium spp.)
Diamond Leaf Oak (Quercus             Great Slaty Woodpecker          Lower Mississippi Alluvial
laurifolia)                           (Mulleripicus pulverulentus     Valley
Elm (Ulmus spp.)                                                      LMVJV
                                      Ivory-billed Woodpecker         Lower Mississippi Alluvial
Green Ash (Fraxinus                   (Campephilus principalis)
pennsylvanicus)                                                       Valley Joint Venture
                                      Megallanic Woodpecker           MAV
Hackberry (Celtis spp.)
                                      (Campephilus magellanicus)      Mississippi Alluvial Valley
Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda)
                                      Pileated Woodpecker             NASA
Locust (Gleditsia spp.)               (Dryocopus pileatus)            National Aeronautics and Space
Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris)       Raccoon (Procyon lotor)         Administration
Nuttall Oak (Quercus nuttalli)                                        NLCD
                                      Rat Snake (Elaphe spp.)
Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata)                                          National Land Cover Data
                                      Red-shouldered Hawk
Pecan (Carya illinoinensis)           (Buteo lineatus)                NWR
                                                                      National Wildlife Refuge
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)      Squirrel (Sciuridae family)
Pine (Pinus spp.)
                                      List of Acronyms                Society of American Foresters
Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)   ANHC
                                      Arkansas Natural Heritage       SURRGO
Post Oak (Quercus stellata)                                           Soil Survey Geographic
Red Maple (Acer rubrum)                                               TNC
Red Oak (Quercus rubra)               Advanced Spaceborne             The Nature Conservancy
Scarlet Oak (Quercus coccinea)        Thermal Emission and            USDA
                                      Reflection Radiometer           U.S. Department of Agriculture
Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)
                                      CFI                             USFWS
Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa biflora)          Continuous Forest Inventory     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Swamp-privet (Forestiera spp.)
                                      DBH                             USGS
Sweetgum (Liquidambar                 Diameter at Breast Height       U.S. Geological Survey
                                      ESA                             WMA
Tupelo (Nyssa spp.)                   Endangered Species Act          WMA
Tupelo Gum (Nyssa aquatica)           FIA
Water Elm (Planera aquatica)          Forest Inventory and Analysis
Water Hickory (Carya                  FRWG
myristiciformis)                      Forest Resource Working Group
Water Oak (Quercus nigra)             GIS
White Oak (Quercus alba)              Geographic Information System
Wild Grape (Vitis spp.)               HGM
                                      Hydro Geomorphic
Willow Oak (Quercus phellos)

Appendix K.
Service Response to Public Comments on the
Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Plan

Comment 1                              recovery plan. Dispute over           Comment 3
[Opposition to plan and recovery       the potential cost reflects both      [Support for plan and recovery
efforts] Approximately 56              philosophical and fiscal concerns.    efforts] Approximately 40
comments (including one letter         The estimated costs include all       commenters supported the search
with 70 signatories) did not           funds, including non-federal and      effort and/or recovery plan but
support the draft recovery plan        non-governmental, that could          provided little, if any, comments
development or implementation          be considered for expenditure         to the plan itself. One comment
of recovery efforts because: (1)       to assist with recovering the         from an organization stated that
they believed the evidence for         species. It is not a request for,     we should increase the funding
the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s          or commitment of, funding. This       for Ivory-billed Woodpecker
existence wasn’t strong enough         estimate is no longer in the          search and recovery efforts.
to justify those activities; (2) the   recovery plan, it is replaced with    Some simply reported their own
estimated costs for those tasks        actual expenditures found in          sightings or other evidence of
($27 million) was too high or          Appendix C.                           Ivory-billed Woodpeckers while
could be better spent on other                                               others hypothesized ways the
species; and/or (3) the Ivory-         The Fish and Wildlife Service         bird could still persist and why it
billed Woodpecker’s decline is         accepted the initial evidence of      may be difficult to document the
part of the natural selection          the presence of one bird in the       species properly.
process. Some commenters               Cache River National Wildlife
provided specific information and      Refuge and on the basis of all        Response 3
references that dispute or provide     available information believes        The Fish and Wildlife Service
alternative explanations for           that it is prudent to plan for the    appreciated the information
recent Ivory-billed Woodpecker         recovery of the species as part       concerning sightings and
evidence. Two commenters stated        of our responsibilities under the     followed up on this information as
ancillary benefits received by         ESA. Additionally, the Fish and       appropriate. Funding decisions
other species during the Ivory-        Wildlife Service, in response to      take the needs of all listed species
billed Woodpecker recovery effort      the potential that the species may    into consideration, as well as
were not sufficient justification      exist in isolated locations in its    the fact that much has been
for using poor evidence for Ivory-     former range, initiated region-       accomplished to date concerning
billed Woodpecker persistence.         wide search efforts with state and    Recovery Outline and Plan tasks.
                                       non-government partners. Initial      The Service acknowledges the
Response 1                             searches and actions, as well as      difficulty of documenting the
Although the Ivory-billed              any others deemed necessary in        species.
Woodpecker has been listed as          the future, are consistent with our
an endangered species since            interpretations of the evidence,      Comment 4
1967, no recovery plan was             our responsibilities under the        [Habitat Management] Many
ever prepared for the species.         ESA, and the urgency of the           commenters provided a variety
The Fish and Wildlife Service          situation. See Appendix B of          of habitat protection and
reconsidered the need for a            the final version of the plan for a   management recommendations.
plan in 2005 when information          discussion of recent Ivory-billed     Eight simply stated they support
was released suggesting the            Woodpecker evidence.                  land protection efforts specific
presence of at least one bird                                                for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
in the Bayou DeView area of            Comment 2                             Five recommended that land
Cache River National Wildlife          [Discussion of controversy]           acquisition and conservation
Refuge. Observers reported             Approximately 10 commenters           be given greater priority or the
multiple sightings and recorded        felt that the recovery plan did       highest priority in the recovery
audio and video of what was            not provide a balanced discussion     plan, and one pointed out that
interpreted to be an Ivory-billed      of the controversy among              any conservation easements
Woodpecker. This evidence is not       ornithologists and the scientific     used to help recover the Ivory-
universally accepted. While there      community regarding the               billed Woodpecker must be held
continues to be disagreement as        evidence supporting the Ivory-        by a non-political public interest
to the validity of this and other      bill’s existence.                     conservation organization that
reports, the Fish and Wildlife                                               is a 501(c) 3. Three commenters
                                       Response 2                            provided specific management
Service has received sufficient        Additional discussion of the
information to warrant additional                                            actions to improve Ivory-billed
                                       controversy has been added to the     Woodpecker habitat (i.e., modify
searches and preparation of a          Recovery Plan in Appendix B.
