I

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Recovery Plan for the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

(Campephilus principalis)
II

Recovery Plan for the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis)

April, 2010

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Southeast Region

Atlanta, Georgia

 Approved: 

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

 Date: 
III

Notice of Copyrighted Material

Permission to use copyrighted 

illustrations and images in the 

final version of this recovery plan 

has been granted by the copyright 

holders. These illustrations 

are not placed in the public 

domain by their appearance 

herein. They cannot be copied or 

otherwise reproduced, except in 

their printed context within this 

document, without the consent of 

the copyright holder.

Literature Citation Should Read 

as Follows:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

200x. Recovery Plan for the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

(Campephilus principalis). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Atlanta, Georgia. 156 pp.

Additional copies of this Recovery 

Plan are available on the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service web 

site at: http://endangered.fws.

gov/RECOVERY/RECPLANS/

Index.htm

Common names for birds are in 

accordance with the American 

Ornithologists’ Union (American 

Ornithologists’ Union 1983). 

Scientific names of species in the 

text are found in Appendix G.

Cover Illustration Credit: 

A male Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

at a nest hole. (Photo by Arthur 

Allen, 1935/Copyright Cornell 

Lab of Ornithology.)

Disclaimer

Recovery Plans delineate 

reasonable actions that are 

believed to be required to 

recover and/or protect listed 

species. Plans published by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) are sometimes 

prepared with the assistance 

of recovery teams, contractors, 

state agencies, and other affected 

and interested parties. Plans 

are reviewed by the public and 

submitted for additional peer 

review before the Service adopts 

them. Objectives will be attained 

and any necessary funds made 

available subject to budgetary 

and other constraints affecting 

the parties involved, as well as the 

need to address other priorities. 

Recovery plans do not obligate 

other parties to undertake specific 

tasks and may not represent the 

views nor the official positions 

or approval of any individuals or 

agencies involved in developing 

the plan, other than the Service. 

Recovery plans represent the 

official position of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, only after 

they have been signed by the 

Regional Director or Director as 

approved. Approved recovery 

plans are subject to modification 

as dictated by new findings, 

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.
IV

Although the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker has been listed as an 

endangered species since 1967, no 

recovery plan was ever prepared 

for the species. 

Perspectives with regard to 

the need for a plan changed 

dramatically when substantial and 

compelling evidence suggesting 

the presence of at least one 

bird in the Bayou DeView 

area of Cache River National 

Wildlife Refuge was announced 

in April 2005. Primary needs 

for recovering the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker were to learn more 

about the bird’s occurrence, to 

locate birds, and to determine 

how to improve conditions for 

long-term recovery.

As might be imagined about such 

a charismatic species, there was 

widespread interest in assisting 

with Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

recovery. A team of more than 60 

technical experts, scientists, and 

managers was identified. This 

list eventually grew to nearly 80 

people. A list of team members 

is provided in Appendix A. All 

members are acknowledged for 

their expertise and commitment 

to the recovery planning effort.

The Nature Conservancy of 

Arkansas, the Cornell Laboratory 

of Ornithology, the Arkansas 

Game and Fish Commission, 

the Arkansas Natural Heritage 

Foundation, and Audubon 

Arkansas contributed greatly 

during the initial stages of the 

search and recovery effort 

and as the plan began to take 

shape. Especially instrumental 

in preparing the plan were 

Scott Henderson and David 

Goad, Arkansas Game and 

Fish Commission; Tom Foti, 

Arkansas Natural Heritage 

Commission; Robert Cooper, 

University of Georgia; Kenneth 

Rosenberg, Cornell Laboratory of 

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, 

Acknowledgments Ralph Costa, Chuck Hunter, Erin 

Rivenbark, Laurie Fenwood, and 

Robert V. Smith made substantial 

contributions.

Charles Baxter and Bill Uihlein 

of the Lower Mississippi Valley 

Joint Venture Office and their 

interagency partners at the 

USGS National Wetlands 

Research Center in Lafayette, 

Louisiana, contributed many 

technical aspects of the plan.

The following individuals provided 

summaries of information on 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in 

their respective state: Dwight 

Cooley, Alabama; Mike Harris, 

Georgia; Cliff Shackelford, 

Texas; Richard Hines, Kentucky; 

Catherine Rideout, Arkansas; 

Laurel Barnhill, South Carolina; 

Erik Baca, Louisiana; Karl Miller, 

Florida; Nick Winstead and Paul 

Hamel, Mississippi; and Bob Ford 

and Scott Somershoe, Tennessee.

The hard work and dedication 

of those mentioned above, as 

well as the Recovery Team 

members listed in Appendix A, 

are gratefully acknowledged. The 

Recovery Plan is much better 

for the involvement and critical 

thinking of this talented group 

of people. The thoughtful peer 

review of 7 scientists, led by The 

Wildlife Society, was essential in 

making the final recovery plan a 

better document.

Importantly, the work of James 

Tanner must be acknowledged 

as the basis of much of what 

we currently understand about 

this magnificent bird. His early 

contributions to the conservation 

of the species through scientific 

field work allowed us a window 

into the life history and habitat 

of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

We stand on his shoulders and 

gratefully acknowledge his 

contributions.
V

Current Status

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

(Campephilus principalis) 

belongs to a genus composed 

of 11 species of woodpeckers 

inhabiting the Western 

Hemisphere— primarily Central 

and South America. Two forms 

of Ivory-billed Woodpecker have 

been recognized (American 

Ornithologists’ Union 1983): the 

North American form with a 

historical range covering most 

of the southeastern and a small 

portion of south-central United 

States (Figure 1) and the Cuban 

form with a historical range 

throughout Cuba. The Ivorybilled Woodpecker was listed as 

endangered throughout its range 

on March 11, 1967, (32 FR 4001) 

and June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495). 

Information on the status of the 

population is limited, and current 

population size and distribution is 

not known. In 2005, information 

was released on the presence of at 

least one Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

in Central Arkansas (Fitzpatrick 

et al. 2005, see Appendix B). 

Additionally, the existence of 

potential habitat and numerous 

reports from credible sources 

of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

in recent decades provided 

motivation to carry out surveys 

for the species throughout its 

range. Searches have taken 

place in Texas, Arkansas, 

Louisiana, western Tennessee, 

Mississippi, southern Illinois, 

Georgia, South Carolina, North 

Carolina, and Florida. While 

suggestive evidence has been 

found in several states, no clear, 

conclusive photograph or video 

has been made as of the date of 

this writing. State, Federal and 

private partners will continue to 

search for evidence of the species’ 

presence (e.g., sightings, nest 

cavities) in order to document 

an active nest or roost when 

sufficient additional evidence 

warrants such a response. The 

species may also persist in a few 

locations in Cuba (Garrido and 

Kirkconnell 2000; Kirkconnell, 

pers. comm.).

No critical habitat has been 

designated for this species, and 

none is required due to the date 

of listing. The Recovery Priority 

Executive Summary Number for the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker is 5, indicating a high 

degree of threat and low recovery 

potential for this species (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). 

When additional compelling 

evidence exists of a nest or roost, 

or there are repeated sightings 

of birds, the actions described in 

the recovery plan will provide the 

initial guidance for conservation 

of the species.

Habitat Requirements

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

was historically described as 

a resident of large, contiguous 

forests with numerous large 

trees. A significant portion of the 

forest must also be in some stage 

of decay, providing a continuous 

supply of food (Jackson 2002).

Bottomland hardwood forests are 

frequently noted as important 

(Jackson 2002, Tanner 1942). It 

is unclear if this view is biased 

by the scant information on 

habitat use having been gathered 

near the end of a long period 

of population decline. Habitats 

occupied at the time most of the 

studies occurred may not have 

been typical or preferred by 

the species. Rather, the habitat 

may have been occupied simply 

because it was the last suitable 

habitat available.

In Florida, bald cypress was 

noted as an important component 

of the forest used by Ivorybilled Woodpeckers, especially 

in conjunction with an adjacent 

pine forest (Jackson 2002). On 

the Singer Tract near Tensas 

in northeastern Louisiana, 

Tanner (1942) documented use in 

higher parts of “first bottoms,” 

bottomland forests infrequently 

flooded and forested primarily 

with species such as Nuttall 

oak (Quercus texana Buckley 

[syn., Q. nuttallii]), sweetgum 

(Liquidambar styraciflua), 

and green ash (Fraxinus 

pennsylvanica). Tanner also 

observed that habitat used by 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers was 

also highly favored by other 

species of woodpeckers, a high 

density of other woodpecker 

species being indicative of good 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat.
VI

Habitat requirements likely 

vary seasonally and with habitat 

conditions, population density, 

food resources, and other factors. 

None of these influencing factors 

is understood for this species. It 

is clear, however, that the Ivorybill requires large tracts of forest 

for foraging and trees large 

enough for nesting and roosting.

Limiting Factors

Two main reasons for the 

precipitous decrease in Ivorybilled Woodpecker numbers have 

been proposed. Throughout 

the species’ range, beginning in 

the early 1800s, there has been 

a reduction in suitable habitat 

and potentially a direct impact 

on suitable nest trees as well as 

an indirect destruction of their 

food source due to large scale 

logging and conversion of forest 

habitats (Jackson 2002). During 

this period settlement, logging 

roads, and slash fires improved 

access for hunters, trappers, and 

commercial collectors, increasing 

the potential for lethal contact. 

Rather than habitat loss, the 

direct killing of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers could have been the 

primary cause for their decline 

(Snyder 2007). Other factors 

such as disease or non-human 

predation are not documented by 

Tanner or Jackson as important 

causes. 

Essential features of Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker habitat include: 

extensive, continuous forest 

areas, very large trees, and 

agents of tree mortality resulting 

in a continuous supply of recently 

dead trees or large dead branches 

in mature trees (Jackson 2002). 

According to Tanner (1942), “In 

many cases [the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker’s] disappearance 

almost coincided with logging 

operations. In others, there was 

no close correlation, but there 

are no records of Ivory-billed 

inhabiting areas for any length 

of time after those have been cut 

over.” Snyder (2007) argues that 

the close correlation between 

timber harvesting activities and 

the decline of the Ivory-bill may 

reflect an increased exposure to 

poaching and collecting rather 

than food limitation in loggedover forests. Nevertheless, it 

stands to reason that the Ivorybilled Woodpecker, as one of 

the largest picids, may have 

particular food demands that 

are only met in large tracts of 

mature forest during at least 

part of its life cycle. Specific to 

the Singer Tract, before largescale logging had commenced, 

Tanner (1942) also commented 

that the reduced occurrence of 

recently dead and dying wood was 

probably responsible for declines 

of woodpeckers there. He notes 

that their overall population 

loss throughout the southeast is 

probably not directly caused by 

hunting.

Habitat loss has probably affected 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

since the original cutting of 

virgin forest. Some losses were 

probably gradual while other 

losses occurred very rapidly. 

Tanner (1942) reported that by 

the 1930s only isolated remnants 

of the original southern forest 

remained. Forest loss continued 

with another period of accelerated 

clearing and conversion to 

agriculture of bottomland 

hardwood forests of the Lower 

Mississippi Valley during the 

1960s and 1970s. The combined 

effect of those losses has resulted 

in reduction and fragmentation 

of the remaining forested lands. 

The conversion rate of forest to 

agricultural lands has reversed 

in the past few years. Currently, 

many public and private agencies 

are working to protect and 

restore forest habitat; however, 

it may be many years before 

these restored forests mature 

and are capable of providing 

ideal habitat for the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker. Therefore, until 

more is learned about the Ivorybilled Woodpecker’s habitat 

requirements, the extensive 

habitat loss and fragmentation 

and the lack of information on 

specific habitat requirements 

remain a primary threat to this 

species.

Historical records indicate 

that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

(bills and the plumage) were 

collected and used for various 

purposes by Native and colonial 

Americans. Collection of Ivorybills for scientific purposes has 

been documented since the 1800s. 

Jackson (2002) presented data 

indicating that such collecting 

resulted in the taking of over 400 

specimens, mostly between 1880 

and 1910. By itself, collecting 

or hunting may not have caused 

the widespread decline of 

Ivory-bill numbers. However, 

collecting in combination with 

the concurrent habitat loss 

likely hastened the decline of 

the species. Local populations 

could have been extirpated 

by collecting. For example, 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are 

believed to have been reduced 

by excessive collecting, rather 

than as a result of the conversion 

of forest habitats in a small area 

of the Suwannee River region 

of Florida. In addition, Tanner 

(1942) indicated that many Ivorybilled Woodpeckers were killed 

merely to satisfy curiosity.

Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

populations appear to have 

been in a state of continuous 

fragmentation and decline since 

the early 1800s (Jackson 2002, 

Tanner 1942). Early accounts 

gave no accurate or definite 

estimates of abundance, but 

populations by the 1890s were 

probably not large and were 

limited to habitats subject to 

high tree mortality, e.g., areas 

that were regularly flooded or 

burned (Jackson 2002). The 

small population size and limited 

distribution of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker place this species, 

where it may occur, at risk from 

natural events and environmental 

factors.

Additionally, the exact number 

and genetic health of any 

remaining birds are unknown. 

In general, small populations 

are at risk from genetic and 

demographic stochastic events 

(such as normal variations in 

survival and mortality, genetic 

drift, inbreeding, predation, and 

disease). However, other species, 

such as the California Condor 

(Gymnogyps californianus) 

and the Seychelles Warbler 

(Acrocephalus sechellensis) 

(Komdeur 2002) have survived 
VII

narrow genetic bottlenecks. 

Mattson et al. (2008) applied a 

stochastic modeling approach 

to evaluate the potential for 

persistence under multiple 

scenarios for large, longer-lived 

woodpecker species. Their 

results support the determination 

that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

could also survive with a very 

small population size.

Though not a threat directly 

related to a species’ biology or life 

history, the inability to identify or 

delineate a population to obtain 

basic life history information can 

greatly limit the recovery of that 

species. Difficulty in confirming 

and delineating populations 

and the limited basic biological 

and ecological information on 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is 

therefore another primary factor 

that currently threatens our 

ability to recover the species.

Recovery Strategy

Our understanding of most 

aspects of the ecology and biology 

of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is 

limited. It has proven extremely 

difficult to locate or relocate 

individuals despite extensive 

survey efforts. Much of what 

is known is derived from the 

studies by James Tanner (1942) 

on one small population and 

his rangewide evaluation of 

reports and habitat availability. 

Other information comes from 

knowledge of other Campephilus 

species, woodpeckers in general, 

interpretations of photographs, 

and anecdotes gathered by other 

observers. The current strategy 

must focus first on locating 

and confirming the presence of 

individuals. Then we can add to 

our knowledge about the ecology 

and biology of the species once a 

population is identified, providing 

a feasible approach to habitat 

protection, given its potential 

presence.

Our poor understanding of the 

species has largely directed 

the recovery strategy to one of 

learning more about the species 

status and ecology, rather than 

undertaking specific habitat 

management actions. Habitat 

management and land protection 

efforts are important, but the 

major focus is learning more 

about where the birds may 

persist, then examining those 

habitats to reveal ways in which 

specific conservation actions 

could be developed. Many of the 

potential recovery actions will be 

made only where a nest or roost 

is located or where there are new 

multiple sightings, video, physical 

evidence, or a photograph of a 

bird.

Spatially explicit, objective, and 

measurable population goals have 

not been identified. However, 

those goals are recognized as 

a key part of future recovery 

efforts. Habitat modeling and 

other analysis tools have been 

completed for Arkansas and other 

parts of the species’ range. These 

models inform search efforts and 

broadly identify potential areas 

for conservation. Population 

modeling has provided an 

indication that the persistence of 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in 

low numbers throughout its range 

is possible (Mattson et al 2008). 

These efforts will help inform 

the development of spatially 

explicit, objective and measurable 

population and habitat goals for 

future recovery plans. 

Recovery Goal

The goal of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker recovery program 

is to locate, protect and increase 

existing populations and 

associated habitat and recover the 

species to the point at which it can 

be downlisted from endangered to 

threatened status, and ultimately 

to remove it completely from 

the Federal list of threatened 

and endangered species when 

the protections provided by 

the Endangered Species Act 

are no longer necessary. This 

goal is consistent with current 

requirements for all listed 

species. 

Recovery Objectives

This recovery plan identifies 

many interim actions needed to 

achieve long-term viability for 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and 

accomplish these goals. Recovery 

of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

focuses on the following 

objectives: 

1. Identify and delineate any 

existing populations

2. Identify and reduce risks to 

any existing population, 

3. Protect and enhance suitable 

habitat once populations are 

identified, and;

4. Reduce or eliminate threats 

sufficiently to allow successful 

restoration of multiple 

populations when those 

populations are identified. 

The emphasis in this recovery 

plan of documenting and 

conserving viable populations 

in the historical range is based 

upon two widely recognized and 

scientifically accepted goals for 

promoting viable populations 

of listed species. These goals 

are: (1) the creation of multiple 

populations so that a single or 

series of catastrophic events does 

not result in species extinction; 

and (2) the increase of population 

size to a level where the threats 

from genetic, demographic, 

and normal environmental 

uncertainties are diminished 

(Mangel and Tier 1994, National 

Research Council 1995, Tear et al. 

1995, Meffe and Carroll 1994). By 

maintaining population numbers 

and viable breeding populations 

at multiple sites, the species 

will have a greater likelihood of 

achieving long-term survival and 

recovery.

Recovery Criteria

At present, the limited 

knowledge on the population 

abundance, distribution, habitat 

requirements, and biology of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker prevents 

development of more specific 

recovery criteria. The following 

interim criteria will lead us to 

the development of more specific, 

quantifiable criteria that should 

be met before considering the 

delisting of this species: 

1. Potential habitats for any 

occurrences of the species are 

surveyed.

2. Current habitat use and needs 

of any existing populations are 

determined.

3. Habitat on public land where 
VIII

Ivory-bills are located is 

conserved and enhanced. If 

needed, more acreage is added 

to public habitat inventory via 

land acquisition from willing 

sellers

4. Habitat on private lands is 

conserved and enhanced 

through the use of voluntary 

agreements (e.g., conservation 

easements, habitat 

conservation plans) and 

public outreach to facilitate 

appropriate management 

actions.

5. Viability of any existing 

populations (numbers, breeding 

success, population genetics, 

and ecology) is analyzed.

6. The number and geographic 

distribution of subpopulations 

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

7. Education and outreach on the 

conservation of the species 

8. Management of public use 

in areas where the species 

is known to occur to avoid 

possible adverse impacts from 

intense public use 

9. Management of rediscovered 

populations and forested 

habitats to aid recovery

Total Estimated Cost of Recovery 

The total estimated cost of 

recovering the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker is unknown at this 

time because of our limited 

knowledge concerning its 

occurrence, distribution, and 

long-term actions required. See 

Appendix C for recovery and 

other expenditures to the date of 

drafting the plan.
IX

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
X

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
XI

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
XII

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
1

I.	 Background

A.		Overview

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

(Campephilus principalis), once 

an inhabitant of forested habitats 

throughout the Southeastern 

United States and Cuba, was 

reduced to very low numbers 

by the early 20th Century 

(Tanner 1942). Little hope was 

held for its continued existence 

until compelling evidence of the 

species was obtained in 2004 and 

announced in 2005 (Fitzpatrick 

et al. 2005). Observers reported 

multiple sightings and recorded 

audio and video interpreted to 

be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

within a section of Bayou 

DeView, located in the Cache 

River National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) in east-central Arkansas. 

This evidence is not universally 

accepted (Sibley et al 2006). 

While there continues to be 

disagreement as to the validity 

of this and other reports, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service has 

received sufficient information 

to warrant additional searches 

and preparation of a recovery 

plan. Please see Appendix B for a 

discussion. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service 

recommend that the recovery 

strategy initially focus on 

completing surveys and studies 

to determine the species’ status, 

distribution, ecology, and habitat 

relationships. Results from 

these investigations will help us 

formulate specific conservation 

actions for the species throughout 

its range in the United States. 

Specific population goals 

are not identified, but they 

are acknowledged as key to 

recovery. Recent efforts included 

development of predictive 

habitat models and additional 

research that will generate 

spatially-explicit population goals 

in the future, as needed. The 

recovery strategy contained in 

this recovery plan pertains only 

to the population of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers in the United States 

but could be applied to recovery 

efforts for the Cuban population 

of Ivory-billed Woodpecker. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and its partners recognize the 

need to develop cooperation at 

the international level to address 

conservation of the species across 

its entire range (Thomas Barbour 

1923 from Jackson 2004).

B.		Species	Description	and	

Taxonomy

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

(Campephilus principalis) 

belongs to a genus composed of 11 

species of woodpeckers inhabiting 

the Western Hemisphere—

primarily Central and South 

America. Two forms of Ivorybilled Woodpecker have been 

recognized: the Continental 

subspecies, with a historical range 

covering most of the southeastern 

and a small portion of southcentral United States (Figure 1), 

and the Cuban subspecies with 

a historical range throughout 

Cuba. The Cuban form has been 

recognized by some authors to 

be a distinct species, C. bairdii 

(American Ornithologists’ Union 

1983; Fleischer et al. 2006) while 

others define the 2 forms as 

subspecies -- C. p. principalis 

and C. p. bairdii (e.g., Integrated 

Taxonomic Information System 

2008). 

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker is 

noted for its striking black-andwhite plumage; robust white, 

chisel-tipped bill; lemon-yellow 

eye; and pointed crest. Males 

are red from the nape to 

the top of their crest with 

black outlining the front 

of the crest. Females 

have a solid black crest 

which is somewhat more 

pointed and slightly 

recurved to point forward 

(Figure 2). 

The bases of the male’s red crest 

feathers are white and may allow 

a spot of white to be displayed 

on the side of the crest when the 

feathers are fully erect. This 

trait was illustrated by Wilson 

(1811) and shown on a specimen 

by Jackson (2004). Morphological 

data from live birds are lacking. 

The best estimates of size are 

from measurements given by 

John J. Audubon (although these 

lack locality, date, and other data) 

and ornithologists of the late 

19th Century, such as Robert 

Ridgway, who collected specimens 

(Ridgway 1914 from Tanner 

1942). Available information 

from such sources suggests the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker has an 

overall length of approximately 

48-51 centimeters (cm), an 

estimated wingspan of 76-80 cm, 

and a weight of 454-567 grams (g). 

These figures are based on values 

Figure 1. Male Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker perched (top) and 

Pileated Woodpecker perched 

(below). Heads of female Pileated 

Woodpecker (left) and female 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (right). 

Copyright by David Allen Sibley.
2

of “1 pound” and “20 ounces” 

given in the historical records. 

However, no clearly documented 

data are available (Jackson 2002). 

In comparison, the more common 

Pileated Woodpecker has an 

overall length of approximately 40-

48 cm and a weight of 250-355 g.

The most commonly described 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

vocalization is a nasal “kent” call 

resembling the sound obtained by 

blowing on the mouthpiece of a 

saxophone or clarinet. Audubon 

likened the sound to that of a toy 

trumpet. This call and variants 

of it seem to function as a contact 

call, a distress call, or as a call 

given during displays at the nest. 

Mnemonics for these calls have 

varied greatly, including such 

renditions as “kent,” “yent,” 

“yap,” and “kient.” The notes 

of these calls are often given 

singly, doubly, or in a series of 

three (a single note followed by a 

double note) such as “yent-yentyent” and were recorded at a 

nest in 1935 (Allen and Kellogg 

1937, Allen 1939). There is also 

a far-carrying call described as 

“kient-kient-kient” for which 

no recording exists. This farcarrying call, often used among 

group members in chorus prior 

to a long-distance flight, is 

reportedly the loudest contact call 

of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

and can be heard up to a quartermile away (Tanner 1942). Nonvocalized sounds made by the 

bird include a rapid, loud double 

knocking characteristic of most 

members of the genus. This 

“rapping” is often described as a 

“double rap” or “double knock” 

since it consists of two rapid 

knocks. Raps may also occur 

singly. When taking flight, the 

Ivory-bill has been described 

to have noisy wing-beats. In 

direct flight they are said to have 

a rapid wing-beat as well as a 

slender appearance, resembling a 

Northern Pintail (Tanner 1942).

C.		Status

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker was 

listed as endangered throughout 

its range on March 11, 1967, 

(32 FR 4001) and June 2, 1970 

(35 FR 8495). Information on 

the current status of the U.S. 

population is limited and has 

been debated for many years. 

Some authorities suspect the 

species might persist in a few 

locations in Cuba (Garrido and 

Kirkconnell 2000, Kirkconnell, 

pers. comm.). Potential 

population size and distribution 

are not known. Since the last 

commonly agreed upon sightings 

of the species in Louisiana in the 

1940s, there have been numerous 

reports of possible sightings 

and photographs as well as 

recordings of potential Ivorybilled Woodpecker vocalizations 

or double-knocks across the 

historical range of the species. 

These observations cannot be 

independently verified, but can be 

evaluated (Appendix E).

Compelling evidence of 

the species’ existence was 

obtained when the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker was reported in 

Arkansas and presented by 

Fitzpatrick et al. (2005). On 

February 11, 2004, kayaker 

Gene Sparling observed a large 

woodpecker with characteristics 

of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

 in Arkansas. The encounter 

 spurred an extensive search 

led by the Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology and the Arkansas 

Nature Conservancy. In 2004 

and 2005 observers reported 

multiple sightings and recorded 

audio and video interpreted to 

be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

within the same area as Sparling 

along Bayou DeView, located in 

the Cache River National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR) in east-central 

Arkansas. Interpretation of the 

video has been challenged by 

others (Jackson 2006, Sibley et al. 

2006). 

An alternative interpretation 

is that the recorded bird is a 

Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus 

pileatus). In rebuttal Fitzpatrick 

et al. (2006) provided additional 

analysis of the Arkansas video. 

An additional paper supporting 

Sibley et al. was published by 

Collinson (2007). Both Sibley 

et al. and Fitzpatrick et al. 

recognize that the identity of 

the woodpecker in question is 

not inherently obvious as either 

an Ivory-bill or a Pileated. 

Taking all information into 

consideration, the Service concurs 

with Fitzpatrick et al. (2006) 

that alternative explanations 

of the Luneau video are based 

on misinterpretations of video 

artifacts and faulty models 

of bird flight. Dispute in the 

ornithological community 

continues to the time of this 

writing. See Appendix B for 

additional detail.

Additional sightings and audio 

and video recordings from the 

search have suggested that the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker may still 

persist. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service accepted the initial 

evidence of the presence of one 

bird in the Cache River National 

Wildlife Refuge and on the 

Figure 2. Comparison of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (above) 

to the Pileated Woodpecker 

(below), both in flight. Copyright 

by David Allen Sibley.
3

basis of all available information 

believes that it is prudent to plan 

for the recovery of the species as 

part of our responsibilities under 

the ESA. Additionally, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, in response 

to the potential that the species 

may exist in isolated locations in 

its former range, initiated regionwide search efforts with state and 

non-government partners. Initial 

searches and actions, as well as 

any others deemed necessary in 

the future, are consistent with our 

interpretations of the evidence, 

our responsibilities under the 

ESA, and the urgency of the 

situation.

Many State, Federal and 

private partners will cooperate 

to continue searching for 

evidence of the species’ presence 

(e.g., sightings, nest cavities), 

promoting habitat protection and 

management, and supporting 

necessary research to conserve 

this species and the ecosystem 

upon which it depends. 

Additionally, we recognize that 

there will continue to be debate 

regarding the evidence. The 

Service recognizes and supports 

these exchanges of views on 

alternative interpretations as a 

part of the scientific process. 

Every federally listed species 

is assigned a Recovery Priority 

Number (RPN) on a scale of 1 

(indicating highest priority) to 18. 

The number assigned is based on 

first, the degree of threat to the 

entity (either high, moderate or 

low); second, the species’ potential 

for recovery (either high or 

low); and, last, the listed entity’s 

taxonomic level (either monotypic 

genus, species or subspecies) 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1983a, 1983b). This is an internal 

review process, with the final 

number representing a set of 

values that the biologist assigns 

each of the 3 factors described in 

the prior sentence. Until 2005, 

the RPN for the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker was 17 (indicating 

a low degree of threat and a 

low recovery potential for the 

species). We believe the more 

appropriate RPN for the Ivorybill is currently a 5 (indicating 

a high degree of threat and a 

low recovery potential for this 

species) which more accurately 

reflects the significant reduction 

in the species’ habitat and the 

general consensus over 60 years 

that it was near extinction (some 

think it is already extinct). 

Consequently, in November of 

2005, the Service changed the 

RPN to 5; this change was also 

based on the 2004 sightings 

reported in Arkansas and a 

reassessment of the degree 

of threat to the species (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). 

Specifically, an RPN of 5 means 

that a species’ extinction is almost 

certain in the immediate future 

because of rapid population 

decline or habitat destruction 

(high degree of threat), and that 

the biological and ecological 

limiting factors are poorly 

understood; the threats to the 

species’ existence are also poorly 

Figure 3. The Historical Range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker according to Tanner.
4

understood or pervasive and 

difficult to alleviate; intensive 

management is needed, but 

the probability of success is 

uncertain; or the techniques 

needed to recover the species are 

unknown or experimental (low 

recovery potential). No critical 

habitat has been designated for 

this species and none is required 

due to the date of listing.

Search results since the original 

Arkansas report for the species 

in each of the states within the 

historical range is summarized 

below. These data were obtained 

from the state and university yearend search reports provided to 

the Service. Analysis of historical 

state records or sightings is 

included in Appendix E.

2005-2006

Led by the Cornell Laboratory 

of Ornithology, The Nature 

Conservancy, and Audubon 

Arkansas, the 2005-2006 search 

season focused on the Big 

Woods area in eastern Arkansas. 

Twenty-two full-time searchers, 

armed with state-of the art 

audio and video monitoring 

devices, searched portions of a 

550,000-acre area including the 

Cache River NWR, White River 

NWR., Dagmar WMA, and other 

properties. The searchers were 

aided by volunteers who spent 

two weeks at a time searching the 

forest. Scientists from the Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology 

and researchers from several 

state and federal agencies have 

reviewed all evidence that was 

gathered during the previous 

winter’s search season, including 

potential sightings, thousands of 

hours of audio recordings, and 

examinations of tree cavities, 

and bark scalings. Although 

the search resulted in no better 

documentation than previous 

searches, four potential sightings 

based on a single field mark 

were documented, and additional 

acoustic evidence was gathered 

from both the Cache River NWR 

and White River NWR. While 

this suggests that Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers may be present in 

the Big Woods, the inability to 

relocate Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

casts doubt on whether there are 

breeding pairs in the Big Woods. 

In addition to Arkansas, state-led 

searches were conducted during 

the winter of 2005-2006 in South 

Carolina primarily at Congaree 

National Park, in Georgia at 

Okefenokee National Wildlife 

Refuge, and along the LouisianaMississippi border using ultralight 

aircraft over the Pearl River. 

Several other searches were 

undertaken because of recent 

possible encounters with Ivorybilled Woodpecker in other states 

within the species’ historical 

range. No conclusive evidence 

emerged from these efforts, but 

information has been gathered 

that can be used to guide further 

searches in these states. 

The most publicized search 

independent from state-led 

efforts was conducted in 

northwest Florida by Dr. Geoff 

Hill, Auburn University, and Dr. 

Daniel Mennill, University of 

Windsor, Ontario, Canada (Hill 

et al. 2006). Evidence to date is 

considered promising; however, 

the species’ presence has not been 

confirmed. 

2006-2007

Arkansas: 

Cornell reported 6,033 hours of 

searches covering about 11,075 

hectares. A robotic camera, 

developed by University of 

California Berkeley and Texas 

A&M University, was placed 

on Bayou DeView (powerline 

right-of-way between Stab and 

PawPaw lakes). One million 

images from 79 Reconyx ® 

camera deployments captured no 

potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

images.

The official search team logged 

24 (13 acoustic, 11 visual) possible 

encounters during the five-month 

field season, none definitive. 

Six of these encounters were 

reported by members of the 

public. This includes two visuals 

in the Wattensaw WMA from 

Ross Everett, a duck hunter 

(12/31/2006, 3/25/2007), and Allan 

Mueller, retired Field Supervisor 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

Arkansas Ecological Services 

(5/7/2007). Visual and acoustic 

encounters took place in both the 

Cache and White River National 

Wildlife Refuges as well. 

Florida: 

Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission staff 

and volunteers searched for the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the 

Apalachicola and Chipola River 

Basins from January through 

early June 2007. They covered 

23 2-square km search patches 

during an effort of approximately 

820 hours in the field using 33 

volunteers. There were no visual 

or audio detections of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers. 

The Auburn University Search 

Group spent five months of 

searching the forested wetlands 

along the Choctawhatchee River 

on the Florida panhandle. On 

seven occasions, searchers saw 

what they identified as Ivorybilled Woodpeckers. On 47 

occasions, searchers heard what 

they thought were kent calls 

or double knocks. Listening 

stations recorded 94 putative 

kent calls and 58 putative double 

knocks. These encounters 

provide additional evidence that 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers may 

persist in the forests along the 

Choctawhatchee River. 

A specific, reported encounter 

occurred on December 24, 2006, 

Tyler Hicks, an experienced 

birdwatcher, reported observing 

a female Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

perched on the trunk of a tree at 

a distance of 15 meters. Hicks 

stated he clearly saw a black 

crest, white dorsal stripes, an 

ivory-colored bill, and a large 

area of white across the lower 

portion of the folded wings of the 

bird. Hicks was drawn to the 

bird by kent calls, and two other 

observers heard kent calls and 

double knocks in the same area 

just prior to this sighting. 

South Carolina: 

Searching began on December 7, 

2006, and ended on May 13, 2007. 

The TNC Crew, Cornell Mobile 

Search Team, the National Park 

Service and volunteer searchers 

logged 4190 hours covering 

Congaree National Park and 

public areas within the Wambaw 

Creek and the Pee Dee River 

system. No definitive encounter 

with an Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

was documented. A total of 1.3 
5

million Reconyx® images were 

recorded. Analysis has provided 

images of only non-target 

woodpeckers, raptors, ducks, and 

mammals. Thirteen autonomous 

recording units were deployed, 

recording one kent call and 

three double knocks that were 

plausible signs of an Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker. 

The majority of the search effort 

occurred in Congaree National 

Park. Thirty-one volunteers 

were utilized in the search 

efforts. A total of 15 participants 

reported 29 acoustic encounters 

consisting of kent calls or double 

knocks. Six of these occurred on 

May 11, 2007. One participant 

described briefly seeing a large 

black and white woodpecker with 

characteristics consistent with 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker in flight 

(February 11, 2007). 

Tennessee: 

Possible visual and auditory 

encounters in January 2006 on 

federal and private land led to 

research into the presence of 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in 

Tennessee. In addition, a followup on records submitted to the 

Cornell Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

sighting database has added 

great interest to two focal search 

areas in west Tennessee. The 

Tennessee Wildlife Resources 

Agency personnel focused their 

search on Meeman-Shelby Forest 

State Park and Shelby Forest 

WMA abutting a heavily forested 

landscape and the Mississippi 

River. About 100 hours was spent 

in the field conducting transects, 

kayaking, and sitting, watching, 

and listening in areas of interest. 

One possible single rap was heard 

by two observers.

About 102 hours of additional 

effort were spent searching and 

cavity monitoring on the Hatchie 

River, the Lower Hatchie NWR, 

and Chickasaw NWR. One 

Reconyx® camera was deployed 

for 13 days on private land, 

recording approximately 108,000 

images. In the refuges, random 

GPS points on a 10 square chain 

spacing were assigned, then 

priority areas were searched. 

Cavity trees were monitored. In 

total, 46 transect days and 15 

days of sitting and watching were 

completed on Lower Hatchie 

NWR. The crew surveyed 3,560 

acres of federal land transects, 

2,010 acres at Chickasaw NWR 

and 1,550 acres at Lower Hatchie 

NWR. Possible encounters 

include single and double raps 

heard on January 8th and 9th, 

2007. 

Texas: 

Randomized patch surveys were 

completed in the Big Thicket 

National Preserve, Trinity River 

National Wildlife Refuge, and the 

adjacent Wallisville Lake Project. 

No encounters were recorded. 

Cornell Mobile Search Team: 

Total field effort was 469 persondays. A total distance of 3,566 km 

was covered by canoe or on foot 

during daylight hours. The four 

main study areas were Congaree 

National Park, SC (177 person 

days), Choctawhatchee River, 

FL (62 person days), Atchafalaya 

Basin, LA (51 person days) and 

the Apalachicola River basin, FL 

(40 person days). Another 10 

areas, including Ebenezer Creek, 

GA, Big Thicket, TX, Santee, 

Wateree, and PeeDee Rivers, 

SC, Pearl River, LA, Pascagoula 

River, MS, and the Appalachicola 

and Escambia Rivers, FL were 

searched, consuming 3 to 36 

person days each. No sightings 

of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

were made by the team, and no 

possible kent calls were heard. 

There were two incidents of 

possible double knocks heard by 

team members, on April 6th and 

10th in Congaree National Park.