linear rights-of-way maintenance       for large-scale management            confirming the existence of the
activities to promote food             potentially needed for the Ivory-     species in multiple locations as
supplies; decrease habitat impacts     billed Woodpecker. Guidelines         well as Arkansas and taking
and disruption by adjusting work       on the sorts of land management       initial habitat improvement
procedures; install nest boxes in      within those forest patches           and restoration actions.
forests, such as the Okefenokee        can be found in the publication       Subsequent controversy over
Swamp, to improve nesting              Restoration, Management and           the evidence supporting the 2005
habitat for the Ivory-billed           Monitoring of Forest Resources        announcement did not reduce the
Woodpecker). One commenter             in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley:   necessity for these initial actions,
opposed all development within         Recommendations for Enhancing         most of which are complete.
areas occupied by Ivory-billed         Wildlife Habitat (LMVJV Forest
Woodpeckers, including public          Resource Conservation Group           Research, modeling, and
access and viewing points.             2007). These guidelines are in use    habitat inventory projects have
                                       on National Wildlife Refuges and      been undertaken to better
Response 4                             other public lands. Other Fish        understand the distribution of
The focus on habitat management        and Wildlife Programs encourage       potential habitat, and enhance
is appropriate; however, what          bottomland hardwood restoration       the methods used to detect
is known regarding the habitat         and management on private             Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. In
requirements of the Ivory-billed       lands.                                addition, models focused on
Woodpecker comes mostly                                                      foraging energetics, habitat
from historical observations,          Comment 5                             characterization and assessment,
the work of James Tanner and           [Species Management] Six              and potential population viability
current reports from sites,            commenters identified a variety       were developed.
where observers have potentially       of protection, recovery, and
encountered the bird. Any              management recommendations            Knowledge and capabilities for
surviving birds may have               for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.      captive breeding are poorly
persisted under less than optimal      Such recommendations included:        understood for this species.
conditions, given the historical       (1) keeping all sighting reports      Significant work with surrogate
assumptions of Tanner and others       confidential to ensure protection     species, such as the Magellanic
regarding its needs. Therefore         and scientific study; (2)             Woodpecker, may be needed.
any future habitat protection          increasing fines, jail sentences,     There is currently no person or
and management will require            and penalties under the ESA           institution engaged in the captive
comparison and evaluation              for crimes against the species        breeding of large woodpeckers.
against what is unknown as well        and its habitat; (3) cloning          Additionally, it is not appropriate
as what is understood about its        Ivory-billed Woodpeckers using        at this time, since capturing an
habitat requirements. Specific         museum specimens as source            Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not
habitat prescriptions for the          genetic material and pileated         readily accomplished. Surrogate
species will be dependent              woodpeckers as surrogates; (4)        ecological studies have been done
upon additional knowledge of           including capture protocols in the    on the Pileated Woodpecker.
a specific population’s limiting       recovery plan and establishing a      The Ivory-billed Woodpecker
factors. Impacts to the species        high priority on captive-breeding     is currently protected under
from potential development             Ivory-billed Woodpeckers; (5)         the ESA and is afforded the
or other management actions            initiating efforts to net and tag     same level of protection as other
permitted, funded, or conducted        Ivory-billed Woodpeckers with         federally listed species. See
by a federal agency can be             radio transmitters to obtain the      Appendix F for a description
evaluated according to the             appropriate data needed for           of the protocol used to protect
Endangered Species Act’s Section       recovering the species; and (6)       potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker
7 consultation process. The need       practicing trapping and tracking      sighting locations. Specific
for access restrictions may be         skills on Pileated Woodpeckers.       species management actions,
evaluated when it is determined                                              such as those received during
that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers          Response 5
                                       The most significant constraint       the public comment period, are
actively occupy an area.                                                     only possible when Ivory-billed
                                       to recovery of this species is that
Currently, the Lower Mississippi       the population, where there may       Woodpecker populations are
Partners in Flight Landbird            be one, is very small; therefore,     identified. These management
Conservation Plan calls for            individuals are extremely difficult   options may be evaluated if
creating large patches of mature       to detect reliably. The species is    and when such information is
bottomland forest, with target         so rarely reported that learning      available.
sizes of at least 10,000, 20,000 and   more about the species and its        Comment 6
100,000 acres for different groups     habitat requirements and basic        [Information Updates] Eight
of area-sensitive landbirds.           aspects of its ecology will be the    commenters recommended
Because it is ecosystem-based          primary interim conservation          various updates to the plan.
and emphasizes area-sensitive          action. Conservation efforts to       Specifically, these included: (1)
species, this approach also works      date have been directed towards       additional reports of sightings

and other evidence gathered by        all states within the historical       million on private lands habitat
Dr. Geoff Hill and his associates     range. State Search Groups             restoration. Search effort
from Auburn University in the         independently run their efforts        funding totaled $2.1 million from
Choctawhatchee basin, Florida;        (searches, outreach, and state         Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009.
(2) observations reported in 2005     management). This effort is            These funds were a portion of
and 2006 from Tennessee; and (3)      partially funded and coordinated       the $4.6 million in total recovery
Mexico observations previously        by the Fish and Wildlife Service.      funds allocated for Ivory-billed
investigated by Dr. James Tanner.                                            Woodpecker from Fiscal Year
One commenter suggested that          Forest industry, academia,             2006 through 2009. State search
the plan include the results of the   federal and state government,          groups decided which areas
recent federally-funded search        non-government organizations,          should be priority for searches
efforts from 2005 to present.         and other private business             using agreed upon criteria. These
Two commenters stated that            representatives are on the             criteria included recent reports,
the costs as reflected in the         Recovery Team.                         current and historical habitat
Implementation Schedule should        Comment 8                              condition, historical records,
be updated to exclude past fiscal     [Editorial and Grammatical] Six        size of habitat area, history of
years (i.e., 2006 – 2008).            commenters provided editorial          disturbances, and professional
                                      and grammatical comments on            judgment. Selections were also
Response 6                                                                   assisted by modeled habitat maps.
The plan has been updated and         the plan.
                                                                             Additional search effort will be
revised, as appropriate, providing    Response 8                             at the discretion of state search
a response to these comments.         The plan has been edited and           groups or private organizations.
James Tanner’s Mexico                 revised by a technical editor.
observations were descriptions                                               The ESA requires that every
of the Imperial Woodpecker, a         Comment 9                              listed species is to have a
species related to the Ivory-billed   [Recovery Priority Number]             recovery plan unless having one
Woodpecker.                           Three commenters requested             would decrease its chances for
                                      further explanation of the             recovery. This is not the case for
Comment 7                             Ivorybill’s Recovery Priority          Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Many
[Oversight of Plan and Recovery]      Number (RPN) and the process           Recovery tasks and actions are
Three commenters expressed            and justification for assigning that   centered on obtaining more
concern regarding the oversight       number.                                evidence and locations of the
and management of the recovery                                               species. During 2006-8 these
effort and review of the plan’s       Response 9                             surveys were guided by the study
creation. One recommendation          The plan has been edited to            design and methodology found in
was to appoint a person from the      respond appropriately to this          Appendix F.
academic community to oversee         comment
all search and recovery efforts                                              Comment 11
for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.      Comment 10                             [Habitat] One commenter
Another recommended we                [Funding] Two commenters               requested the plan specify those
appoint Ivory-billed Woodpecker       supported the recent Ivory-billed      responsible for identifying
“ambassadors” for every state         Woodpecker search efforts, but         potential remaining habitat and
in which search and recovery          not recovery plan development.         refining the methods used to
efforts take place to coordinate      They stated that more funds            identify that habitat.
all such activity in that state.      should be dedicated to obtaining
One commenter requested that          better evidence of the species’        Response 11
electric generating companies         existence. Another believed the        The plan identifies current
be represented in the Recovery        method for ranking search and          research efforts aimed at
Team since their activities could     study areas now and in the future      identifying potential habitat in
impact large portions of potential    for receiving recovery funds           Appendix D.
Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat.      should be more clearly defined in
                                      the recovery plan.                     Comment 12
Response 7                                                                   [Adverse Effects] Three
Many partners and cooperators         Response 10                            commenters requested greater
assist with Ivory-billed              Balancing the funding between          detail in the definition and
Woodpecker searches, research,        research, habitat analysis, habitat    discussion of actions that could
and recovery planning. A team         management, search effort, and         adversely (or beneficially) impact
of more than 60 technical experts,    recovery planning was a decision       Ivory-billed Woodpeckers and
scientists, and managers was          of the Recovery Team and the           their habitat. One commenter
originally identified. This list      Fish and Wildlife Service. Initial     stated that the plan should
eventually grew to nearly 80          funding from multiple programs         identify the types of actions that
people. A list of team members        also focused $3.3 million on           would be considered to impact the
is provided in Appendix A of the      planned refuge land acquisitions,      hydrology of that area adversely.
Recovery Plan. The Fish and           $1 million for habitat acquisition     The same commenter requested
Wildlife Service cooperates with      by the State of Arkansas, and $3       a discussion of the potential

impacts to land-use practices,        maintained without correcting         a factor contributing to the
such as hunting and the “taking”      hydrological conditions. These        species’ imperilment. The same
or acquisition of land, caused by     questions are a focus of studies      commenter also did not support
land-management requirements          unrelated to the Ivory-billed         the hypothesis that poaching and
in Ivory-billed Woodpecker            Woodpecker, but as knowledge          collecting were the main cause
habitat. One commenter asked          is gained the plan as well as         of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s
that the plan address the effects     management approaches can be          decline. One commenter stated
to Ivory-billed Woodpeckers from      updated.                              that disease (Avian flu and
increased human utilization of                                              West Nile virus) and parasites
public areas. Another commenter       Comment 13                            (Trichonomas, mites, and lice)
asked that the plan identify ways     [Organization] One commenter          may pose a current threat to the
to alleviate the adverse impacts to   stated that to eliminate              species and should be addressed
Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat       duplication, all Ivory-billed         in the plan. Another commenter
from hydrological changes.            Woodpecker sightings data             stated that the plan should
                                      (recent and historical) should be     acknowledge at the beginning
Response 12                           located in one section of the plan.   of the Reasons for Listing/
More information related to           This commenter suggested that         Current Threats section (Section
current habitat needs of the          discussions of all potential Ivory-   H) that the cause of the Ivory-
Ivory-billed Woodpecker is            billed Woodpecker sightings in        billed Woodpecker’s decline is
needed prior to conducting            Arkansas be included in a new         unknown. The same commenter
a more thorough threats               appendix that combines the            stated that the discussion
assessment for the species. No        information found in the draft        on Ivory-billed Woodpecker
private lands have been taken or      plan’s Appendices B, C and D,         predation should be limited to
condemned by any government           and that the intended purpose of      the beginning sentence, “No
agency to protect this species.       Appendix C should be explained        incidences of predation on Ivory-
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife            at the beginning of the appendix.     billed Woodpeckers are known”,
Service’s goal is to maintain                                               as any further discussion on the
traditional use of public lands and   Response 13
                                      Sections were relocated and           subject would be speculative.
private property while protecting                                           The commenter also stated that
this species. Hunting, fishing,       revised; however, recent search
                                      data is still included in the body    the plan should include recovery
and other recreational activities                                           actions to identify the Ivory-
are unlikely to present a problem,    of the plan. Appendix E now
                                      contains historical information       billed Woodpecker’s threats, prey
and most timber management                                                  distribution, the role of disease,
activities may be compatible as       and an analysis of sighting data.
                                                                            and the sources and significance
well. It is impossible to predict     Comment 14                            of predation.
in advance the exact situation or     [Animal behavior] One
circumstances that may arise on       commenter stated that the draft       Response 15
any particular piece of property;     plan erroneously claims past          The Fish and Wildlife Service
therefore, the Fish and Wildlife      observers, including James            agrees that much is unknown
Service cannot make blanket           Tanner, described Ivory-billed        and often information is
promises about a particular land      Woodpeckers as having “a more         conflicting about the Ivory-
use activity.                         rapid wing-beat relative to           billed Woodpecker. However,
                                      pileated.”                            in the interest of balance and
Human alteration of hydrology in                                            completeness, discussion of
the landscapes of the southeast       Response 14                           all possible threats and causes
has a long history. Changing          That statement has been modified      of decline are included with
hydrological regimes cause            in the final plan to the following:   appropriate caveats. The ability
deteriorating conditions (e.g.,       “When taking flight, the Ivory-bill   to “address” threats such as
species mortality) in many forest     has been described to have noisy      disease is extremely limited at
communities in the Mississippi        wing-beats. In direct flight they     this time. Additional information
Alluvial Valley. In Eastern           are said to have a rapid wing-beat    regarding the species will be
Arkansas conditions are becoming      as well as a slender appearance,      needed to assess current threats
wetter, while much of Louisiana’s     resembling a Northern Pintail         to the species appropriately.
portion of the Mississippi            (Tanner 1942).”
Alluvial Valley is becoming drier.                                          Comment 16
These tree die-offs might be          Comment 15                            [Diet]: One commenter felt
considered beneficial for Ivory-      [Threats discussion]: We received     that the recovery plan and its
billed Woodpecker, providing          several comments regarding            recovery actions incorrectly
a short-term pulse of foraging        our discussion of threats to the      emphasized a narrow diet (e.g.,
opportunity. However, these           Ivory-billed Woodpecker and its       wood-boring beetles, longhorn
apparent shifts in tree species       habitat. One commenter felt that      beetles, bark-stripping behavior)
composition make it difficult to      the recovery plan and its recovery    for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
determine whether old forest          actions retain an inappropriate       The same commenter provided
conditions can be restored and        emphasis on food supplies as          information about the biology

of the longhorned beetle, one of        for implementing Recovery              Response 19
the bird’s main food sources, and       Objectives 1, 2 and 3 of the           The Fish and Wildlife Service
felt that this material should be       draft recovery plan, which are         has produced this Recovery
included in the recovery plan.          all related to quantifying Ivory-      Plan with the assistance and
                                        billed Woodpecker habitat and          input of a large Recovery Team.