2007-2008

Arkansas: 

The search team employed 6 

full time members. The crew 

imitated double knocks, deployed 

cameras, walked transects, and 

did stationary watches. Bayou 

DeView (Cache River National 

Wildlife Refuge) and the White 

River National Wildlife Refuge 

were surveyed. This effort 

totaled 852 hours of stationary 

watches and 31,521 acres of 

visits. No responses to the 

double knocks were noted and 

no sightings were made by team 

members. On January 27, 2008, 

3 sets of double knock sounds 

were heard on the White River 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

Six days of helicopter surveys in 

these same areas were completed 

in cooperation with the USDA 

Forest Service, The Nature 

Conservancy, Arkansas Game and 

Fish Commission, Cornell Lab 

of Ornithology, and the Arkansas 

Natural Heritage Commission. 

These flights covered 

approximately 152,877 acres. No 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were 

photographed. Woodpecker flush 

rates were very low in comparison 

with known numbers. Although 

the birds sighted during the flights 

could be readily identified and 

photographed, a helicopter survey 

seems unproductive as a method 

for documenting an Ivory-bill.

Florida: 

The Auburn search continued 

on the Choctawhatchee River. 

The search effort totaled 895 

hours (149 search days). During 

this season 3 sightings that the 

group considers credible were 

reported. All activity (earlier 

video, double knock recordings, 

sound detections, and sightings) 

occurred in clusters.

South Carolina: 

A total of 41 people participated 

in the 2007/2008 South Carolina 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker search 

from 26 November 2007 to 2 

May 2008. A four-person fulltime field crew, 36 volunteers, 

and a Student Conservation 

Association intern with Congaree 

National Park comprised the 

participants. The field crew 

searched a total of 1922.4 hours 

in Congaree National Park, the 

Francis Marion National Forest, 

and other areas of interest in the 

Lower Pee Dee and Little Pee 

Dee Basins. A total of 2.3 million 

Reconyx® camera images were 

obtained from the cameras during 

the search season, and review of 

these images for the presence of 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers yielded 

no positive images. A total of 

15 ARUs were deployed and 

analyzed by Cornell University. 

Of the 15 units deployed, 3 

returned a total of 4 double-knock 

detection events. No positive 

encounters were obtained during 

the search season. 
6

Tennessee: 

Observers were in the field from 

March through mid-May 2008, 

averaging 2-3 people in the field. 

There were 4 ARU deployments 

as well as Reconyx® cameras at 2 

locations. These recorded about 

150,000 images with no positive 

results. A total of about 1000 man 

hours were spent on searches. 

The Lower Hatchie and 3 WMAs 

were surveyed. Double knock 

sounds, kent calls, and brief 

encounters continued to make 

this area interesting.

Texas: 

Surveys were conducted in the 

Big Thicket National Preserve, 

the Trinity River NWR, and 

the Army Corps of Engineers 

Wallisville Lake Project, which 

is adjacent to the refuge on 

its southern boundary, and 

that contains 23,000 acres of 

unsurveyed bottomland forest 

and swamp. Conditions were 

moderately difficult due to forest 

damage from Hurricane Ike in 

mid September. These surveys 

will be concluded in March 

2009. One possible brief visual 

encounter was noted in June 2007 

at the Trinity River NWR, but no 

subsequent ones. 

Louisiana: 

Three sites in the Atchafalaya 

Basin and the Pearl River WMA 

were surveyed by helicopter. 

Approximately 646 miles of 

transects were completed in 

the period of January 28 to 

February 1, 2008. No Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers were sighted or 

photographed. Opportunity for 

use of helicopters is limited by 

time, funding, and availability. 

Large numbers of other species 

of woodpeckers flushed, and were 

easily identified in the canopy 

cover.

The 1200-ha study area in St. 

Mary Parish, Louisiana was 

searched during December 

through May. Cavity and 

foraging sign inventories were 

conducted. 120 vegetation plots 

were also surveyed during 

this time. A total of 309 large 

cavities in 155 trees were located 

and their entrance dimensions 

estimated. Large cavities were 

overwhelmingly in cypresses, 

the vast majority living trees. 

Double-knock “playback” 

series were performed with a 

mechanical device. No Ivory-bills 

were sighted. No clear doubleknocks were heard.

Illinois: 

During the January-March 

season 1160 hours were spent 

on field surveys. No conclusive 

evidence was obtained from 

search effort or Reconyx @ 

camera deployments. 

North Carolina: 

The state group led by Audubon 

North Carolina, continues 

to follow-up on any credible 

sightings in the state and is doing 

surveys in the Juniper Creek 

area. 

Cornell Mobile Search Team: 

Areas surveyed included the 

Atchafalaya, Pascagoula, and 

Mobile River Basins. The effort 

totaled 414 person days. 

Kentucky, Mississippi, and 

Georgia:

No searches were conducted in 

2007-2008.

2008-9

Arkansas

The search used 4 methods 

which included 3 full-time paid 

searchers, volunteer searchers, 

increased local participation, and 

remote cameras. The effort took 

place from December 2008-May 

2009 and was a partnership 

of the Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Audubon 

Arkansas, the Arkansas Natural 

Heritage Commission, and 

the Arkansas Game and Fish 

Commission under the leadership 

of The Nature Conservancy. The 

three person full-time search 

crew was in the field daily (except 

on rainy days) and focused their 

efforts on following up on leads, 

searching previously uncovered 

or poorly searched sites, and 

visiting “traditional” hot spots. 

No Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

were encountered.

Volunteer searches were 

designed around five Special 

Search Areas located in the 

White River National Wildlife 

Refuge – Maddox Bay, Mike 

Freeze/Wattensaw Wildlife 

Management Area, Cache River 

National Wildlife Refuge – Bayou 

DeView, Sheffield Nelson/Dagmar 

Wildlife Management Area, and 

White River National Wildlife 

Refuge - Prairie Lakes. Trained 

volunteers assigned to each area. 

A GPS unit was used to record 

IBWO encounters and cavities. 

Each volunteer had a high quality 

camera at all times, and used 

their own or boats supplied by 

Cornell and TNC. Untrained 

supplemental volunteers 

frequently assisted the trained 

volunteers. 

Despite significant field efforts in 

past years, local hunters, anglers, 

and other outdoor recreation 

participants spent more time 

in the field than Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker search groups. The 

previous $10,000 reward amount 

did not generate enthusiasm 

from local users. The reward was 

increased to $50,000 which greatly 

increased the number of reports 

and generated a new wave of 

press coverage and publicity. The 

local community was then alerted 

to the continued interest in the 

scientific community in the Ivorybilled Woodpeckers. Several 

reports from the public were 

of high enough quality that we 

directed our searches to the areas 

of their reports, but none resulted 

in any detections or additional 

evidence.

During this search season 

there was no paid, full-time 

remote camera person. Several 

experienced partners coordinated 

this effort. Seventeen cameras 

were deployed on potential 

cavities and feeding sign. No 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were 

recorded. 

Florida

A 23 mi 2

 (60 km2) area within the 

Choctawhatchee River Basin in 

Holmes, Washington, and Walton 

counties in Florida. This study 

site was limited to land owned 

by the Northwest Florida Water 

Management District within the 

Choctawhatchee River Basin. 

The main search areas included 

tributaries and distributaries 

Old Creek, Cypress Slough, 

Gum Creek, Yates Mill Creek, 
7

Carlisle Lakes, and Bruce Creek, 

and the East River Island area. 

Eastern and western boundaries 

of the study site were defined 

by Northwest Florida Wildlife 

Management District property. 

The search used a multistrata 

sampling design to search for 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers and 

all other bird species during the 

search season from January 

4, 2009 to May 1, 2009. To 

conform to the floodplain of 

the Choctawhatchee River, the 

study area was divided into 0.077 

mi 2

 (0.25-km2) grids. All bird 

species detected were noted 

using a checklist of species. 

Within each search grid we also 

repeatedly surveyed 100 sites 

using randomly placed point 

transects from January 4, 2009 

through February 25, 2009. Each 

point was surveyed using three 

consecutive 10-min point counts 

on two different days, totaling 

six counts. Technicians were 

ordered to immediately abandon 

point counts if they heard or 

saw anything that suggested an 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Each 

technician set and monitored 

three Reconyx ® cameras set to 

record time-lapse surveillance 

of cavities as well as seismically 

triggered targets. 

Seismically triggered 

configurations were used on large 

woodpecker foraging sign that is 

frequently found on dead trees. 

After morning point counts, while 

searching their assigned grid, 

each technician also searched 

for potential foraging sites and 

cavities. From February 26 to 

March 31, point counts were 

halted and remaining surveys 

were 0.77 mi2

 (2-km2) grids 

searches and Reconyx ® camera 

surveillance. 

The search team did not detect 

any Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

during search season. Zero 

sightings and sound detections 

were recorded. Although our 

seismically triggered cameras 

photographed many species of 

woodpecker, no ivorybill pictures 

were obtained. 

Seismically triggered cameras 

appear to be a low-cost approach 

to obtaining a photograph of an 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker. This 

method obtained numerous 

photographs of Pileated 

Woodpeckers, Red-bellied 

Woodpeckers, and Northern 

Flickers. These cameras are 

capable of monitoring a foraging 

site for over two months with 

no maintenance. The cameras 

must be set with the appropriate 

sensitivity. After a period 

of learning the appropriate 

settings, the average deployment 

of two weeks resulted in only 

about ten photographs of 

which approximately 30% were 

woodpeckers. This compares 

to a burdensome analysis of 

20,000 images from a three-day 

time lapse camera deployment. 

Images were in 3.1 megapixel 

color images were sufficient 

for clear identification of 

woodpeckers in images. 

Future searches could invest in 

Reconyx ® cameras with more 

reliable wireless seismic triggers. 

Such monitoring could be 

incorporated into any bottomland 

monitoring projects range wide 

at low cost compared to the cost 

of sustaining large scale search 

efforts. 

South Carolina

The Cornell Mobile Search 

Team (MST) crew arrived on 

March 23, 2009, and searched 

through March 25, 2009. During 

2009, searches were conducted 

within the Santee River Basin 

in the Francis Marion National 

Forest and adjacent areas along 

the lower Santee River; within 

the Congaree River Basin in 

Congaree National Park; within 

the Savannah River Basin in the 

Savannah River National Wildlife 

Refuge, and on small public and 

private lands locations along the 

lower Savannah River. A total of 

750 survey hours were dedicated 

to searches in these three main 

areas. Active transect surveys, 

double-knock (DK) trials at a total 

of 296 stations, and stationary 

watches of open vistas in high 

quality habitat, and observation 

of large cavities were conducted 

throughout each search area. 

Autonomous Recording Units 

(ARUs) and remote cameras 

were not deployed in South 

Carolina as part of the Ivorybilled Woodpecker 2009 search 

effort. On April 4th, a Pileated 

Woodpecker was observed 

performing a “double-knock” in 

Congaree National Park. The 

observer witnessed it through 

binoculars from a distance of 

about 30 yards. It did not appear 

that the bird was disrupted 

during the display. There 

were other calling Pileated 

Woodpeckers in the area. The 

double-knock was muffled but 

could be heard easily at a distance 

of about 30 yards. 

No Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

detections were made within the 

Santee River Basin, Congaree 

National Park, or the Savannah 

River Basin.

Tennessee

There was a reduced search effort 

in 2009. Two part-time, contract 

searchers performed 48 days 

of field work. Approximately 

80 field days from February 

through April 2009 were 

completed. Methods included 

sitting observation periods over 

a 5 section grid of the area. 

Searchers attempted to equally 

divide their effort across sections. 

No standardized searches for 

cavities were conducted and no 

Reconyx ® cameras or Autonomic 

Recording Units were deployed. 

Double knock simulations were 

Figure 4. James T. Tanner, 1935. 

Photo by Arthur Allen/Copyright 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology
8

conducted on several mornings. 

On two occasions, suspicious 

knocks resembling Campephilus

were encountered. Follow up 

searching did not yield additional 

evidence. 

The search group still feels 

confident that an as yet 

unidentified species of bird that 

makes Campephilus double 

knocks in isolation from other 

calls infrequently uses the area. 

In 2008, there appeared to be 

more regular use of the site than 

in 2009. 

Texas

A team of two field technicians 

began work in September 2008. 

Field work continued, using 

the habitat model protocols, 

through February 2009. 

Vegetation profiles, data entry, 

and organization of GIS data 

gathered during the full time field 

season have continued through 

2009. The Trinity River National 

Wildlife Refuge and two adjoining 

tracts will have been profiled.

Louisiana

The Pearl and Atchafalaya 

river basins in Louisiana 

represent our last large tracts 

of contiguous bottomland 

hardwood and cypress-tupelo 

swamps in Louisiana. The 

most detailed reported public 

sightings have come from areas 

in the Atchafalaya River and 

Pearl River basins, although an 

occasional report has come from 

areas around the confluence of the 

Mississippi, Red, and Atchafalaya. 

These reported sightings led 

to the interest in performing 

additional surveys of these areas 

for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Aerial Transects, spaced at 

1,500-ft intervals in parallel 

north/south lines, were surveyed 

over the Pearl River Wildlife 

Management Area, 2 sites in 

the Atchafalaya Basin, and in 

an area of the confluence of the 

Pearl, Mississippi, and Red River 

basins. Surveys were completed 

using a Bell Jet Ranger helicopter 

carrying 3 biologists and an 

experienced pilot. Numbers and 

species of all birds observed were 

recorded. Transect were flown 

at an altitude of 150 feet and at 

a speed of 40 knots. Observers 

focused their attention in forested 

habitats on a narrow swath no 

more than approximately 100 feet 

on either side of the helicopter. 

Approximately 900 miles of 

transects were flown in 2 areas 

of the Atchafalaya River Basin 

(Duck Lake, and Bayou Sorrel), 

one area in the Pearl River Basin 

(Pearl River Wildlife Management 

Area), 2 areas in Three Rivers 

Wildlife Management Area, and 

one area in Red River Wildlife 

Management Area. Flights were 

conducted January 28 through 

February 4, 2009. 

A total of 6,680 individuals of 43 

avian taxa were recorded from 

134 transects on 6 sites. No 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were 

observed. However, 4 other 

woodpecker species (Northern 

Flicker, Pileated Woodpecker, 

Red-bellied Woodpecker, and 

Red-headed Woodpecker) were 

readily identified. Individuals 

were conspicuous and frequently 

observed, as they flew within the 

canopy of the cypress-tupelo and 

bottomland hardwood forest of 

the study areas. The implication 

of these observations is that, had 

an Ivory-billed Woodpecker been 

flushed below the helicopter, it 

would have been detected by 

the crew. Numerous Red-bellied 

Woodpeckers were observed, 

a considerably smaller and 

probably much less detectable 

species, which lends credibility 

to the use of helicopters as an 

investigative tool for an Ivorybilled Woodpecker search. 

Illinois

From January through June 2009, 

totals of 4,200 person-hours in 

the field and 400 person-hours 

screening digital images were 

spent searching for Ivorybilled Woodpeckers in Illinois. 

The systematic search effort 

included 10-0.77 mi2 (2-km2)

plots of bottomland forest, 140 

winter point-counts across the 

10 plots, and deployment of color 

Reconyx ® cameras to trees with 

large cavities or bark scaling. 

In addition, 15 sites in mature 

bottomland and swamp forest 

habitat during spring migration 

and the early breeding season 

were passively searched. Over 1.2 

million Reconyx ® images were 

screened. No compelling sightings 

were noted and no evidence of 

the presence of an Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker within the areas was 

found. 

North Carolina

Search for evidence of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (IBWO) 

along the Waccamaw River and 

Juniper Creek (Brunswick and 

Columbus County, NC) began in 

January 2008. Effort increased 

in October and continued through 

May 2009. Daily trips involved 

canoeing and/or hiking to a 

gridded, randomly selected GPS 

point, and conducting a 10-minute 

point count and 2-hour sit at 

each waypoint. During this time 

all birds heard or seen were 

recorded. After each 2-hour sit, 

transects were walked through a 

40 acre plot, marked by waypoints 

at each corner. Within each 

plot, any evidence suggestive 

of a potential IBWO was 

photographed and its coordinates 

were recorded. 

After conducting 107 point counts, 

with nearly as many 2-hour sits 

and plots searched, there were 

no visual or auditory detections 

suggesting the presence of an 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker within 

the swamps of the Waccamaw 

River and Juniper Creek. 

Less than ten large cavities 

were documented, but none 

exemplifying the size and shape 

associated with the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker. Plots surrounding 

these cavities were canvassed, 

and point counts/2-hour sits 

were conducted at surrounding 

waypoints. 

In addition to surveying the 

habitat, local residents were 

questioned about the Ivorybilled Woodpecker. All those 

questioned who had a firm 

knowledge of the surrounding 

swamp and had resided in the 

area for much, if not all, of their 

lives were able to recognize 

the Pileated Woodpecker as a 

bird that they frequently see. 

Some were familiar with its 

scaling habits and call. Some 

individuals distinguished plumage 

differences between Ivory-
9

billed Woodpeckers and Pileated 

Woodpeckers in photographs. All 

concluded that they had never 

seen an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

A portion of the Lumber River 

was searched by canoe; however 

this effort did not involve 2-hour 

sits or area searches. There were 

no detections. 

Mississippi

A 4 person team surveyed 

the bottomland hardwood 

forests of the Pascagoula River 

Basin between January 22 

and March 20, 2009 under the 

coordination and logistic support 

of the University of Southern 

Mississippi and the Mississippi 

Department of Wildlife, Fisheries 

and Parks. Survey areas included 

the entire Upper and Lower 

Pascagoula Wildlife Management 

Area and parts of the Ward 

Bayou Wildlife Management Area 

and The Nature Conservancy’s 

Charles Deaton Preserve and 

Herman Murrah Preserve. The 

team spent 1150 hours searching, 

mostly on foot. Of the 43 patches 

searched (total area: approx. 

14500 ha) 38 were high quality 

and 5 were low quality patches. 

5% search effort was dedicated 

for the low quality patches. 

The region was impacted by 

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and 

the resulting damage in the 

forests still supports an abundant 

woodpecker community. However, 

the search produced no evidence 

that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Cornell Mobile Search Team 

Search Team: 

The Mobile Search Team worked 

in southern Florida from January 

3 through March 16, 2009 with 

a crew of seven, and in South 

Carolina from March 23 through 

April 29 with a crew of four.

In south Florida the team 

explored areas with Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker specimen and 

sighting records, and areas that 

were remote, had large trees 

and/or concentrations of dead 

trees. Many of the search areas 

were difficult to access but were 

reached with logistical support 

from Florida partners. Habitats 

explored included old-growth 

mangrove stands, mangrove 

forests with large numbers of 

trees killed by hurricanes and 

lightning strikes, large expanses 

of recently burnt pine forests, 

cabbage palm stands, hardwood 

hammocks with big oaks and 

maples, and cypress strands with 

trees up to 59 inches dbh. The 

congregation of these quality 

habitats, and its location within 

large contiguous protected areas, 

indicates a high potential to 

support Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Nevertheless, even in areas 

most difficult to access, such as 

the Gator Hook and Sig Walker 

cypress strands, there are old 

signs of selective logging during 

ca. the 1920s and 1930s. Access 

by tram lines was available to 

collectors and trophy hunters in 

those years, and cypress were 

selectively logged. Pine forests 

in the region offer good habitat 

now but were intensively logged 

in the 20th century. Double knock 

imitations were done at 1,744 

stations spaced in distance and 

time, and no responses of interest 

were recorded. Several cavities 

of the appropriate size and shape 

for Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

were found, but were not in use, 

and these cavities can be old, 

or exceptionally large Pileated 

Woodpecker cavities, or mammalenlarged PIWO cavities. The 

team did not observe Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers. 

Given the results, it is unlikely 

an Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

population of a meaningful size 

exists in south Florida. The 

habitat in its current state has a 

lot of potential and South Florida 

parks, preserves, agencies, and 

birders should remain attentive 

to reports of the species in the 

region.

In South Carolina, the team 

worked in the Congaree and 

lower Santee River basins 

to follow up on Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker reports from 2009 

and 2007, respectively. The 

Savannah River was explored 

because it showed up as potential 

habitat in the Forest Service 

model of Forest Inventory and 

Analysis data. 

Kentucky, Georgia

No searches were conducted in 

2008-2009

General Observations

During the searches, many 

large cavities and feeding signs 

similar to what James Tanner 

described in Louisiana’s Singer 

Tract were noted. Though some 

of these observations remain 

interesting, none of these “signs” 

can be attributed with certainty 

to Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

nesting or feeding activity. This 

type of information was used 

to help search groups focus in 

particular areas or determine 

remote camera placement. 

Acoustic encounters were treated 

in the same manner. Though 

several recordings are similar to 

historical recordings of “kent” 

calls or match the “double 

knocks” of other Campephilus 

woodpeckers, this information 

remains useful, but is not a 

confirmation of the presence of 

the Ivory-bill. 

The results of searches already 

conducted suggest it is likely 

that any extant populations 

of Ivory-bills are extremely 

small. Potential remaining 

habitat for this species has been 

preliminarily identified, and work 

is underway to refine methods 

which will aid in identifying what 

we believe is the best potential 

habitat. In many locations, 

the forests of the southeastern 

United States continue to expand 

in size and age, leaving some hope 

that as habitat conditions improve 

any remaining populations, if they 

are there, will increase in number.

D.		Population	Trend	and	

Historical Distribution

The extreme rarity of the species 

for over a hundred years has 

resulted in a lack of population 

data which could be used to 

establish a definitive trend in 

population size or distribution. It 

is possible to sketch a distribution 

of the historic range in the 

U.S. on the basis of museum 

records and the observations of 

early explorers and naturalists. 

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

appears to have been relatively 

widespread throughout the 

southeastern United States prior 
10

to European settlement (Figure 

3). It once roamed forests of the 

southeastern United States from 

the coastal plain of Texas and 

eastern Oklahoma into North 

Carolina, southward to include 

all of Florida, and the Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley northward to 

the confluence with the Ohio 

River and then eastward on the 

Ohio River bordering Kentucky 

and Illinois (Hasbrouck 1891). 

Archaeological evidence indicates 

that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

may have occurred eastward to 

southern Ohio and north along 

the Mississippi River to the St. 

Louis, Missouri area at least 

300 years prior to European 

settlement (Warner, pers. comm., 

J. L. Murphy and J. Farrand, Jr. 

1979 from Jackson 2004).

Population numbers prior to 

European settlement will never 

be known. According to Warner 

(pers. comm. Appendix D, 

p. 85), the common farming 

practices (e.g., girdling trees 

to create openings) of Native 

Americans may have provided a 

rich food source for woodpeckers 

along river bottoms. Ivorybilled Woodpecker declines 

corresponded closely with 

European settlement and the 

clearing and alteration of forest 

habitats (Appendix E). The longterm decline in habitats important 

to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

began in the early 1800s with 

essentially all of the historical 

range affected in some way by 

the early 20th Century. This 

impact also increased access for 

hunting the species for curiosity, 

food, and collection for private 

and public museums. Through 

the early 1940s, there was a 

gradual decrease in the number 

of specimen and sight records. 

The last commonly agreed upon 

sighting was in the Tensas River 

region of northeastern Louisiana 

in April 1944. 

Tanner (1942) estimates that 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker density 

ranged from 1 breeding pair per 

15.5 square kilometers (6 square 

miles [about 4,000 acres of mixed 

upland pine and bottomland 

forest in Florida]) to 1 breeding 

pair per 44 square kilometers 

(17 square miles or about 11,000 

acres of bottomland forest in 

Louisiana). Thus, 50 breeding 

pairs of Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

in the late 1930s would need 777 

square kilometers (300 square 

miles or about 200,000 acres) of 

habitat in Florida or 2,201 square 

kilometers (850 square miles or 

about 550,000 acres) in Louisiana. 

Snyder (2007) argues that these 

estimates are inaccurate. Since 

Tanner’s study in Louisiana was 

based on very few birds in an 

altered landscape, it should be 

used for information and guidance 

only. If populations persist 

today, the needs of individuals 

and family groups could be very 

different (Tanner 1942, p. XII).

E.		Life	History	and	Ecology	

Our knowledge of the Ivorybilled Woodpecker’s life history 

and ecology is limited and based 

primarily on just a few studies 

and information extrapolated 

from other similar species. The 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker is larger 

than a Pileated Woodpecker. 

Weights are reported at 454 and 

567 grams (16 and 20 ounces) in 

historical records (Jackson 2002). 

Therefore, an Ivory-bill should 

require a greater amount of food 

to maintain its body mass and 

feed its young than a Pileated 

Woodpecker. This greater food 

demand suggests that an Ivorybilled Woodpecker must range 

farther and may be more sensitive 

to habitat alterations than the 

Pileated Woodpecker. That 

Ivory-bills have relatively large 

home ranges and a sensitivity 

to habitat alterations is further 

supported by the fact that three 

other very large woodpecker 

species that weigh over 400 g (13 

ounces) (Lammertink 2007) also 

have large home ranges and are 

sensitive to habitat alterations. 

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

was known to fly distances of at 

least several kilometers each day 

between favored roost sites and 

feeding areas. Such movements 

are associated with maintaining 

large home ranges. However, 

information on daily movements 

is limited to Tanner’s study. 

The ecology of the species likely 

includes substantial spatial and 

temporal flexibility, due to their 

use of disturbed sites containing 

increased volumes of stressed and 

dead trees. Such trees are useful 

for a limited period, normally 

when the trees and limbs are 

freshly dead or damaged after 

the disturbance. Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers are thought to 

be dependent on extensive 

forested areas with old-growth 

characteristics and naturally high 

volumes of dead and dying wood 

needed to sustain the species 

in between disturbance events 

such as fires, storms, or other 

phenomena expected to kill or 

stress trees (Tanner 1942).

When faced with habitat 

fragmentation or habitat 

degradation, other large 

woodpeckers have been found 

to adapt by expanding their 

home range sizes. For example, 

in southern Sweden, Black 

Woodpeckers expanded their 

home ranges four-fold yet 

maintained the same breeding 

success in forests fragmented by 

agricultural fields (Fitzpatrick et 

al. 2005). In Borneo, Great Slaty 

Woodpeckers maintained similar 

group sizes in logged and primary 

forests (Lammertink 2004a), but 

average densities in commercially 

logged forests were only 17% 

of those in primary forests of 

similar soil type and elevation 

(Lammertink 2004b). Ivorybilled Woodpeckers could have 

expanded home range sizes in suboptimal habitats, such as in the 

regenerating southern forests. If 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers reduced 

densities five-fold as observed in 

the Bornean study of Great Slaty 

Woodpeckers, core home ranges 

of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers could 

be up to 52 square kilometers (20 

square miles) and home range 

densities might be as low as +one 

per 220 square kilometers (85 

square miles). At such densities, 

encounter rates with Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers, even with a large 

number of observers in the field, 

can be expected to be very low 

(Scott et al. 2008, Mattson et al. 

2008).

There is no evidence to suggest 

that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

is migratory (Allen and Kellogg 
11

1937), however Tanner (1942) 

suspected that the species may 

become nomadic in response to 

a fluctuating and undependable 

food supply. 

Diet is poorly understood and 

based on anecdotal observations 

and the examination of the 

stomach contents from eight 

collected birds (Jackson 2002). 

Large beetle larvae appear to 

be an important component of 

the diet throughout the year, but 

especially during breeding when 

feeding young with potentially 

high energetic demands (at least 

more so when compared with the 

young of the smaller Pileated 

Woodpecker). These beetle 

larvae are obtained according 

to Tanner (1942) primarily by 

stripping large pieces of bark 

from recently dead or dying tree 

trunks and branches as well as 

by the more typical woodpecker 

approach of excavating rotted 

wood. Most notable in both the 

stomachs of collected birds as 

well as remains in nests were 

the members of the beetle family 

Cerambycidae (long-horned and 

roundheaded borers), but many 

other species of wood-boring 

larvae also have been documented 

in the diet. In addition to animal 

matter, the contents of three 

stomachs examined in detail 

from birds collected outside the 

breeding season (1 during August, 

2 during November; described 

in Tanner 1942, Jackson 2002), 

illustrated a high percentage and 

broad range of vegetable matter 

was also eaten when available. 

Included in these stomachs, with 

anecdotal observations from 

others, were various nuts, such as 

pecans and acorn, and fruits and 

seeds, such as from hackberry, 

persimmon, wild grape, poison 

ivy, magnolia, black gum, and 

tupelo. Due to the paucity of data 

on food items actually consumed 

by the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, 

only limited conclusions can be 

drawn concerning preferences. 

Current research projects with 

Pileated Woodpecker and with 

the community of wood-borers 

associated with decaying wood 

in bottomland forests may shed 

additional light on this issue (see 

Appendix D). 

Breeding phenology (annual 

cycle) is poorly known. Generally, 

it is thought that breeding 

occurs between January and 

April (Tanner 1942). Cavities 

are excavated in a dead or dying 

portion of a live tree, although 

in some cases a dead tree may 

be used. Nest cavities have 

ranged from 4.6 m to over 21 m 

up the nest tree with nests rarely 

being excavated below 9 m from 

the tree’s base. Nest openings 

are characteristically oval, with 

an irregularly shaped rim, and 

somewhat taller than wide, 

ranging between 10.2 -14.6 cm 

wide and 15.2-17.1 cm tall. The 

size and shape of an Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker’s nest opening is 

generally distinguishable from 

those of Pileated Woodpeckers, 

which typically have a regular 

oval or round rim and a width 

under 8.9 cm. The frequently 

oval-shaped cavity entrance 

of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, 

Pileated Woodpeckers and other 

crested woodpeckers may be an 

adaptation to accommodate the 

bird’s crest (Jackson 2004). The 

inside diameters of Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker nest cavities that 

have been measured ranged from 

17.8 to 26.7 cm with a possible 

depth from roof to floor of 44.4 to 

63.5 cm. The outside diameters 

of the limb supporting the 

cavities ranged from 33 to 55.9 cm 

(Tanner 1942, Allen and Kellogg 

1937).

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

excavate and/or use roost cavities. 

Roost cavities are similar in 

appearance to nest cavities. In 

other woodpeckers, the roost 

cavity of the male often becomes 

the nest cavity. Observations 

by Tanner (1942) and Allen and 

Kellogg (1937) suggest that roost 

cavities are used by single Ivorybilled Woodpecker individuals, 

but this may not always be the 

case. In other large woodpecker 

species such as the Megallanic 

Woodpecker (Campephilus 

magellanicus), members of a 

pair sometimes roost together 

(Ojeda 2004). Tanner (1942) and 

Allen and Kellogg (1937) found 

that pairs or group members 

often roosted in trees within 

a few hundred meters of each 

other. They also reported the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker to be a 

late riser, leaving its roost after 

sunrise.

Individuals can be faithful to 

the same roost cavity for at 

least a year and a half (Tanner 

1942). Nest cavities are often 

constructed in favored roosting 

areas and may later become 

roost cavities. Thus, in several 

respects, the roosting area is the 

center of activity for an Ivorybilled Woodpecker.

Reported clutch size ranges 

from 1-5 eggs, but most reports 

are of clutches of 2 to 4 eggs. 

Incubation period has never been 

quantified for an Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker, but if it parallels 

the measured incubation period 

of the Magellanic Woodpecker, 

it takes about 20 days. This also 

approximates Tanner’s estimate 

(1942) for the gestation period of 

an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Both 

sexes of the Ivory-bill incubate 

the eggs, and Tanner documented 

that both parents feed the young 

for a period of about 35 days until 

the young have fledged. The 

young may be fed by the parents 

for an additional two months and 

forage with and roost near the 

parents into the next breeding 

season.

The only quantified data 

regarding reproductive success 

for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

is from Tanner (1942). While he 

reported little difference between 

the average number of young 

fledged per successful nesting 

effort from 1931-1939 between 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker and 

Pileated Woodpecker (Tanner 

1942, p. 81), it is important to 

note that most of the successful 

nesting efforts were based 

year-after-year from only one of 

the seven areas at Singer Tract 

supporting Ivory-bills (John’s 

Bayou, p. 39), with no more than 

two successful nests in any one 

year between 1934 and 1939. 

While he identified up to seven 

potential family groups during 

this six year period, only three of 

the seven produced young in at 

least one year. Ultimately during 

the period of 1934-1939, 9 of the 

16 young observed came from one 
12

area (again John’s Bayou), and 6 

from another area (Mack’s Bayou 

combined with Titepaper), with 

the other five areas mostly failing 

to produce any young (the only 

exception being Bayou Despair in 

1937). 

No incidences of predation on 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker are 

known, and it is likely that natural 

predators are few. However, 

nest predators could have had 

an impact on the species’ decline 

under certain conditions. Typical 

nest predators, such as squirrels, 

raccoons and rat snakes could 

prey on nestlings or eggs while 

birds, such as Great Horned Owls 

(Bubo virginianus), Barred Owls 

(Strix varia), and Red-shouldered 

Hawks (Buteo lineatus) could 

prey upon recently fledged 

birds. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

could also be killed by sudden 

catastrophic damage to nest or 

roost trees (e.g., lightning strike, 

hurricane or tornado winds) and 

by disease, such as West Nile 

Virus and Avian flu.

Humans have killed the bird for 

the usual reasons. Historically 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was 

valued for its ivory-colored bill, 

which was used as an ornament 

or collected as a curiosity by both 

Native and European Americans. 

The striking black and red crest 

of males was also used to decorate 

Native American war pipes 

(Jackson 2004). Additionally, 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were 

sometimes eaten by humans in 

the United States and Cuba. By 

the late 19th Century, the rarity 

of the species made it desirable to 

amateur and scientific specimen 

collectors (Jackson 2004).

F.		Habitat	Characterization

What is known regarding 

the habitat requirements of 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

comes mostly from historical 

observations, the work of James 

Tanner, and current reports 

from sites where observers 

may have encountered the 

bird. Any surviving birds may 

have persisted under less than 

optimal conditions if historical 

assumptions—and those of 

Tanner—regarding the needs 

of the Ivory-bill are accurate. 

Therefore any future habitat 

protection and management will 

require consideration that much 

is unknown about the bird’s 

habitat requirements, as well 

as comparison and evaluation of 

what is understood.

1. General Observations on 

Historical Conditions

Bottomland hardwood forests are 

frequently noted as important 

(Jackson 2002, Tanner 1942). It 

is unclear if this view is biased 

by the scant information on 

habitat use having been gathered 

near the end of a long period 

of population decline. Habitats 

occupied at the time of Tanner’s 

study may not have been typical 

or preferred by the species. 

The habitat may have been 

occupied simply because it was 

the last suitable habitat available. 

However, the Lentz (1928) 

report stated that hardwood 

and woodland areas accounted 

for 81 percent of the parish, and 

of that 67% was classified as 

virgin timber. Additionally, the 

specimen record shows that at 

least in the case of the Tensas 

basin, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

were known to populate the area 

long before significant logging 

and human encroachment was 

a factor (Roaring Bayou:1899, 3 

birds. West Carroll Parish: 1903, 

1 bird. Madison Parish: 1908, 

1909, 1891, 4 birds, et al.). In 

1938, the R. K. Winters report 

estimated that 2,682,700 acres 

were hardwood timberlands (69% 

of the delta), of which 577,600 

acres was considered uncut 

old-growth and was available to 

wildlife in the north Louisiana 

delta.

Literature on habitat 

characteristics favored by the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker creates 

the impression that this species 

was associated with expansive 

patches of uncut forests with 

a relatively high proportion of 

very large and old trees. These 

types of forest areas, in general, 

support a high proportion of dead 

and dying trees and it stands 

to reason that the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker, as one of the largest 

picids, may have particular food 

demands that are only met in 

large tracts of mature forest 

during at least part of its life 

cycle. 

However, the importance of 

uncut forests may be only part of 

the habitat requirements of this 

species. Additionally, the species 

may have sought older forests 

subjected to recent catastrophic 

events such as drought, fire, 

hurricanes, tornadoes, ice 

storms, and flooding, leading 

to the death of large patches of 

trees. In more modern times, 

Tanner documented that Ivorybilled Woodpeckers used forests 

that had undergone some 

partial logging, as long as many 

damaged, dying, and stressed 

trees were left standing and there 

were nearby remaining large 

areas of unlogged, older forests. 

These observations do not in any 

way suggest foraging in logging 

slash was prevalent for the 

species. Logging, when followed 

by conversion of forests to other 

land uses (mostly agriculture and 

shorter rotation forests) likely led 

to this species’ overall decline and 

extirpation throughout much of 

the historical range (Tanner 1942, 

Jackson 2004).

Although most records and 

reports have been from 

bottomland forests, the literature 

suggests that the species also 

made substantial use of mature 

pine forests, not only in Cuba, but 

also Florida and elsewhere in the 

coastal plain (Allen and Kellogg 

1937, Jackson 2004). Observers 

noted Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

foraging on “very small” to 

medium diameter pines, recently 

killed by fire (from Florida and 

Cuba; Allen and Kellogg 1937, 

Dennis 1948, Lamb 1957). 

In many cases, occurrences 

in pines were associated with 

fire-killed trees, often adjacent 

to bottomland forests. There 

were known nesting cavities 

in pine, and almost all recent 

nesting cavities in Cuba were in 

pine (Jackson 2004). The factor 

in common between hardwood 

and pine habitat use appears to 

be disturbance events. These 

disturbances led to the availability 

of many recently dead and dying 

trees, which in turn, supported 
13

the beetle larvae (protein) 

considered by many to be 

essential forage for the successful 

fledging of young woodpeckers. 