Response 16                             the impacts of HCPs, ITPs, and         Required elements are included
Research is underway concerning         SFAs.                                  and discussed in the amount
potential prey species ecology                                                 of detail that current data and
and biology. Information on             Response 18                            knowledge permit. Precision
completed and current research          Comment on these policies and          can only match what we know at
is found in Appendix D. The             programs is appreciated; however,      this time. The plan and current
primary reference for food habits       they will not be addressed in the      management approaches can
and feeding is James Tanner’s           Recovery Plan for the Ivory-           be modified as we learn more
study on the Singer Tract, and          billed Woodpecker. Recovery            about the current status of the
that is discussed with appropriate      Objectives 1,2, and 3 are              species and locate individuals.
caveats in the plan. The Ivory-         generally accepted tenets of basic     Service policies and guidelines for
billed Woodpecker feeds on              conservation. Additional detailed      formulating recovery plans allow
vegetable and animal matter, but        objectives will be developed           for modifications of a recovery
the importance of beetle larvae         as we learn more about the             plan to fit current knowledge and
found under the bark of newly           species and locate nesting pairs.      needs of a species.
dead wood is emphasized. This           Such recommendations may
is the literature that we must use      be included in future revisions        Comment 20
and consider for the recovery           of the plan when additional            [Cuba] One commenter
plan.                                   information on the species’            expressed concern that the
                                        current distribution and biological    recovery plan and its actions
Comment 17                              requirements are identified.           are too focused on Cuba.
[Critical Habitat] Two                                                         The commenter felt that the
organizations stated the Service        Comment 19                             statement about the need for
should immediately designate            [Policy]: One commenter stated         international cooperation with
critical habitat for the Ivory-billed   that the recovery plan appears         Cuba in the Overview (Section
Woodpecker and direct a “no net         more like a species status report,     A, page 1) is inappropriate and
loss” of that critical habitat.         and that the plan does not meet        premature given that problems
                                        Service policies and guidelines        of recovering the species in the
Response 17                             for planning and coordinating
No critical habitat has been                                                   United States have not been
                                        the recovery of listed species.        resolved. This person further
designated for this species, nor        Specifically, the plan does not
is this required due to the date of                                            commented that the statement
                                        include management actions             would be appropriate only when
listing. However, the Secretary         necessary to achieve down-
of the Interior may choose to                                                  international cooperation would
                                        listing or a realistic time frame      be valuable to recovering the
designate critical habitat for the      and cost estimate required for
species in the future when more                                                species. Finally, the commenter
                                        accomplishing recovery that            stated that there is no evidence
data is available for such an           is supported by analyses and
evaluation.                                                                    that the species is observable
                                        discussion. Further, it does not       in Cuba; therefore, the Cuban
Comment 18                              set forth “. . . precise, measurable   population should not be included
 [Management tools] One                 criteria and/or identify research      in the plan, and the Ivory-billed
organization stated that Habitat        needs that will allow the Service      Woodpecker’s status in Cuba is
Conservation Plans (HCPs), Safe         and others to objectively              irrelevant because ESA recovery
Harbor Agreements (SHAs)                determine when recovery has            efforts must be focused solely in
and species take permits (ITPs)         been achieved when it is, in fact,     the U.S.
issued under Sect 7, 10, and 4(d)       achievable.” Also, the commenter
of the ESA, should be amended           stated that the plan does not          Response 20
and revoked while the Service           follow Service policy in that the      Cuba is mentioned for
evaluates critical habitat and          recovery tasks designated as           information purposes and to
recovery planning areas. Further,       Priority 1 in the Implementation       be complete in describing the
the organization stated that            Schedule are not justified in the      range of the species and potential
the Service cannot use HCPs/            Narrative Outline as necessary         actions for recovery. No federal
ITPs and SHAs as a method for           to prevent extinction, and that        intervention or management
recovering the Ivorybill or any         none of the tasks appear to be         is contemplated there. Any
other listed species, according         necessary to prevent extinction        cooperation or coordination would
to a recent case finding (Spirit of     or to prevent the species from         come from private entities. Fish
the Sage Council vs. Secretary          declining irreversibly in the          and Wildlife Service policy states
Kempthorne et al. (U.S. D.C.            foreseeable future.                    that recovery plans include a
Civil Action No. 98-1873(EGS)).                                                species’ status and background
They also provided specific ways                                               throughout its entire range

(including other countries).         to do nothing, reasoning that         received during the Ivory-billed
When possible or appropriate,        if past unconfirmed sightings         Woodpecker recovery effort be
the Service does work with other     are valid and small, difficult to     included in those communications.
countries to recover and protect     detect populations are scattered      Two commenters felt that an
listed species. A recovery plan      throughout eight states, they have    explanation should be provided
is a planning document only.         survived without intervention.        for the cost estimates presented
Foreign countries choose to          The writer commented that             in the Implementation Schedule.
implement recovery actions at        this method may be the only
their discretion.                    reasonable approach, especially       Response 24
                                     since it is unlikely we will ever     Implementation Cost Estimates
Comment 21                           gather the information needed         are not included in this version.
[Citations] One commenter noted      to develop effective management       Many tasks are completed;
that some discussions in the plan    plans resulting in some form of       therefore, actual expenditures
were too speculative and did not     measurable recovery.                  and actions which provide more
provide enough cited material,                                             useful information are included
particularly regarding discussions   Response 22                           in Appendix C. Cost estimates
of the life history, ecology and     The Fish and Wildlife Service         for additional activities that are
habitat characterization of the      completed the Recovery Plan           not planned at this time would
Ivory-billed Woodpecker. This        and many tasks recommended            be speculative, given the lack
person commented that the            by the Recovery Team. Initial         of information on the species’
second paragraph of Section          searches and actions as well as       current status.
D, page 4, should end after the      any others deemed necessary in
statement “Historic population       the future are consistent with        Comment 25
numbers will never be known”         our responsibilities under the        [Search locations] One
because the remainder of that        ESA. If additional information        commenter requested that
sentence and paragraph is pure       is acquired, appropriate plan         we search for Ivory-billed
speculation that can not be          revisions and management              Woodpeckers in the Pinhook
supported with citations. Further,   changes will be made.                 Swamp, Osceola National Forest,
the commenter stated that there                                            and Okefenokee Swamp of
are no citable data to support       Comment 23                            northern Florida and southern
the contention that Ivory-billed     [Focus] Five commenters felt          Georgia.
Woodpeckers have to range            that the draft plan is too focused
                                     on observations in Arkansas and       Response 25
farther and are more sensitive to                                          Coordinated searches have
habitat alterations than Pileated    ignores observations from other
                                     areas within the bird’s historical    been made in suitable habitat
Woodpeckers because of greater                                             prioritized by State Search
food demand (Section E, first        range, such as Louisiana and
                                     Mississippi. At least one felt that   Groups, Fish and Wildlife Service,
paragraph, page 17). The writer                                            Forest Service, and Cornell
also requested that the Service      the plan relies too heavily upon
                                     Dr. James Tanner’s study (1942)       Laboratory of Ornithology. The
provide citations to support                                               commenter’s suggested search
the statement that Ivory-billed      when describing the species’
                                     biology and ecology.                  areas have or will be considered.
Woodpeckers were known to fly
several kilometers each day.         Response 23                           Comment 26
                                     Dr. James Tanner’s study is the       [Adverse projects] Two
Response 21                                                                commenters identified
Additional citations have been       most complete work we have
                                     concerning this species; our legal    construction projects in or near
added to the text including                                                potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker
support for the contention that      requirements and policy dictate
                                     that we use this data. The plan       habitat that they deemed would
large woodpeckers (and perhaps,                                            have an adverse impact to the
therefore, the Ivory-bill) are       has been edited to provide a
                                     more balanced dicsussion of the       species and requested the Service
capable of expanding their home                                            take action to prevent those
ranges. Some extrapolations,         Arkansas observations as well
                                     as new information from other         activities.
based upon use of existing data
for other species, are made in       states.                               Response 26
the recovery plan to identify        Comment 24                            The Recovery Plan addresses
potential areas of research, draw    [Funding] One commenter               threats but not specific projects
some conclusions about tentative     recommended the Service               that may pose a threat. Our
management direction, and apply      improve communication with            Endangered Species Act Section
biological principles where there    the public regarding the              7 Consultation process provides
are substantial data gaps.           justification for spending the        a means to disclose effects and
                                     resources and funds that have         identify requirements for projects
Comment 22                                                                 with a federal agency component.
[Recovery method] One                been used or allocated, and
                                     that the ancillary benefits           Private persons or businesses are
commenter recommended                                                      also required not to “take” (harm,
that an alternative method of        (e.g., economic, recreational,
                                     environmental,and spiritual)          harass, or kill) species listed
recovering the species would be
as threatened or endangered          Comment 28                             Response 29
without authorization from the       [Public participation] One person      Criteria for evaluating reports
Fish and Wildlife Service.           believes the recovery actions of       of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers
                                     the plan should reflect the need       are included in Appendix
Comment 27                           for more public participation,         F. The plan follows current
[Peer review] Two commenters         especially of the youth.               organization guidance. The list
(one representing members                                                   of completed implementation
of an organization) asserted         Response 28                            tasks is included and triggers
that additional outside peer         The 2005 announcement that             for any future actions is included
review was needed for the plan.      an Ivory-billed Woodpecker             in the Executive Summary and
Approximately 70 members of          had been located in the Big            the body of the plan. Many of
an organization stated that an       Woods of Arkansas generated a          the Recovery Actions identified
independent review panel should      substantial amount of interest         in the final plan will occur only
be established to evaluate the       among the public. Informational        after additional data on the
current Ivory-billed Woodpecker      materials for the general public       species’ current status, location,
data and to publish findings for     and numerous stakeholders              and biological requirements are
the Service to consider prior        involved or concerned with the         gathered. Much of the habitat
to implementing any aspect           recovery of the species have           identified by our partners has
of the recovery plan. They           been developed. Community-             been surveyed by the date of
recommended that members of          based programs to enhance              publication. Additional effort may
the American Ornithologists’         opportunities to learn about and       be triggered by new information.
Union North American Check-          promote the conservation of            Fish and Wildlife Service policy
list Committee and the American      the species have been provided         sets protocol for declaring a
Birding Association’s Checklist      in cooperation with partners.          species extinct, which is beyond
Committee be considered for such     Communication plans and                the scope of a recovery plan.
a review panel.                      strategies have been developed
                                     and implemented. Continuing            Comment 30
Response 27                          communications address the need        [Search Methods] Four
Many partners and cooperators        for information at various levels      commenters recommended
assist with Ivory-billed             and for various stakeholders           specific search methods be
Woodpecker searches, research,       (e.g., birdwatchers, local citizens,   included in the recovery plan.
and recovery planning. A team        government agencies, industry).        One recommendation was to fund
of more than 60 technical experts,   Outreach tools to help private         2-man stealth audio and video
scientists, and managers was         landowners and land managers           teams to monitor “hotspots”
originally identified. This list     were cooperatively developed           or areas with recent reports of
eventually grew to nearly 80         by the Nature Conservancy for          Ivory-billed Woodpeckers within
people. Representatives from         Arkansas. Youth programs have          its historical range, such as North
the forest industry, academia,       been implemented, and special          and South Carolina. Another
federal and state government,        materials such as coloring books,      commenter advocated using
non-government organizations,        activities, and costumes are           acoustical attraction methods
and other private businesses are     available for use with younger         during surveys. Others cautioned
on the Recovery Team. A list         audiences. The purpose of all          against extensive search activities
of team members is provided in       communication efforts is to            because they felt such activities
Appendix A of the Recovery Plan.     convey a consistent message            may disturb the species enough to
The Fish and Wildlife Service        regarding recovery efforts and         cause irreparable harm.
cooperates with all state wildlife   to facilitate those efforts through
agencies within the historical                                              Response 30
                                     public awareness and education.
range.                                                                      A balance of conducting a
                                     Comment 29                             thorough search and producing
The Wildlife Society managed         [Methods] One commenter stated         potential disturbance is difficult,
the peer review of the draft         that the recovery plan should be       especially when the birds are
plan. It was reviewed by             reorganized into tiers that include    difficult to locate. Searchers
seven independent reviewers          first confirming the species and       employed a variety of methods,
representing a variety of            implementing specific recovery         including imitation of double
backgrounds, including wildlife      actions only after the species’        knocks and audio playbacks.
biologists, avian ecologists,        presence is confirmed. Two             During 2 years of data collection
and environmental scientists.        commenters stated the recovery         we employed an occupancy model
The reviewers are employed           plan should provide criteria           survey designed to improve our
in academia, state or federal        for evaluating reported Ivory-         chances of detecting and drawing
government, and non-government       billed Woodpecker sightings            conclusions about this hard to
organizations. Additional review     and thresholds for determining         detect species. Search models
of recovery plan revisions can be    when federally-funded searches         used allowed for surveyors to
considered when needed.              should be stopped and the species      visit areas of recent reports of
                                     declared extinct.                      Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. This is
                                                                            explained in Appendix F.
Peer Review Comments                   This evidence is not universally       the Service’s priority should
and Responses                          accepted. While there continues        focus primarily on locating and
The Fish and Wildlife Service          to be disagreement as to the           confirming the existence of Ivory-
contracted with The Wildlife           validity of this and other reports,    billed Woodpecker.