2. James Tanner’s Observations 

on the Singer Tract

According to Lowery (1974) 

until 1932, ornithologists had 

come to believe that the Ivorybilled Woodpecker no longer 

existed. As Lowery recounts it 

“A comment to this effect in the 

offices of the Louisiana Wildlife 

and Fisheries Commission 

prompted a quick denial from 

Mason Spencer, a resident of 

Tallulah, who happened to be 

present. So incredulous was 

everyone of his assertion that 

Ivory-bills still lived near Tallulah 

that a permit was immediately 

issued to him to shoot one.” 

Apparently, commissioners were 

certain that he would return 

with a Pileated Woodpecker. Mr. 

Spencer returned with an Ivorybilled Woodpecker. As previously 

stated in the plan, the Ivory-bills 

of the Singer Tract in northern 

Louisiana were the last known 

United States population to be 

studied (Allen and Kellogg 1937 

and Tanner 1942).

James Tanner’s 1942 report is 

based on his observations in the 

Singer Tract of northeastern 

Louisiana (now Tensas River 

NWR), on his visits to remaining 

habitat throughout the US range 

of the species in the 1930s, and 

on a review of all literature up to 

the time of his writing. It is the 

best available source of historical 

information. Tanner reported 

that the sweetgum/oak association 

was the primary forest type 

used by Ivory-bills within the 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley. 

Tanner refers to these forests as 

associated with the higher parts 

of the “first bottoms,” relatively 

removed from frequent and 

long-term flooding. According 

to Tanner, cypress-tupelo forest 

was rarely used in the Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley. In Georgia and 

Florida Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

were more frequently associated 

with cypress swamps, though it is 

unclear whether birds foraged in 

such habitats.

Tanner’s data suggest that large 

trees were preferred for foraging 

(feeding). Of Tanner’s foraging 

observations, 49% (frequency of 

feeding) were on trees between 

12-24 inches dbh (diameter at 

breast height). These trees 

represented about 18% of forest 

composition. Thirty-five percent 

of the feeding took place on trees 

that were between 24-36 in dbh. 

Trees this size made up about 

5% of the overall forest. Tanner 

notes that on the Singer Tract 

87% of the foraging was observed 

on the largest trees, comprising 

25% of the total trees available for 

foraging. However, the smallest 

trees also were utilized. Foraging 

occurred on trees 3-12” dbh over 

three times as often as on the 

largest trees 36+” dbh. Tanner 

also found that sweetgum was 

the most common tree species 

that the birds fed on during his 

1935-1938 study (43% of foraging 

observations, while making up 

about 21% of stand composition). 

Nuttall oak was the second most 

often selected tree by Ivory-bills 

at 27% of observations compared 

with about 11% availability in the 

forest. 

While forest inventories in 

the area during the 1920s and 

1930s indicate that the extent of 

virgin forest specifically on the 

Singer Tract appears to have 

been overestimated by Tanner, 

it is clear that this forest was 

within an area containing some 

of the largest acreage of oldergrowth forest remaining in the 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Lentz 

1928, Winters et al. 1938, Pough 

1944). Winters et al. (1938) 

reported in northeast Louisiana 

that at the time of Tanner’s 

study 577,600 acres out of 2.68 

million acres of forest cover were 

classified as “uncut old growth,” 

but most of this virgin forest 

was habitat typically not being 

used by Ivory-billed Woodpecker, 

including cypress-tupelo and 

overcup oak-water hickory. 

Almost all bottomland forest in 

the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 

if not the entire historicl range 

of the Ivory-billed woodpecker, 

had been cut over, cleared 

for agriculture, or otherwise 

damaged from fire by the 1930s.

3. Ivory-bill Habitat Along 

Bayou DeView

The forest along Bayou DeView 

is relatively narrow (about one 

mile wide) through Cache River 

NWR and Benson Creek State 

Natural Area surrounded by 

agriculture, with the forest along 

Bayou DeView expanding within 

Dagmar Wildlife Management 

Area (WMA). Specifically all of 

the published sightings of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker and 

the Luneau video during 2004 

and 2005 at Bayou DeView were 

within Cache River NWR in the 

tupelo/bald cypress swamps. As 

described in the previous section, 

cypress-tupelo swamp was a 

rarely used habitat according 

to Tanner (1942). After 2005, 

additional sightings and auditory 

evidence came from along the 

White River from Wattensaw 

WMA (directly west of Bayou 

DeView) and at the southern end 

of the White River NWR where 

bottomland hardwood forests is 

more prevalent and more typical 

of what Tanner described as 

optimal habitat for this species 

(see Appendix H).

Historical information has 

been gathered from the USDA 

Forest Service, Continuous 

Forest Inventory (CFI) data and 

interviews with local residents 

and managers. The first major 

human disturbance event in 

Bayou DeView occurred around 

1920 to 1940 when the area 

was first logged. Logging was 

likely extensive and removed 

a large amount of old growth 

baldcypress. However, some 

baldcypress were left, either 

because of size, infeasibility of 

logging, or poor grade. The 

cutover swamp responded with 

regeneration and release of tupelo 

stands beneath the residual trees. 

Additionally, during this time 

period, forests surrounding 

the Bayou were cleared for 

agriculture. Forests were 

likely similar in composition 

to that of stands now extant. 

These forests located above the 

normal floodplain were mostly 

hardwood containing mature 

sweetgum, willow oak (Quercus 

phellos), water oak (Quercus
14

nigra), Nuttall oak, sugarberry 

(Celtis laevigata), American 

elm (Ulmus americana), post 

oak (Quercus stellata), white 

oak (Quercus alba), and other 

common hardwood species, with 

scattered pockets harboring 

native loblolly pine (Pinus 

taeda). As the demand for 

agricultural land increased more 

of the surrounding forests were 

cleared. From approximately 

1960 to 1970 the swamps of 

Bayou DeView were extensively 

logged again; this time removing 

more tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) 

than baldcypress (Taxodium 

distichum). Logging continued 

until much of the Bayou was 

acquired by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers as mitigation 

for the Lower Cache River 

channelization project. The 

Bayou was posted as federal 

property at that time, but there 

was no enforcement to guard 

against encroachment, poaching, 

or timber theft, until the 

mitigation land was transferred to 

the Cache River NWR in 2000.

The remaining habitat, primarily 

cypress-tupelo bottoms, had 

been previously dismissed by 

many authors describing Ivorybilled Woodpecker habitat 

requirements. Arkansas was 

considered one of the least likely 

states with potential to support 

this species during the last status 

survey in 1985 (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1985). 

4. History of Habitat Rangewide 

(for individual records and 

sightings see Appendix E)

Alabama

Data on the original range of 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in 

Alabama is meager. Published 

records and the historical range 

of the species in surrounding 

states would suggest that the 

suitable habitat was located in 

the eastern gulf coastal plain of 

Alabama south of the fall line (the 

area where continental bedrock 

meets coastal plain). It was likely 

found in forests along major 

riverine systems in the west and 

south and in extensive longleaf 

pine (Pinus palustris) forests 

in the southeast. Available data 

indicates that by 1850 its main 

center of distribution in Alabama 

was severely restricted. Six 

records of the species are from 

the once vast forested areas 

drained by the Tombigbee and 

Alabama Rivers in west Alabama.

Florida	

Most historical Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker habitat in Florida can 

be characterized as river swamp, 

although stillwater swamps, 

particularly cypress swamps and 

cypress strands, were a significant 

component. A habitat unique to 

Florida was the extensive Big 

Cypress region of flat, poorly 

drained limestone topography 

in the southwestern part of the 

peninsula (Duever et al. 1986). 

Tanner (1942) stated that “all 

Ivory-bill records have been 

located in or very near swamps 

or Florida hammocks.” However, 

most of Tanner’s intensive field 

studies were done in bottomland 

forests and this may have 

influenced his perception of ideal 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat. 

The salient feature of Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker habitat appeared to 

be old-growth forest, including, 

and perhaps favoring (Jackson 

1996), the ecotone between 

bottomlands and uplands.

Georgia

The original range of the Ivorybilled Woodpecker in Georgia 

probably was the extent of the 

coastal plain up to the fall line, 

although it is likely that birds 

occasionally traveled up some 

of the major river systems (i.e., 

Savannah, Oconee, Ocmulgee, 

Chattahoochee, and Flint) into 

the Piedmont. As with other 

parts of its range, the bird 

probably was primarily associated 

with the floodplains of major 

river systems, including the 

Okefenokee Swamp in extreme 

southeast Georgia (Tanner 1942, 

Burleigh 1958, Jackson 2002). In 

addition, areas of mature pine 

surrounding large expanses of 

bottomland hardwoods were 

apparently used for foraging. As 

large forested areas, including 

many bottomland forests, were 

cleared for agriculture, replanted 

for pine silviculture, or otherwise 

developed, the species range 

continued to shrink. 

Illinois

The northern extent of the 

historical range of the Ivorybilled Woodpecker was thought 

to include the southern tip of 

Illinois, particularly along the 

Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. 

Audubon noted seeing Ivorybilled Woodpeckers along the 

Mississippi River from near 

the confluence of the Ohio and 

Mississippi Rivers to as far north 

as the Missouri River, and Robert 

Ridgway believed that he saw 

one not far from the confluence 

of the Wabash and Ohio Rivers 

in the mid-1800s (Jackson 2004). 

There is little to no information 

available on habitat use or historic 

numbers of birds in these areas, 

but these birds likely occurred in 

the once-vast bottomland forests 

associated with the floodplains of 

these major river systems. What 

little old-growth bottomland 

forest remains in Illinois is 

moderately to highly fragmented 

and found primarily in the Cache 

River watershed in southernmost 

Illinois. There are presently 

several thousand acres of oldgrowth and mature bottomland/

swamp forest along the Cache 

River in Illinois, and an ongoing 

effort by conservationists has 

resulted in the conversion of over 

15,000 acres of agricultural land 

to early-successional bottomland 

forest within the watershed 

during the past 20 years.

Kentucky

The earliest record for the 

species, provided by Col. William 

Fleming in his journal (A. W. 

Schorger 1949 from Jackson 

2004), placed the species in 

Lincoln County on the foothills 

of the Knobs Physiographic 

Region, a distinctive geologic 

region with higher elevations 

reaching 1,000 feet (above mean 

sea level) in forest habitat. 

The forest in this region is 

drastically different from most 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat 

documented to date. Wharton 

(1945) described the region’s 

different upland forest types 

as pine (Pinus spp.), oak-pine, 

chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), 

scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), 

white oak, and mixed mesophytic 

(not particularly dry or wet) 
15

forest. Pre-colonial Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker populations could 

have extended up the Ohio 

River and its tributaries. Due 

to the lack of documentation of 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

in Kentucky, it is impossible to 

determine range changes over 

time. By the early 1800s, the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker had 

all but disappeared from the 

majority of Kentucky’s landscape, 

with some residual numbers 

remaining until the early 1870s in 

Fulton County.

Louisiana

Jackson (2002), Oberholser (1938) 

and Tanner (1942) discussed 

known Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

distribution in Louisiana prior 

to the 1940s which can generally 

be described as occurring in the 

bottomland forests along the 

Mississippi corridor from the 

Arkansas state line south to the 

coast. Specimens and sightings 

(as reported by Tanner 1942) 

date back to the late 1800s and 

in northern Louisiana came from 

the general area between the 

Mississippi River and Ouachita 

River, south to the area where 

they are joined by the Red River. 

Specimens and sightings were 

reported from the bottomland 

forests along the Mississippi 

River and Atchafalaya River 

south to the forested coastal area 

of Iberia Parish. McIlhenny 

(1941) recorded his earliest 

childhood memories of Ivorybilled Woodpeckers being 

resident in the forested areas of 

Avery Island and in the “great 

forest” extending east to the 

Atchafalaya River. 

Tanner (1942) noted that 

logging in the southern part of 

Louisiana began around 1905, 

gradually moving north. The last 

universally accepted observation 

of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

in the southern part of the state 

was by E.A. McIlhenny in 1923 

(McIlhenny 1941). Logging 

began to spread southward 

into Louisiana from Arkansas 

about 1910 and met the logging 

movement from the south in 

northern Louisiana where it 

peaked about 1925 and then 

declined (Tanner 1942). 

Mississippi

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in 

Mississippi were probably 

originally distributed essentially 

statewide in floodplain forests 

along major river systems. 

These systems included the 

Pearl, Wolf, Pascagoula, and 

Tombigbee rivers; the lower 

tributaries and main stem of the 

Big Black River; and the Yazoo 

and Mississippi River deltas 

(Turcotte and Watts 1999). Most 

records for the species are from 

the Pascagoula, Tombigbee, Yazoo 

and Mississippi River floodplain 

forests (Hasbrouck 1891, Tanner 

1942). Specimens have been 

collected from Bolivar and 

Harrison Counties (Hahn 1963). 

Other counties with apparently 

acceptable records include Clay, 

Coahoma, Hancock, Jackson, 

Monroe, Warren and Yazoo 

(Jackson 2004). Habitat used by 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in 

Mississippi is believed to be the 

same as the habitat described 

in the life history account of the 

species in this recovery plan.

Reports of the species in 

Mississippi were most numerous 

before 1940 and included 16 of 

the 27 known records from the 

state (Appendix E). Subsequent 

reports have been made in areas 

near or within the same river 

systems as the earlier ones, 

suggesting that the range of the 

species did not change over the 

recorded history of its known and 

suspected occurrence in the state, 

but that the abundance within 

that range declined throughout, 

presumably as the extant stands 

of timber were harvested and 

local populations were extirpated. 

The most recent specimen 

records are from 1893.

Several Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

encounters have been recorded 

in Mississippi, including 13 

unverified reports since 1944 

(Appendix E). Areas with 

reported encounters since 1944 

include the Pearl, Pascagoula, 

Leaf, Big Black, Noxubee, Yazoo 

and Mississippi rivers. 

North	Carolina

One definitive record (Jackson 

2002), from Alexander Wilson, 

was from the Wilmington area 

around 1800. Wilmington is 

near the primary river system 

in the southeastern corner of 

North Carolina, which includes 

the Waccamaw and the Lumber 

Rivers.

South	Carolina

Sprunt and Chamberlain 

(1949) suggest that Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker was formerly 

common over much of the 

eastern part of the state but its 

virtual extinction was due to the 

encroachment of civilization. The 

original range of Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker in South Carolina 

was the extent of the coastal plain 

bordered to the north by the fall 

line and extending to the Atlantic 

coast. This area was comprised 

of bottomland hardwood riverine 

systems surrounded by longleaf 

pine uplands intermixed with 

farms and plantations. Rice, 

indigo, and cotton were the 

primary agricultural crops. The 

state of South Carolina was 

extensively logged after three 

significant historical events, the 

Civil War, the Chicago fire, and 

World War II. Tanner reported 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker suitable 

range was decreasing due to 

logging operations in the Santee 

River swamp around 1939. 

The Savannah River swamp 

system has been impacted to 

varying degrees by timber 

harvest since colonial times, with 

cypress timber being important 

in the region as early the 1730s 

(White 2004). As elsewhere, 

capacity to cut increased 

dramatically in the 1840s and 50s 

with the construction of larger, 

steam-powered sawmills. In 

the mid 1850s, 2000 ac per year 

of old growth longleaf pine and 

bottomland hardwood were 

probably harvested. Until around 

1900, timber harvest was mostly 

restricted to areas within one mile 

of navigable waterways. Logging 

railways entered the central 

Savannah River area in the early 

1900s and began harvesting the 

remaining uncut swamp forest, 

but major activities there may not 

have begun until the late 1920s. 

Indications are that 6400 ac of the 

9400-acre Savannah River swamp 

on the DOE’s Savannah River 
16

Site (SRS) in Aiken and Barnwell 

Counties had been disturbed 

prior to 1950, and some of this 

harvest most likely included some 

second growth. Since that time, 

a few large tracts of bottomland 

forest (6000-10000 ac) have 

been protected (e.g., SRS, Webb 

Wildlife Center, Savannah NWR, 

and some private tracts) but some 

harvest has continued. 

The Congaree-Wateree-Upper 

Santee River Focus Area (220,000 

acres) represents the largest, 

intact expanse of bottomland 

riverine system remaining 

within the state. Portions of this 

area received extensive logging 

around 1900, while others did not 

because of poor accessibility and 

intermittent flooding. Timber 

prices soared in 1969, and some 

private landowners resumed 

logging operations; however, some 

areas were not cut, and large, 

mature cypress and tupelo trees 

characterize the current habitat. 

Hurricane Hugo swept across the 

state in September 1989, leaving 

a large number of dead and dying 

trees still present today in this 

area. The lower Santee River 

is separated from the upper 

portions by Lake Marion and 

Moultrie (156,000 acres) created 

in 1940 by the Santee Cooper 

Hydroelectric and Navigation 

Project, and a number of Tanner’s 

recorded sightings were located 

in the area that is now flooded.

Bottomland hardwood habitat is 

still present along the CongareeWateree-Upper Santee Rivers, 

Savannah River, and Waccamaw 

Complex. The Savannah 

River and Waccamaw Complex 

are predominately in private 

ownership, and much of the 

remaining mature bottomlands 

are contained within easements, 

public lands, and some large 

plantations along the Savannah 

River.

Tennessee

While Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

almost certainly occurred in 

bottomland hardwood forests 

of Tennessee historically, no 

definitive records from the state 

are known. Audubon reported 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, for 

example, from a flatboat while 

traveling the Mississippi River 

during the winter of 1820–1821 

(Corning 1929). Although 

Audubon reported this species 

from a stretch of river bordering 

Tennessee, he did not specifically 

mention the presence of Ivorybilled Woodpeckers on the 

Tennessee side of the Mississippi 

River.

Habitat was very likely limited 

to the relatively few acres of 

bottomland hardwood forest in 

Tennessee occurring within the 

floodplain of the Mississippi River 

and its tributaries. By the end 

of the 1940s, intensive logging 

practices further reduced possible 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat 

in the state.

Texas

According to Oberholser (1974) 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was 

never common in Texas. Records 

exist from only 16 counties in 

the state restricted to areas east 

of the Brazos River. Tanner’s 

publication indicates breeding 

records along the Brazos and 

Neches rivers in the 1880s. 

Most accounts provide little or 

no information about the bird’s 

habitat, but strongly suggest 

the species resided in mature 

bottomland forests (Oberholser 

1974, Shackelford 1998).

Changes in the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker’s range are directly 

associated with changes in the 

distribution of mature forests. 

Forests throughout eastern 

Texas were greatly reduced and 

fragmented before World War 

II. Agriculture, logging, and 

reservoir construction were the 

main causes. However, some 

large forested tracts remained 

along the river bottoms of eastern 

Texas until the 1960s when the 

Sam Rayburn and Toledo Bend 

Reservoirs were constructed. 

Unconfirmed accounts of locations 

persisted from 1956 into the 

1970s, mostly along the Neches 

and Trinity Rivers and Village 

Creek in the region known as the 

“big thicket.” 

5. Current Conditions in the area 

of Cache River NWR in Arkansas 

Currently the Bayou DeView 

forest corridor is long and 

contiguous; the forest block in 

which the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

sightings have occurred stretches 

from two miles south of Dagmar 

State WMA to six miles above 

Cotton Plant, Arkansas, an 

approximate aerial distance of 

20 miles. The corridor is fairly 

narrow, averaging less than 1 mile 

wide, with the exception of the 

area at Dagmar WMA. 

The Bayou now contains a dense 

stand of mostly second growth 

tupelo that range in age from 

35 to 135, mixed with large relic 

baldcypress and tupelo that are 

several centuries old, with some 

cypress over 1000 years old. The 

interconnected channels of Bayou 

DeView create a broad floodplain 

or swamp that presents an 

increased mortality and decline 

(senescence) of live trees within 

its distinct border. The perimeter 

of the Bayou is lined with 

hardwood forests that are subject 

to limited annual flooding but 

contain a diversity of hardwood 

species. These perimeter forests 

are all second or third growth, 

with prevalent species including 

sweetgum, green ash, overcup 

oak (Quercus lyrata), Nuttall oak, 

water oak, willow oak, red maple 

(Acer rubrum), American elm 

and locust (Gleditsia spp.). The 

perimeter hardwood forests also 

exhibit elevated levels of decline 

and senescence. In proximity to 

the Bayou DeView forest block 

but outside of the Bayou corridor 

are larger forest blocks of diverse 

hardwood forests mostly under 

the management of the Cache 

River NWR or Dagmar WMA. 

The forest types represented 

in these outlying blocks are 

primarily sweetgum/willow oak, 

willow oak/water oak/diamond 

leaf oak, sugarberry/ash-elm, and 

overcup oak/bitter pecan (Carya 

aquatica). However, caution 

must be taken in consideration 

of conditions where the bird 

was briefly observed. Nearly 

all sightings have been of flying 

birds; there were no observations 

of foraging, roosting, or nesting 

in the Bayou DeView area. There 

is no certainty that these habitat 

conditions are preferred or 

optimal.
17

In order to document forest 

habitat conditions in proximity 

to the 2004-5 Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker sightings, an 

extensive habitat survey was 

undertaken on the Cache River 

NWR, White River NWR, and 

state WMAs surrounding the 

reported Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

sightings/recordings. The survey 

inventoried live trees, recording 

species, diameter and stress 

condition, dead tree volume and 

condition, and other habitat 

parameters attributed to forest 

stands (Appendix H). Field work 

was completed on 152,260 acres 

of White River NWR, 27,515 

acres of Cache River NWR, 7,532 

acres of Dagmar WMA, 2,091 

acres of Henry Gray/Hurricane 

Lake WMA, 2,698 acres of Rex 

Hancock/Black Swamp WMA, 

5,244 acres of Bayou Meto 

WMA, 843acres of Wattensaw 

WMA, and 2,862 acres of Trusten 

Holder WMA. Foresters and 

biologists have inventoried a total 

of approximately 200,000 acres. 

Data gathered 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 and cross-walked with a 

Geographic Information System 

to produce spatially-explicit 

maps depicting stand conditions. 

These forest stand maps were 

used in overlay models to develop 

preliminary decision support 

models to facilitate search efforts 

in the Big Woods area. 

6. Current Regional Forest 

Conditions Within the Historical 

Range

Forests in the Southeast today 

are mostly young (<100 year old) 

and mid-seral (sequence of plant 

communities leading to the climax 

vegetation). If the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker has indeed persisted 

at some minimal population 

level for the last 60 years, it did 

so under conditions very unlike 

those described in the historical 

literature. There are only a few 

patches of bottomland forest 

considered to be characterized 

by older-growth conditions 

(e.g., Congaree National Park 

in South Carolina and scattered 

small patches in the Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley, most if not all on 

public lands). In recent years, 

conditions in many forests, 

particularly on public lands, have 

been gradually moving closer 

toward what is thought to be 

suitable Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

habitat requirements as trees 

age and the forests are being 

managed to encourage retention 

of older forest characteristics. 

(LMVJV Forest Resource 

Conservation Working Group 

2007)

Thirty sites in 8 states were 

identified as areas of possible 

post-1944 encounters with 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. 

To characterize the area and 

structure of forests on private 

lands and all ownerships that 

could potentially provide Ivorybilled Woodpecker habitat, USDA 

Forest Service Forest Inventory 

and Analysis (FIA) data for 

relevant counties is provided in 

Appendix I Tables 1-4. 

In counties for which FIA 

data were available, there are 

more than 20.1 million acres 

of forestland (land capable 

of growing trees, 10% area 

stocked) and 19.8 million acres of 

timberland (forestland capable 

of producing in excess of 20 

cubic feet per acre per year 

of industrial wood in natural 

stands) in the forest types and 

physiographic classes of interest 

(Appendix I). Approximately 

88.6% of all forestland is privately 

owned. Similarly, 89.9% of all 

timberland is privately owned, 

including 93.7% of pine types and 

84.3% of hardwood types. Public 

and private timberlands differ in 

species composition. Of the 17.8 

million acres of privately owned 

timberland in the counties, 37.6% 

is in hardwood forest types and 

62.4% is in pine types. Of the 2.0 

million acres in public timberland, 

62.6% is in hardwood types and 

37.4% is in pine types.

The area of privately owned pine 

timberland is approximately 

equivalent in small, medium, and 

large diameter size classes (35.4, 

32.1, and 32.4% of private pine 

timberland area, respectively, 

Appendix I, Table 17). However, 

the area of private hardwood 

timberland is predominantly 

in the large diameter size class 

(60.2% of private hardwood 

timberland area) with much 

less area in medium (23.4%) 

and small diameter (16.4%) 

size classes. Public timberland 

area is predominantly in largediameter-class forests for pine 

and hardwood types (60.7% 

and 81.6% of publicly owned 

pine and hardwood timberland, 

respectively).

Although the majority of 

mortality is occurring in the 

large diameter classes, the total 

volume of mortality is relatively 

low (<1% of total live volume). 

However, mortality of hardwoods 

on public lands was 50% of net 

growth in that size class. Public 

land management appears to 

be more heavily focused than 

private lands on large-diameterclass removals, especially in 

hardwoods, yet total removals 

are still minimal overall. More 

detailed forest characteristics 

by state for private and public 

ownerships are described in 

Appendix I, Tables 7 through 13.

In summary, approximately 

89% of forest cover is privately 

owned and 11% publicly owned. 

Of this, approximately 44% of 

all timberland is in hardwood 

types. Large-diameter-size 

class forests dominate the 

hardwood timberland, 63% of 

total lands, private and public. 

All ownerships tend to focus 

more toward development of 

large-diameter-class stems in the 

hardwood timberland while public 

ownership focuses more toward 

larger-diameter-class stems in 

pine timberland than private 

ownership. Overall, the majority 

of timberland volumes (pine and 

hardwood) are represented in the 

large-diameter size classes for 

all ownerships. Net growth in 

hardwoods and pines on private 

timberland was primarily in the 

large-diameter class, and for 

both hardwood and pine types on 

public lands. 
18

G.		Management	Considerations

Current forest management 

practices affecting Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker habitat in the 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley have 

been examined in the context 

of maintaining sustainable 

landscapes capable of supporting 

desired forest conditions 

for a variety of important 

species. Recommendations 

have been published by the 

Lower Mississippi Valley 

Joint Venture (LMVJV Forest 

Resource Conservation Working 

Group 2007). The publication 

Restoration, Management and 

Monitoring of Forest Resources 

in the Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley: Recommendations for 

Enhancing Wildlife Habitat has 

guidelines which will benefit the 

full suite of bottomland species, 

including the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker. Application of these 

recommendations forms the 

backbone of our approach to the 

conservation of potential Ivorybilled Woodpecker habitat.

The Singer Tract studied by 

Tanner apparently did not 

provide enough habitat to sustain 

even a small population due 

to a variety of factors which 

Tanner discusses. An actual 

minimum area needed to support 

a sustainable population may be 

substantially higher or it may be 

lower, depending on the actual 

quantity of preferred food items 

available. That threshold of 

size is unknown. The quality of 

habitat for any given species may 

affect the quantity of forested 

acres needed. Even, as proposed 

in Snyder (2007), if habitat loss 

were not a major factor in the 

decline of this species, suitable 

habitat would be needed for 

its recovery. Maintaining and 

enhancing the appropriate quality, 

quantity, and distribution of 

habitat is a commonly accepted 

conservation principle.

1. Current Landscape 

Management in the Lower 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

(LMAV) 

Starting in the early 1990s, a 

large-scale bird conservation 

effort was developed for the 

LMAV that became the prototype 

physiographic region plan for 

the bird conservation group 

Partners in Flight (Brown et 

al. 1999). Although it focuses 

solely on birds, it contains many 

features of ecosystem approaches 

to management (e.g., multiple 

scales, focus on ecosystem 

integrity, change in administrative 

structure, focus on research 

and monitoring; see Grumbine 

1994). The effort involved (1) 

inventorying large patches of 

the priority habitat (bottomland 

hardwood forest) that was to 

be promoted, (2) developing a 

plan to enlarge, connect, and 

enhance those patches so as to 

provide source populations of 

priority land bird species, and (3) 

implementing the plan, primarily 

through afforestation (planting 

trees) of priority locations using 

various landowner incentive 

programs. Determining priority 

areas for afforestation has been 

an evolving process that has used 

increasingly sophisticated sources 

of data and algorithms (e.g., 

Twedt and Uihlein 2005, Twedt et 

al. 2006). 

Currently, the land bird 

conservation plan calls for 

creating large patches of mature 

bottomland forest, with target 

sizes of at least 10,000, 20,000 

and 100,000 acres for different 

groups of area-sensitive land 

birds. Because it is ecosystembased, and emphasizes areasensitive species, this approach 

also works for large-scale 

management potentially needed 

for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Guidelines on the sorts of land 

management within those forest 

patches, compatible with the 

objectives of the Joint Venture 

landbird conservation plan 

appear in next section and can 

be found in the publication 

Restoration, Management, and 

Monitoring of Forest Resources 

in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: 

Recommendations for Enhancing 

Wildlife Habitat (LMVJV Forest 

Resource Conservation Group 

2007). Although the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker is the focus of the 

recovery plan, the recommended 

approach is ecosystem-based, 

and if followed, should begin to 

develop adequate habitat for all 

species of wildlife dependent 

on that system. Any Ivorybilled Woodpecker populations 

throughout the southeast may 

benefit from increasing the 

connectivity and continuity 

of existing forest patches. 

Accomplishing this will require 

detailed, site-specific planning 

to identify the most beneficial 

and practical opportunities 

for connecting and enlarging 

existing forest patches. Efforts 

to enhance the connectivity 

of forests among the Florida 

panhandle river systems may 

serve as a possible example.

2. Bottomland Hardwood Forest 

Management

Over the last decade, common 

ground has been reached on many 

issues regarding the management 

of bottomland hardwood forests 

for wildlife. Providing for both 

a diverse forest structure and 

composition (including hard 

mast, soft mast, and light-seeded 

species) is now widely accepted 

as critical for covering the needs 

of all priority wildlife, along the 

lines of ecosystem management. 

Many recent forest management 

plans have emphasized the need 

for greater structural complexity, 

“balanced” composition of shadetolerant and shade-intolerant 

species, along with hard-mast and 

soft-seeded species, and greater 

amounts of standing dead and 

dying wood in stands. Tanner 

provides forest management 

recommendations for the Ivorybilled Woodpecker that in most 

ways sound very similar to 

current direction. If additional 

information is produced by 

locating or studying birds, or 

better interpretation of historical 

data is produced in the future, 

different approaches can be 

considered. 

3. Favored Tree Species

Sweetgum and Nuttall oak were 

the two species clearly favored 

by Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in 

Tanner’s study. Enhancing the 

amount of sweet gum and Nuttall 

oak in future forests can be a goal 

in appropriate forest management 

prescriptions. Both of these tree 

species need openings of several 

acres to regenerate successfully 
19

and produce large-diameter 

trees. Unless Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers are considered, the 

general belief is that sweetgum 

is less desirable than hard mast 

red oak for promotion of wildlife 

values. This is understandable 

because small diameter sweetgum 

is prolific in today’s younger 

forests. Stimulating the growth 

of large sweetgum trees such as 

those that formerly occurred at 

the Singer Tract (Tensas River 

NWR) may require cutting trees 

surrounding desired sweetgums 

in current forests to foster the 

growth of large, emergent trees 

on appropriate sites. This will be 

a challenge, even on public land, 

where most forests were highgraded before or shortly after 

(if the previous owner retained 

timber rights) they came into 

public ownership. Today, however, 

there is growing recognition that 

sweetgum can play an important 

role in establishing healthy red 

oak stands that will form mature 

forests of the future. 

More important than merely 

favoring sweetgum and Nuttall 

oak is management aimed at 

producing older forest conditions 

with adequate dead and dying 

trees over large enough acreages 

to allow a more sustainable, 

functioning forest ecosystem. 

Gaps created for management 

purposes or from dying trees will 

allow development of a diverse 

forest structure and provide 

regeneration conditions necessary 

for a resilient ecosystem. 

Currently, this should be the 

appropriate habitat management 

objective for Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker. It is possible that 

the apparent preference for 

these trees in Tanner’s study 

area could have been due to their 

greater susceptibility to long, 

gradual decline after an extended 

drought and subsequent fire that 

occurred about ten years prior 

to Tanner’s study. To complicate 

the picture further, a photograph 

included in Allen and Kellogg 

(1937) documents an Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker on a pine tree in 

Florida, and the species’ reliance 

on pine is well known in Cuba.

4. Impact of Changing 

Hydrologic Regimes on Tree 

Species

Changing hydrological regimes 

are causing deteriorating 

conditions for many forest 

communities in the Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley (MAV). Conditions 

in Arkansas’ portion of the 

MAV are becoming wetter 

for longer periods during the 

growing season to the point 

that loss of drainage is leading 

toward a shift in tree species to 

those more tolerant of wetter 

conditions. Without correction 

of this hydrologic regime, most 

existing sweetgum and Nuttall 

oak will not survive into the older 

age class apparently preferred 

by the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, 

and subsequent stands will likely 

be dominated by species such as 

overcup oak and water hickory, 

neither of which is considered 

by Tanner as important foraging 

trees for Ivory-bills. In even 

wetter conditions, tupelo gum 

would tend to spread. The 

importance of this tree for Ivorybilled Woodpeckers remains 

unclear despite the presence 

of tupelo gum along the Bayou 

DeView portion of the Cache 

River NWR (tupelo gum was 

absent from the Singer Tract and 

still is absent from the Tensas 

River NWR).

In contrast to conditions in 

much of eastern Arkansas, much 

of Louisiana’s portion of the 

LMV is becoming drier. This 

change is also leading to some 

dramatic changes in forest 

condition, with substantial dieoffs underway in some areas 

that are forcing a shift from 

Nuttall oak eventually to willow 

oak stands. Willow oak also was 

not considered an important 

foraging tree for the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker on the Singer Tract. 

Nevertheless, such die-offs 

might be considered beneficial 

for Ivory-billed Woodpecker, 

providing a short-term pulse of 

foraging opportunity. However, 

the apparent shifts in tree 

species composition calls into 

question whether older-growth 

conditions can be achieved 

without correcting hydrological 

conditions. 

5. The Role of Disturbance

Tanner concluded that Ivorybilled Woodpeckers respond 

positively to disturbances as 

long as many standing recently 

dead, stressed, and dying trees 

remained after the disturbance. 

Woodpecker activity was usually 

greatest two to three years 

after the disturbance. This 

response indicates that these 

disturbances such as fire, wind 

storms, flooding, and some types 

of timber removal can produce 

the kinds and amounts of boring 

insect larvae favored by Ivorybilled Woodpecker. 

Tanner described in detail the 

occupation by Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker of specific areas in 

the Singer Tract associated with 

major recent disturbances. He 

discussed the role of a major fire 

that passed through the Singer 

Tract in 1924 and how that may 

have influenced the abundance 

of dead and dying trees in the 

home ranges of several of the 

most reliably productive pairs 

he closely studied. In addition, 

he recounts the observations of 

J.J. Kuhn (the State Wildlife 

official, who helped locate birds 

and assisted James Tanner 

with his study) that Ivorybilled Woodpecker ranges soon 

expanded to include the area 

through which a 1931 cyclone 

had passed. This area contained 

substantial dead and dying wood 

which remained after salvage 

logging. A pair also expanded 

their range to the edge of a 

1930-31 timber harvest area with 

substantial numbers of dead 

and dying trees. According to 

Kuhn, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

had been absent prior to these 

disturbances, but adults were 

observed frequently foraging 

within them during 1933 and 

1934. 

Ice storms, tornadoes, 

hurricanes, floods, fires, and 

other natural disturbances are 

important factors that can lead to 

favorable conditions, especially 

in older-growth forests. Where 

these natural forces occur, they 

can create the favorable habitat 

needed for the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker as well as providing 
20

for regeneration of shade 

intolerant species. However, 

the amount of bottomland 

hardwood forest in the Southeast 

U.S. has been greatly reduced 

from its former expanse. In the 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley the 

reduction is staggering, shrinking 

from about 24 million acres 

before European colonization 

to less than 5 million. Today’s 

forest is also predominately 

fragmented across the landscape. 

It is debatable whether natural 

forces alone can provide a 

sufficient amount or appropriate 

distribution of disturbance. 

Small storm events, although 

often locally devastating, have 

done little regionally to improve 

structure in today’s mostly 

mid-seral forests. Given the 

dominance of mid-seral forest 

conditions, storms often are 

either too weak to break open 

densely stocked stands to 

make much difference in forest 

structure or they are too strong, 

causing stand replacement 

events. Hurricanes or large 

storms causing catastrophic 

damage provide abundant 

recently dead and dying wood, 

but only temporarily and likely 

at the expense of losing many 

suitable nesting and roosting 

trees. Observations along the 

Pearl River, post-2005 Hurricane 

Katrina, and along the Trinity, 

Neches, and Sabine Rivers, 

post-2005 Hurricane Rita, may 

provide additional information to 

determine the validity of these 

assumptions with respect to 

forest dynamics and responses 

to severe storms. Storms are 

important, but we have no control 

over their location or intensity.

Although managers have no direct 

influence over storms, forests can 

be managed in ways that allow 

for storm damage more closely 

to mimic likely pre-European 

settlement effect patterns. The 

challenge lies in producing the 

effects of large-scale disturbances 

where needed within these 

smaller isolated forests while 

also promoting older-growth 

conditions, which require an 

emphasis on large trees, large 

senescent limbs, and dying wood. 