Society to conduct a peer review       the Fish and Wildlife Service has
of the 2007 Draft Recovery             received sufficient information to     Response 3
Plan. Seven natural resource           warrant additional searches and        The Goals and Recovery Actions
professionals performed the            preparation of a recovery plan.        were recommended by the
independent review representing        The current version contains           Recovery Team. As much as
a variety of backgrounds,              additional discussion concerning       possible, these reflect a balance
including wildlife biologists, avian   the debate over evidence of the        adopted by the Fish and Wildlife
ecologists, and environmental          species in Appendix B.                 Service of habitat inventory and
scientists. The reviewers have                                                analysis, habitat conservation,
experience in or are employed          Comment 2                              search efforts, research, and
in academia, state or federal          One reviewer felt that the plan is     public engagement. These efforts
government, and non government         simplistic and does not sufficiently   all have federal, state, and non-
organizations. The seven               increase the probability of            government partners. Many of
individual reviewers made              recovery, while another reviewer       the initial actions are completed.
individual reports;a consensus         saw the plan as incomplete and         Some of the actions cannot be
report was not produced.               suggested that it be regarded as       characterized more specifically
Comments are grouped for               a first step of a work in progress.    now because information about
response, where appropriate.           Two recommended rejection of           the current locations and
                                       the plan as written.                   conservation needs of the species
Comment 1                                                                     is limited.
Three reviewers commented that         Response 2
the plan was a good summary            The Fish and Wildlife Service          Habitat guidelines for
of current information about           has produced this Recovery Plan        management of National Wildlife
the Ivory-billed Woodpecker,           with the assistance and input of a     Refuge lands have been adopted.
better than many other plans           large Recovery Team. Required          These guidelines serve as the
for poorly known species,              elements are included and              framework for conserving the
with well-expressed goals and          discussed in the amount of detail      habitat characteristics believed
objectives. Two reviewers              that current data and knowledge        to be needed for Ivory-billed
supported the current research         permit. Precision can only             Woodpeckers as well as many
direction. However, three              match what we know at this time.       other bottomland hardwood
reviewers expressed their              Appendices D and F have been           species.
dissatisfaction with the plan as       augmented to reflect additional
                                       historical information and current     Searches have been conducted
a whole, noting the Ivory-billed                                              throughout the historical range
Woodpecker’s debatable existence       research projects. Additional
                                       search data have been included.        in 2006-7, 2007-8, and 2008-9.
and subsequently questioning                                                  The locations searched by state
the drafting of a Recovery Plan        However, limited knowledge
                                       concerning this species constrains     groups reflect a combination of
and the spending of limited                                                   criteria, including likely old forest
resources on a species that may        the discussion of many aspects of
                                       recovery. The plan and current         habitat, recent reports, historical
or may not exist. Two reviewers                                               records, tree mortality, and
recommended additional                 management approaches can be
                                       modified as we locate individuals      patch size. The main focus for
discussion of the controversy over                                            the interim Recovery Actions is
the continued existence of the         and learn more about the current
                                       status of the species.                 locating and delineating Ivory-
Ivory-billed Woodpecker.                                                      billed Woodpecker populations.
Response 1                             Comment 3
                                       Reviewers suggested a number           Comment 4
Although the Ivory-billed                                                     Reviewers encouraged both
Woodpecker has been listed as an       of ways to strengthen the plan.
                                       Two reviewers felt that the            diversifying the recovery team
endangered species since 1967, no                                             to include more members outside
recovery plan was ever prepared        Service should ensure that the
                                       goals and recovery actions are         the federal agencies and utilizing
for the species. The Fish and                                                 the expertise of experts who are
Wildlife Service reconsidered          practical and concise and should
                                       be streamlined and combined into       knowledgeable about woodpecker
the need for a plan in 2005 when                                              management and avian population
information was released on the        fewer comprehensive, habitat-
                                       centered recovery actions that         viability.
presence of at least one bird in
the Bayou DeView area of Cache         are flexible enough to adapt           Response 4
River National Wildlife Refuge.        constantly and incorporate new         The Recovery Team included
Observers reported multiple            findings. Reviewers noted the          over 70 members representing
sightings and recorded audio and       need to develop measurable             a diverse set of scientists,
video of what was interpreted to       results or specific timeframes         managers, biologists, foresters,
be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.         to determine if goals have been        and technical experts. A full
                                       met. One reviewer felt that
list of members can be found            and implementing captive              photographs, and videos, are
at        breeding, and/or translocation        subject to intense scrutiny by
recoveryteam.html                       of individuals. Two reviewers         the recovery team and the Fish
                                        thought that chain-of-custody,        and Wildlife Service. Analyses
Comment 5                               evidentiary, and interview (of        and vigorous discussions take
Data used should reference              people reporting encounters)          place in the birdwatching and
other sources to reduce reliance        protocols were very important;        ornithological communities of
on Tanner’s data, as he studied         one reviewer emphasized rapid-        any information regarding this
a small, isolated, and stressed         response, emergency protection        species. Any new photographs
Ivory-billed Woodpecker                 of roost trees and other sensitive    submitted to the recovery team
population almost 70 years ago.         sites. It was noted that adequate     will be subjected to forensic
Six reviewers were particularly         statistical reliability should be     analysis for potential fraud.
concerned about the validity            assured for all protocols.
of his data on Ivory-billed                                                   The action plan, found in
Woodpecker tree preference              Response 7                            Appendix G of the recovery plan,
and his predictions of maximum          The USGS Cooperative Research         outlines the potential protective
population densities.                   Unit at the University of Georgia     measures to be taken if an Ivory-
                                        and University of Georgia             billed Woodpecker roost cavity or
Response 5                              professors and graduate students      nest is located. Initial efforts on
This is a valuable and valid            developed a protocol for the          the Cache River National Wildlife
comment. However, Tanner’s              region-wide search for the Ivory-     Refuge (location of the Luneau
publication is the major reference      billed Woodpecker. This survey        video) included a limited access
concerning the ecology and life         design and field protocol for the     area managed via permit. No
history of this species. Reliance       Ivory-billed Woodpecker search        extensive closures were deemed
on this publication is, of necessity,   effort was aimed at collecting data   necessary. Normal uses of the
evident in the recovery plan.           that would: (1) allow estimation      refuge continued. Protective
Caveats have been added                 of occupancy, use, and detection      measures will be applied as the
concerning Tanner’s data, and           probability for habitats at two       situation requires.
recommendations have been               spatial scales within its former
added to this version of the plan       range, (2) assess relationships       Comment 8
in response to these concerns.          between occupancy, use, and           Reviewers questioned the
                                        habitat characteristics at those      proposed recovery date of
Comment 6                                                                     2075, noting that there was no
It was noted that some references       scales, (3) allow the development
                                        of a population viability model       explanation why that particular
mentioned in the text were not                                                date was chosen. Some reviewers
included in the literature cited.       that depends on patch occupancy
                                        instead of difficult-to-measure       suggested not choosing a
Also, five reviewers pointed out                                              target recovery date until more
that relevant literature that           demographic parameters, and (4)
                                        be adaptive, updating the above       information has been gathered
has been published since plan                                                 and the plan is revised to reflect
development began should be             models and search locations with
                                        newly collected information.          the additional information.
incorporated and cited in the                                                 One reviewer requested an
draft plan. Additionally, one           Several years of data were
                                        collected in different locations      explanation of the recovery
reviewer pointed out that there is                                            number.
redundant historical information.       using this protocol. The lack of
                                        indisputable positive detections      Response 8
Response 6                              hampered a full interpretation        The recovery date is a common
The plan has been edited                of the data. However, any new         feature of recovery plans and
and revised to include new              locations of possible populations     provides a goal that guides
information and delete redundant        will have this sampling               recovery efforts, but it is not
sections,as appropriate. Recent         protocol applied in order to          required. In response to this
or new publications are cited,          draw scientifically supportable       comment and the current lack of
providing a response to this            conclusions about occupancy.          additional information to evaluate
comment.                                                                      the usefulness or accuracy of a
                                        Copies of search protocols and
Comment 7                               methodologies, a rating system of     recovery date for the Ivory-billed
Five reviewers suggested that           sighting reports, and action plans    Woodpecker it has been deleted.
protocols be developed (or              are included in Appendix F of the     The recovery priority number has
provided in the plan, if already        Recovery Plan.                        been given additional explanation
developed) for surveying Ivory-                                               in this version of the recovery
billed Woodpecker populations           Chain of custody protocols are        plan.
including methods for sampling          included in the action plan found
                                        in the appendices of the Recovery     Comment 9
distribution, abundance,                                                      Five reviewers mentioned the
population size, density, and           Plan. It is worth noting that
                                        any evidence of Ivory-billed          need to expand the search area
habitat use. Three recommended                                                and include in the plan more
developing protocols for                Woodpeckers, including sighting
                                        reports, sound recordings,            information about sightings and

possible remnant populations in        Response 11                            preferences of the Ivory-billed
Florida, southern Louisiana, and       In 2003, the Lower Mississippi         Woodpecker.
Cuba.                                  Joint Venture Forest Resource
                                       Conservation Working Group             The practice of retaining dead
Response 9                             specifically started to address        and dying wood is not viewed as
Search areas have included             issues related to the management       negatively as it was in the past.
habitat throughout the species’        of the forest resources within         Some public land managers are
historical range in the U.S. This      the Mississippi Alluvial Valley.       experimenting with ways to
information is included in the         Management issues of concern           provide more dead and dying
current version of the plan, as        included management of                 wood following some of Tanner’s
well as additional information         existing bottomland hardwood           suggestions. The amount of
on sightings and historical            forest resources, reforestation        recently dead and dying wood
information. The recovery              of agricultural lands, and             that should be provided for the
strategy contained in this             inventory and monitoring of            Ivory-billed Woodpecker is still
recovery plan pertains only to         all these resources. Instead           unclear and may vary among
the population of Ivory-billed         of placing restrictions on             forest types.
Woodpeckers in the United States,      individual silvicultural practices,
but it could also be applied to                                               Sweetgum and Nuttall oak were
                                       recommendations target defining        two species clearly favored
recovery efforts for the Cuban         certain habitat characteristics
population. The U. S. Fish and                                                by Ivory-billed Woodpeckers
                                       that are necessary to meet the         in Tanner’s study. Increasing
Wildlife Service and its partners      annual requirements of the
recognize the need to develop                                                 the amount of sweetgum and
                                       multitude of wildlife species          Nuttall oak in future forests can
cooperation at the international       dependent on these forest
level to address conservation of                                              be a goal in appropriate forest
                                       resources. How forest managers         management prescriptions.
the species across its entire range,   achieve and maintain these
but currently this is not feasible                                            Both of these tree species need
                                       habitat characteristics is             openings of several acres to
for legal and diplomatic reasons.      determined by the individual           regenerate successfully and to
Comment 10                             situation. Objectives are set at       produce large diameter trees.
One reviewer commented on the          the landscape level, and guidance      There is growing recognition that
issue of size comparison between       is provided for how to achieve         sweet gum can play an important
the Pileated Woodpecker and the        these objectives at the stand level.   role in establishing healthy red
Ivory-billed Woodpecker.               Current forest management              oak stands that in the future will
                                       practices affecting Ivory-billed       dominate the mature forest. It
Response 10                                                                   must be noted that it is possible
This statement has been clarified      Woodpecker habitat in the
                                       Mississippi Alluvial Valley have       the apparent preference for these
in the current version of the                                                 trees in Tanner’s study area could
recovery plan.                         been examined in the context
                                       of maintaining sustainable             have been due to their greater
Comment 11                             landscapes capable of supporting       susceptibility to gradual decline
Four reviewers suggested               desired forest conditions              after an extended drought and
expanding the discussion of            for a variety of important             subsequent fire that occurred
necessary changes in forest            species. Recommendations               about ten years prior to Tanner’s
management to include which            have been published by the             study. A photograph documenting
current practices should change        Lower Mississippi Valley               an Ivory-billed Woodpecker on
and which new practices should         Joint Venture (LMVJV Forest            a pine tree in Florida suggests
be implemented. Stressing the          Resource Conservation Working          some variety of preference in
use of multiple data sources           Group 2007). The publication           trees; the species’ reliance on pine
in decision-making, they also          Restoration, Management and            in Cuba is well known.
pressed for clarification of           Monitoring of Forest Resources         Important as favoring sweetgum
habitat management goals as            in the Mississippi Alluvial            and Nuttall oak may be,
well as specification regarding        Valley: Recommendations for            management’s larger aim will be
the size and species of trees that     Enhancing Wildlife Habitat has         to produce older forest conditions
are prime habitat for the Ivory-       guidelines which will benefit          with adequate dead and dying
billed Woodpecker. Additionally,       the full suite of bottomland           trees over large enough acreages
three reviewers suggested that         species, including the Ivory-          to allow a more sustainable,
there was not a good connection        billed Woodpecker. Application         functioning forest ecosystem.
between loss of food resources         of these recommendations forms         Gaps created from dying trees or
and endangerment of the Ivory-         the backbone of our approach           management practices will allow
billed Woodpecker. Two pointed         to the conservation of potential       development of a diverse forest
out that there is no strong            Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat.       structure and provide conditions
evidence of niche specialization,      However, additional adaptive           for the regeneration necessary for
such as dependence on                  change may be required as more         a resilient ecosystem.
Cerembycid larvae as a primary         is learned about the habitat
food source.