The fact that the appropriate size 

of a disturbance patch is unknown 

further complicates the issue. 

Managers may be able to use 

prescribed fire in bottomland 

forests to beneficial effect. 

Tanner’s data strongly suggest 

that fire was a major influence 

on which stands were most 

productive, in terms of young 

produced, within bottomland 

hardwood habitat. However, 

today the practice of many land 

managers is to suppress fires 

rapidly in bottomland habitats. 

Potentially, this practice should 

be replaced by allowing natural 

or managed fires to continue 

through these areas to stress or 

kill trees purposefully.

Another area of uncertainty is 

to what extent certain forestry 

practices might enhance habitat 

conditions for this species. J.J 

Kuhn reported to Tanner (1942, p. 

46) that about three years after 

cutting occurred within a private 

holding in the Singer Tract, 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers foraged 

in dead and stressed timber 

along the edge of the cutover 

area. In addition, Tanner wrote 

to Richard Pough (Jackson 2004, 

pp. 147-148) explaining that he 

had observed a similar response 

from Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in 

taking advantage of the flush of 

wood-borers in freshly killed slash 

along the edges of the cutover 

area. It must be emphasized, 

however, that these examples 

likely were exceptions. The 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers used 

cut-over areas for brief periods 

of time, and only where directly 

adjacent to extensive older forests 

in the Singer Tract. In general, 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers avoided 

foraging in extensively cut-over 

areas and did not use the slash 

and waste on the forest floor in 

such areas. Regardless of the 

potential for short-term use of cut 

stands, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

disappeared entirely from areas 

that had been subjected to 

extensive timber harvesting. 

Today, forest managers consider 

many objectives and use a wide 

variety of silvicultural methods. 

Some of these are similar to 

his recommendations. There 

are two studies investigating 

the occurrence and abundance 

of wood-boring insects after 

different girdling and harvesting 

techniques and comparing these 

to wood-boring insect occurrence 

and abundance in unharvested 

stands. These studies can be used 

to inform future management 

decisions, as needed (see 

Appendix D for abstracts). 

Beavers (Castor canadensis) are 

presently an important source of 

disturbance in the MAV. Beavers 

historically created large patches 

of dead and dying trees due to 

prolonged flooding during the 

growing season (Kellison et 

al. 1998). Today, aggressive 

beaver control programs have 

been implemented on public and 

private lands in this area. Due 

to altered hydrology, beavers 

often lead to an unpredictable 

and disproportionate amount 

of mature forest loss, given the 

smaller amount (5 million acres 

compared to 24 million acres 

of estimated pre-European 

bottomland hardwood) and 

more fragmented condition of 

remaining bottom land hardwood 

forest patches. Potentially, 

beavers could be managed to 

provide the sort of disturbance 

suggested above. 

6. Dead Trees

Providing habitats with mostly 

older and larger trees in addition 

to larger patches of recently dead 

and dying trees on a regular 

basis presents a management 

challenge, in part because the 

appropriate quantity of recently 

dead and dying wood to provide is 

unknown. Tanner (p. 47) reports 

that the areas Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker used for foraging 

on the Singer Tract contained 

thirteen trees per acre with dead 

wood (this included live trees 

with large dead limbs as well 

as entirely dead small trees). 

Balancing older forest conditions 

with frequent development of 

appropriately sized disturbance 

patches will be particularly 

challenging in today’s fragmented 

forest (i.e., <15,000 acres). 

Ideally, individuals or pairs of 

birds will have the possibility to 

find sites with temporary optimal 
21

conditions within the landscape. 

If management of larger tracts 

of forested land to benefit Ivorybilled Woodpeckers is needed, it 

may require public and private 

cooperation. 

In many areas, there are 

increasing numbers of dead and 

dying trees due to changing 

hydrological conditions as well 

as storm damage. The general 

approach in the past was to 

salvage log the stand in order 

to stimulate regeneration of 

more flood-tolerant or droughttolerant species, without much 

consideration for the importance 

of dead and dying trees for many 

species of wildlife. This practice 

may need to be reconsidered if 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are 

present. 

The total number of dead and 

dying trees in bottomland forests 

today is perhaps less relevant 

than the size and ages of those 

trees. Potentially, an adequate 

flow of dead and dying wood from 

large stems (including entire 

trees as well as large branches on 

still living trees) from one 3-year 

period to the next will sufficiently 

support desirable wood-boring 

beetle larvae. Preliminary data 

(Hamel et al. and Pearson et 

al; unpublished presentations) 

indicate an abundance of large 

larvae are produced from 

experimentally wounded trees.

If Cerambycid and other woodboring insect larvae are a 

preferred food, the peak foraging 

window is more narrow than 

that of other woodpeckers. 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are 

described as seeking beetle larvae 

associated with “freshly” dead 

sapwood (Tanner). The beetle 

larvae found in dead and dying 

wood become most available when 

the death of the wood is recent 

(1-3 years). The Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker habitually used its 

bill as a wedge to remove bark 

from the freshly dead sapwood. 

Therefore, the size and time since 

death of the tree is important as 

well as the amount of available 

dead wood. Tanner recognized 

the importance of providing dead 

and dying trees. He suggested 

that areas could be managed 

using selection cuts. The harvests 

would be focused on healthy, 

growing trees and retain dead, 

dying, damaged, and otherwise 

stressed trees. This would 

maintain and potentially improve 

the food sources for the Ivorybilled Woodpecker. 

The practice of retaining dead 

and dying wood is not viewed as 

negatively as it was in the past, 

Some public land managers are 

experimenting with ways to 

provide more dead and dying 

wood following some of Tanner’s 

suggestions. The amount of 

recently dead and dying wood 

that should be provided for the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker is still 

unclear and may vary among 

forest types. The publication 

Restoration, Management and 

Monitoring of Forest Resources 

in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: 

Recommendations for Enhancing 

Wildlife Habitat provides 

recommended prescriptions 

(LMVJV Forest Resource 

Conservation Working Group 

2007). Additional adaptive 

change may be required as more 

is learned about the habitat 

preferences of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker. 

7. Current Forest Management

In 2003, the Lower Mississippi 

Joint Venture Forest Resource 

Conservation Working Group 

specifically started to address 

issues related to the management 

of the forest resources within 

the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. 

Management issues of concern 

included management of 

existing bottomland hardwood 

forest resources, reforestation 

of agricultural lands, and 

inventory and monitoring of 

all these resources. Instead 

of placing restrictions on 

individual silvicultural practices, 

recommendations target defining 

certain habitat characteristics 

that are necessary to meet 

the annual requirements of 

the multitude of wildlife 

species dependent on these 

forest resources. How forest 

managers achieve and maintain 

these habitat characteristics is 

determined by the individual 

situation. Objectives are set at 

the landscape level, and guidance 

is provided for how to achieve 

these objectives with individual 

stands. This methodology allows 

the manager to apply appropriate 

silvicultural practices at the stand 

level to meet habitat needs in 

each situation. The publication 

Restoration, Management and 

Monitoring of Forest Resources 

in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: 

Recommendations for Enhancing 

Wildlife Habitat provides these 

recommended objectives and 

guidelines. Application of the 

recommendations found in the 

document forms the backbone of 

our approach to the conservation 

of potential Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker habitat. These 

guidelines should be considered 

for bottomland systems across 

the southeast. There are no 

specific guidelines suggested for 

other forest types potentially 

used by Ivory-billed Woodpecker, 

but focusing on other priority 

species that depend on mature 

forests may lead to proper habitat 

conditions (e.g., open pine forests 

that are regularly burned).

H.		Reasons	for	Listing/Current	

Threats	

The final listing notice (32 FR 

4001 and 35 FR 8495) did not 

contain an assessment of the 

primary threats to the Ivorybilled Woodpecker. A description 

of these threats is presented 

below; each is classified according 

to the five listing/ delisting factors 

identified in section 4 of the 

Endangered Species Act (“Act”; 

16 USC 1531 et seq.) 

1. Habitat Loss and Degradation 

(Factor A) 

The historical decrease in Ivorybilled Woodpecker numbers 

throughout the range appears 

to be mainly due to large-scale 

reduction and conversion of 

forest habitats, though this is not 

universally accepted. Essential 

features of historical Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker habitat included: 

extensive, continuous forest 

areas, very large trees, and 

agents of tree mortality resulting 

in a continuous supply of recently 

dead trees or large dead branches 

in mature trees (Jackson 

2002). According to Tanner, 
22

“In many cases [Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers’] disappearance 

almost coincided with logging 

operations. In others, there was 

no close correlation, but there are 

no records of Ivory-billed [sic] 

inhabiting areas for any length 

of time after those have been cut 

over.” In addition, before large 

scale logging had commenced, 

Tanner also commented that 

the reduced occurrence of 

recently dead and dying wood 

was probably responsible for 

declines of woodpeckers in the 

Singer Tract. Habitat loss has 

probably affected Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers since the original 

cutting of virgin forest; with some 

losses being gradual and others 

occurring very rapidly. Jackson 

(1989) estimated that by the 

1930s, only isolated remnants 

of the original southern forest 

remained. Forest loss continued 

with another period of accelerated 

clearing and conversion to 

agriculture of bottomland 

hardwood forests of the Lower 

Mississippi Valley (LMV) during 

the 1960s and 1970s. The 

combined effect of those losses 

has resulted in reduction and 

fragmentation of the remaining 

forested lands. The conversion 

rate of forest to agricultural lands 

in some parts of the southeastern 

United States has reversed in the 

past few years. Currently, many 

public and private agencies are 

working to protect and restore 

forest habitat. Nevertheless, 

until more is learned about the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s habitat 

requirements, the extensive 

habitat loss and fragmentation 

and the lack of information on 

specific habitat requirements 

remain a threat to this species. 

2. Over-Utilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, 

Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes (Factor B) 

Historical records indicate 

that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

were killed and used for various 

purposes by native and colonial 

Americans. Collection of Ivorybills for scientific purposes has 

been documented since the 1800s. 

Jackson (2002) presented data 

indicating that such collecting 

resulted in the taking of over 

400 specimens, mostly between 

1880 and 1910. Noel Snyder 

(2007) concludes that the close 

correlation between timber 

harvesting activities and the 

decline of the Ivory-bill reflected 

an increased exposure to poaching 

and collecting rather than food 

limitation in logged-over forests. 

He asserts that direct killing of 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers was 

the primary cause for the species’ 

original decline. Collecting, in 

combination with the concurrent 

habitat loss likely hastened the 

decline of the species, and it is 

possible that local populations 

could have been extirpated by 

collecting. For example, Ivorybilled Woodpeckers are believed 

to have been reduced by excessive 

collecting rather than as a result of 

the conversion of forest habitats in 

a small area of the Suwanee River 

region of Florida. In addition, 

Tanner indicated that many Ivorybilled Woodpeckers were killed 

merely to satisfy curiosity. The 

direct utilization of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers for commercial, 

recreational, scientific or 

educational purposes is currently 

not a significant threat due to 

the current laws protecting the 

species (see Factor D), and there is 

no recent evidence of take.

3. Disease or Predation 

(Factor C) 

Little is known regarding the 

past or current roles of disease 

and predation in the decline of 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

No mortality due to disease or 

predation has been recorded. 

However, there may be future 

potential for avian flu, West Nile 

Virus or other diseases to impact 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. It is 

unlikely disease or predation was 

a primary factor in the original 

decline of the species or in the 

current status of the species.

4. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

(Factor D) 

The lack of adequate regulatory 

mechanisms may have 

contributed to the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker’s original decline. 

Currently, existing regulatory 

mechanisms appear to be 

adequate as the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker is protected under 

the ESA, Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act, and state laws.

5. Other Natural or 

Anthropogenic Factors Affecting 

the Ivory-bill’s Continued 

Existence (Factor E) 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

populations appear to have 

been in a state of continuous 

fragmentation and decline since 

the early 1800s (Jackson 2002, 

Tanner 1942). Early accounts 

gave no accurate or definite 

estimates of abundance. As 

habitat loss progressed, coupled 

with collection, population 

numbers dwindled, and 

fragmentation isolated the 

species into discrete communities, 

contributing to the decline. Small 

population sizes and limited 

distributions put species at risk 

from naturally occurring events 

and environmental factors. While 

a substantial amount of habitat is 

protected in Arkansas and other 

states where recent sightings 

have been reported, threats exist 

from continued fragmentation 

and normal environmental 

changes. For example, sporadic 

natural events such as tornadoes 

or ice storms could destroy 

the only remaining nest or 

roost trees, or severe weather 

conditions could result in nesting 

or fledging failures. There is no 

information on the number and 

genetic health of any remaining 

birds. Small populations are 

normally at risk from genetic and 

demographic stochastic events 

(such as normal variations in 

survival and mortality, genetic 

drift, inbreeding, etc.). Also, 

difficulty in confirming and 

delineating populations and 

the limited basic biological and 

ecological information on the 

species is an important factor that 

currently threatens our ability to 

recover the species.

I.		Conservation	Efforts

1. Conservation Efforts in the 

Recent Past

Wherever the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker was reported, 

both excitement and action 

followed. In the early 1970s, 

Sam Houston National Forest in 

east Texas proposed to modify 
23

timber harvests on the basis on 

three unconfirmed Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker sightings by their 

staff (Ruediger 1971). These 

and other sightings in east Texas 

were never widely accepted and 

consequently did not stimulate 

widespread forest management 

changes to promote the welfare 

of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Most stories of unconfirmed 

sightings have generated no 

change in land management 

throughout the southeast, though 

there have been some local 

exceptions.

An unconfirmed sighting of 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the 

White River NWR during the 

late 1970s by the head forester 

led to a distinct and repeated 

emphasis to retain many olderage-class trees. The emphasis on 

larger trees has continued for 30 

years and was adopted upon the 

purchase of the adjacent Cache 

River NWR and the subsequent 

acquisition of about 55,000 acres 

of former timber company land. 

The result is that very large trees 

(>30” dbh) are retained in about 

200,000 acres of forest. With 

staff moves and communication 

between Service foresters, this 

practice spread to the South 

Arkansas Refuge Complex, Holla 

Bend NWR, Theodore Roosevelt 

Complex, West Tennessee 

Complex, Tensas River NWR, 

and other NWRs (J. Denman, 

pers. comm.). 

A well known, but unconfirmed, 

1999 sighting in the Pearl River 

WMA (WMA) in southeast 

Louisiana did prompt the 

Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) 

to modify a prescribed harvest 

in an attempt to improve Ivorybilled Woodpecker foraging 

habitat and to attract the birds 

for easier observation. In 2002 at 

11 sites, ranging from three to 40 

acres, chainsaw felling, selective 

girdling (25-75%), and chemical 

injection was used to fell, kill, or 

weaken trees in an attempt to 

establish a concentration of beetle 

larvae suitable for Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker feeding. In August 

of 2005, Hurricane Katrina made 

landfall near this particular 

area, severely impacting the 

study site as well as the entire 

lower Pearl River drainage 

basin. No confirmed Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker sightings have been 

made in the area. 

2. Current Conservation Efforts

Current conservation efforts 

in Arkansas have focused on 

learning more about the status 

and distribution of the species 

in the Cache River and White 

River drainages; managing public 

access to potentially sensitive 

sites and directing visitors to 

appropriate areas; protection 

of land through acquisition of 

easements or fee interest; forest 

management, reforestation; and 

public education. 

Habitat improvement and 

restoration may be essential 

to the future recovery of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker should 

additional birds or locations of 

birds be confirmed. In related 

actions, various quantitative 

models were developed to 

identify the amount and quality 

of habitat needed to support 

recovery. Additionally, NWR 

forest management activity was 

carefully reviewed for potential 

impacts on the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker.

About 326,000 acres of the Cache 

River-White River basin is in 

public ownership as national 

wildlife refuges, state natural 

areas, or state WMA. In 

addition, private conservation 

interests, primarily TNC and 

Ducks Unlimited, hold nearly 

20,000 acres. These fee title 

ownerships are supplemented 

by approximately 52,882 acres 

of Wetland Reserve Program 

easements administered by the 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. Together these lands 

total almost 400,000 acres of 

current and future habitat that is 

being managed and conserved.

Active forest management 

(thinning and other tree cutting) 

on Cache River and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges 

was temporarily suspended 

(2005-7) while the existing 

forest management plans were 

reviewed to ensure that they 

created habitat that best meets 

the requirements of the Ivorybilled Woodpecker. Managers 

of the adjacent state lands at 

Dagmar and Rex Hancock/Black 

Swamp WMAs also established 

a temporary moratorium on 

harvesting or thinning stands 

for forest management. This 

short term passive management 

was implemented under the 

assumption that some birds 

were present throughout the 

contiguous block of forested 

habitat in the lower White 

River basin. Current forest 

management prescriptions 

allow the manager to apply 

appropriate silvicultural practices 

for individual stands to meet 

habitat needs for a wide variety 

of target species. The publication 

Restoration, Management and 

Monitoring of Forest Resources 

in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: 

Recommendations for Enhancing 

Wildlife Habitat provides these 

recommended objectives and 

guidelines (LMVJV Forest 

Resource Conservation Working 

Group 2007).

In 2005 limited morticulture 

(stressing/killing live trees) 

management was implemented 

as an experiment along Bayou 

DeView on the Benson Creek 

Natural Area, which is jointly 

owned by TNC and the Arkansas 

Natural Heritage Commission. 

Management is similar to what 

the LDWF did on the Pearl River 

WMA. Four 4-acre blocks were 

treated with varying amounts of 

tree girdling to create potential 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

feeding habitat and to attract 

the birds for observation. The 

results are being monitored and 

may serve as a pilot for larger 

studies in the future. Additional 

modified harvesting practices 

and morticulture plots have 

been developed and established 

by the LDWF on WMAs and 

Tensas NWR in Louisiana. These 

activities are part of ongoing 

research the better to understand 

dynamics associated with 

insect colonization of stressed 

trees in bottomland hardwood 

forests; potentially informing 

the development of Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker foraging habitat.
24

Land acquisitions at Cache River 

NWR, in cooperation with TNC, 

also provide long-term habitat 

benefits for a multitude of species. 

This refuge is a regional priority 

for additional acreage, primarily 

driven by North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan 

objectives for the mid-continent 

mallard population. Since 1995 

the Fish and Wildlife Service 

has purchased 23,456 acres as 

additions to Cache River NWR. 

Lands were purchased primarily 

using revenue from the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Fund, also 

known as the Duck Stamp Fund. 

The remainder of the lands was 

purchased with appropriations 

under the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. In 2004 and 

2005 they acquired title, options, 

or easements on approximately 

18,500 acres in the Bayou DeView 

area. Reforestation efforts are 

underway on much of this land. 

All lands were acquired from 

willing sellers. 

The Natural Resources 

Conservation Service has been 

a leader in restoring bottomland 

hardwood habitat in the lower 

White River basin. Since the 2005 

announcement of rediscovery of 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker their 

Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) 

has enrolled 3,601 acres, and 

the Wildlife Habitat Incentives 

Program has established 

easements to reforest or enhance 

existing forests on 5,958 acres 

of privately owned land. The 

Wetland Reserve Enhancement 

Program is committed to 

supplemental tree planting on 

1,000 additional acres of WRP 

lands. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program committed $1 million in 

support of habitat improvement 

activities on private lands in 

Arkansas and Louisiana. In 2005, 

996 acres were enrolled in and 

reforested by this program in and 

around the Big Woods. In 2006, 

an additional 1,362 acres were 

planted in the same area.

A central database has been 

established where all Ivorybilled Woodpecker sightings can 

be reported (http://www.birds.

cornell.edu/ivory/identifying/). 

In May 2005 three “Town 

Hall” meetings were held in 

the communities of Brinkley, 

Stuttgart, and Augusta to 

provide information on the 

announcement of rediscovery 

and the first steps which are 

expected to be taken towards 

recovery. Concerns over potential 

land acquisition plans, impacts 

on public use, and questions 

about the natural history of 

the species were answered. In 

Arkansas, the Corridor of Hope 

serves as an important method 

of communicating with the local 

community in the lower White 

River basin. Other outreach 

efforts include interpretive 

materials on how to identify an 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker, where 

to report sightings, informational 

signage, and interpretive 

programs.

The surveys and related research 

will be adapted as more is learned 

about the locations and habits 

of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Surveys have been made in other 

portions of the historical range in 

east Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Alabama, South Carolina, North 

Carolina, Tennessee, Illinois, 

Georgia and Florida.

3. Summary of Conservation 

Efforts

Conservation efforts to date 

have been directed towards 

confirming the existence of the 

species in multiple locations as 

well as Arkansas and taking 

initial habitat improvement and 

restoration actions. 

The principal conservation 

actions included improving and 

expanding the survey effort in 

Arkansas, as well as in other 

formerly occupied locations, 

and describing potential habitat 

sufficiently, so that the most 

likely locations for other possible 

existing populations may be 

identified and surveyed. Current 

management practices were 

evaluated and modified as needed. 

Public outreach and education 

was conducted. 

The announcement of rediscovery 

generated significant interest on 

the part of the public and national 

and international conservation 

organizations. There was strong 

support for taking the necessary 

steps to assess population status, 

delineate habitat, and determine 

the proper management actions 

needed for recovery. Subsequent 

controversy over the evidence 

supporting the announcement did 

not reduce the necessity for these 

initial actions, most of which are 

complete. 

Research, modeling, and habitat 

inventory projects have been 

undertaken to understand 

the distribution of potential 

habitat better, and to enhance 

the methods used to detect 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. In 

addition, models focused on 

foraging energetics, habitat 

characterization and assessment, 

and potential population viability 

are being developed (see 

Appendix D for abstracts).

J.		Biological	Constraints	and	

Needs

The most significant biological 

constraint to recovery of this 

species is that the population, 

where there may be one, is 

very small, and individuals are 

extremely difficult to detect with 

any degree of certainty. The 

species is so rarely reported that 

learning more about the species 

and its habitat requirements and 

basic aspects of its ecology will be 

the primary interim conservation 

action. 

The capacity of such a small 

population to recover and 

multiply is unknown, though 

examples of successful increases 

in numbers exist in other species. 

(Komdeur 2002).

Clutch sizes in the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker range from 1-6 eggs 

but more typically consist of 2 to 

4. Incubation is by both sexes 

and takes about 20 days. Both 

adults feed the young for a period 

of about 35 days and the young 

may be fed by the parents for 

an additional two months. Life 

span has been estimated to be 

in excess of 10 years, although 

this is also not known for certain. 

In sum, our current knowledge 

of the species suggests that 

the relatively low reproductive 
25

II.	 Recovery

A.		Recovery	Strategy

Our understanding of most 

aspects of the ecology and 

biology of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker is limited. It has 

proven extremely difficult to 

locate or relocate individuals 

despite extensive survey efforts. 

Much of what is known is derived 

from James Tanner’s studies 

on one small population and 

Tanner’s range-wide evaluation 

of reports and habitat availability. 

Other information comes from 

knowledge of other Campephilus

species, woodpeckers in general, 

interpretations of photographs, 

and anecdotes gathered by other 

observers. The current strategy 

must focus first on locating 

and confirming the presence of 

individuals. Then we can add to 

our knowledge about the ecology 

and biology of the species once a 

population is identified, providing 

a feasible approach to habitat 

protection, given its potential 

presence.

Our poor understanding of the 

species has focused the recovery 

strategy largely on learning more 

about the species status and 

ecology rather than undertaking 

specific habitat management 

actions. Habitat management 

and land protection efforts are 

important, but the major focus is 

learning more about where the 

birds may persist, then examining 

those habitats to reveal ways 

in which specific conservation 

actions could be developed. Many 

of the potential recovery actions 

will be made only where a nest 

or roost is located or where there 

are new multiple sightings, video, 

physical evidence, or a picture of 

a bird. 

Spatially explicit, objective, and 

measurable population goals have 

not been identified. However, 

those goals are recognized as 

a key part of future recovery 

efforts. Habitat modeling and 

other analysis tools have been 

completed for Arkansas and 

other parts of the species’ range. 

These models inform search 

efforts and broadly identify 

potential areas for conservation. 

Population modeling has provided 

an indication that the persistence 

of the Ivorybill in low numbers 

throughout its range is possible 

(Mattson et al 2008).These efforts 

will help inform the development 

of spatially explicit, objective 

and measurable population and 

habitat goals for future recovery 

plans. 

B.		Recovery	Goal

The goal of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker recovery program 

is to locate, protect, and 

increase existing populations 

and associated habitat and to 

recover the species to the point 

at which it can be downlisted 

from endangered to threatened 

status, and ultimately to remove 

it completely from the Federal 

list of threatened and endangered 

species. This goal is consistent 

with current requirements for all 

listed species. 

C.		Recovery	Objectives

This recovery plan identifies 

many interim actions needed to 

achieve long-term viability for the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker and to 

accomplish these goals. Recovery 

of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

focuses on the following 

objectives: 

1. Identify and delineate any 

existing populations

2. Identify and reduce risks to 

any existing population, 

3. Protect and enhance suitable 

habitat once populations are 

identified, and;

4. Reduce or eliminate threats 

sufficient to allow successful 

restoration of multiple 

populations when those 

populations are identified. 

The emphasis in this recovery 

plan on documenting and 

conserving viable populations 

in the historical range is based 

upon two widely recognized and 

scientifically accepted goals for 

promoting viable populations of 

listed species. These goals are: 

1. the creation of multiple 

populations so that a single or 

series of catastrophic events 

does not result in species 

extinction; and 

capacity of the species may 

require many years for significant 

population growth.

Protocols for captive breeding 

of this species are also poorly 

understood. Significant work 

with surrogate species, such as 

the Magellanic Woodpecker may 

be needed. This effort would take 

some time since there is currently 

no person or institution engaged 

in the captive breeding of large 

woodpeckers.

To the best of our knowledge, 

the species requires large tracts 

of forested habitat (several 

thousand acres per breeding 

pair) with large portions of the 

tract containing large trees for 

feeding, nesting and roosting. 

On some public lands within 

the historical range, forests are 

in suitable or close to suitable 

condition, though still highly 

fragmented. Conditions continue 

to improve on many public 

lands as the forest ages. Most 

contemporary public forests 

are only beginning to approach 

the older forest conditions we 

think suitable for Ivory-bills, 

and they may have insufficient 

large, dead, and stressed trees. 

In addition, major gains in 

recovering this species potentially 

require the cooperation of private 

landowners. In the southern U.S. 

89% of the forests are privately 

owned. (Appendix I). 
26

2. the increase of population size 

to a level where the threats 

from genetic, demographic, 

and normal environmental 

uncertainties are diminished 

(Mangel and Tier 1994, 

National Research Council 

1995, Tear et al. 1995, 

Meffe and Carroll 1994). 

By maintaining population 

numbers and viable breeding 

populations at multiple sites, 

the species will have a greater 

likelihood of achieving longterm survival and recovery. 

D.		Recovery	Criteria

At present, the limited 

knowledge on the population 

abundance, distribution, habitat 

requirements, and biology of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker prevents 

development of more specific 

recovery criteria. The following 

interim criteria will lead us to 

the development of more specific, 

quantifiable criteria that should 

be met before considering the 

delisting of this species: 

1. Potential habitats for any 

occurrences of the species are 

surveyed. 

2. Current habitat use and needs 

of any existing populations are 

determined.

3. Habitat on public land where 

Ivory-bills are located is 

conserved and enhanced. If 

needed, additional acreage is 

acquired from willing sellers 

and listed in the public habitat 

inventory.

4. Habitat on private lands is 

conserved and enhanced 

through the use of voluntary 

agreements (e.g., conservation 

easements, habitat 

conservation plans) and public 

outreach. 

5. Viability of any existing 

populations (numbers, breeding 

success, population genetics, 

and ecology) is analyzed. 

6. The number and geographic 

distribution of subpopulations 

needed to create conditions 

favorable to a self-sustaining 

metapopulation and to evaluate 

habitat suitable for species reintroduction is determined. 

E.		Recovery	Actions

The primary interim actions 

needed to determine explicit 

recovery criteria and ultimately 

to achieve recovery criteria and 

accomplish delisting/downlisting 

recovery goals 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,

7. education and outreach on the 

conservation of the species,

8. management of public use 

in areas where the species 

is known to occur to avoid 

possible adverse impacts from 

intense public use, and 

9. management of rediscovered 

populations and forested 

habitats to aid recovery.

F.		Total	Estimated	Cost	of	Recovery

Our limited knowledge of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s 

occurrence and distribution as 

well as of necessary long-term 

actions precludes any informed 

estimate of recovery costs for 

the species. See Appendix C for 

recovery expenditures to date.

G.		Narrative	Outline	of						 	

Recovery	Actions

1. Population Surveys and 

Monitoring

a. Ivory-bill surveys were 

initially focused in the 

Cache and White river 

basins. Surveys have 

been completed there and 

elsewhere in the historical 

range. Survey protocols 

have been developed, 

and state search groups 

have been formed. A 

sightings database is being 

maintained by Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology. 

Criteria for evaluating 

encounters were developed 

for that information (see 

Appendix F); 

 i. A survey design 

developed for search 

efforts throughout the 

range is adaptive, uses 

ancillary data (e.g., 

previous sightings, 

output from biological 

models, distribution 

of stressed or dying 

trees), and results 

in consistent survey 

methodology. Search 

teams used a sampling 

design provided by the 

University of Georgia 

(see Appendix F). This 

design, if birds are 

detected, will allow 

determination of the 

probability of species 

detection based on 

survey effort, search 

area, and population 

size.

 ii. Searches have been 

conducted throughout 

many areas in the 

historical range, 

including the Cache and 

White river basins, by 

state-based groups. 

 iii. Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

survey and monitoring 

technologies were 

developed (including the 

use of helicopter surveys). 

See Appendix F.

b. If birds are located, develop 

monitoring protocols to 

assess population size and 

trend.
27

2. Habitat Inventory and 

Monitoring

 Additional Ivory-bill habitat 

inventory focused primarily 

in the Cache and White river 

basins. Coordination and 

implementation of a multiscale habitat inventory and 

monitoring program are 

needed in other parts of the 

historical range where sighting 

information indicates presence 

of the species.

a. Develop additional protocols 

and techniques, as needed, 

for habitat inventory and 

monitoring program. 

 i. Refine ground-based 

forest inventory 

protocols which will 

identify characteristics 

important to Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker, including 

disturbance history.

 ii. Conduct additional 

remote sense-based 

(e.g., LiDAR, ASTER) 

forest inventories to 

augment ground-based 

habitat inventories.

b. Priority search areas 

were identified by state 

search groups. Prioritize 

additional search areas 

throughout the historical 

range in cooperation with 

state search groups.

c. Conduct habitat inventory 

and monitoring using both 

ground-based techniques 

and remote technologies, as 

needed. Forest inventories 

in the Cache and White 

River basins were 

completed. As needed, 

conduct forest inventories 

in priority areas throughout 

the range.

d. Develop a web-based, forest 

inventory geodatabase to 

consolidate and archive 

data. This task would allow 

web-based connection 

with other bird monitoring 

databases.

e. Assess the efficiency and 

effectiveness of forest 

management prescriptions 

intended to increase 

foraging habitat.

3. Population/Habitat Models

 To facilitate survey efforts and 

inform potential management 

actions, there is a need to 

develop quantitative population 

and habitat relationship 

models. These models should 

address landscape-quality 

and site-quality factors 

presumed to limit Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker populations. 

Models and risks of uncertainty 

will be presented as testable 

hypotheses. Habitat-specific 

parameters will be based on 

currently available information, 

research results, new data, and 

expert opinion. See Appendix 

D for description of model 

development.

a. As needed, refine the Cache 

and White river basin 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

population-habitat model 

for application at larger 

spatial scales (e.g., MAV, 

rangewide). The outputs 

from this model would be 

used to:

 1. develop a Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley 

population/habitat 

model;

 2. guide the development 

of forest inventory/

monitoring programs;

 3. facilitate landscape 

characterizations and 

assessments; and

 4. refine forest 

management to 

reach Desired Forest 

Conditions if needed.

b. Refine, as needed, the 

range-wide potential 

occupancy model to 

facilitate search efforts 

across the southeastern 

portion of the United 

States. 

c. When birds are confirmed, 

develop estimates of 

populations using life table 

methodology and data on 

available habitat quality and 

use. 

d. Develop, as needed, a 

population viability model 

(currently a theoretical 

model is available).

4. Assumption-Driven Research

 Given the limited information 

available, certain assumptions 

are necessary to establish 

management guidelines. 

Research directed at testing 

the biological assumptions 

otherwise implicit in 

management actions is 

necessary. The following 

tasks are designed to test 

assumptions implicit in 

biological goals, objectives, 

and the biological response 

presumed to occur from 

management actions. 

a. Compile and summarize 

additional literature.

b. Assess causes of tree 

mortality, decay rates, 

and stand-replacement 

processes on the assumption 

that cavities, foraging 

habitat, and/or prey may be 

limiting factors for Ivorybilled Woodpecker and that 

these can be evaluated by 

gathering information on 

tree mortality. 

 i. Gather information on 

naturally-occurring 

tree mortality, snag 

formation, and decay 

rates across elevation 

gradients, hydrologic 

regimes, and soil classes.

 ii. Gather information 

on tree mortality and 

snag formation as 

a result of “typical” 

silvicultural treatments 

(e.g., thinning) across 

elevation gradients, 

hydrologic regimes, and 

soil classes.

c. Assess the relationship of 

tree mortality to forage 

availability. This is a focus 

of current studies. 

 i. Gather information 

on wood-boring insect 

populations, life history, 

and natural densities 

and on factors which 
28

contribute to their 

density, richness and 

abundance (e.g., tree 

mortality, decay rates). 

ii. Gather data on tree 

species mortality and 

decay rates and on 

beetle densities at 

different dead and dying 

tree stand volumes 

and where “artificial” 

silvicultural treatments 

(e.g., girdling, injection) 

are used. Collect this 

data across elevation 

gradients, flooding 

regimes, and soil classes.

d. Expand and re-examine 

research priorities when 

active nest trees are 

discovered and/or when 

other appropriate reports 

occur. 

e. Investigate the 

ecology of Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker through 

detailed investigations 

of appropriate surrogate 

species.

f. Disseminate research 

findings via symposia and 

peer-reviewed publications.

5. Landscape Characterization 

and Assessment

The ability of the Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley to support 

recovery populations is 

unknown. The capacity of 

other habitats within the 

historical range to support 

recovery populations is also 

unknown. The following tasks 

are intended to characterize 

the ability of the Cache/ 

Lower White River basin 

and the Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley Bird Conservation 

Region to support Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker populations based 

on current and/or projected 

landscape and site quality 

conditions. Additionally, these 

tasks will allow assessment of 

other parts of the species range 

in terms of their capability 

to support Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers. Abstracts of 

these studies are provided in 

Appendix D.

a. Conduct an assessment of 

the extent 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 photography. 

b. Develop forest type maps 

of the Cache and Lower 

White River basins using a 

hydrogeomorphic (HGM) 

model augmented with 

fall 2004 and 2006 high 

resolution color infrared 

aerial photography, ground 

survey data, multi-spectral 

satellite data and any other 

available data.

c. Analyze 1938 Singer 

Tract aerial photography 

for a retrospective 

look at Tanner’s data 

using new ancillary 

data and technologies 

(e.g., stereoscopic photo 

interpretation SURRGO 

soils data, Saucier 

geomorphology data) and 

any other available data. 

Compare it with 1940 

Lower White River basin 

aerial photography.

d. Assess “suitable” habitat 

across the MAV and the 

historical range based 

on the application of 

biological models to 

currently available data 

sets (e.g., FIA, NLCD, 

aerial photography, LIDAR, 

Cornell mobile search 

teams)

e. Use data obtained by 

remote sensing (e.g., 

ASTER, LiDAR) and 

population habitat models 

to identify forested habitat 

conditions that attract 

and support Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker, then groundproof the results.

f. Conduct a hydrogeomorphic 

assessment of existing 

and potential wetland and 

upland habitats of the MAV.

6. Conservation Design

At this time, spatially 

explicit, objective and 

measurable population and 

habitat objectives cannot be 

determined for the Ivorybilled Woodpecker but will be 

needed to support decisionmaking for conservation and 

management of the species. 

These tasks are designed to 

establish biological objectives 

(population and habitat) as 

determined by biological 

models. This information will 

be used to develop spatially 

explicit models that define 

the landscape conditions 

believed to support Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker populations. 

a. Establish population 

goals and objectives when 

appropriate information is 

available.

b. Establish habitat goals 

and objectives to support 

population goals and 

objectives when appropriate 

information is available. 

Habitat goals at all spatial 

scales would consider 

management, protection, 

and restoration of extant 

southern (bottomland) 

forests.

c. Develop, as needed, any 

additional forest restoration 

and management guidelines 

(Desired Forest Conditions) 

designed to support 

population goals.

d. Refine habitat management 

guidance for Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker. 

e. Produce maps and 

technical documents (e.g., 

management guidelines) 

that land managers 

and planners can use to 

implement conservation 

programs across multiple 

spatial scales. 

f. Develop decision-support 

tools based on biological 

models that facilitate the 

delivery of conservation 

programs by maximizing 

the biological and cost 

efficiency of management 

actions. 
29

7. Education and Outreach

 The 2005 announcement that 

an Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

had been encountered in 

the Big Woods of Arkansas 

generated a substantial 

amount of interest among the 

public. Information for the 

general public and numerous 

stakeholders involved or 

concerned with the recovery 

of the species have been 

developed. Communitybased programs to enhance 

opportunities to learn about 

and promote the conservation 

of the species and its habitat 

have been provided in 

cooperation with partners. The 

purpose of these tasks is to 

convey a consistent message 

regarding recovery efforts 

and to facilitate those efforts 

through public awareness and 

education.

a. Communication plans 

and strategies have 

been developed and 

implemented. Ensure that 

continuing communications 

address the need for 

information at various levels 

and for various stakeholders 

(e.g., birdwatchers, local 

citizens, government 

agencies, industry). 

b. Outreach tools to help 

private landowners and 

land managers must be 

developed. See Appendix G. 

c. Species identification 

brochures have been 

developed and distributed. 

Monitor future need for 

these products and provide 

them where needed.

d. Coordinate and cooperate 

with the government of 

Cuba regarding the status 

and recovery of the Cuban 

population of the Ivorybilled Woodpecker.

8. Public Use and Access in 

Occupied Habitat

 Due to the potential for 

adverse impacts resulting 

from intense public interest, 

guidelines were developed to 

manage public use where birds 

are possibly located. Initially, 

a portion of the Cache River 

NWR was closed temporarily, 

then full access was managed 

via permit. No restrictions 

currently exist. See Appendix 

G. These actions should be 

discussed and applied, as 

needed, where roosting or 

nesting birds are documented 

or a bird is confirmed. 

a. Develop guidelines for 

public use and other 

activities in Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker habitat. 

Develop additional 

guidelines, as needed, on 

the types of use including 

the timing, amount, and 

nature of activities near 

roost or nest trees and 

foraging habitat. 

b. Develop public access and 

viewing points such as 

boardwalks, towers, blinds, 

and platforms.

9. Management of Populations

 Increased interest on the part 

of researchers will require the 

development of research and 

monitoring protocols to assure 

that adverse impacts are 

minimized. 

a. Protect occupied habitat 

and priority lands needed 

for recovery.

 i. Acquire additional 

acreage from willing 

sellers and list it in the 

public habitat inventory, 

if needed.

 ii. Acquire additional 

area through 

voluntary agreements 

(e.g., conservation 

easements, habitat 

conservation plans) 

and public outreach to 

facilitate appropriate 

management actions, if 

needed.

b. Develop guidelines for 

monitoring Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker nesting, 

roosting, and feeding 

behavior (e.g., permitting 

procedures, procedures for 

researchers). 

c. Assess the need for 

intervention to enhance 

reproductive success, 

productivity and survival. 

d. Determine the genetic 

health and viability of the 

population. 

e. Implement reforestation 

activities and forest 

management practices 

to benefit Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker habitat.

f. Use decision-support 

models and other biological 

planning tools to determine 

the need and location of 

additional land protection 

measures.
30

III.	Implementation	

Actions

Recovery plans are intended to 

assist the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and potential Federal, 

state, and private partners in 

planning and implementing 

actions to recover and/or protect 

endangered and threatened 

species. The Implementation 

Schedule that follows lists the 

initial recovery actions completed 

and planned for the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker. It is a guide for 

meeting the recovery goals 

outlined in this plan. Parties 

with authority, responsibility, or 

expressed interest to implement 

a specific recovery action are 

identified in the Implementation 

Schedule. When more than one 

party has been identified, the 

proposed lead party is indicated 

by an asterisk (*). The listing of 

a party in the Implementation 

Schedule does not require that 

the identified party has agreed 

to implement the action(s) or to 

secure funding for implementing 

the action(s). However, parties 

willing to participate may benefit 

by being able to show in their 

own budgets that their funding 

request is for a recovery action 

identified in an approved recovery 

plan and is therefore considered 

a necessary action for the overall 

coordinated effort to recover the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Section 7 (a)(1) of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

directs all federal agencies 

to utilize their authorities in 

furtherance of the purposes of the 

ESA by carrying out programs 

for the conservation of threatened 

and endangered species. Any 

expenditures by identified 

agencies/partners will be 

contingent upon appropriations 

and other budgetary constraints. 

Expenditures for completed 

tasks and research projects are 

included in Appendix C.

Abbreviations	and	Acronyms	Used	in	the	Following	Table

A Factor A of reasons for listing (see Section H)

ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

AGFC Arkansas Game and Fish Commission

ANHC Arkansas Heritage Commission

AMWPT Arkansas Multi-Agency Wetland Planning Team

CLO University of Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology

Coop. USGS cooperative research unit with a university

CSU Colorado State University

E Factor E of reasons for listing (see Section H)

EA FWS, External Affairs

ES FWS, Field Office

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FY Fiscal Year

GOV Other local, state, and Federal agencies

K Thousand dollars

LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

M Million dollars

MAV Mississippi Alluvial Valley

MB FWS, Migratory Birds

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NGO Non Governmental Organization

NRCS USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service

NWR FWS, National Wildlife Refuge

NWRC U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Complex

PVT Private landowners

R2 FWS, Southwest Regional Office, Albuquerque

R4 FWS, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta 

RE FWS, Realty

RF FWS, Refuges

RT Recovery Team

Smith. Smithsonian Institution, Museum of Natural History, 

Department of Vertebrate Zoology

States State wildlife agencies within Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

historical range

TNC The Nature Conservancy

UAR University of Arkansas

UGA University of Georgia

UID University of Idaho

UMD University of Maryland

Unk Unknown

UNI University researchers

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

FS USDA Forest Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
31

Table	1.	Implementation	Actions

Task	description Threat Status	and	Comments

Complete and implement protocols and 

procedures for recording, classifying, 

and responding to reported Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker sightings.

E R4, R2, ES CLO*, States Initial protocols and 

procedures are completed. 

The sightings database 

is established and will be 

updated by CLO.

Develop teams to rapidly assess the 

veracity of sightings in other areas.

E R4, R2, ES, 

RF

CLO*, States State Search Groups perform 

this task

Develop a repository for all previous 

sightings.

E R4, ES CLO* Completed

Develop survey designs for search efforts 

throughout the range.

E R4, ES UGA, USGSUGA Coop.Completed

Determine the probability of species 

detection based on survey effort, search 

area and population size.

E R4, ES USGS-UID 

Coop., CLO

Completed

Implement searches in the Cache and 

White River basins.

E R4, ES, RF See notes Numerous partners are 

involved in the search. 

Implement range-wide searches based on 

priority areas defined in the habitat tasks.

E R4, R2, ES, 

RF

States, CLO, 

NGOs

Completed, additional 

searches will be completed 

with partners as necessary

Develop state-based implementation 

groups.

E R4, ES, R2 States, CLO

Enhance existing and develop new Ivorybilled Woodpecker survey and monitoring 

technologies.

E R4, ES CLO, USGS Complete as needed

Develop monitoring protocols to assess 

population size and trend.

E R4, ES UNI Implementation of this task 

depends on search results. 

Develop ground-based forest 

inventory protocols which will identify 

characteristics important to Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker, including disturbance 

history.

A A,E States, NGOs Costs are negligible since the 

task is already a part of staff 

duties.

Conduct remote sense-based (e.g., LiDAR, 

ASTER) forest inventories to augment 

ground-based habitat inventories.

A R4, R2, ES, 

MB*, RF

USGS, UMD, 

NASA, 

States, NGOs

Initial inventories are 

completed

Prioritize search areas in the Cache and 

White River basins.

A, E R4, ES, RF, 

MB*

State of 

Arkansas, 

CLO, TNC

Completed

Prioritize search areas throughout the 

historical range using information from 

expert opinion and tasks

A, E R4, R2, ES, 

RF, MB*

States, CSU, 

USGS-CSU 

Coop.

Completed

Conduct forest inventories in the Cache 

and White River basins.

A R4, ES, RF*, 

MB*

State of 

Arkansas

Completed

Conduct forest inventories in priority 

areas throughout the range.

A ,E R4, R2, ES*, 

MB, RF

States, 

NGOs, PVT

Perform as needed.

Characterize and assess the adequacy of 

foraging habitat in the Cache and White 

River Basins.

A R4, ES, 

MB*RF

AGFC, TNC, 

CLO

Completed

Consolidate and archive data. A RF, MB* States

Assess the efficiency and effectiveness of 

forest management prescriptions intended 

to increase foraging habitat.

A R4, ES, 

MB*, RF

USGS, USFS, 

ANHC, LDWF, 

AGFC

Complete as needed

(*denotes lead agency)

Responsible	Organization

FWS Other
32

Task	description Threat Status	and	Comments

Express Tanner’s Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

study conclusions for the Singer Tract 

population as an energetic foraging model.

E R4, ES, MB* UGA, USGSUGA Coop., 

USFS, NWRC

Study is being completed. See 

Appendix D

Develop a Cache-White River basin 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker populationhabitat model to guide forest inventory 

and monitoring programs and to facilitate 

landscape characterizations and 

assessments.

E R4, ES, MB* RT Complete as needed.

Refine the Cache and White River basin 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker populationhabitat model for application at larger 

spatial scales (e.g., MAV, range-wide).

E R4, ES, MB* RT, CSU, 

USFS, CSUCoop.

Data have been developed in 

conjunction with other tasks.

Develop a range-wide potential occupancy 

model to facilitate search efforts across 

the southeastern portion of the United 

States.

E R4, R2, ES, 

RF, MB*

States, CSU, 

USGS-CSU 

Coop.

Research project is being 

completed, see Appendix F

Develop estimates of the possible existing 

population using Life Table methodology 

and information on available habitat and 

territory size.

E R4, ES UAR Complete as needed

Develop a Population Viability Model. E R4, ES, MB USGS-UGA 

Coop.

Appendix D

Summarize and compile the existing 

literature into a database.

A, E R4, ES, MB Smith. Complete

Gather information on naturally-occurring 

tree mortality, snag formation, and 

decay rates across elevation gradients, 

hydrologic regimes, and soil classes.

A R4, ES, 

MB*, RF

USGS, USFS, 

ANHC, LDWF, 

AGFC

Gather information on tree mortality and 

snag formation as a result of “typical” 

silvicultural treatments (e.g., thinning) 

across elevation gradients, hydrologic 

regimes, and soil classes.

A R4, ES, 

MB*, RF

USGS, USFS, 

ANHC, LDWF, 

AGFC

Gather data on tree species mortality 

and decay rates and on beetle densities 

at different dead and dying tree stand 

volumes and where “artificial” silvicultural 

treatments (e.g., girdling, injection) are 

used. Collect this data across elevation 

gradients, flooding regimes, and soil 

classes.

A R4, ES, 

MB*, RF

USGS, USFS, 

ANHC, LDWF, 

AGFC

Experimental treatments 

completed, data collection and 

analysis is continuing

Expand and re-examine research priorities 

when active nest trees are discovered.

E R4, ES, MB, 

RF

RT, CLO Complete as needed

Investigate the ecology of Ivorybilled Woodpecker through detailed 

investigations of appropriate surrogate 

species.

E R4, ES States, UNI, 

The Walt 

Disney Co.

See Appendix D

Conduct an assessment of the extent 

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 

photography.

A ANHC NWRC* Completed

(*denotes lead agency)

Responsible	Organization

 FWS Other
33

Task	description Threat Status	and	Comments

Develop forest type maps of the Cache 

and Lower White River basins using a 

HGM model augmented with fall 2004 

and 2006 high resolution color infrared 

aerial photography, ground survey data, 

multi-spectral satellite data and any other 

available data.

A R4, ES, MB ANHC*, 

USGS, ACOE, 

AMWPT

Completed

Analyze 1938 Singer Tract aerial 

photography for a retrospective look at 

Tanner’s data using new ancillary data and 

technologies. Compare it with 1940 Lower 

White River basin aerial photography.

A R4, ES, MB, 

RF

NWRC*, 

LDWF

Study being completed. 

Extend to other portions of the 

historical range as needed to 

inform habitat management.

Assess “suitable” habitat across the 

MAV and the historical range based on 

the application of biological models to 

currently available data sets.

A R4, R2, ES, 

MB*

CSU*, USFS, 

RT, ACOE, 

ANHC

Completed

Use data obtained by remote sensing 

(e.g., ASTER, LiDAR) and population 

habitat models to identify forested habitat 

conditions that attract and support Ivorybilled Woodpecker, then ground-proof the 

results.

A R4, ES, 

MB*, RF

NWRC*, 

NASA, UMD

Basic data gathered

Conduct a hydro-geomorphic assessment 

of existing and potential wetland and 

upland habitats of the MAV.

A R4, ES, MB, 

RF

ANNHC*, 

USGS, ACOE

Completed

Establish population goals, objectives and 

timelines for the species’ historical range.

E RF States Complete as needed

Establish habitat goals, objectives, and 

timelines to support population goals, 

objectives, and timelines.

A, E R4, R2, ES*, 

MB, RF

RT, States Selected members of the RT 

will assist. Costs are largely 

for RT members’ time and 

travel and for workshop 

development. Complete as 

needed.

Develop forest restoration and 

management guidelines (Desired Forest 

Conditions) designed to support population 

goals.

A R4, R2, ES, 

MB*, RF

States, USFS, 

ANHC, TNC, 

USGS, PVT, 

NRCS

Completed.

Refine habitat management guidance for 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

A R4, R2, ES, 

MB*, RF

States, USFS, 

ANHC, TNC, 

USGS, PVT, 

NRCS

PVT partners include private 

timber companies.

Produce maps and technical documents 

(e.g., management guidelines) that land 

managers and planners can use to 

implement conservation programs across 

multiple spatial scales.

A R4, ES, MB* USGS, USFS Costs for this task will continue 

until recovery is completed. 

These tools are part of larger 

bird conservation initiative.

Develop decision-support tools based on 

biological models that facilitate the delivery 

of conservation programs by maximizing 

the biological and cost efficiency of 

management actions.

A MB* USGS Models will be internet-based 

and refined annually as habitat 

management and restoration 

occurs. These tools are part 

of larger bird conservation 

initiative. 

Develop an outreach plan and strategy 

which addresses community-based 

programs that promote conservation of the 

species and its habitat.

A EA*,R4, R2, 

ES, MB, RF, 

AFGC

RT-Outreach 

Team

Tasks and Funding are based 

on potential discoveries 

in other states, requiring 

additional outreach.

(*denotes lead agency)

Responsible	Organization

 FWS Other
34

Task	description Threat Status	and	Comments

Communication plan and strategy 

addresses the need for information 

at various levels and for various 

stakeholders (e.g., birders, local citizens, 

government agencies, industry).

A, E R4, ES, EA RT-Outreach 

Team

Tasks and Funding requests 

are based on potential 

discoveries in other states, 

requiring additional outreach.

Develop outreach tools to help private 

landowners and land managers.

A R4, ES, EA RT-Outreach 

Team

Tasks and Funding requests 

are based on potential 

discoveries in other states, 

requiring additional outreach.

Develop and distribute species 

identification brochures.

E R4, R2, ES, 

RF, MB, EA

RT-Outreach 

Team, NGOs, 

States

Tasks and Funding requests 

are based on potential 

discoveries in other states, 

requiring additional outreach.

Coordinate and cooperate with the 

government of Cuba regarding the status 

and recovery of the Cuban population of 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

E CLO* NGO action

Develop guidelines on the types of use 

and the timing and amount of activities 

in the vicinity of roost or nest trees and 

foraging habitat.

E RF, MB UNI, States Guidelines will be assessed 

continually based on findings 

and species status.

Develop public access and viewing points 

such as boardwalks, towers, blinds and 

platforms.

E R4, R2, ES, 

MB, RF NGOs, States

The current focus is on the 

Cache and White River NWRs.

Completed 

Protect occupied habitat. A R4, R2, ES, 

RF

States, 

NGOs, PVT

Complete additional land 

acquisition, protection, and 

management as needed

Develop guidelines for monitoring Ivorybilled Woodpecker nesting, roosting and 

feeding behavior.

E R4, R2, ES, 

RF, MB

States, CLO Initial protocols have been 

developed and will be 

reviewed annually or as 

needed.

Assess the need for intervention 

to enhance reproductive success, 

productivity and survival.

E R4, ES*, MB CLO, NGOs This depends on locating 

birds for possible captive 

propagation. Partners such 

as the San Diego Zoo will be 

consulted.

Determine the genetic health and viability 

of the population.

E R4, ES UNI Costs are unknown and 

depend on obtaining 

appropriate biological material.

Implement reforestation activities and 

forest management practices which will 

benefit Ivory-billed Woodpecker and its 

habitat.

A R4, R2, RF States, 

NGOs, NRCS, 

PVT

Complete where needed 

or as a part of current bird 

conservation initiatives.

Use decision-support models and other 

biological planning tools to determine 

the need and location of additional land 

protection measures.

A, E RE NGOs Complete where needed 

or as a part of current bird 

conservation initiatives.

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.

(*denotes lead agency)

Responsible	Organization

 FWS Other
35

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. http://birds.cornell.edu/pifcapemay.

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: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/5/8.

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 Ivorybilled Woodpeckers (Campephilus principalis) Exist in Florida. Avian Conservation and Ecology - Écologie 

et conservation des oiseaux 1(3): 2. [online] URL: http://www.ace-eco.org/vol1/iss3/art2/.

Hasbrouck, E. M. 1891. The Present Status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Auk 

8(2):174-186.

Integrated Taxonomic Information System. 2008. ITIS Report for Campephilus principalis [online] URL: 

http://www.itis.gov/index.html. 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.
36

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 

106:309-319.

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: http://www.ace-eco.org/vol3/iss2/art5/.

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 

28:380-382.

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.
37

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, 

Mississippi.

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, 

Missouri.

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.
38
39

Laurie Fenwood, Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Executive Committee 

of the Recovery Team

John Bridgeland

Civic Enterprises LLC

Greg Butcher

Audubon

General Robert Crear

Army Corps of Engineers

Nancy DeLamar

Vice President and State Director

The Nature Conservancy - 

Arkansas Field Office

Kirk Dupps

National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation

John Fitzpatrick

Cornell Lab of Ornithology

Sam Hamilton

Regional Director, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Southeast Region

Scott Henderson

Director, Arkansas Game and 

Fish Commission

Tim Kelly

National Geographic Global 

Media Group

Robert Nixon

Chairman, Earth Conservation 

Corps

Regional Forester

Southern Region, Forest Service

Larry Wiseman

American Forest Foundation

Steering Committee 

of the Recovery Team

Jon Andrew, Chair

Regional Chief, NWRS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region

Robert Cooper, Co-Chair

Warnell School of Forest 

Resources, University of Georgia

Tom Foti, Co-Chair

Retired Research Chief, Arkansas 

Natural Heritage Commission

David Goad, Co-Chair

Deputy Director, Arkansas Game 

and Fish Commission

Kenny Ribbeck, Co-Chair

Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries

Ken Rosenberg, Co-Chair

Director, Conservation Science 

Program/ Partners In Flight

Cornell Lab of Ornithology 

Biology Working Group 

of the Recovery Team

David Allen

North Carolina Wildlife Resource 

Commission

Eric Baka

Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries

Laurel Barnhill

Bird Conservation Coordinator

South Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources

Wylie Barrow

U.S. Geological Survey, National 

Wetlands Research Center

Jim Bednarz

Arkansas State University

Roger Clay

Alabama Division of Wildlife 

and Fisheries

Dwight Cooley

Project Leader

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge

Robert Cooper

Co-Chair, Warnell School of 

Forest Resources

University of Georgia

Dean Demarest

Migratory Bird Management

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Southeast Region 

Richard Fischer

Environmental Laboratory

U.S. Army Engineer R & D 

Center

Robert P. Ford

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

Appendix A. 

Members of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Team 

and Their Affiliation
40

Gary Graves

Department of Vertebrate Zoology 

National Museum of Natural 

History, Smithsonian Institution

Paul Hamel

Center for Bottomland 

Hardwoods Research

USDA Forest Service

Mike Harris

Chief, Nongame Wildlife and 

Natural Heritage Section

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources, Wildlife Resources 

Division

Richard Hines

Refuge Biologist

White River National Wildlife 

Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Southeast Region

Jerome Jackson

Florida Gulf Coast University

Whitaker Center, College of Arts 

& Sciences

Douglas A. James

Department of Biological 

Sciences, University of Arkansas

David Krementz, Arkansas 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit

Department of Biological 

Sciences, University of Arkansas

Martjan Lammertink

Cornell Lab of Ornithology 

David Luneau

University of Arkansas at Little 

Rock

David Mehlman

Director of Conservation 

Programs, The Nature 

Conservancy, Migratory Bird 

Program

Karl Miller

Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission

Wildlife Research Library

Allen Mueller

The Nature Conservancy, 

Arkansas

Catherine Rideout

Songbird Program Coordinator

Arkansas Game and Fish 

Commission

Ken Rosenberg, Co-Chair

Director, Conservation Science 

Program/ Partners In Flight, 

Northeast Regional Coordinator, 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology 

Dan Scheiman

Bird Conservation Director 

Audubon

Cliff Shackelford

Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department

Jim Tate

Retired Science Advisor to the 

Secretary, Department of the 

Interior

Dan Twedt

Wildlife Biologist

US Geological Survey - Patuxent 

Wildlife Research Center

Michael Warriner

Arkansas Natural Heritage 

Commission

Randy Wilson

Lower Mississippi Valley Joint 

Venture

Nick Winstead

Bird Conservation Coordinator

Mississippi Department of 

Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks

Museum of Natural History

Mark Woodrey

Research Coordinator/Biologist 

Mississippi State University, 

Coastal Research and Extension 

Center, Grand Bay National 

Estuarine Research Reserve 

Habitat Working Group 

of the Recovery Team

James Baker

State Wildlife Biologist, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service

Martin Blaney

Arkansas Game and Fish 

Commission

Robert Bonnie

Environmental Defense

George Bukenhofer

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Program Manager

USDA Forest Service, Southern 

Region

Jimmy Bullock

International Paper Company

Mike Carloss

Program Manager – Habitat 

Section, Louisiana Department 

of Wildlife and Fisheries

James Cummins

President, Mississippi River 

Trust

Jeff Denman

Forester, White River National 

Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Southeast 

Region

Todd Engstrom

Florida State University

Tom Foti, Co-Chair

Research Chief, Arkansas 

Natural Heritage Commission

Leigh Fredrickson

Gaylord Memorial Laboratory

University of Missouri

Larry Handley

National Wetlands Research 

Center, U.S. Geological Survey

John D. Hodges

Mississippi State University

Chuck Hunter

Regional Refuge Biologist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region

Eric Johnson

Forester, Cache River National 

Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Southeast 

Region

David Kulivan

National Rifle Association
41

Bobby Maddrey

Division Wildlife Biologist

Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Jim Neal

Migratory Bird Management 

Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

David Pashley

American Bird Conservancy

Mike Phillips

Turner Endangered Species 

Fund

Bruce Reid

Deputy State Director

National Audubon SocietyMississippi 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 

Survey

Peter Stangel

National Fish & Wildlife 

Foundation - Southeast Region

Mike Staten

Wildlife Manager, AndersonTully 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 

Service

Buck Vandersteen

Louisiana Forestry Association

Russell Watson

Field Supervisor, Lafayette 

Ecological Services Field Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Southeast Region

Wendi Weber

Assistant Regional Director, 

Ecological Services

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Bently Wigley

National Council of the Paper 

Industry for Air and Stream 

Improvement 

Scott Yaich

Director of Conservation 

Programs, Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

Doug Zollner

The Nature Conservancy of 

Arkansas
42
43

possible alternative explanations 

for sight records, the most likely 

alternative explanation involves 

potential confusion with the much 

more numerous and superficially 

similar Pileated Woodpecker 

(Dryocopus pileatus). In 

fact, most reported sightings 

of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

in the past have turned out 

to be misidentified Pileated 

Woodpeckers. Nevertheless, 

there are a number of sightings 

before and since 1938 (when the 

last definitive photo was taken 

in the U.S.) that cannot be easily 

dismissed raising the issue 

of whether all sightings were 

mistakes in the past and are also 

mistakes in the present. That 

is an important issue described 

elsewhere (see Appendix E). 

While detailed sightings and 

auditory evidence remain 

important in evaluating whether 

or not Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

may persist in an area, it is the 

Luneau video that is potentially 

the best hard evidence that at 

least one Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

was present in the Cache River 

National Wildlife Refuge at least 

in April of 2004. 

Both Sibley et al. (2006) and 

Fitzpatrick et al. (2005, 2006) 

recognize that the identity of 

the woodpecker in question is 

not inherently obvious. While 

universal agreement on the 

identity of the woodpecker in 

the Luneau video may never 

be possible, both Sibley et al. 

(2006, 2007) and Fitzpatrick et 

al. (2006, 2007) remain confident 

that enough information can be 

derived from the Luneau video 

to reach an identification of the 

woodpecker in question. Sibley 

et al. (2006, 2007) stated that 

the video evidence is insufficient 

to reject the null hypothesis of 

Prepared by William C. Hunter, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Atlanta, GA 30345 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) recognizes that 

substantial evidence for the 

persistence of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker (Campephilus 

principalis) into the 21st 

Century emerged from recent 

search efforts that began in 

eastern Arkansas (hereafter the 

Big Woods). The presentation 

of this evidence triggered 

implementation of conservation 

provisions as stipulated by the 

Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended. In the case 

of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, 

these provisions include the 

development of a recovery plan, 

consultation on all Federal actions 

proposed within the Big Woods, 

and working with conservation 

partners further searching 

both in the Big Woods as well 

as throughout the historical 

distribution of the species. The 

FWS also recognizes that there 

continues to be scientific debate 

regarding the interpretation of 

this evidence. We take seriously 

our responsibility to promote 

conservation and potential 

recovery of this species, while 

recognizing that this evidence is 

not universally accepted within 

the scientific community. With this 

in mind, we remain committed 

along with our conservation 

partners to promoting 

appropriate habitat protection 

and management based on an 

ecosystem approach that includes 

consideration for this very rare 

species, and supporting necessary 

research to conserve this species 

and the ecosystem it depends 

upon in the Southeast U.S. 

Interpretation of the Evidence: 

The Debate

One of the most significant, 

yet controversial, wildlife 

conservation events during the 

first decade of the 21st Century 

was the announcement by 

Fitzpatrick et al. (2005) that at 

least one Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

had been located in the Big Woods 

within the Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley. This announcement 

included the presentation of at 

least seven detailed first-hand 

accounts of presumably the 

same individual male Ivorybilled Woodpecker (Gallagher 

2005, Rosenberg et al. 2005). 

However, it was a four-second 

video (“Luneau” video) of a large 

woodpecker flying away from 

the camera that has been the 

focus for most of the debate on 

whether or not this evidence was 

conclusive (Jackson 2006, Sibley 

et al. 2006, 2007, Fitzpatrick et al. 

2006, 2007, Collinson 2007). 

Recorded auditory and repeated 

detailed sighting evidence 

contributed to the original 

conclusion reached by Fitzpatrick 

et al. (2005), but are not all by 

themselves considered conclusive. 

While recorded auditory evidence 

continues to be suggestive of 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (both 

“kent” calls and Campephiluslike double-knocks), careful 

analyses are necessary to exclude 

a wide range of other alternative 

explanations from other plausible 

sources (see Jones et al. 2007 

and http://www.birds.cornell.edu/

ivory/multimedia/sounds/index_

html/document_view ). Sightings 

not accompanied by diagnostic 

video or photographs, no matter 

how detailed or how qualified 

the observers, are all subject to 

some level of doubt. While there 

may be a wide range of remotely 

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.
44

a normally plumaged Pileated 

Woodpecker and that “the 

evidence firmly supports this 

hypothesis” in that it “cannot 

be an ivory-billed woodpecker 

and is consistent only with 

a pileated woodpecker.” In 

contrast, Fitzpatrick et al. (2006, 

2007) “disagree that Sibley et 

al. showed that the bird in the 

Luneau video ‘is consistent’ only 

with a pileated woodpecker,” 

“showed their analysis and 

assumptions to be flawed or 

lacking on many counts,” and 

“continue to regard all aspects 

of the Luneau video as fully 

consistent with ivory-billed 

woodpecker.“ 

After weighing the various 

positions, the FWS accepts the 

interpretation of Fitzpatrick 

et al. (2005, 2006, 2007). FWS 

concludes that other published 

interpretations by Sibley et 

al. (2006), and by extension 

Collinson (2007), are based on 

misinterpretations of video 

artifacts as plumage, and novel 

interpretations of typical bird 

flight. In Collinson’s comparison 

of the Luneau video to videos of 

known Pileated Woodpeckers 

in flight, we believe the 

misinterpretations also include 

inappropriate comparison of 

interlaced images of known 

Pileated Woodpeckers in flight 

with the de-interlaced images of 

the woodpecker in the Luneau 

video. While other interpretations 

of the Luneau video may yet 

emerge, to date no video of an 

actual Pileated Woodpecker 

exhibits from frame to frame the 

same plumage characteristics and 

flight mechanics exhibited by the 

woodpecker in the Luneau video. 

FWS review of the 

David Luneau Video Evidence

Support for the hypothesis 

that the Luneau video captures 

an Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

is appropriate when possible 

alternative hypotheses have been 

reviewed and rejected. The null 

hypothesis in this case is that the 

Luneau video captures a Pileated 

Woodpecker. There are two 

widely suggested alternatives of 

this null hypothesis that need to 

be rejected before it is possible to 

support the identification of the 

woodpecker in the Luneau video 

as an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

These alternatives are: (1) an 

abnormally white plumaged 

Pileated Woodpecker, or (2) a 

normally plumaged Pileated 

Woodpecker. To date there has 

been no published detailed 

analysis describing the bird 

depicted in the Luneau video as 

an abnormally white plumaged 

Pileated Woodpecker. Regardless, 

the possibility of a white Pileated 

Woodpecker was addressed 

thoroughly by Rosenberg et 

al. (2006) and dismissed. The 

challenge published by Sibley et 

al. (2006) focuses on the second 

alternative by claiming the 

identity of the woodpecker is 

obscured due to the angle of the 

bird relative to the camera along 

with flight mechanics. 

A critical interpretation of the 

Luneau video hinges on the 

use of comparative materials. 

These materials include videos 

and photographs of Pileated 

and Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

(the latter available only from 

the archives at the Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology and 

based on the work of A. A. Allen 

and colleagues during the 1930s), 

the use of mounted specimens 

and museum skins, models, and 

illustrations. Both Sibley et al. 

(2006) and Fitzpatrick et al. 

(2006) used most of these types 

of comparative materials, but 

only Fitzpatrick et al. (2005) 

analyzed the Luneau video using 

customized “flapping” life-sized 

models for both Pileated and 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. 

Specifically, Fitzpatrick et al. 

(2006, also see Lammertink et 

al. 2006) used these flapping 

models under conditions similar 

to those when the Luneau 

video was taken. This allowed 

an experimental comparison 

of what should be expected in 

video images from a normally 

plumaged Pileated Woodpecker 

and a normally plumaged Ivorybilled Woodpecker during the 

wing downstroke. Fitzpatrick et 

al. (2005, 2006, 2007) concluded, 

using direct comparisons between 

models, specimens, and videos 

of known Pileated Woodpeckers, 

that the Luneau video point by 

point does not match any known 

normal Pileated Woodpecker. 

They further concluded that there 

is broad consistency with what 

would be expected with an Ivorybilled Woodpecker. 

Sibley et al. (2006) countered 

that the flapping models are not 

realistic portrayals due to “stiff ” 

wings. Instead, Sibley et al. 

(2006) presented an alternative 

interpretation using mostly 

line drawings as support for 

the alternative that the bird 

captured on film is a normal 

Pileated Woodpecker. Since 

there is extensive video footage 

available of Pileated Woodpeckers 

in flight, careful review of this 

footage (including videos cited by 

Sibley et al. 2006) is compelling 

in demonstrating the flaws in the 

Sibley et al. (2006) interpretation 

for the extensive amount of white 

on wings evident on most frames 

in the Luneau video. 

While Sibley et al. (2006) 

reject the use of flapping 

models as comparable to flying 

woodpeckers, it is instructive 

to note that the Pileated 

Woodpecker model closely 

matches actual downstroke video 

images of Pileated woodpeckers 

and not the downstroke images 

of the woodpecker in the Luneau 

video (Fitzpatrick et al. 2006, 

Lammertink et al. 2006). The 

black trailing edges on the 

underwing are evident in many 

frames in all these videos of 

Pileated woodpecker, regardless 

of the quality of video or the 

camera angle. Even when the 

black trailing edge disappears 

in certain frames, it quickly 

reappears and is apparent in 

virtually every wingbeat. This is 

not the case with the woodpecker 

captured in the Luneau video. 

In all the videos of Pileated 

Woodpeckers, the consistent 

“twisting” wing flight style as 

proposed by Sibley et al. (2006) is 

undetectable. In particular, it is 

the upperwing, not the underwing, 

that is most apparent in both 

upstroke and downstroke when 

a woodpecker is flying level or 

rising relative to the line of sight 
45

of the camera (as the woodpecker 

does in the Luneau video). 

However, some key features 

proposed by Fitzpatrick et al. 

(2005) as diagnostic are not 

necessarily so. Specifically, the 

extrapolated size of the perched 

bird prior to launching (which if 

correct would eliminate Pileated 

Woodpecker as a possibility) could 

be subject to several differing 

interpretations, including the 

possibility that the woodpecker 

was already in flight when it 

first appeared in the Luneau 

video (Sibley et al. 2005, 2007). 

Nevertheless, once the video 

artifacts are dismissed, the 

woodpecker in the Luneau video, 

when it first becomes visible, still 

shows characteristics consistent 

with Ivory-billed Woodpecker and 

not with Pileated Woodpecker 

(i.e., lack of any indication of 

black secondaries), regardless of 

whether it is the underwing or the 

upperwing in view (Fitzpatrick 

et al. 2006, Lammertink et al. 

2006). All videos of launching 

Pileated Woodpeckers at roughly 

comparable angles invariably 

exhibit clear evidence of black 

secondaries. 

Conclusion

The FWS has made every 

effort to objectively review 

published interpretations of the 

Luneau video. Our review of the 

presented arguments leads us 

to conclude that the alternative 

interpretations of Sibley et al. 

(2006) and Collinson (2007) fail to 

credibly support their assertion 

that the woodpecker in the 

Luneau video could reasonably 

be a Pileated Woodpecker. 

Subsequent published analyses 

with additional comparative video 

footage or the use of improved 

(including computer generated) 

models may lead to new insights 

into the identification of the 

woodpecker in the Luneau video. 

Regardless of the debate over 

the Luneau video, the lack 

of more definitive evidence 

would understandably lead to 

increasing doubt about the initial 

reports from 2004 and 2005. The 

question that must be addressed 

is whether a large species of 

woodpecker with a black body 

and extensive white in the wings 

(more than is typical for Pileated 

Woodpecker) could reasonably 

escape being definitively 

photographed since 1938 (Tanner 

1942, Jackson 2004). This 

question becomes more important 

as search efforts over five years, 

while leading to additional 

potential encounters, have failed 

to reliably locate Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers in Arkansas. Similar 

results have occurred with 

organized searches in Florida, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Texas, and Louisiana (USFWS 

2006, 2007, Hill et al. 2006), again 

despite similar increases in the 

number of potential encounters 

in several of these states across 

the historical range of the species 

(more detail provided in Appendix 

E.). So while we cannot conclude 

that a population of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers is established 

in this region, any declaration 

proclaiming the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker is extinct would be 

premature. 

The FWS recognizes and 

supports exchanges of views on 

alternative interpretations as 

a part of the scientific process, 

and we understand that the 

accumulated information in 

Fitzpatrick et al. (2005) will 

continue to be questioned as 

constituting confirmation of the 

species’ persistence in eastern 

Arkansas. We will review any new 

published information to ensure 

that our conclusions and actions 

supported by the best available 

information. Although the FWS 

continues to welcome constructive 

debate over the interpretation of 

the Luneau video, the repeated 

potential visual and auditory 

encounters alone in the Big Woods 

of Arkansas and elsewhere within 

the historical range of the species 

cumulatively present enough 

evidence to support the regionwide search effort. In addition, 

the potential presence of this 

species justifies continuing habitat 

conservation and restoration 

efforts that were already well 

underway in eastern Arkansas 

before any recent evidence of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker became 

known to the FWS. 

In conclusion, the FWS accepts 

the original Fitzpatrick et 

al. (2005) interpretation of 

the Luneau video and other 

evidence gathered during 

the last five years as the best 

information available to support 

the hypothesis that Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker has persisted into 

the 21st Century. On the basis 

of this conclusion, the FWS will 

continue to appropriately act 

on behalf of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker under the authority 

of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended.
46

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 Ivorybilled 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 doubleraps 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 www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/

rediscovery/support/intro.

Rosenberg, K. V., M. Lammertink, K. Brady, S. Bass, and U. Setiorini. 2006. White Pileated Woodpecker 

Documented in the Big Woods. {Online.] Available at www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/field/from_field_html/

whitePIWO.