Tanner’s description of food         reduces fragmentation by              already or will be available in
habits remains the most              enlarging blocks of bottomland        scientific journals. “A Stochastic
complete documentation of            hardwood and providing                Population Viability Analysis for
diet. On the basis of anecdotal      wildlife corridors between            Rare Large-bodied Woodpeckers,
observations and the examination     areas of suitable habitat.            with Implications for the Ivory-
of the stomach contents of eight     These acquisitions and all our        billed Woodpecker” by Mattson,
collected birds, large beetle        restoration programs benefit          et al. applied a stochastic,
larvae appear to be an important     waterfowl, songbirds, bear, deer,     stage-based, single-population
component of the diet. Members       turkey, and a host of priority        model to available demographic
of the long-horned beetle family,    species. The landscape goals for      rates for Dryocopus and
Cerambycidae, were noted in          these habitats coincide with what     Campephilus woodpeckers. This
the stomach of Ivory-billed          we interpret as good management       study evaluated the combined
Woodpecker several times, but        of the ecosystem. Any additional      importance of initial population
many other species of wood-          land acquisitions would be            size and demographic rates for
boring beetle larvae have also       evaluated for their benefit to an     the persistence of large-bodied
been documented. The diet            identified area used by an Ivory-     woodpeckers. Matson et al.’s
also included various nuts such      billed Woodpecker as a potential      model suggests that these species
as pecans and acorn as well          foraging, nest, or roost site.        can persist as rare (as few as 5
as fruits, including hackberry,                                            females), and thus difficult-to-
persimmon, wild grape, poison        Comment 13                            detect, populations provided they
ivy and possibly swamp tupelo.       Three reviewers noted that the        maintain ≥ 1.1 recruited females
Due to the paucity of data on        lack of previous captive breeding     annually per adult female and an
food items actually consumed         and reintroduction programs for       annual adult survival rate ≥ 0.8.
by the Ivory-billed Woodpecker,      large woodpeckers is a critical
limited conclusions can be           data gap and encouraged further       Noel, et al. entitle their study
drawn concerning preferences.        exploration of an experimental        “Pileated Woodpecker Nesting
Current research with Pileated       captive breeding program.             Ecology in the Big Woods of
Woodpeckers may shed additional                                            Arkansas.” Their preliminary
                                     Response 13                           findings on large woodpecker
light on this issue. This            Knowledge and capabilities for
discussion is found in Section G,                                          ecology in bottomland hardwood
                                     captive breeding, are poorly          habitats, using Pileated
Management Considerations.           understood for this species.          Woodpeckers as a model
The current version of the           Significant work with surrogate       species, suggest that certain
recovery plan explores direct        species, such as the Magellanic       characteristics of nest trees,
killing as a cause of the Ivory-     Woodpecker may be needed.             cavity trees, and forage trees
billed Woodpecker decline and        This effort would take some           selected by large woodpeckers
endangerment. Please see             time since there is currently no      were different between the
responses to public comments 15      person or institution engaged         lower and higher bottomland
and 16 for additional information.   in the captive breeding of large      habitats. The fact that adults
                                     woodpeckers. At this time, no         exhibited smaller home-ranges
Comment 12                           appropriate source population         than reported in the literature
One reviewer encouraged caution      of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers is        suggests that the species’
in acquiring land solely on the      available to consider for capture     currently occupied habitats
assumption that the Ivory-billed     and breeding.                         are rich in food resources. The
Woodpecker is present.                                                     authors also documented nest
                                     Comment 14
Response 12                          Additional research topics were       depredation on the Pileated
The State of Arkansas was            suggested, including roost tree       Woodpeckers studied.
awarded Recovery Land                availability, surrogate studies on    Newell and King’s paper, “The
Acquisition Funds in 2005            Pileated Woodpecker ecology,          Ecology of Pileated Woodpecker
to purchase lands in the Big         the effects of climate change on      Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging
Woods area. In 2005, 2006, and       the Ivory-billed Woodpecker,          and Saproxylic Beetles in Partial
2007 priority land acquisitions      and hydrological changes or           Cut and Uncut Bottomland
were completed for the Cache         stress effects. Two reviewers         Hardwood Forests,”studies
River National Wildlife Refuge.      recommended a retrospective           relative abundance and species
National Wildlife Refuge land        population viability analysis to      richness of saproxylic beetles and
acquisitions were planned before     ascertain the possible effects of a   nesting, roosting, and foraging
the 2005 announcement of the         genetic bottleneck.                   ecology of Pileated Woodpeckers
Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s                                                  in recent partial cuts and uncut
rediscovery, and according to        Response 14
                                     The current version of the            forest during 2006 and 2007.
system and regional priorities,                                            This study provides a wealth of
the focus on the Ivory-billed        recovery plan contains abstracts
                                     of current and completed              information concerning nesting,
Woodpecker helped to accelerate                                            roosting and feeding preferences.
the additions to the refuge.         research projects (Appendix
Additional suitable habitat          D). These have been published

Preferred tree species and            Palmer Drought Severity Index)
sizes, as well as food items are      and river stage. Future portions
documented.                           of the study include quantifying
                                      fine scale hydrology (surface and
 Hamel et al are continuing a         subsurface) in monitoring wells
study that is part of a bundled       across each geomorphic feature
project which includes a              and historical flooding regime at
primary study of attack rates of      water wells extrapolated from
Cerambycid beetles and other          nearby gauges.
wood boring insects as potential
prey organisms of Ivory-billed        Additional government studies
Woodpeckers, with a growing           that focus on the interactions
number of collateral projects         of hydrologic modification and
made possible by the initial          climate change not specifically
design. The primary study             concerned with Ivory-billed
addresses the concern that food       Woodpeckers may reveal
availability is a likely limiting     important information needed to
factor for the woodpecker. By a       manage Ivory-billed Woodpecker
carefully controlled experiment       habitat in the future. This
using randomly selected trees,        information can be analyzed and
Hamel et al. assess the response      incorporated into the plan as
of wood-boring insects producing      needed.
medium and large larvae to
four treatments involving
progressively greater wounds to
living trees.
“Spatial and Temporal Dynamics
of Tree Growth in Two Floodplain
Forests” is being studied by
Gee and King. Hydrologic and
geomorphic processes that
structure floodplain forests of the
Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley
(LMAV) have been altered at
the regional, landscape, and local
level. Levees, channelization, and
other flood control activities have
eliminated or altered overbank
and backwater flooding in much
of the historical floodplain, thus
affecting the delivery of water
and nutrient-rich sediments.
These flood control activities also
have altered river stage which can
affect the water table at a variety
of spatial and temporal scales.
This study aims to quantify
hydrologic and geomorphic
processes within and among
floodplains and to determine their
influence on forest community
composition and tree growth. The
study area is located in National
Wildlife Refuges (NWR) and
Wildlife Management Areas
in the LMAV Study sites are
uneven-aged forests selected
along a flooding gradient and
stratified by geomorphic feature
(ridge, swale, and flat). A time-
series analysis was used to
compare tree growth with climate
(temperature, precipitation, and


To top