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.
47

Appendix C. Expenditures and Accomplishments 

to Date of This Draft Recovery Plan

1

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY (1113) FY 06 FUNDS IVORY-BILLED WOODPECKER 

 Received $1,135,945 

 FUNDS ORG 

 Recovery Plan, Team EXPENDED TARGETED CODE PARTNER/OFFICE ACCOMPLISHMENT

 

NWR, RO existing staff/recovery 

needs, Recovery Plan Draft $ 83,360 Refuges RO 40130 White River NWR 

Planning, inventory, management, 

support stakeholder and team meetings

 $ 46,168 Refuges RO 40130 Cache River NWR

Planning, inventory, management, 

support stakeholder and team meetings

 $ 129,528 

 

 Search Teams State Searches

 Georgia $ 28,312 

Athens 

ESFO 41460 

Field Office, GA Dept of 

Natural Resources Georgia Search

 South Carolina $ 75,000 

Charleston 

ESFO 42410

Field Office, Nature 

Conservancy South Carolina Search

 Louisiana and Arkansas $ 51,108 

Lafayette 

ESFO 43440

Field Office, LA Wildlife 

Department, Operation 

Migration Lousianna Search, Arkansas Search

 Louisiana and Arkansas $ 138,000 Refuges RO 40130

Cornell University 

Laboratory of Ornithology

 Technology support and coordination by 

Cornell, Arkansas Search 

 Alabama $ 50,000 RO 40120 USGeological Survey Alabama/Florida Search

 Texas $ 100,000 Refuges RO 40130

Gulf Coast Bird 

Observatory Texas Search

 $ 442,420 

2

 Biological Planning 

 

Development of a Population 

Viability Model P1 $ 9,000.00 

LMV JV 

office 47750

University of Georgia, 

Athens Complete-report provided

 

Development of a Foraging 

Energetics Model P2 $ 9,000.00 

LMV JV 

office 47750 see above

Work completed-- model assumptions 

and parameters developed, based on 

forest habitat inventory

 

Cache/Lower White Habitat 

Characterization and Assessment 

Phase II L1 $15,000.00 Refuges 40130

Arkansas Game and Fish 

Commission Work completed--habitat mapping

 

MAV Habitat Characterization and 

Decision Support Model L2 and C1 $39,000.00 

LMV JV 

office 47750 Ducks Unlimited

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 

handle, issue with geo-location on field 

data

 

Ecological Dynamics of Tree 

Mortality and Forest Regeneration 

R1 $ 5,000.00 

LMV JV 

office 47750 US Geological Survey

Completed, FWS contribution to $75,000 

project-management scenarios,

mortality--2-3 year project

 

Development of a Range Wide 

Potential Occupancy Model P5 and 

L7 $40,000.00 

LMV JV 

office 47750 US Geological Survey

Draft model developed, 

circulated/revised

 

Assessment of IBWP and other 

breeding birds relative to forest 

structure and composition R5 $30,150.00 

LMV JV 

office 47750

Univ of AR $30,150 

401816J047

Point count surveys completed, to be 

coupled with ground based stand 

inventory and lidar data

 

Cache/Lower White Forest 

Structure Mapping Project L4 $78,570.00 

LMV JV 

office 47750

University of Maryland, 

NASA 

Partnership with NASA, UMD, lidar 

flights completed, Spatial analysis of 

existing conditions, support tools will 

allow better focus of restoration efforts

 

Development of a Web-enabled 

Forest Management Geodatabase 

M3 $79,240.00 

LMV JV 

office 47750 US Geological Survey

Under development--real time tracking of 

habitat conditions using forest 

management and inventory data in a 

user-friendly environment-expertise 

provided by USGS

 

Assessment of Attack Rates and 

Density of Wood-boring Beetles R4 $15,000.00 

LMV JV 

office 47750

US Department of 

Agriculture 

Part of larger Forest Service Project on 

tree mortality/insects 

 $319,960 

Recovery Activities

Staff time $72,209 ES RO 40120

Salary, Travel, Printing 

(includes 

ClemsonUniversity)

Field and Regional Office staff support--

coordinated recovery actions, developed 

partnerships, assisted search efforts

Table C-1. 
48

3

M3 $79,240.00 office 47750 US Geological Survey

provided by USGS

Assessment of Attack Rates and 

Density of Wood-boring Beetles R4 $15,000.00 

LMV JV 

office 47750

US Department of 

Agriculture 

Part of larger Forest Service Project on 

tree mortality/insects 

$319,960 

 Recovery Activities 

 Staff time $72,209 ES RO 40120

Salary, Travel, Printing 

(includes 

ClemsonUniversity)

Field and Regional Office staff support--

coordinated recovery actions, developed 

partnerships, assisted search efforts

 $49,904 

Lafayette 

ESFO 43440 Salary, Travel 

 $63,953 

Conway 

ESFO 43421 Salary, Travel 

 $186,066 

 

 

 TOTAL 1113 FUNDS $1,077,974 

 TOTAL OBLIGATIONS 

 

 FUNDS REMAINING AT END OF FY $57,971 

 

 The remaining funds noted above have been used for Dec/Jan FY 07 Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Projects
49

4

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY (1113) FY 07 FUNDS IVORY-BILLED WOODPECKER 

 Received $1,182,000 

 FUNDS ORG 

 Recovery Plan, Team EXPENDED TARGETED CODE PARTNER/OFFICE ACCOMPLISHMENT

 

RO existing staff/recovery actions, 

technical assistance, Recovery 

Plan Draft, and search support $ 58,482 Refuges RO 40130 Regional Office, Refuges

Planning, management, support search 

and team meetings, technical 

assistance, and analysis

 $ 146,720 ES RO 40120

Regional Office, 

Ecological Services

Planning, management, support 

stakeholder and team meetings, search 

coordination, agreements, technical 

assistance, and analysis

 Lead Field Office Plan Support $ 77,916 Lafayette ES Field Office

Manage Public Comment process, draft 

plan support

 Peer Review $ 18,000 ES RO 40120 The Wildlife Society

Contract for Peer Review Processcompleted

 $ 301,118 

 

 Search Teams State Searches

 Georgia $ - 

Athens 

ESFO 41460

Transferred funds to 

Charleston Georgia Search

 South Carolina $ 67,691 

Charleston 

ESFO 42410

Field Office, Nature 

Conservancy , NPS South Carolina Search

 Arkansas $ 54,239 WRNWR 43670

White River National 

Wildlife Refuge Arkansas Search

 

 Arkansas $ 39,700 

Conway 

ESFO 43421

TNC, AUD-Arkansas, 

AFGC

Arkansas Search (Some funds to be 

used for Helicopter search 2008)

5

 Arkansas $ 225,000 

Lafayette 

ESFO 43440

Cornell University 

Laboratory of 

Ornithology

 Technology support and coordination by 

Cornell, Arkansas Search 

 Florida $ 100,000 RO 40120

US Geological SurveyAuburn UniversityFlorida Search (FWC search supported 

by 2006 carryover funds-$43,000 

 Texas $ 16,000 R2 40130

Gulf Coast Bird 

Observatory Texas Search

 Tennessee $ 4,000 

Cookeville 

ESFO 4230

TN DNR, Hatchie 

National Wildlife Refuge Tennessee Search

 Louisiana $ 50,000 

Lafayette 

ESFO 43440

LA Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries

Louisiana Search (Some funds to be 

used for Helicopter search 2008)

 Mississippi $ 30,000 

Jackson 

ESRO 43910

MS Department of 

Wildlife, Fisheries, and 

Parks

Mississippi Search(Some funds to be 

used for Helicopter search 2008)

 Illinois $ 9,850 R3 

Cypress Creek National 

Wildlife Refuge, IL DNR, 

IL Natural History Survey Illinois Reconnaisance Search

 North Carolina $ 71,784 ES RO 40120 Audubon North Carolina

North Carolina Search for 2008 

agreement

 

 $ 668,264 

 

 Biological Planning 

 

Search Survey Design and 

Development of Occupancy Model $ 112,777 USGS 40120

University of Georgia, 

Athens Continuing Model development

 

Surrogate Species Study Pileated 

Woodpecker Productivity and 

Ecology $ 56,500 ES RO 40120

Arkansas State 

University First Year of Study completed

 

 $ 169,277 

 

 Recovery Activities 

 Outreach $17,667 ES RO 40120 Salary, Travel, Printing

Field and Regional Office staff support 

recovery actions such as brochures, 

partnerships, web management

 Education $15,954 

Tensas 

NWR 43690 Salary, Travel 

Interpretive Kiosk plus $11,925 with RO 

for Tensas traveling display design)

 Support Refuge Management $2,975 

Loxahatchee 

NWR Helicopter Use 

 

 $36,596 

 

 TOTAL 1113 FUNDS $1,175,255 TOTAL OBLIGATIONS 

 FUNDS REMAINING AT END OF FY $6,742 

 The remaining funds noted above have been used for Dec/Jan FY 08 Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Projects

Challenge Cost Share Project $ 30,000 Refuges

White River NWR, USDA 

Forest Service Decay and Beetle infestation study

Table C-2. 
50

6

$36,596 

TOTAL 1113 FUNDS $1,175,255 TOTAL OBLIGATIONS

FUNDS REMAINING AT END OF FY $6,742

The remaining funds noted above have been used for Dec/Jan FY 08 Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Projects

 Challenge Cost Share Project $ 30,000 Refuges 

White River NWR, USDA 

Forest Service Decay and Beetle infestation study

 

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

 

MAV Habitat Characterization 

Habitat expanded by Mapping the 

Potential Natural Vegetation (PNV)

of the Tensas Basin and 

Mississippi River in Northeastern 

Louisiana. $100,000 

LMV JV 

office 47750

Contracted with the US 

Army Corps of 

Engineers, 5 Oaks 

Wildlife Services

Development of PNV maps for planning 

habitat restoration in the region, and 

specifically for restoration of potential 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat. This 

area is additional potential habitat 

outside of Arkansas, particularly in 

Louisiana and Mississippi. Study 

underway. 

 

Development of a Range Wide 

Potential Habitat Suitability Model $24,000.00 

LMV JV 

office 47750

US Geological Survey, 

Colorado State 

University Improved model under development

7

 

Assessment of IBWP and other 

breeding birds relative to forest 

structure and composition R5 $30,150.00 

LMV JV 

office 47750

Univ of AR $30 

401816J047

Point count surveys completed, to be 

coupled with ground based stand 

inventory and lidar data

 

Remotely Sensed Data 

Interpretation, Forest Structure 

Mapping, Management Decision 

Support Tool Development, 

Science Workshop, Historical 

Habitat Analysis $ 121,000 

LMV JV 

office 47750

National Wetlands 

Research Center

Under development--tracking of habitat 

conditions using forest management and 

inventory data at the compartment level 

using remotely sensed data, Forest 

Composition and stress mapping 

(AVIRIS), Forest structure mapping 

(LiDAR) Development of 1-2 workshops 

for IBWO science updates

 

Assessment of Attack Rates and 

Density of Wood-boring Beetles R4 $ 15,000 

LMV JV 

office 47750

US Department of 

Agriculture 

Part of larger Forest Service Project on 

tree mortality/insects 

 

GIS Product Development and 

Data Dissemination $20,000

LMV JV 

office 47750 The Nature Conservancy Under development 

 Project Management Support $ 95,850 

LMV JV 

office 47750 

Development of agreements, Project 

Officer and management, technology 

transfer, financial accountability 
51

8

ACCOMPISHMENTS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY (1113) FY 08 FUNDS IVORY-BILLED WOODPECKER 

 $1,163,561 Appropriated 

 FUNDS ORG 

 Recovery Plan, Team EXPENDED TARGETED CODE PARTNER/OFFICE ACCOMPLISHMENT

 

RO existing staff/recovery 

actions, technical 

assistance, Recovery 

Plan Draft, and search 

support $ 55,484 Refuges RO 40130

Regional Office, 

Refuges

Planning, management, support 

search and team meetings, technical 

assistance, and analysis

 $ 152,850 ES RO 40120

Regional Office, 

Ecological Services

Planning, management, support 

stakeholder and team meetings, 

search coordination, agreements, 

technical assistance, and analysis

 

Lead Field Office Plan 

Support $ 77,916 

Lafayette ES Field 

Office

Manage Public Comment process, 

draft plan support

 $ 286,250 

 

 Search Teams State Searches

 South Carolina $ 76,132 

Charleston 

ESFO 42410

Field Office, Nature 

Conservancy , NPS South Carolina Search

 Arkansas $ 5,000 WRNWR 43670

White River National 

Wildlife Refuge Arkansas Search

 

Arkansas and Regional 

Search $ 225,000 ES RO 43440

Cornell University 

Laboratory of 

Ornithology

 Technology support and coordination 

by Cornell, Arkansas Search, Mobile 

Search Team 

 Florida $ 101,932 ES RO 40120

USGeological SurveyAuburn UniversityFlorida Search (FWC search 

supported by 2006 carryover funds 

 Texas $ 93,000 R2 40130

Gulf Coast Bird 

Observatory Texas Search

 Tennessee $ 18,000 

Cookeville 

ESFO 4230

TN DNR, Hatchie 

National Wildlife 

Refuge Tennessee Search

9

 Louisiana $ 66,380 

Lafayette 

ESFO 43440

LA Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries

Louisiana Search (Some funds were 

used for Helicopter search 2008)

 Mississippi 

Jackson 

ESRO 43910

MS Department of 

Wildlife, Fisheries, and 

Parks

Mississippi Search $30,000 2007 

Funds

 Illinois $ 30,000 ES RO 

Cypress Creek 

National Wildlife 

Refuge, IL DNR, IL 

Natural History Survey Illinois Reconnaisance Search

 North Carolina ES RO 40120

Audubon North 

Carolina

North Carolina Search for 2008 

agreement

 $71,784 2007 Funds

 $ 615,444 

 

 Biological Planning 

 

Surrogate Species Study 

Pileated Woodpecker 

Productivity and Ecology $ 56,500 ES RO 40120

Arkansas State 

University Second Year of Study completed

 

 $ 56,500 

 

 Recovery Activities 

 Outreach ES RO 40120

Salary, Travel, 

Printing

Field and Regional Office staff support 

recovery actions such as brochures, 

partnerships, web management

 Education 

Tensas 

NWR 

Interpretive Kiosk (FY 2007 and 

$11,925 with RO for Tensas traveling 

display design)

 

Support Refuge 

Management $1,500 Hunt Brochures

 

 $1,500 

 

 LMJV Projects $ 200,000 

Table C-3. 
52

10

 TOTAL 1113 FUNDS $1,159,694 

TOTAL 

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 

Characterization Habitat 

expanded by Mapping the 

Potential Natural 

Vegetation (PNV) of the 

Tensas Basin and 

Mississippi River in 

Northeastern Louisiana. $50,000 

LMV JV 

office 47750

Contracted with the 

US Army Corps of 

Engineers, 5 Oaks 

Wildlife Services

Development of PNV maps for 

planning habitat restoration in the 

region, and specifically for restoration 

of potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

habitat. This area is additional 

potential habitat outside of Arkansas, 

particularly in Louisiana and 

Mississippi. Study underway. 

 

Development of a Range 

Wide Potential Habitat 

Suitability Model 

LMV JV 

office 47750

US Geological Survey, 

Colorado State 

University

Improved model under development 

(2007 Funds)

 

Assessment of Attack 

Rates and Density of

Wood-boring Beetles R4 $ 15,000 

LMV JV 

office 47750

US Department of 

Agriculture 

Part of larger Forest Service Project 

on tree mortality/insects 

 

Cache/Lower White 

Habitat structure 

Characterization and 

Assessment Phase II L1 $ 5,000 

 

GIS Product Development 

and Data Dissemination $20,000

LMV JV 

office 47750

The Nature 

Conservancy Under development 

 

Project Management 

Support $ 110,000 

LMV JV 

office 47750 

Development of agreements, Project 

Officer and management, technology 

transfer, financial accountability 

 

 $200,000 
53

Table C-4. 
54
55

Appendix D 

Research Projects Completed or Underway 

in Response to Recovery Outline/Implementation Actions

The following are abstracts of 

papers presented at the Ivorybilled Woodpecker Science 

Symposium on June 10, 11, 12, 

2008 at the National Wetlands 

Research Center in Lafayette, 

Louisiana. Most of the authors 

plan to publish their results in the 

future.

TITLE: Food of Ivory-Billed 

Woodpecker: Experimental 

Determination of Attack Rates of 

Cerambycid Prey on Forest Trees 

in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

AUTHORS: Paul B. Hamel1 

and Nathan M. Schiff1, Ellen 

Green4, Annie Spikes2, Matt 

Ginzel2, Wiley C. Barrow3, 

Clinton W. Jeske3, Thomas C. 

Michot3, Heather Q. Baldwin3, 

Jennifer K. DiMiceli3 and 

Tyson L. Hatch3. 1U. S. Forest 

Service, Southern Research 

Station, Center for Bottomland 

Hardwoods Research, P. O. Box 

227, 432 Stoneville Rd., Stoneville, 

MS 38776 USA, 2 Department of 

Entomology, Purdue University, 

901 W. State St., West Lafayette, 

IN 47907-2089. 3USGS National 

Wetlands Research Center, 700 

Cajundome Blvd., Lafayette, 

LA 70506 phamel@fs.fed.us, 

nschiff@fs.fed.us, 4 Delta State 

University, Greenville, MS

ABSTRACT: This is a bundled 

project including a primary 

study of attack rates of 

Cerambycid beetles and other 

wood boring insects as potential 

prey organisms of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers, with a growing 

number of collateral projects 

made possible by the initial 

design. The primary study 

addresses the concern that food 

availability is a likely limiting 

factor for the woodpecker. By a 

carefully controlled experiment 

using randomly selected trees, 

we assess the response of 

wood-boring insects producing 

medium and large larvae to 

four treatments involving 

progressively greater wounds to 

living trees. Wounded trees will 

be harvested at two exposure 

intervals after one wounding 

and placed into emergence 

cages. Three samples from each 

tree will assess emergence of 

insects over a five-year period 

to accommodate long-lived 

larvae. Expected results involve 

determination of expected 

biomass, species composition, 

energy return, and nutritive value 

of larval wood-boring insects 

in early stages of infestation 

after injury, when Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers are believed to have 

a competitive advantage over 

other woodpeckers in extracting 

these foods. Generation of large 

numbers of the supposedly 

preferred Hardwood stump 

borer (Mallodon dasystomus 

dasystomus) will demonstrate 

how food supply for Ivorybilled Woodpeckers can be 

enhanced by specific tree 

wounding treatments. To 

date, approximately 180 of 192 

emergence cages have been 

constructed, and 24 of 96 trees 

harvested and put into them. 

Additional work on pheromones of 

Mallodon, and energetic value of 

this, of the carpenter worm, and 

other species has been initiated. 

TITLE: Searching For Where To 

Search: Sifting Forest Inventories 

For Singer Tracts

AUTHORS: Flather, Curtis 

H.†, Jeff A. Tracey‡, Barry R. 

Noon‡, Raymond Sheffield§, and 

Michael S. Knowles*†USDA, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fort Collins, 

CO 80526; ‡Department of 

Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation 

Biology, Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, CO 

80523; §USDA, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station, 

Asheville, NC 28802;*Anadarko 

Industries, USDA, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fort Collins, 

CO 80526

ABSTRACT: Rediscovery of 

once thought extinct species is 

more common than we may think. 

Within the last few decades, 

over 30 species that were once 

thought vanquished from the 

biota have been rediscovered. 

These rediscovered species are 

often found on islands or are 

local endemics. The Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker is an exception 

to this pattern because it had 

a widespread historical range 

that spanned portions of up to 

13 states from east Texas to 

southeastern North Carolina. 

Monitoring to confirm rediscovery 

of a wide ranging species would 

benefit from searches informed 

by measures of habitat suitability 

derived from spatially extensive 

forest inventories. This project 

developed a range-wide habitat 

suitability model derived from 

historical accounts, primarily 

from the Singer Tract. The model 

was structured as a decision 

tree with threshold values for 

classifying U.S. Forest Service 

Forest Inventory and Analysis 

data as “suitable” or “unsuitable” 

habitat. Because food is the 

likely limiting factor affecting 

occupancy, our model focused 

on attributes of foraging habitat 

including forest type, tree size 

distribution, foraging substrate, 

and landscape context to identify 

potentially suitable habitat. 

Uncertainty was incorporated 

into the model by estimating 

distributions of threshold values 

for these attributes based on data 

from historical accounts. This 

permitted the mapping of suitable 

habitat probabilities across 

the South. Spatially explicit 

comparisons of model predictions 

against the Big Woods search 

area and historical locations 

provided initial validation of 

model performance. Probability 
56

maps of suitable habitat were 

generated for Alabama, South 

Carolina, Mississippi, and Florida 

to inform the 2007/2008 mobile 

search teams.

TITLE: Evaluating Evidence of 

Persistence for Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker (Campephilus 

principalis) in the Southeastern 

United States From 1900 to the 

Present. 

AUTHOR: William C. Hunter. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 

420, Atlanta, GA 30345. 404/679 

7130 (office) 770/331 4475 (cell) 

chuck_hunter@fws.gov

ABSTRACT: The persistence 

of Ivory-billed Woodpecker in 

the Twentieth Century is firmly 

documented with many specimens 

prior to 1920, two specimens and 

photos in 1924 (of a pair in eastcentral Florida), and a specimen 

along with many photos and other 

documentation (including video 

and auditory recordings) during 

the 1930s (of a small population 

in northeast Louisiana). All 

other reports prior to 1950 were 

only of visual encounters (most 

accepted by Dr. James Tanner) 

at locations that support the 

hypothesis that small numbers 

(populations) of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers persisted across 

the historical range at least into 

the 1940s. After 1950, reports of 

visual encounters from prominent 

ornithologists are generally 

accepted from southern Georgia 

and Florida, but other reports 

of visual encounters during this 

decade also come from South 

Carolina, Alabama, and Texas. 

Although generally considered 

inconclusive after 1960, many 

visual encounters, several 

photos, feathers, and auditory 

encounters and recordings 

were reported from over most 

of the historical range through 

to the 1999 report along the 

Pearl River, Louisiana. During 

the Twentieth Century (before 

or after 1950), at no location 

during any one decade was this 

species regularly reported yearafter-year except at the Singer 

Tract in Louisiana during the 

1930s. Thus, failure to document 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers along 

the Pearl River by organized 

searches during 2002, though 

disappointing, was not without 

precedent. In contrast to all 

Twentieth Century reports 

(besides the Singer Tract), initial 

visual encounters during 2004 

in Arkansas were repeated 

by experienced observers but 

always with brief glimpses of 

a flying bird (presumably the 

same male bird). The public 2005 

announcement of Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker persistence (of at 

least one male bird) in Arkansas 

energized searches for this 

species across the southeastern 

U.S. from the Carolinas, Georgia, 

Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, 

Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas, and 

Illinois. Results thus far include 

many additional potential visual 

and auditory encounters. To date, 

none of these reports provide 

any better evidence than the 

original Arkansas reports of this 

species’ continued persistence. 

The lack of any indisputable 

evidence following the 2005 

announcement despite relatively 

extensive searching raises many 

questions regarding search 

strategies for firmly documenting 

a very rare species, if present. 

Addressed here specifically is 

whether the current pattern 

differs from reports prior to the 

1930s, between 1930 and 1960, 

and between 1960 and 2000. 

Elsewhere, the history of reports 

has been presented state-bystate. In this analysis, rangewide reports have been compiled 

to compare encounters within 

the last 10 decades and also to 

compare these records to potential 

encounters from recent searches. 

These patterns are discussed to 

generate alternative hypotheses 

regarding the detection and 

documentation of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker since 1940. 

TITLE: Morticulture Use for 

Ivory-Billed Woodpecker Habitat 

Improvements 

AUTHORS: Seth Pearson, 

TNC, Little Rock, AR; Zollner, 

D., TNC, Little Rock, AR; 

Melnechuk, M., TNC, 601 N. 

University Ave. ,Little Rock, AR 

72205 501-912-9080

501-663-8332 spearson@tnc.org

ABSTRACT: The rediscovery of 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in 

the bottomland hardwood forests 

of eastern Arkansas prompted 

a reexamination of management 

practices and habitat 

improvement efforts. Lack of 

suitable foraging sites (near-dead 

trees inhabited by cerambycid 

larvae) is often cited as one 

reason for its initial decline. 

As part of an effort to increase 

suitable forage for Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker, we implemented 

a morticulture project in which 

614 bottomland hardwood trees 

were treated with girdles or 

glyphosate injections. Treatments 

were performed in 2005 and 

2006, and trees were monitored 

annually for signs of impending 

mortality. An associated monthly 

Picidae-oriented point count 

was conducted in four of the 

treatment areas. After one year, 

24.5% of trees showed no signs 

of decline. However, 18% of 

treated trees showed complete 

mortality. Within the first year 

Celtis laevigata and Ulmus 

americana most frequently 

experienced greater than onethird crown dieback. Preliminary 

results suggest that greater 

crown dieback occurs within 

the second year. Girdling also 

produces greater crown mortality 

than herbicide injections. While 

no Ivory-billed Woodpecker were 

observed using these treatment 

areas, seven Picidae species were 

recorded in treatment areas. 

Many recently dead, treated trees 

had large amounts of insect frass 

surrounding them. This work has 

potential implications in a variety 

of restoration and improvement 

projects for the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker and other 

bottomland hardwood species.

TITLE: Acoustic Methods in the 

Ivory-bill Search and Beyond

AUTHORS: Russell A. Charif, 

Harold Figueroa, Michael 

Powers, Michael Pitzrick, Ron 

Rohrbaugh, Ken Rosenberg , 

Martjan Lammertink, Martin 

Piorkowski 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 

Cornell University, 159 Sapsucker 

Woods Rd., Ithaca, NY 14850
57

ABSTRACT: Acoustic methods 

have been an integral part of 

the search for the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker since the Pearl 

River effort in 2002. The needs 

of this search have spurred a 

number of advances in hardware 

and software technology. We will 

summarize key components of 

the evolving acoustic methods, 

including hardware, software, 

and data analysis and review 

protocols. We will discuss 

lessons learned from the review 

and analysis of over 36,000 

hours of audio recordings 

from bottomland hardwood 

forest habitats, including the 

discovery of unexpected “Ivorybill impostor” sounds from 

some common species and the 

need for caution in interpreting 

isolated acoustic events. Finally, 

we will discuss ways in which 

technology advances resulting 

from the Ivory-bill search may 

benefit efforts to apply acoustic 

monitoring methods to other 

species of conservation concern. 

TITLE: Acoustic and Digital 

Image Technologies for Detecting 

and Monitoring Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers and Other Avifauna. 

AUTHORS: Ron Rohrbaugh, 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 

Ithaca, NY; Charif, R., Cornell 

Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, 

NY; Farnsworth, A., Cornell 

Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY; 

Goldberg, K., U. California, 

Berkeley, Berkeley, CA; Song, D., 

Texas A&M, College Station, TX; 

Luneau, D., U. Arkansas, Little 

Rock, AR. rwr8@cornell.edu

ABSTRACT: Intensive search 

efforts for the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker (Campephilus 

principalis) have resulted 

in numerous technological 

advancements related to bird 

monitoring methodologies. These 

include autonomous acoustic- and 

image-recording systems with 

potential applications for remote 

detection and constant effort 

monitoring of avian populations. 

These devices are important for 

monitoring endangered species 

and conducting spatially explicit 

avian research. Exceedingly 

rare species, especially those 

in remote habitats, can go 

unobserved for long periods 

of time, making it difficult (or 

impossible) to determine their 

status (Scott et al. in press). The 

human and financial resources 

required to conduct surveys of 

sufficient magnitude to assess 

with confidence that a species is 

extinct are frequently prohibitive, 

making autonomous systems 

an attractive alternative for 

future endangered species 

research. Furthermore, these 

systems, especially when 

networked to provide realtime data, afford the ability to 

gather important population and 

behavioral information on more 

common species. Some example 

applications include monitoring 

migration via nocturnal flight 

calls, determining volume and 

composition of raptor migration, 

and identifying timing and 

causation of bird strikes at wind 

turbines. Future successful 

development and application 

of these technologies will rely 

on strong partnerships among 

biologists, engineers, and 

information systems specialists.

TITLE: Design for a Regionwide Adaptive Search for the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker with 

the Objective of Estimating 

Occupancy and Related 

Parameters. 

AUTHORS: Robert J. Cooper, 

Rua S. Mordecai, Brady J. 

Mattsson, Univ. of Georgia, 

Athens; Michael J. Conroy, 

Krishna Pacifici, James T. 

Peterson, USGS Georgia 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit and UGA, Athens; 

Clinton T. Moore, Patuxent 

Wildlife Research Center, Athens, 

GA. 

Robert J. Cooper, Warnell 

School of Forestry and Natural 

Resources, University of Georgia, 

Athens, GA 30602, 706-542-6066 

(phone), 706-542-8356 (fax), 

rcooper@warnell.uga.edu

ABSTRACT: We describe a 

survey design and field protocol 

for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

research effort that will: (1) allow 

estimation of occupancy, use, and 

detection probability for habitats 

at two spatial scales within the 

bird’s former range, (2) assess 

relationships among occupancy, 

use, and habitat characteristics 

at those scales, (3) eventually 

allow the development of a 

population viability model that 

depends on patch occupancy 

instead of difficult-to-measure 

demographic parameters, and 

(4) be adaptive, allowing newly 

collected information to update 

the above models and search 

locations. The approach features 

random selection of patches to be 

searched from a sampling frame 

stratified and weighted by patch 

quality, and it requires multiple 

visits per patch. It is adaptive 

within a season in that increased 

search activity is allowed in 

and around locations of strong 

visual and/or aural evidence, 

and adaptive among seasons in 

that habitat associations allow 

modification of stratum weights. 

This statistically rigorous 

approach is an improvement over 

simply visiting the “best” habitat 

in an ad hoc fashion because we 

can learn from prior effort and 

modify the search accordingly. 

Results from the 2006-07 

search season indicate weak 

relationships between occupancy 

and habitat (although we 

suggest modifications of habitat 

measurement protocols), and a 

very low detection probability, 

suggesting more visits per 

patch are required. Sample size 

requirements will be discussed. 

TITLE: From the Ground Up: 

Evidence for the Wide Distribution 

of the IBW in the Southeast in the 

Archeological and Ethnographic 

Record

AUTHOR: Richard Warner, Staff 

Archeologist, Region 4, USFWS, 

1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30345, 404-679-7110

ABSTRACT: The current 

scientific and popular literature 

on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

acknowledges the archeological 

and ethnographic evidence 

for a wide distribution of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker, well 

beyond its known and suspected 

current range. This presentation 

will review and evaluate the 

published archeological evidence 

from the perspective of an SE 
58

archeologist, and will conclude 

with a distribution map that 

may be useful in assisting in the 

long-term recovery of the species. 

In addition, this presentation 

will include a brief overview 

of the cultural context of the 

Ivory-billed Wooddpecker and 

other woodpeckers in the preColumbian Southeastern United 

States, along with a discussion of 

how Native American populations 

may have had a significant 

influence on the distribution of 

this species over the last thousand 

years. 

TITLE: Historical Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker Habitat Mapping 

Within the Tensas National 

Wildlife Refuge, 1938 and 1998. 

AUTHORS: Handley, L.R., C. 

J. Wells, National Wetlands 

Research Center, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Lafayette, LA; J. Dugas, 

R. Mouton, D. Lichtenberg, 

National Wetlands Research 

Center/IAP World Services, Inc., 

Lafayette, LA

ABSTRACT: The Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker has always been 

described as rare, even before 

the catastrophic loss of habitat 

between the 1880s and 1930s. 

The woodpecker’s preferred 

habitat varied by region. In 

the Mississippi Delta it seems 

to have preferred temporarily 

flooded, palustrine, deciduous 

forest dominated by sweetgum. 

In the Lower Mississippi Valley 

area, including the MississippiAtchafalaya distributary system, 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

foraged in seasonally flooded 

oak flats and adjacent oakhickory uplands, and in the lower, 

permanently flooded cypress-gum 

swamps. Photography covering 

the Singer Tract in both 1938 

and 1998 were obtained and 

photointerpreted. Habitat data 

dating from 1938 were derived 

from 1:18,000 scale, black and 

white, aerial photography. The 

1938 photography was scanned 

and rectified using Leica Imagine 

software. 1998 habitat data 

were derived from USGS NAPP 

1:40,000 scale, color infrared, 

aerial photography, digital 

ortho quarter quads. Using this 

photography, areas of Tensas 

NWR were photo interpreted 

using the National Wetlands 

Inventory mapping conventions. 

Ancillary data sources utilized 

include USGS topographic maps, 

digital NRCS soil surveys, 

Digital elevation models, and 

2004 and 2005 digital Roth 

quarter quads. Additionally the 

1938 imagery was interpreted 

to create a disturbance, texture, 

and transportation layer. The 

photography was interpreted 

to reveal disturbances of any 

kind, human related or natural. 

A texture layer was also created 

to reveal patterns that would 

indicate forest growth trends 

as well as logging areas. A 

transportation layer was created 

to document transportation 

features, including roads and 

railroad tracts which were 

indicative of logging activity. 

Argos software was used to 

create and maintain topological 

relationships between features. 

Habitats were classified and 

attributed on-screen using Arc 

Map. 1938 hard copy stereo pairs 

were viewed under a stereoscope. 

This allowed for higher resolution, 

stereo viewing of the project area. 

Polygonal features begin and 

end at the same point, contain no 

overshoots or undershoots, and 

contain a single label. The 1938 

habitat mapping photography will 

provide additional information in 

documenting the known historical 

habitat of this rare bird. The 

1998 habitat mapping will allow 

a comparison with the historical 

data.

TITLE: Habitat Characteristics of 

the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker In 

Louisiana: Analysis of 1938 Aerial 

Photography

AUTHORS: Christopher Wells*, 

Larry Handley*, Jason Degas**, 

Wylie Barrow* PhD, Tommy 

Michot* PhD, National Wetlands 

Research Center, * United States 

Geological Survey, ** IAP World 

Services, Inc. U. S. Geological 

Survey, National Wetlands 

Research Center, Lafayette, 

Louisiana 70506.

ABSTRACT: The Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker, long suspected to be 

extinct, is now known to persist 

in remnant lowlands of the Cache 

River, Arkansas. Planning efforts 

are underway for extensive 

searches to find more birds in 

Arkansas and other river bottoms 

of the southern United States. 

Anecdotal reports of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers in the southern 

United States continue to this day. 

Potential habitat for Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers is vast throughout 

the southeastern US and Gulf of 

Mexico coastal areas.

The authoritative natural history 

of the woodpecker is James 

Tanner’s 1942 publication. 

Accepting that work as 

complete, accurate, and factual, 

we searched for historical 

photography with coverage of 

approximately the same date 

as Tanner’s field work and at 

a scale that could demonstrate 

habitat characteristics that 

Tanner reported as important 

to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

We located a private source of 

photography (P2Energy, formerly 

Tobin Aerial Surveys) that was 

originally taken about August of 

1938 at the Singer Tract when 

Tanner was conducting his field 

work. Some of the important 

factors found on the photography 

included dead and dying 

vegetation, very large trees, a 

heterogeneous canopy, forest 

canopy gaps, and disturbance. 

Limitations of the 1938 

photography were lack of 

horizontal control, resulting in no 

GPS or gyroscopic positioning; 

monochromatic emulsion (black 

& white) which makes tree 

species identification difficult; 

the low altitude flight required 

for high resolution, which caused 

considerable buffeting of the 

aircraft with resultant camera 

axis differences from the ground 

between flight lines and even 

between individual frames; 

and extremely problematic 

ground control points for 

rectification. Finally, since the 

1938 photography was taken 

during the growing season, we 

were unable to observe either 

the middle stories or the ground 

cover except under the most 

unusual circumstances.

We developed a statistically valid 

method of stereo-photographic 
59

analysis that allowed the 

quantification of many factors of 

interest in describing the habitat 

requirements of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker in the early 20th 

Century. This method required 

some compromises that we 

believe are tolerable, especially 

given the paucity of actual data 

regarding the habits and habitats 

of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

TITLE: Ivory-Billed Woodpecker 

Habitat Relations for the Singer 

Tract, Louisiana: A Retrospective 

Analysis. 

AUTHORS: Wylie C. Barrow, Jr., 

Christopher P. Wells, Thomas C. 

Michot, James B. Grace, Larry R. 

Handley, Heather Q. Baldwin1., 

Tyson L. Hatch1., and Jason 

Dugas1., U. S. Geological Survey, 

National Wetlands Research 

Center, and 1.IAP World Services, 

Inc., Lafayette, Louisiana 70506.

ABSTRACT: Currently, there 

are no known Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker activity areas that 

can be carefully delineated and 

studied to determine habitat 

relations. Work conducted on the 

last known populations by James 

Tanner (Singer Tract, Louisiana; 

1930s) and George Lamb (Cuba; 

1950’s), have provided thirteen 

known locations of Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker home ranges. Aerial 

photographs corresponding 

to the dates and locations of 

their studies are known to 

exist. We created an ArcMap 

GeoDatabase of the Singer Tract 

by combining interpreted 1938 

aerial photographs (mapped 

and sampled stereoscopic 

interpretation) and ancillary 

historical data (e.g., 1815-55 

surveyor’s maps, 1830 – 1943 

Madison Parish tax records, 1863 

confiscated Confederate Army 

maps, 1935 and 1941 Singer Tract 

maps created by James Tanner, 

and 1931-1938 topographical quad 

maps) to characterize habitat 

used by Ivory-bills. For the 

photo-interpretation, we used 

panchromatic photography of the 

Singer Tract that was flown in 

August 1938 at a nominal scale 

of 1:18,000. All photographs 

were scanned at high resolution 

(12 microns) and rectified to 

the 2004 digital ortho quarter 

quads of the area using ERDAS 

Imagine software. A mosaic 

of the rectified photographs 

was exported to ArcMap and 

boundaries were drawn of 7 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker home 

ranges (mean = 871 ha, range 

= 501 ha – 1369 ha) and 3 “best 

areas” (Tanner 1942, p. 38 and p. 

91; respectively). Boundaries of 

an additional 7 randomly selected 

areas were created (each area 

= 871 ha) to delineate areas not 

used by Ivory-bills during the 

breeding seasons 1934-1939. We 

described categories of dead and 

dying trees, forest disturbance, 

canopy texture, canopy gaps, 

super-emergent trees, and habitat 

types in areas used and not used 

by Ivory-bills. Results provide 

insight into how Ivory-bills used 

the Singer Tract, and will inform 

forest restoration/management 

and searches for potential Ivorybill habitat.

TITLE: Woodpecker Densities and 

Habitat Use in the Big Woods of 

Arkansas.

AUTHORS: David G. Krementz 

- USGS Arkansas Coop Unit, 

Dept. Biological Sciences, Univ. 

Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, Jason 

D. Luscier – Dept. Biological 

Sciences, Univ. Arkansas, 

Fayetteville, AR

ABSTRACT: To understand 

the potential habitat use of the 

Ivory-Billed Woodpecker better, 

we investigated the habitat use of 

all woodpeckers in the Big Woods 

of Arkansas. With the Big Woods 

Ivory-billed habitat inventory 

sampling scheme as a sampling 

frame, we used a stratified 

sampling approach to select 

92 sites across 3 areas (Cache 

River NWR, White River NWR, 

AR Game & Fish Comm.). We 

surveyed each site 5 times during 

spring 2006 and winter and spring 

2007 (15 surveys per site total) for 

woodpecker use. We estimated 

density by species using the 

program DISTANCE. We 

recorded 3,585 detections across 

the following species: Pileated 

Woodpecker, Downy Woodpecker 

(Picoides pubescens), Redbellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes 

carolinus), Red-headed 

Woodpecker (Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus), Yellow-shafted 

Flicker (Colaptes auratus), 

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker 

(Sphyrapicus varius), and 

Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides 

villosus). The effective survey 

distance varied by species, 

season and area. Except for the 

Hairy Woodpecker, we were able 

at least to estimate 1 seasonspecific density per species which 

ranged from a low of 9 (95% CI 

4.5 – 18.1) Pileated Woodpeckers/

km2 during winter 2007 to a high 

of 161 (95% CI 144.2 – 180.6) 

Red-bellied Woodpeckers/ km2 

during spring 2007. Densities of 

Downy Woodpecker and Redbellied Woodpecker were about 

five times greater than Pileated 

Woodpecker densities across 

seasons. We were only able 

to estimates winter densities 

for Red-bellied Woodpecker, 

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker and 

Yellow-shafted Flicker. Our 

estimated woodpecker densities 

usually exceeded comparable 

species-specific densities from 

other study sites, indicating that 

the Big Woods may be unique 

in attracting and/or holding 

woodpeckers. Our next step 

will be to relate woodpecker 

abundance and distributions 

to habitat variables thought 

important to woodpeckers.

TITLE: LiDAR “Images” of Forest 

Structure: Will They Help Us 

Improve Wildlife Habitat Quality?

AUTHORS: Helen J-H Whiffen, 

PhD and Ken Reinecke, PhD, 

Lower Mississippi Valley Joint 

Venture, Vicksburg, MS, USGS 

– National Wetlands Research 

Center, Lafayette, LA, USGS 

– Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center, Laurel, MD

ABSTRACT: Quality wildlife 

habitat – forested acreage is 

not enough. To thrive, wildlife 

requires specific forest structure 

and other habitat conditions. To 

improve wildlife habitat quality 

in these fiscally thin times, 

managers need to know where 

to apply management actions to 

induce optimal wildlife responses.

What is the quality of the existing 

forest habitat? To answer this 

question, foresters, wildlife 
60

biologists – land managers – need 

a scale-relevant, affordable, 

accurate and robust means of 

monitoring the vertical structure 

of the forest over space and time. 

The hypothesis: large footprint, 

waveform LiDAR (Light 

Detection and Ranging) provides 

an innovative means for these 

land managers to quantify forest 

structure and, consequently, 

evaluate wildlife habitat quality. 

To assess this hypothesis 

NASA – Goddard Space Flight 

Center, in conjunction with 

Drs. Dubayah and Hofton, 

University of Maryland, flew 

the Region of Rediscovery in 

June, 2006, collecting large 

footprint, waveform LiDAR 

(Light Detection and Ranging) 

data over 1.2 million acres to map 

the forest structure of potential 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat. 

Direct products from LiDAR data 

collection (e. g., forest canopy 

height, percent canopy cover) 

have already been used to inform 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker search 

and planning efforts.

We continue to assess the abilities 

of LiDAR data to

Quantify forest basal area

Quantify forest biomass

Quantify the vertical structure of 

the forest

Assist managers to visualize 

complete forest stands in 3D

Assist managers with land 

management decisions

Merge with other types of 

remotely sensed data (e. 

g., Hyperion, ASTER) and 

accurately describe forest 

structure and composition. 

Our presentation will illustrate 

our findings.

TITLE: Are Hurricanes Good for 

Ivory-bills? Impact of Hurricanes 

on Woodpecker Populations in the 

Pearl River Basin, Louisiana

AUTHORS: Martjan 

Lammertink, Utami Setiorini1, 

and Alison Styring

1Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker 

Woods Road, Ithaca 14850. 

E-mail: jml243@cornell.edu 2 

The Evergreen State College, 

2700 Evergreen Parkway NW, 

Olympia, Washington 98505. 

E-mail: Astyring@aol.com

ABSTRACT: Temporary 

concentrations of dead and dying 

trees are important as feeding 

sites for Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Hurricane impact, a major agent 

of concentrated tree death in the 

southeastern U.S., is generally 

expected to benefit the species. 

In February 2002 we conducted 

point counts to assess woodpecker 

densities in mature bottomland 

forests of the Pearl River basin, 

Louisiana. In 2005 these forests 

were severely damaged by the 

Katrina and Rita hurricanes. 

We repeated our Pearl River 

point counts in February 2006, 

2007, and 2008 to monitor the 

hurricane impact on woodpecker 

populations. No Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers were observed. 

Following Tanner, we used density 

of Red-bellied Woodpecker 

and Pileated Woodpecker as 

a proxy for habitat suitability 

for Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Densities of these woodpeckers 

were greatly reduced in all of 

the three post-hurricane years. 

Red-headed Woodpecker has 

disappeared from the area. 

Standing hurricane-killed trees 

were in an advanced state of 

decay as soon as 18 months after 

the hurricanes. We conclude 

that bottomland forests in the 

full impact zone of a hurricane 

path are too severely damaged to 

benefit woodpecker populations. 

Historically, in a contiguously 

forested landscape, any hurricane 

left moderately damaged forests 

peripheral to its pathway that 

may well have benefited Ivorybilled Woodpeckers. This is no 

longer the case with the present 

fragmented distribution of 

the bottomland forests of the 

Southeast. 

TITLE: Imitation of Double-knock 

Drums in Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

Surveys: Tests with Pale-billed 

Woodpeckers in Costa Rica

AUTHORS: Chris Saker1, 

Martjan Lammertink2, Theresa 

Thom3, and Howard Daugherty4 

1York University Las Nubes 

Project, Faculty of Environmental 

Studies, 4700 Keele Street, 

Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3. 

E-mail: csaker@yorku.ca 

2Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker 

Woods Road, Ithaca NY 14850. 

E-mail: jml243@cornell.edu 

3Congaree National Park, 100 

National Park Road, Hopkins SC 

29061. E-mail: theresa_thom@

nps.gov 4York University 

Las Nubes Project, Faculty of 

Environmental Studies, 4700 

Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario 

M3J 1P3. E-mail: jaguar@yorku.

ca 

ABSTRACT: A mechanical 

device for imitation of doubleknock drums of Campephilus 

woodpeckers was developed 

at the Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology. Thirty copies of 

the device have been distributed 

to aid Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

surveys across the southeastern 

U.S. We examined whether use 

of the double-knocker device 

improves the detection rate 

of Campephilus woodpeckers, 

and whether it causes undue 

disturbance to these birds, using 

the Pale-billed Woodpecker 

(C. guatemalensis) as a model. 

Experiments were conducted 

between late September 2007 

and early February 2008 in the 

Alexander Skutch Biological 

Corridor, Southern Pacific Slope 

of Costa Rica. We conducted 49 

tests with the double-knocker, 

under a variety of conditions, in 

three Pale-billed Woodpecker 

home ranges. Responses 

were detected in 45% of the 

experiments. Often the first 

detection cue was the sound 

of wing beats of a woodpecker 

coming in to investigate. 

Responses were most prevalent 

when the woodpeckers were 

confirmed to be in the immediate 

vicinity (<100 m) at the time 

of the experiment. The device 

also proved successful in 

generating responses from 

birds not confirmed to be in the 

vicinity prior to the experiment, 

especially in hours of high bird 

activity in the early morning 

and late afternoon. Comparisons 
61

with similar experiments using 

vocalization and double-knock 

recording playbacks, showed 

a greater rate and intensity 

of response when the doubleknocker tool was used. Palebilled Woodpeckers generally 

resumed routine activities within 

30 minutes after use of the 

double-knocker, and no birds left 

territories or roost holes after 

use of the device. In conclusion 

the double-knocker proved to be 

an effective and safe means for 

improving detection probability 

of Campephilus woodpeckers, 

making it a promising tool in 

the search for Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers.

TITLE: Ecology of Pileated 

Woodpecker (Dryocopus Pileatus) 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging 

and Saproxylic Beetles in Partial 

Cut and Uncut Bottomland 

Hardwood Forests

AUTHORS: Patricia Newell1 

and Sammy L. King2, 1School of 

Renewable Natural Resources, 

LSU Ag Center, Baton Rouge, 

LA 70803 2Louisiana Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife Research 

Unit, USGS, 124 School of 

Renewable Natural Resources, 

LSU AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 

70803

ABSTRACT: Relative abundance 

and species richness of saproxylic 

beetles and nesting, roosting, 

and foraging ecology of Pileated 

Woodpeckers were studied in 

recent partial cuts and uncut 

forest during 2006 and 2007. 

Relative abundance of saproxylic 

beetles was greater in partial 

cuts than in uncut forest in both 

years but species richness was 

the same. The number of dead 

trees and period of capture also 

influenced beetle abundance. 

Partial cuts and uncut forest 

provide similar habitat for 

nesting and roosting Pileated 

Woodpeckers. Woodpeckers used 

a variety of species of trees that 

were between 42 and 150 cm 

diameter at breast height (dbh) 

for nesting (n = 24, 60.5 ± 3.02; 

mean ± SE) and roosting (n = 

15, 70.3 ± 7.03). Bald cypress 

was selected in all treatments. 

Nests (22 of 24) and roosts (12 

of 15) were predominantly in 

boles of live trees (vigorous to 

decadent). Nest and roost sites 

contained more trees >50 cm 

dbh than did availability plots. 

Foraging observations were 

conducted in 31 territories of 

radio-tagged and non-radiotagged Pileated Woodpeckers. 

Pileated Woodpeckers spent 

the highest proportion of their 

foraging time excavating (58%), 

followed by pecking (14%), 

gleaning (14%), scaling (7%), 

berry-eating (4%), and probing 

(3%) on trunks with bark, 

(41%) dead branches (27%), live 

branches (13%), trunks without 

bark (10%), and vines (9%). 

Woodpeckers preferred bitter 

pecan, avoided sugarberry, and 

used overcup oak in proportion 

to availability. They avoided dbh 

classes 10-20, selected dbh classes 

50-70, and used dbh classes 30-40 

in proportion to their availability 

in most treatments. In partial 

cuts, extremely large trees (dbh 

classes 80-90+) were selected. 

Pileated Woodpeckers either 

avoided vigorous and decadent 

trees for foraging or used them 

in proportion to their availability. 

Woodpeckers preferred trees 

in early stages of decay in all 

treatments, but in two-yearold partial cuts they preferred 

trees in late stages of decay. The 

mean proportion of thatching 

ant individuals was (44 ± 7.1), 

followed by unknown seeds (26.6 

± 5.4), poison ivy seeds (15.4 

± 2.7), carpenter ants (10.6 ± 

3.9), and beetles (4.9 ± 1.4). The 

proportion of food items in scat 

did not vary among treatment 

types.

TITLE: Pileated Woodpecker 

Nesting Ecology in the Big Woods 

of Arkansas: Possible Inferences 

to Limiting Factors Affecting Ivorybilled Woodpecker Population 

Growth? 

AUTHORS: Brandon L Noel; 

Bednarz, J. C.; Rowe, Z. F., 

Arkansas State University, State 

University, AR. bnoelmarinebio@

hotmail.com

ABSTRACT: One significant 

obstacle to the recovery of 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers is 

the lack of information about 

this species’ biology and the 

ecology of large woodpeckers in 

bottomland hardwood forests 

in the southeastern U.S. We 

present preliminary findings 

on large woodpecker ecology in 

bottomland hardwood habitats, 

using Pileated Woodpeckers 

as our model species. These 

data suggest that certain 

characteristics of nest trees, 

cavity trees, and forage trees 

selected by large woodpeckers 

were different between the 

lower and higher bottomland 

habitats. Specifically, Pileated 

Woodpeckers nested in trees 

that were shorter, had a smaller 

dbh, and were more advanced in 

decay than trees they selected 

as roosts. In 2007, we estimated 

mean spatial use patterns in 

9/13 radio-marked Pikeatd 

Woodpeckers as 264.4 ha (range 

= 22.4 – 994.3 ha). In addition, 

nesting, roosting, and foraging 

locations were documented for 

radio-marked and unmarked 

individuals. Adult Pileated 

Woodpeckers exhibited smaller 

home-ranges ( = 27.3 ha) than 

reported in the literature (ca. 53–

160 ha), suggesting high-quality 

habitats. Four of 13 radio-marked 

individuals were depredated in 

the lower bottomland habitat: 

perhaps dispersal or mate 

searching is very dangerous 

in this environment. Most 

recent Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

sightings occurred in these lower 

bottomland habitats. Further, we 

documented nest depredation, 

which could be another limiting 

factor affecting Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker population growth, if 

extant.

TITLE: Using Hydrogeomorphic 

Community Maps to Better 

Understand Potential Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker Habitat in Arkansas 

and Louisiana

AUTHORS:Thomas Foti, 

Charles Klimas, Jody Pagan and 

Elizabeth Murray

ABSTRACT: Varying flow 

regimes and depositional 

environments throughout the 

Quaternary Period have left 

a subtly complex landscape of 

depositional features within 

the Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

(MAV). Those variations 
62

produce spatial complexity and 

diversity, with the distribution 

of plant communities reflecting 

abiotic site characteristics 

such as geomorphology, soil, 

hydrology and topography. 

Recent studies have established 

hydrogeomorphic (HGM) criteria 

for wetland classification over a 

large part of the MAV. Detailed, 

spatially explicit geomorphology 

and soils data are available over 

the entire MAV, along with flood 

frequency maps at varying levels 

of detail. Therefore the tools 

exist to apply HGM principles to 

develop maps of potential plant 

community distribution based 

on identifiable combinations of 

abiotic characteristics of sites, 

whether they are currently 

forested or in agriculture or 

other use. These Potential 

Natural Vegetation (PNV) 

maps provide an indication of 

the multi-scale complexity that 

once characterized the MAV, and 

can serve as planning tools for 

restoration. PNV maps have been 

completed for most of the MAV in 

Arkansas; the approach currently 

is being applied to northeastern 

Louisiana, and it can be expanded 

to the entire MAV.

These maps provide insight into 

the composition and distribution 

of forests occupied by Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers along the Tensas 

River of Louisiana ca. 1940 and 

in the area of rediscovery along 

the White and Cache rivers in 

Arkansas at present. The maps 

are particularly useful in the 

Tensas area since much of the 

forest there has been cleared or 

substantially altered since the 

time of Tanner’s studies in the 

Singer tract. His studies provided 

considerable detail on habitat 

relationships of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker at that time, but 

typically his descriptions were 

general and his detailed tables 

of composition and structure 

cannot be extrapolated to the 

entire area or to specific sites. 

Therefore questions remain as 

to the distribution, composition 

and structure of the forests at 

that time. HGM mapping can 

provide insight into the first 

two questions. Maps produced 

through this process can provide 

valuable insight particularly 

when used in conjunction with 

descriptions by scientists such as 

Tanner, early forest inventories, 

General Land Office surveys, and 

other sources. A limitation of the 

HGM approach is that it is based 

in part on flood frequency maps 

that are somewhat uncertain even 

with modern data; projecting sitespecific conditions into the past 

must be approached with caution.

TITLE: A Stochastic Population 

Viability Analysis for Rare Largebodied Woodpeckers, with 

Implications for the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker

AUTHORS: Brady J. Mattsson 

bjmatt@uga.edu), Rua S. 

Mordecai (rstob@warnell.

uga.edu), Michael J. Conroy 

(mconroy@uga.edu), James T. 

Peterson (jpeterson@warnell.

uga.edu), Robert J. Cooper 

(rcooper@warnell.uga.edu), and 

Hans Christensen (ssphanc@

get2net.dk).

ABSTRACT: Six large-bodied 

(i.e., ≥120 g) woodpecker species 

are listed as near threatened 

to critically endangered by the 

IUCN. The small population 

paradigm assumes that these 

populations are likely to become 

extinct without an increase in 

numbers, but the combined 

influences of initial population size 

and demographic rates (annual 

adult survival and fecundity) 

may drive population persistence 

for these species. We applied a 

stochastic, stage-based singlepopulation model to available 

demographic rates for Dryocopus 

and Campephilus woodpeckers. 

In particular, we determined the 

change in predicted extinction 

rate (i.e., proportion of simulated 

populations that went extinct 

within 100 years) to proportional 

changes in six input parameters. 

To our knowledge, this is the first 

study to evaluate the combined 

importance of initial population 

size and demographic rates for 

the persistence of large-bodied 

woodpeckers. Under a worsecase scenario, the median time 

to extinction was 8 years (range: 

1-50). Across the combinations 

of other input values, increasing 

initial population size by one 

female induced, on average, 0.4-

3.2% (range: 0-28%) reduction 

in extinction rate. Increasing 

initial population size from 5-30 

drove extinction rate <0.05 

under limited conditions: 1) all 

input values were intermediate, 

or 2) Allee effect was present 

and annual adult survival was ≥

0.8. On the basis of our model, 

these species can persist as rare 

(as few as 5 females), and thus 

difficult-to-detect, populations 

provided they maintain ≥ 1.1 

recruited females annually per 

adult female and an annual 

adult survival rate ≥ 0.8. While a 

demographic-based PVA is useful 

to predict how extinction rate 

changes across scenarios for life 

history attributes, the next step 

for modeling these populations 

should incorporate more easilyacquired data on changes in patch 

occupancy to make predictions 

about patch colonization and 

extinction rates.

TITLE: Causes of the Ivory-bill’s 

Decline 

AUTHOR: Noel F.R. Snyder

ABSTRACT: In most modern 

accounts the endangerment of 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker has 

been attributed mainly to (1) 

feeding specialization leading 

to a dependency of individuals 

on huge areas of pristine forest, 

and (2) the logging of nearly 

all virgin forests in the species’ 

original range. However, the 

direct evidence for feeding 

specialization in the Ivory-bill is 

weak, and early reports strongly 

suggest the species was once 

common in bottomland forests. 

The Ivory-bill did show evidence 

of sparse populations and often 

a close association with remnant 

virgin forests as it closely 

approached extinction, but these 

features may have been caused 

by factors other than difficulties 

with food procurement. In 

particular, human depredations 

on the species provide a plausible 

alternative explanation for decline 

that poses no inconsistencies 

with early abundance of the 

species. At the same time, 

human depredation is as good 

an explanation for last habitat 

associations of the species as are 
63

problems with food procurement 

because remote virgin forests 

were likely the regions least 

impacted by depredations. 

Human depredations also 

provide a plausible explanation 

for the disappearance of some 

populations prior to logging and 

for long persistence of the last 

known Cuban population in spite 

of logging. Better survival of 

the Pileated Woodpecker to the 

present may have resulted mainly 

from lesser vulnerability of this 

species to human depredations, 

not to any foraging superiority. 

Logging’s most negative impact 

on the Ivory-bill may not have 

been decreases in food supplies 

but increases in depredations, 

resulting from enhanced access 

to, and increased human densities 

in, forested areas. Under the 

human depredations hypothesis, 

there is no reason to assume 

Ivory-bills were limited to oldgrowth forests, had huge range 

requirements, or were a “disaster 

species” highly dependent on 

food-enhancing catastrophes such 

as fire or storm damage of forests, 

as suggested by some observers. 

Conservation priorities under a 

human depredations hypothesis 

are quite different from 

conservation priorities under a 

feeding specialization hypothesis.

TITLE: Spatial and Temporal 

Dynamics of Tree Growth in Two 

Floodplain Forests

AUTHORS: Hugo K. W. Gee1, 

Sammy L. King2

1 LSU AgCenter, 227 School of 

Renewable Natural Resources, 

Baton Rouge, LA 70803, hgee1@

lsu.edu, 2 USGS Louisiana 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit, 124 School of 

Renewable Natural Resources, 

Baton Rouge, LA 70803, 

sking16@lsu.edu

ABSTRACT: 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. The overall goal of this 

study is to quantify hydrologic 

and geomorphic processes 

within and among floodplains 

and determine their influence on 

forest community composition 

and tree growth. The study area 

is located in NWRs and WMAs 

in the LMAV. Study sites are 

uneven-aged forests selected 

along a flooding gradient and 

stratified by geomorphic feature 

(ridge, swale, and flat). We will 

present initial results from a 

dendroecological study comparing 

green ash growth between ridges 

and swales at White River NWR, 

Arkansas. We also compare 

Nuttall oak growth between three 

ridges, swales, and flats at Bayou 

Cocodrie NWR, Louisiana. Trees 

selected for dendrochronological 

analysis were overstory trees 

from 30 sample plots per 

geomorphic feature. Time-series 

analysis was used to compare 

tree growth with climate 

(temperature, precipitation, 

and Palmer Drought Severity 

Index) and river stage. Future 

plans include quantifying fine 

scale hydrology (surface and 

subsurface) in monitoring wells 

across each geomorphic feature 

and historical flooding regime at 

water wells extrapolated from 

nearby gauges. 

TITLE: Restoration and 

Monitoring of Forest Resources 

in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: 

Recommendations for Enhancing 

Wildlife Habitat

LMVJV Forest Resource 

Consservataion Working Group. 

2007:.

AUTHORS: Edited by R. Wilson, 

K. Ribbeck, S. King, and D. 

Twedt.

ABSTRACT: The conservation 

objective in the Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley is to provide 

forested habitat capable 

of supporting sustainable 

populations of all forestdependent wildlife species. 

However, forest loss, 

fragmentation, and hydrological 

change have markedly altered 

habitat conditions within 

bottomland forests such that 

some species of concern (e.g., 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker, 

Louisiana black bear (Ursus 

americanus luteolus),and some 

migratory songbirds) have been 

severely impacted. To provide 

habitat for these and other 

priority wildlife species, we 

advocate forest conditions that 

are conducive to the continued 

viability of this suite of priority 

wildlife species. Forest-dependent 

(silvicolous) wildlife is responsive 

to habitat conditions at multiple 

spatial scales (e.g., landscape 

quality and site quality).To 

address this issue, we define 

Desired Forest Conditions as 

those forested landscapes that 

meet both Desired Landscape 

Conditions and Desired Stand 

Conditions. Traditional forest 

management has focused on 

production of forest products 

(i.e., lumber or pulp) through 

silviculture that promotes optimal 

growth and vigorous health 

of economically desirable tree 

species. Often these traditional 

silvicultural methods are not 

optimal for silvicolous wildlife. 

Indeed, quality habitat for 

priority wildlife species likely 

requires some sacrifice in timber 

production and the retention 

of less healthy trees. Even so, 

commercially viable, wildlifeoriented silviculture (i.e., wildlife 

forestry) employing variable 

retention harvests can be used 

in conjunction with forest 

restoration, regeneration, and 

natural processes to achieve 

desired forest conditions 

within bottomland hardwood 

forests. The recommendations 

contained within this report 

were developed specifically to 

address issues surrounding 

restoration, management, and 

monitoring of forest resources in 

the MAV. However, the working 

group believes that these 

recommendations are applicable 

to other bottomland hardwood 

systems across the southeastern 

United States provided 

users consider differences 
64

in geomorphology, soils, and 

hydrology where applicable.

This document provides 

technical guidance for the 

restoration and management of 

bottomland hardwood forests 

where conservation of wildlife 

resources is a central purpose and 

objective. As such, the document 

integrates habitat conditions for 

priority wildlife with technical 

recommendations for the 

restoration and management of 

bottomland hardwood forests. To 

achieve these habitat conditions 

requires managers to reassess 

traditional methods of silviculture, 

placing greater emphasis on 

retaining and promoting forest 

structure and senescence to 

benefit priority wildlife. We 

envision these recommendations 

will aid on-the-ground managers 

and program managers 

responsible for managing forest 

resources in implementing 

forest management strategies 

for wildlife conservation. 

Furthermore, we anticipate that 

these recommendations will be 

instructive to private landowners 

targeting wildlife conservation 

as part of their overall land 

stewardship objectives, especially 

on lands under conservation 

easement. 

TITLE: Modeling Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker Habitat Quality 

to Prioritize Search Areas in 

Arkansas

AUTHORS: John M. Tirpak1, 

Amy S. Keister1, Helen J-H. 

Whiffen2, and Blair E. Tirpak3. 

1Lower Mississippi Valley Joint 

Venture, 2524 South Frontage 

Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180 

USA; 2USGS National Wetlands 

Research Center, 2524 South 

Frontage Road, Vicksburg, 

MS 39180 USA; 3The Nature 

Conservancy, 2524 South 

Frontage Road, Vicksburg, MS 

39180 USA; john_tirpak@fws.gov

ABSTRACT: Initial searches 

for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

in the region of rediscovery 

predominantly focused on 

locations in the immediate 

vicinity of previous sightings. In 

the following years, a concerted 

effort was made to search the 

Big Woods more systematically. 

Although >35,000 hours were 

logged (at a cost of ~$1.6 

million), only 12% of the area 

was searched. Continued failure 

to document the bird, high costs 

associated with systematic 

sampling, and the acquisition 

of stand and site-scale habitat 

data within the region prompted 

searchers to seek a prioritization 

tool that could focus search areas 

on locations with the highest 

habitat quality. Twenty habitat 

variables derived from three 

sources (National Landcover 

Dataset, field-based sampling, 

and LiDAR) representing three 

scales (landscape, stand, and 

site, respectively) were identified 

as potential model parameters. 

We asked six experts to rank 

these variables and provide 

threshold values for non-habitat, 

as well as marginal and suitable 

habitat quality. We weighed these 

variables equally within scales 

and weighed each scale equally 

to develop a single, preliminary 

model for review at an August 

2007 meeting. Attendees at that 

meeting dropped consideration 

of landscape-scale factors due to 

their inability to inform searches 

(i.e., there was little variability 

in landscape-scale factors across 

the search area). Additionally, 

they preferred to use the 

information hierarchically (i.e., 

individual models for each scale) 

rather than combine the data 

into a single model. Five factors 

were identified for inclusion in 

the stand-level model: three 

associated with forage availability 

(density of trees with moderate to 

heavy bark disfiguration, density 

of trees exhibiting crown dieback, 

and the density of recently 

dead trees) and one (density of 

trees >24” dbh) associated with 

appropriate timber size class. 

Threshold values for optimal, 

suitable, and marginal habitat 

were determined via quantiles 

for all model parameters related 

to forage. Stands with >7.5 

trees/acre with a dbh <24” were 

considered marginal habitat. At 

the site-scale, two variables were 

used in the model: canopy height 

and canopy cover. Searchers 

approached the results with 

guarded optimism and were 

initially encouraged by the 

identification of some stands 

that had not been searched in 

previous seasons. Nevertheless, 

after scouting some areas, 

searches were discouraged by 

the lack of conformity of the 

sites to perceptions of Ivory-bill 

habitat and the similarity of those 

locations to marginal and suitable 

forest stands. Future attempts 

to develop a search prioritization 

tool should use biological data 

to set objective thresholds for 

marginal, suitable, and optimal 

habitats to restrict potential 

search areas more effectively 

to sites with the best potential 

habitat. 

TITLE: Field-based Forest 

Structure Mapping Cache Lower 

White River

AUTHOR: Jeff Denman, 

USFWS, White River NWR

ABSTRACT: The announcement 

of rediscovery of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker in the Cache/Lower 

White River basin of Arkansas set 

in motion a series of conservation 

actions. As Cornell and their 

partners continued to search and 

document evidence (e.g., sightings 

and sound recordings), it was 

imperative that a concurrent 

habitat inventory and assessment 

be conducted to facilitate the 

search efforts and to document 

existing habitat conditions. 

This inventory quantifies current 

habitat conditions on public lands 

within proximity to recent Ivorybilled Woodpecker sightings 

and audio recordings and areas 

perceived likely to harbor Ivorybilled Woodpecker on the basis 

of information provided by local 

land managers. These data were 

used to: (1) develop a spatiallyexplicit decision support model 

to facilitate search efforts, (2) 

provide ground-truth data to 

enhance accuracy of remotelysensed data, and (3) provide land 

managers with a basis for making 

management decisions. 

The habitat inventory covered 

bottomland hardwood forest 

(excluding reforestation and 

bodies of water—for example, 

oxbow lakes—within the 
65

boundaries of the individual 

WMAs and NWRs. Due to the 

large acreage of interest, the 

inventory was sample-based. 

To accomplish this, individual 

management compartments 

within the area of interest were 

broken down into homogenous 

stands approximately 500 acres 

in size. 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. 

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. One means of assessing 

these trade-offs was to examine 

pilot data collected from the area 

of interest to generate summary 

statistics which provided insight 

into distributional properties 

of the data. To facilitate the 

determination of sample size 

requirements for conducting 

habitat inventories for Ivorybilled Woodpeckers (e.g., the 

density of large diameter trees 

[≥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 

amount of variation expressed in 

the replicates and also produced 

acceptable levels of precision. 

None exceeded 15%. 

Given the current funding 

constraints, availability of 

manpower, the large area of 

interest in the Big Woods of 

Arkansas (Cache River NWR, 

White River NWR, and Dagmar 

WMA) and the desire to maintain 

an acceptable level of precision 

(i.e., low CV values) in parameter 

estimates, a sample size of 4 

clusters per sampling unit, for 

example, a stand, appears to be 

the best option. That is, sample 

sizes of ≤3 clusters were not 

sufficient to produce a high level 

of precision consistently. Sample 

sizes ≥4 clusters produced 

precise parameter estimates with 

sample sizes ≥6 clusters being 

very precise in the parameter 

estimates. A closer examination 

reveals that a sample size of four 

clusters is sufficient to maintain 

the desired level of precision in 

parameter estimates.
66
67

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 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Atlanta, GA 30345 

Regardless of the debate over 

the meaning of evidence for the 

persistence of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker (Campephilus 

principalis) into the 21st Century 

as described in Appendix B, was 

this species difficult to relocate 

once located through time going 

back to 1800? Was the Ivorybilled Woodpecker truly resident 

in local areas or more periodically 

nomadic than previously realized? 

Specifically, is there strong 

evidence in the historical record 

that once located, this species 

could be reliably relocated from 

one year to the next within a 

decade and across decades, 

throughout much of its historical 

distribution? The following 

sections provide an historical 

summary of reports and of the 

species’ status.

Historical Summary-1800 to 1944

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s 

decline since the 1800s is well 

documented in several resources 

(Allen and Kellogg 1937, Tanner 

1942, Jackson 2002, Jackson 2004, 

Hoose 2004, Gallagher 2005). 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the 

United States formerly ranged in 

the coastal plain stretching from 

eastern Oklahoma and Texas 

eastward into North Carolina, 

southward to include all of 

Florida, and in the Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley northward to the 

confluence with the Ohio River 

and then eastward on the Ohio 

River bordering Kentucky and 

Illinois (with archaeological 

evidence that Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker may have occurred 

northward to the Missouri River 

confluence and eastward to 

southern Ohio at least 300 years 

prior to European settlement). 

The best understood habitat for 

this species is expansive, mature 

(“old-growth”) forested wetlands 

which persisted in many parts 

of the Southeast into the early 

1900s. However, associations 

between forested wetland 

systems and this species may be 

only part of the story leading to 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s 

demise in the Southeast. 

In addition to habitat loss, by the 

late 1800s the species was already 

targeted as a valuable commodity 

for collectors and trophy hunters 

as something very rare and 

unusual (Snyder 2007). This 

already rare species became even 

rarer, especially in remaining 

suitable habitat. By the early 

1900s, it was generally thought 

extinct in continental North 

America until Dr. Arthur Allen 

and his wife documented a pair 

in central Florida in 1924. When 

that pair was collected by local 

taxidermists, this species again 

disappeared from science.

By the time conservationists 

began to raise the alarm about 

the future survival of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the 

early 1900s, most remaining 

populations already were doomed 

to extirpation from habitat 

fragmentation, demographic 

isolation, and shooting. This point 

was driven home with what was 

later to be understood as the last 

known Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

population in the United States 

being studied by Allen and 

Kellogg (1937) and particularly 

by Dr. James Tanner (1942). As 

Allen and Tanner documented 

behavior and habitat use of the 

birds at the Singer Tract, the 

habitat surrounding the study 

area was disappearing at an 

alarming rate. These researchers 

understood that without 

immediate conservation action 

this remaining population would 

be lost. 

With his study of this small 

remnant population and search 

of other areas likely to support 

the bird, Tanner was the last to 

document thoroughly the range of 

this species. He also documented 

the reduction of their numbers, by 

the mid-1940s, to about 20 birds 

scattered in Louisiana (the Singer 

Tract), the Gulf coast of Florida 

(from Apalachicola River basin 

to the Lower Suwannee River 

basin and adjacent swamps), the 

Highlands Hammock and Big 

Cypress regions of south Florida, 

and central South Carolina (the 

“Santee” River region, now 

fragmented by Lake Marion, and 

adjacent swamps).

There has not been an 

undisputed report of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers in the United States 

since 1944, when an individual of 

the small population studied at 

the Singer Tract, Louisiana, was 

last seen. Reputable sightings 

of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

continued in and near the Singer 

Tract at least until 1946, and 

possible encounters continued into 

the 1980s, but nothing has been 

considered definite since 1944. 

However, since the end of World 

War II, numerous reports have 

surfaced elsewhere across the 

Southeastern U.S. suggesting 

the persistence of at least some 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers well 

after the 1940s in areas such 

as the Piney Woods of eastern 

Texas, the Atchafalaya Basin of 

southern Louisiana, the Delta 

in Mississippi, the coastal plain 

of South Carolina, and Florida. 

Most of these reports occurred 

before the 1970s with some having 

been shown to be more credible 

than others, but none represented 

firm documentation that Ivorybilled Woodpeckers still occur in 

the Southeastern United States. 

Without any additional tangible 

evidence, this essentially remains 

true today outside of Arkansas.
68

Potential Encounters-1944 to 1999

Since the 1940s, Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers have existed 

essentially as ghost birds of the 

swamps. Reports regularly 

come in of fleeting glimpses 

between dense stands of mature 

or regenerating forests and of 

mysterious noises sounding 

like tin horns or loud pounding 

double-raps on wood emanating 

from across a bayou. Most of the 

sightings upon investigation can 

be quickly assigned to Pileated 

Woodpeckers (Dryocopus 

pileatus) or Red-headed 

Woodpeckers (Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus). The tin-horn 

sounding “toot” calls possibly 

could be assigned to Blue Jays 

(Cyanocitta cristata) that have 

been observed and taped giving 

“toots” considered very similar 

but not identical to known Ivorybilled Woodpecker calls. The 

source of double-raps may be of 

any sort in the woods, including 

other woodpeckers, limbs 

rubbing against each other under 

breezy conditions, colliding duck 

wingtips, or even vehicles going 

over bumps on a distant highway. 

Despite all of these potential 

explanations for what people have 

seen or heard, there remain a 

number of reports that are not 

easily dismissed but which lack 

detail to constitute firm evidence 

that the species persists. Interest 

generally has been restricted to a 

few large areas in the Southeast 

U.S., especially in Louisiana, but 

also in Florida, South Carolina, 

and Texas. 

After the loss of the Singer 

Tract, attention in Louisiana 

shifted to the remote reaches of 

southern Louisiana, particularly 

the Atchafalaya Delta south 

of Interstate 10, which many 

authorities believe is the most 

likely place a population of Ivorybilled Woodpeckers could escape 

notice. In 1971, Dr. George 

Lowry from Louisiana State 

University came into possession 

of two color photographs of an 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker perched 

half-way up the side of two very 

large trees. However, critics 

pointed out that it was not clear 

the bird involved was actually 

alive and not a mounted specimen 

secured to each of the two trees. 

The pose is similar on both trees 

and neither the bill nor feet are 

visible in either photograph, 

both of which are also grainy in 

quality. The photograph was 

recently revealed to be taken by 

Mr. Fielding Lewis of Franklin, 

Louisiana (Gallagher 2005). Both 

Lowry and Dr. Van Remsen 

(Lowry’s successor at the LSU’s 

Museum of Natural History) 

treated these photographs 

as reasonably firm evidence 

that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

persisted at least into the early 

1970s. As is often the case with 

evidence concerning this bird, 

however, many ornithologists 

doubt the authenticity of these 

photographs. In essence, no 

evidence since World War II has 

undisputedly documented that 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers persist 

in Louisiana. 

After 1950 and the demise of 

Louisiana’s Singer Tract, many 

searchers came to consider 

Florida the most likely State 

to support this species, due to 

the extensive amount of remote 

forested wetlands that persisted, 

despite most of these areas being 

cut over at least once. Florida, 

despite a rapidly growing 

population, still had large areas 

of remote swampland and mature 

forests throughout the State (at 

least until the 1970s). The most 

consistent area of observations 

and credible sightings come from 

the Apalachicola and Chipola 

Rivers in the Florida Panhandle, 

at least through the 1950s. 

The most intriguing reports after 

the 1950s are from 1967 to 1969 

(Agey and Heinzmann 1971). 

These reports involved birds 

using a cavity in central Florida 

as a roost site. Although at least 

one Ivory-billed Woodpecker was 

seen in the vicinity of this cavity 

tree on eleven separate days, 

as well as a bird thought to be 

calling from within the cavity, no 

photograph or convincing tape 

recording was ever produced (a 

tape was produced that Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology 

audio experts identified as a 

call of Pileated Woodpeckers). 

However, in the spring of 1968 

the tree in question blew over 

and feathers were found. The 

feather of most interest was a 

secondary that was subsequently 

identified by the Smithsonian 

Institution as that of an Ivorybilled Woodpecker and considered 

relatively fresh and not worn 

(see pages 407-410 in Stevenson 

and Anderson 1994). However 

intriguing this feather is, its 

age remains unknown, so it is 

relatively useless in establishing 

a date at which the Ivory-bill 

was extant in central Florida. 

(A different secondary feather 

identified as that of an Ivorybilled Woodpecker purportedly 

from the Appalachicola region 

found during the 1980s remains 

mysterious.)

Despite these reasonably credible 

reports, no firm documentation 

has ever been received to confirm 

that a pair or even an individual 

bird persisted in Florida after 

World War II. Reputable 

observers contend that the 

species could still exist in Florida, 

and a recent analysis of bill marks 

(grooves) at the cavity entrance 

where feathers were found in 

1968 was determined to be in 

line with bill marks from known 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker cavities 

(P. Sykes, USGS, pers. comm.).

In South Carolina, credible 

reports continued into the 1930s 

in the vicinity of the Santee 

River swamp in Georgetown 

County, but there has been no 

confirmed report since then. In 

1971, Mr. Robert Manns, then 

with the National Audubon 

Society, reported a bird calling in 

response to a tape recording as 

an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, again 

along the Santee River but this 

time near Columbia. However, 

all followup surveys resulted in 

no confirmation that Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers persisted in the 

swamps of South Carolina.

Elsewhere in the Southeast 

U.S., for a period of about a 

decade between 1965 and 1975, 

numerous reports of Ivorybilled Woodpeckers emerged 

from the Piney Woods of eastern 

Texas, in the vicinity of what 

is now Big Thicket National 
69

Preserve, between the Trinity 

and Neches rivers. One of the 

sightings was by Mr. John Dennis 

(who was principally involved 

in the rediscovery of Ivorybilled Woodpeckers in Cuba 

during the late 1940s) and Mr. 

Manuel Armand Yramategui in 

1966 along the Neches River. 

Also along the Neches River, 

Dennis in 1968 recorded what 

he believed was an Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker, which was analyzed 

by Hardy (1975) who concluded 

it could have been an Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker or possibly a Blue 

Jay. Recent analysis of this tape 

by the Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology determined that 

the calls could have been made 

by an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, 

a White-breasted Nuthatch 

(Sitta carolinensis), or a Blue 

Jay. In addition to the Dennis 

tape, Mr. George Reynard used 

for his “Bird Songs in Cuba” 

record, a recording apparently 

of a “double-knock” attributed 

to an Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

he heard from the Big Thicket 

in 1969. Dr. Jerome Jackson 

(2004) asked Tanner to review 

this tape, and he concluded 

that he did not think the noise 

recorded is the double rap of 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

In addition, Reynard donated 

copies of two slides to VIREO 

purporting to show a female 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker at a 

cavity that were taken by Mr. 

Neil Wright during the 1960s 

(see Collins 1970, also Jackson 

2004). So despite the credentials 

of these two ornithologists 

making observations in Texas, 

credible evidence of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers at any time during 

the mid-1900s in the vicinity 

of Big Thicket remains a hotly 

debated issue to this day. 

In part due to the Big Thicket 

reports, the Southwest Region 

of the Service during the late 

1980s initiated a range-wide 

status review for the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker and contracted 

Jackson (2004) to conduct the 

work. Jackson’s report provides 

a thorough review of all past 

reports and an assessment 

of whether the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker could still persist in 

the Southeastern U.S. Jackson’s 

findings were inconclusive as 

he found no hard evidence to 

confirm the species’ existence 

but discussed in some detail his 

own possible encounters with 

the species. Jackson provides 

two accounts of his experiences, 

one along the Noxubee River 

in Alabama just across the 

Mississippi state line and the 

other in Mississippi along the 

Yazoo River confluence with 

the Mississippi River. For 

the Noxubee River account 

he glimpsed what he thought 

could have been an Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker in 1973, but no 

further evidence has emerged 

since the 1970s in Alabama. For 

the Yazoo River account, Jackson 

and his graduate student, Mr. 

Malcolm Hodges (who now works 

for The Nature Conservancy 

in Georgia), reported hearing a 

bird in 1987 that in their view 

closely matched the Cornell tape 

recording of the species. The 

bird in question apparently was 

responding to their playing of the 

Cornell tape, but never came in 

close enough for a visual contact, 

and Jackson and Hodges had no 

capability to record what they 

heard. 

In sum, there have been 

numerous reports of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers since the 1940s, 

and Jackson’s plea for the public 

to provide information during 

his status review resulted in 

hundreds of letters and phone 

calls to Service biologists. Most 

of these reports again were 

dismissed easily as misidentified 

Pileated Woodpeckers and 

in some cases Red-headed 

Woodpeckers. Still, as suggested 

above, tantalizing reports 

including photographs, tape 

recordings, and a feather suggest 

that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

could have persisted in very 

low numbers in highly isolated 

locations at least till the late 

1980s. Nevertheless, near the 

end of the 20th Century there 

was absolutely no undisputed 

evidence acceptable to the 

scientific community to back 

up any claim that Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers persisted past the 

1940s. Thus, after more than a 

decade of relative silence, it came 

as a great surprise to many in the 

conservation community that an 

apparently solid report of a pair 

of birds had been observed in the 

late 1990s, this time along the 

Pearl River on the Louisiana side. 

Mr. David Kulivan, a wildlife 

student at Louisiana State 

University, waited a couple of 

weeks after his wild turkey 

hunting adventure during the 

spring of 1999 at the Pearl River 

WMA, but he finally contacted 

Van Remsen at the Museum of 

Natural History, Louisiana State 

University to discuss what he 

had observed. He claimed to 

have observed two Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers, one adult male 

and one adult female, foraging 

together for about 10 minutes. 

Although he had a camera with 

him, he claimed he was too much 

focused on observing the birds 

to move an inch from his hunting 

position. After several hours of 

interviews, Remsen concluded 

that the details in Kulivan’s 

report were the most solid 

evidence he had heard in 22 years 

of keeping track of information to 

suggest Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

are still extant (Williams 2001, 

Gallagher 2005).

Once Kulivan’s sighting was 

announced to the general public 

nearly a year later, numerous 

expeditions were organized 

to search for Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers at Pearl River 

WMA. Many folks believed 

they glimpsed Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers or heard their calls 

far in the distance during various 

searches. Large cavities and 

stripped bark aroused curiosity 

as to their makers and occupants. 

Finally as a last effort to locate 

this species, a well-funded 

corporately-sponsored team 

of searchers during JanuaryFebruary, 2002, raised everyone’s 

interest when they reported and 

taped a mysterious rapping sound 

that could have been a large 

woodpecker but upon analysis 

proved to be semi-automatic 

pistol fire. Once again, despite 

this promising lead and very 

intensive searching, no further 

hard evidence was produced to 
70

document persistence of this most 

endangered bird in the United 

States. Even some of those who 

have raised doubts, claiming that 

Mr. Kulivan’s report was “too 

detailed,” admit it is possible the 

Ivory-bill is still extant, but hard 

evidence again is lacking. More 

recently, Hurricane Katrina 

has produced numerous snags 

and damaged trees in the Pearl 

River basin but also toppled 

over nearly all of the older and 

larger hardwoods in the area. It 

remains to be seen whether on 

balance the quality of habitat here 

has improved or decreased for 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker after 

Katrina. 

Treatment of Recent along with 

all Previous Documented and 

Potential Encounters

After the 2005 Arkansas 

announcement, organized search 

efforts were initiated across the 

historical range to include (in 

addition to Arkansas) Texas, 

Louisiana, South Carolina, and 

Georgia. Additionally, several 

reports since 2005 surfaced from 

areas initially not considered 

from southern Illinois, western 

Tennessee, southeastern North 

Carolina, the Florida panhandle, 

and extreme south Florida. 

Organized search efforts spread 

to these locations, along with 

additional areas included in the 

Cornell Lab’s Mobile Search 

Team efforts over several 

years. As of 2009, no better 

documentation has come forth 

than what had been announced 

in 2005, but with this combined 

effort a relatively high number of 

credible-sounding reports were 

compiled compared with any 

other post-1930s decade. 

If any of these potential 

encounters, added to those 

between 1944 and 1999, are 

considered in the realm of what 

is possible, then it is possible 

that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

may persist in isolated locations 

throughout the historical 

distribution mapped by Tanner 

(1942). Conducting a decade-bydecade assessment of documented 

(by specimen and/or universally 

accepted video or photograph; all 

prior to 1940) and potential (both 

prior and post 1940) encounters 

may reveal important patterns 

useful for guiding any future 

organized searches. Perhaps 

as important, this assessment 

should generate important 

research questions that should 

be considered with respect to 

searching for any rare, widely 

occurring, and/or otherwise 

difficult to detect species 

requiring conservation attention. 

For consistency, Tanner’s 

geographical regions are used 

for all reports: (1) Carolina, (2) 

Georgia-northern Florida, (3) 

southern Florida, (4) Alabama 

(including the Florida panhandle 

west of the Apalachicola River 

and also drainages in Mississippi 

outside the Delta, (5) lower 

Mississippi Delta (Louisiana 

and adjacent Mississippi), 

(6) upper Mississippi Delta 

(Arkansas, Missouri, and adjacent 

Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, 

and Illinois), (7) Arkansas (west 

of the Delta)-Oklahoma, and (8) 

east Texas. Within each region, 

subregions are identified which 

are composed of groups of 

locations and serve again as the 

basis for comparing patterns of 

occurrence within each region, 

each decade, and among regions. 

The smallest common unit used 

in this treatment is location 

of report(s) within a decade, 

following and building upon 

the list of locations provided in 

Tanner. A data point represents 

at least one report from a location 

had occurred during a specified 

decade. Confirmation of a report 

is established at locations when 

a specimen is identified as 

having been collected from that 

location during the decade in 

question. Specimens serving 

as documentation of occurring 

at a location during a decade 

are identified in Tanner (1942), 

Hahn (1963), and Jackson (2004). 

An attempt was made here 

to cross-reference specimens 

listed with dates and locations 

of collections presented in these 

three major references. Most 

such reports of specimens listed 

in Tanner were successfully 

identified in Hahn, but there 

were some inconsistencies 

where reports in Tanner lacked 

references to specimens found 

in Hahn with the same date and 

location. Other reports were 

matched successfully to location, 

collector, or name of owner 

(museum, collection, etc.), but 

were off by year or decade (e.g., 

1897 as opposed to 1898, or 1898 

versus 1889; one or the other 

reference apparently contained a 

typographic error). Since Tanner 

was the primary reference, his 

treatment of such reports took 

precedence, but documentation 

of discrepancies are provided as 

appropriate (many of these were 

in fact corrected by Tanner in 

his unpublished 1989 update to 

his report). In addition, multiple 

specimens often were collected at 

the same location during the same 

decade; some are identified by 

Tanner, but some were revealed 

only when compared with 

Hahn. In such cases, notations 

and treatments are based on a 

combination of these two primary 

sources.

All specimens collected were 

prior to 1940, and Jackson (2004) 

presents a summary of the 

number of specimens collected 

per decade now in museum 

collections. This information 

is used to make comparisons 

between reports accepted, but 

without specimens, during the 

decades prior to 1940 with reports 

after 1940 where no universally 

accepted documentation exists 

beyond the reputations of the 

involved observers. There are 

two exceptions to this rule where 

photographs have been widely 

accepted as documentation. 

These are also locations where 

specimens were known to have 

been taken during the same 

decade (Taylor Creek, FL, in the 

1920s and the Singer Tract, LA, in 

the 1930s, respectively). All other 

reports are considered potential 

encounters of varying quality 

depending upon the authority of 

the observer as judged by Tanner, 

Jackson, and other authoritative 

ornithologists. 

Here, a potential encounter is 

defined as a report not easily 

explained as something other 

than an Ivory-billed Woodpecker 
71

on the basis of description of 

the bird, the type of habitat in 

which it was encountered, and 

distribution. After the Arkansas 

announcement was made, post1944 reports were compiled 

prior to the 2005 announcement 

of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

being sighted in Arkansas. A 

map was produced of these 

potential encounters in Service 

brochures. These potential 

encounters were based on those 

discussed by Jackson (2004) 

or otherwise in Service files as 

“probably reliable,” defined here 

as not obviously another species. 

A review of other published 

literature and files maintained 

by some State working groups 

included other potential 

encounters that are cited and 

used in this treatment (both 

before and after 1950). Excluded 

from further consideration were 

reports that likely described 

other species (especially Pileated, 

but also Red-headed and 

sometimes other woodpecker 

species), as well as those reports 

outside the historical range 

of the species (as depicted in 

Tanner 1942) and in unlikely 

habitats such as golf courses and 

backyards. The reports between 

1945 and 2005 considered further 

vary in detail, with some accepted 

based solely on the credibility 

and reputation of the observer. 

Reports since April 2005 (i.e., 

the Arkansas announcement) 

are similarly treated, but at least 

one diagnostic field mark had 

to be observed (most often the 

white trailing edges on a flying or 

perched large woodpecker).

It is important to understand the 

type and level of documentation 

accepted for this species’ 

persistence at the time when most 

collecting of specimens began to 

trail off (i.e., after 1900) compared 

with those reports which were 

accepted without question 

previously. While most previous 

treatments break down reports 

by State, here it is believed that 

important insights can be made 

by comparing reports, type and 

level of documentation, by decade 

starting with the 1800 and ending 

with the present. References for 

those reports besides those of 

Tanner himself prior to 1940 are 

provided in Tanner (1942, with 

cross-reference to location on his 

maps, his figures 3-10) and are so 

noted here.

Results and Discussion

The number of locations with 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker reports 

peaked between 1880 and 1910, 

the same period when most 

specimens were collected (Figures 

1, 2). The number of locations 

with potential reports after 

1940 generally dropped below 

the number of locations with all 

reports between 1900 and 1940. 

However, when including only 

potential encounters between 1900 

and 1939, the range in number 

of locations among decades was 

roughly similar to the number of 

locations with potential encounters 

in the decades between 1940 and 

2009, only dropping below 10 

locations during the 1990s. The 

number of locations within each 

decade with multiple reports 

among years never exceeded 10 

per decade prior to the extensive 

efforts underway after 2005 to 

search for this species. 

Prior to 1940, only a small 

percentage of locations from 

decade to decade provided the 

source of reports from multiple 

years within any one decade, 

ranging from 12 to 28 percent of 

all locations with birds reported 

within each decade (Figures 3, 

4). After 1940, there was a slight 

increase in the percentage of 

locations with multi-year reports 

in the later decades, ranging from 

9 to 51 percent of all locations with 

birds reported within each decade. 

Despite this increase in locations 

with reports from multiple 

years there was no definitive 

documentation of persistence at 

any of these locations. Similarly, 

a very low percentage of locations 

with reports spanning more than 

one decade is documented in 

the historical record, but again 

with a slight increase during the 

latter decades (Figures 5, 6). 

Reports continue to come from 

most of Tanner’s regions into the 

present day with an obvious shift 

from those regions that included 

Florida to regions elsewhere 

(Figure 7). 

In summary, there is no evidence 

that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

was ever widely or consistently 

relocated in the same areas from 

year to year or from decade to 

decade prior to 1940, despite the 

impression one may have about 

birds at the Singer Tract during 

the 1930s. Actually, during 

Tanner’s study the chore in 

locating birds often took days or 

weeks even where pairs or family 

groups were known to occur from 

previous years (and actually only 

one nesting pair at John’s Bayou 

was consistently relocated during 

his entire study). Whether the 

birds were truly more nomadic 

than previously thought, or 

whether the low percentage of 

repeated locations historically has 

been due to the search patterns 

of ornithologists and collectors 

is unclear. What is clear is that 

the present pattern of reports 

that do not effectively document 

occurrence of the species has 

been repeated from decade to 

decade for more than a century 

and that the number of locations 

with potential encounters within 

the same decade has varied little 

since the 1870s.

Whether or not many or all post1944 reports pertain to actual 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers will 

continue to be debated in some 

circles, and it also is possible that 

some of the reports dismissed 

for purposes of this treatment 

perhaps should not have been 

discounted so lightly. However, 

the pattern of credible-sounding 

reports accepted for this 

treatment from locations without 

firm documentation was from 

decade to decade slightly lower 

between 1940 and 2009 than the 

pattern recorded between 1890 

and 1939. Most interestingly, the 

exceptional increase in locations 

with potential encounters during 

the present decade is on the 

surface similar to what was 

recorded during the 1930s, given 

both of these decades experienced 

a notable increase in amount 

of effort to firmly document 

the persistence of this species 

(with similar results despite 

substantially fewer observers 

involved in the 1930s than in the 

present decade).
72

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

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

42

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, 

range-wide 

42

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, 

range-wide 
73

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

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

43

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 

time blocks. 

43

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 

time blocks. 
74

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

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

44

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. 

44

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. 
75

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

Reports of Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker by Geographic 

Region 

(October 10, 2009)

Locations alpha-numeric codes 

in green bold type represent 

reports from more than one year 

within the decade; * indicates at 

least one specimen known from 

that location during that decade. 

Unless otherwise indicated, 

reference to Tanner is for his 1942 

report and reference to Hahn is 

for his 1963 list of specimens and 

where they were housed. 

Carolina Region (#’s where 

indicated are cross-referenced to 

Figure 3 in Tanner), subregions: 

(A) Wilmington, NC, (B) Pee 

Dee-Waccamaw, SC-NC, (C) 

Lower Santee (including the 

Black River which is actually a 

tributary of the Pee Dee), SC, 

(D) Upper Santee (including 

Congaree and Wateree), SC, (E) 

Edisto, SC, (F) CoosawhatchieBroad-Mary rivers, SC, (G) 

Savannah (including Ogeechee 

and Canochee), SC-GA

1800-1849

(A-1) 12 miles north of 

Wilmington, NC; about 1800 (#1; 

specimen at Smithsonian said to 

be from Wilmington, NC; possibly 

collected by Wilson who reported 

taking three in February 1809)

(C-1*) Cypress swamp north 

of Charleston, SC (spec., 

presumably same area where 

two other spec. collected without 

date, but Hasbrouke 1891 reports 

that G. N. Lawrence received 

two specimens from J. G. Bell 

apparently sometime in the late 

1840s or early 1850s); 1840 (#9)

(G-1) Frequently between 

Augusta and Savannah along 

the Savannah River; about 1800 

(#11; three specimens listed by 

Hahn are from Georgia and dated 

1806, 1807, and 1809; collected by 

Wilson?)

1850-1859

(C-2) Pine Barrens of SC; about 

1850 (#3)

1860-1869

(F-1) Hunting Id., Beaufort 

County, SC; before 1870 (#12)

1870-1879

(B-1*) Cheraw, SC (spec.; another 

specimen with unknown date); 

April 1876 (#2)

(F-2) Johnson’s, Pritchard’s, 

and Edding Islands, SC; 1880 

and before (#13; Hasbrouke 

1891 is more specific in citing a 

letter from W. Hoxie whereby 

a specimen was taken, and now 

unaccounted for, from Johnson’s 

Island in 1879 or 1880)

1880-1889

(B-1) Pee Dee River, near Cheraw, 

SC; April 1889 (#2)

(F-2) Johnson’s, Pritchard’s, 

and Edding Islands, SC; 1880 

and before (#13; Hasbrouke 

1891 is more specific in citing a 

letter from W. Hoxie whereby he 

reports a sighting on Pritchard’s 

Island during the winter of 1886-

1887, but Hoxie refers elsewhere 

that his last report was 1884)

(G-1) Miller’s Island, Column 

lake, 30 miles north of Savannah 

(“shot” by C. B. Prescott); 1886 

(Jackson 2004)

45

Figure 7. Total locations with reports in each Tanner region 
76

1890-1899

(G-2) Savannah River, Barnwell 

County, SC; 1898 (#10; Jackson 

2004 has as location “near Beldoc, 

Allendale County” for what 

appears to be the same report) 

1900-1909

(G-2) Savannah River, Allendale 

County, SC; September 1907 

(#10) 

1910-1919 

None

1920-1929

(C-1) Fairlawn Plantation, 

Charleston County, SC (two 

separate reports); 1929 (Sprunt 

and Chamberlain 1949)

(C-3) Santee Swamp, near St. 

Stephens, SC; about 1925 (#5)

1930-1939

(C-4) Black Oak Island, near St. 

Stephens, Clarendon County, SC; 

about 1930 (#4)

(C-5, C-6, C-7) Santee Swamp, 

Georgetown and lower Berkeley 

Counties, SC; 1930-1937 (# 6, 

7, and 8; in addition Post and 

Gauthreaux 1989 state that a 

report of two birds by Murray 

and Sanders in 1938 at Wadmacon 

was the “last official” sighting in 

SC)

(E-1) Four Holes Swamp, Edisto 

River, Orangeburg County, SC 

(SC Audubon); 1930s (SCIBWO 

Working Group Files 2009)

1940-1949

(C-3 through 7) Santee region, 

SC (Figure 13 in Tanner; reach 

between Black Oak Island 

and Atlantic Ocean; unknown 

number); 1940s (Tanner)

(C-8) Coastal Highway 17 

(Francis Marion National Forest, 

Berkeley County?), SC (report 

from Chuck Horn for John Lynes 

to Cornell); 1945 (SCIBWO 

Working Group Files 2009)

1950-1959

(C-8) Francis Marion National 

Forest between Awendaw and 

Moore’s Landing (Bull Island 

Ferry), Berkeley County, SC (two 

separate reports: one heard and 

briefly seen by L. Vaughan, P. 

W. Smith, and D. Crompton and 

the other reported by a “game 

warden,” both reported to J. 

Dennis); 1959 (USFWS 2007)

1960-1969

(C-8) Six reports within the 

Francis Marion National Forest 

and Cape Romain National 

Wildlife Refuge, Berkeley County 

area: 

Bulls Island, Cape Romain NWR, 

Berkeley County, SC (three 

separate reports by H. Mills, H. 

Waller, and a “Brookline, MA, 

Bird Club member” according 

to A. Sprunt, L. Vaughan, and D. 

Crompton in replies to J. Dennis); 

January to December 1960 

(USFWS 2007)

West of Summerville (Great 

Cypress Swamp?), Dorchester 

County, SC (sighting by L. Rush 

according to Sprunt in reply to 

J. Dennis); spring 1962 (USFWS 

2007) 

Iron Swamp Road, west of US 

Highway 17, Cape Romain NWR 

and Francis Marion National 

Forest, Berkeley County, SC (one 

seen flying crossing road by J. 

Edwards); April 1963 (USFWS 

2007)

Near McClellanville (“Buck Hall” 

area), Francis Marion National 

Forest, lower Santee River 

system, Berkeley County, SC 

(two birds observed on pines by 

E. DeBold); May 1967 (USFWS 

2007)

(D-1) Cedar Creek, Congaree 

Swamp, Richland County, SC 

(“aerial sighting...of a bird in 

flight” by J. Dennis and two 

additional reports to J. Dennis 

[one of a pair]; also reported to 

have nested by T. Dabbs); 1964-

1966, 1969 (Dennis 1966, Jackson 

2004, USFWS 2007)

1970-1979

(C-9) Lower Santee River, 2 

miles south of Greeleyville, 

Williamsburg County, SC 

(seen by D. Hill as reported to 

D. Chamberlain); late 1970s 

(SCIBWO Working Group Files 

2009)

(C-11) Black River, eastern 

portion of Georgetown County, 

SC (two heard and silhouettes 

seen by T. Dabbs, no additional 

evidence from followup by P. 

Sykes); 1970 (Jackson 2004)

(D-1) Congaree Swamp, 

Richland County, SC (reported 

to have nested by T. Dabbs); 1970 

(Jackson 2004)

(D-2) Upper Santee Swamp, 

vicinity of Broadwater Creek 

about 40 miles northeast of 

Francis Beidler Forest in Four 

Holes Swamp (a response to 

Singer Tract tape by R. Manns, 

reportedly recorded but doubts 

on what was heard by Manns 

expressed by Jackson; several 

media references to a report of a 

pair by Audubon staff and photos 

implied to be associated with 

these reports actually pertain 

to Fielding Lewis’s photos from 

Louisiana during this same year); 

February 1971 (Jackson 2004, 

USFWS 2007)

(G-3) Ogeechee River, 25 miles 

west of Savannah, Chatham 

County, GA (C. D. Gerow); July 

1973 (Jackson 2004)

1980-1989

(B-2) Lower Waccamaw River, 

Georgetown County, SC (a report 

from B. Doyle given to L. Short); 

unclear date perhaps 1980s 

(Jackson 2004)

(C-11) Black River, eastern 

portion of Clarendon County, 

SC (one supposedly seen but 

observer not named); 1981 

(Jackson 2004)

(D-1) Congaree National Park, 

Richland County, SC (multiple 

reports); 1982 (near RCW cluster, 

S. Pfaff), 1987 (W. Sweeny) 

(SCIBWO Working Group Files 

2009)

(D-2) Near confluence of Little 

Congaree (Wateree?) and Santee 

River, Sumter County (one heard 

and seen by J. Williams) another 

near Camden Kershaw County 

(one apparent female by Sara 

Davis-Hyman), SC; September 

1984 (USFWS 2007), 1988 

(SCIBWO Working Group Files 

2009)

1990-1999

(D-1) Congaree National Park, 

Richland County, SC (seen by 

L. Askins); May 1998 (SCIBWO 

Working Group Files 2009)
77

(D-2) Wateree River, Poinsett 

State Park, Sumter County, 

SC (single male seen by park 

naturalist) and Upper Santee 

River swamp, Lone Star, Calhoun 

County, SC (seen by J. Pittard); 

1993 and April 1997 (SCIBWO 

Working Group Files 2009)

2000-

(B-3) Green Swamp, Brunswick 

County, NC (pair seen by J. 

Condrey); 2005 (SCIBWO 

Working Group Files 2007)

(B-4) Little Pee Dee River, 

Marion County, SC (female 

seen both times by F. Ervin); 

September 2004, September 2006 

(SCIBWO Working Group Files 

2009)

(B-5) Woodbury Tract, Great 

Pee Dee River, Marion County, 

SC (female seen by J. Godbold); 

March 2007 (SCIBWO Working 

Group Files 2009)

(B-6) Lumber River, Robeson 

County, NC, north and west of 

Lumberton (large woodpecker 

with bold black and white pattern 

on the wings and white trailing 

edge seen while conducting a NC 

Wildlife Resources Commission 

aerial waterbird survey by A. 

Houston); April 2008 (reported to 

W. Golder with Audubon North 

Carolina 2008) 

(C-8) Wabmaw Creek Wilderness, 

Francis Marion National Forest, 

Berkeley County, SC (a pair well 

described in 2007 in comparison 

with pair of Pileateds by J. Cork); 

September 2007 (SCIBWO 

Working Group Files 2009)

(C-10) Near Cross, Lower Santee 

River, Berkeley County, SC 

(seen by L. Riney); January 2005 

(SCIBWO Working Group Files 

2009) 

(D-1) Congaree National Park, 

Richland County, SC (multiple 

visual reports and recordings); 

2005-2009 (SCIBWO Working 

Group Files 2009)

(D-2) Wateree and Congaree 

river confluence, Sumter County, 

SC (several observations by C. 

Reed) and Upper Santee River 

swamp, Lone Star, Calhoun 

County, SC (seen by J. Pittard); 

2001, 2002, March 2003 (SCIBWO 

Working Group Files 2009)

(E-2) Near Four Holes Swamp, 

Edisto Drainage, Dorchester 

County, SC (one seen by B. 

Teagardin); December 2006 

(SCIBWO Working Group Files 

2007)

(F-3) Near Grays, Coosawhatchie 

River, Jasper County, SC (three 

seen by D. Hamilton); June 2005 

(SCIBWO Working Group Files 

2009)

(F-4) Rosehill Plantation between 

Mary and Colleton Rivers, 

Beaufort County, SC (heard and 

seen by D. Dunlap); October 2006 

(SCIBWO Working Group Files 

2009)

Georgia-northern Florida Region 

(#’s where indicated are crossreferenced to Figure 4 in Tanner), 

subregions: (A) Altamaha, GA, (B) 

Okefenokee (including Satilla, 

Pinhook Swamp, Oseola NF), 

GA-FL, (C) Red Hills, GA-FL, (D) 

Apalachicola-Chipola (including 

Chattahoochee), FL-GA-AL, (E) 

Wakulla-Aucilla, FL, (F) Lower 

Suwannee, FL, (G) North Peninsula 

(including lower St. John’s River 

and tributaries, Ocala National 

Forest), FL 

1800-1849

None

1850-1859

(A-1) Altamaha Swamp, GA; after 

1853 (#2)

(F-1*) Cedar Key, FL (spec.); 

January 1859 (#33)

1860-1869

(A-1) Altamaha Swamp, GA; 

before 1865 (#2)

(B-1*) Okefenokee, GA (spec.); 

1860 (#4) 

(G-1*) Volusia, FL (three specs.); 

February 1869 (#45; all three 

listed in Hahn with possibly an 

additional specimen listed at 

University of Michigan Museum 

of Zoology with same date and 

location) 

1870-1879

(G-2) St. John’s and Oklawaha 

Rivers, FL; 1873 (#41)

(G-3*) Oklawaha River swamp, 

FL (two specs.); March 1879 

(#42)

(G-4*) Lake George, FL (spec.); 

July 1877 (#44)

(G-10*) Near Palatka, FL (two 

specs.); March 1878 (Hahn) 

1880-1889

(A-3) Frederica River, St. Simons 

Island, Glynn County, GA (a pair 

seen in flight by R. Brasher); late 

1880s (Jackson 2004)

(B-2) Okefenokee region, GA; 

1888 (#6)

(D-1) Chattahoochee River, a 

day’s journey south of Columbus, 

GA; 1887 (#8)

(D-2) Bristol (Apalachicola 

River), FL; December 1889 

(#9; Hasbrouke 1891 mentions 

a specimen at the Smithsonian 

apparently from Bristol taken 

during this time period, but it is 

now unaccounted for)

(D-3) Apalachicola River swamp, 

FL; March 1887 (#10)

(E-1) St. Marks River (several 

miles upstream), FL; April 1886 

(#14; Hasbrouke 1891 states that 

H. A. Kline killed one in March 

of 1886, but if so specimen is 

unaccounted for)

(E-2) St. Marks, FL; March 1885 

(#15)

(F-2*) Rosewood, FL (five specs.); 

1881-1883 (#32; Hahn also lists 

specimen taken 1885 included in 

total here) 

(F-3*) Gulf Hammock, Levy 

County, FL (five specs.); August 

1883 and March 1887 (#35; 

Hahn also lists specimens taken 

December 1881 included in total 

here)

(G-5*) St. John’s River, north of 

Green Cove Springs, FL (three 

specs.); 1887 (#38; appears to 

be same report listed as 1877 in 

Hahn, acknowledged later by 

Tanner as a possibility in an 1989 

update to his 1942 report)

(G-6) Juniper Creek, Marion 

County, FL; March 1886 (#43)
78

1890-1899

(B-3) Small tributary of the 

Satilla River, 20 miles southeast 

Blackshear, GA; about 1895 (#3)

(D-2*) Bristol (Apalachicola 

River), FL (two specs.); 

November 1894 (Hahn) 

(E-3) Waukeenah River, Jefferson 

County, FL; April 1894 (#16)

(E-4*) Wacissa River region, 

Jefferson County, FL (eleven 

specs.); February to June 1894 

(#17; includes two specimens 

from Cow Creek taken February 

1894 listed in Hahn, who also 

lists a specimen taken April 

1896 included in total here; also 

Hasbrouke 1891 reports that in 

March 1890 “Captain” Gregg 

had killed two but these were 

discarded)

(E-5*) Aucilla River, FL (spec.); 

March 1894 (#19)

(E-6) Big Muddy swamp, Taylor 

County, FL; February 1894 (#20)

(F-4*) Pumpkin swamp, Dixie 

County, FL (spec.); April 1893 

(#25; neither Tanner nor Hahn 

list a specimen with specific 

location or date for this location, 

but such a specimen is listed at 

the Smithsonian collected by H. 

Parker)

(F-5) California swamp, Dixie 

County, FL; February 1893 (#26)

(F-6*) California swamp, 

Lafayette County, FL (two 

specs.); 1893 (#27; Tanner cites 

MCZ as having a specimen from 

1893, but this was not found in 

Hahn which lists two specimens 

from this location during March 

1896 housed at Bowling Green 

State University, OH, included in 

total here)

(F-7) Branford, FL; April 1892 

(#28)

(F-8*) Suwannee River, near 

Old Town, FL (six specs.); 1890 

and 1893 (#29; Hahn 1963 up 

to fourteen collected according 

to accounts by Brewster and 

Chapman [one] in 1890 and 

Wayne [thirteen] in 1893) 

(F-9*) Old Town, FL (four specs.); 

April 1892 (#30; Hahn lists three 

specimens dated April 1892, 

an additional specimen dated 

February 1897 included in total 

here)

(F-10) Suwannee Hammock, Levy 

County, FL; 1893 (#31; Jackson 

2004 adds two sight records by F. 

Chapman at Vista Creek in 1890 

and near Fort Fanning in 1891)

1900-1909

(B-4) Minnie’s Lake Island, 

Okefenokee, GA; 1903 (in 

Tanner’s 1989 update, citing 

Elliott 1932, to his1942 report)

(E-2*) St. Marks, FL (spec.); 

January 1900 (#15; Tanner does 

not indicate that a specimen 

was taken, while Hahn lists one 

specimen taken in 1901; these 

likely refer to the same event 

as the one cited by Tanner 

from Pennock 1901 entitled 

“Recent capture of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers in Florida)

(E-4*) Jefferson County (Wacissa 

region), FL (spec.); June 1905 

(Hahn)

(E-7) Leon County, FL; about 

1900 (#13)

(E-8) Taylor County, FL; January 

1900 (#21)

(E-9*) Taylor County, FL (two 

specs.); March 1904 (#22; Tanner 

does not indicate that specimens 

were taken, while Hahn lists two 

specimens from January 1904 

included in total here)

(F-11*) Stephensville, Taylor 

County, FL (spec.); January 1901 

(#23)

(F-12*) Lafayette or Dixie 

County, FL (three spec.); 1905 

(#24; Hahn also lists specimen 

taken February 1904 included in 

total here)

(F-13) Otter Creek, Gulf 

Hammock, Levy County, FL; 

about 1905 (#34)

(G-7) Micanopy, FL; 1909 (#40)

1910-1919

(B-1*, B-4, B-5) Okefenokee 

Swamp (Craven Island, Minnie’s 

Lake Island, Suwannee Canal), 

GA; 1910-1915 (#4, 5, and 7; 

apparently a 1912 specimen 

is from Craven Island in the 

Philadelphia Academy of Science 

collection, but not clear in Hahn 

though cited by Tanner in his 

1989 update to his 1942 report)

(B-2*) Waycross (Okefenokee 

region), GA (spec.); April 1913 

(Hahn; specimen is a skeleton; 

acknowledged by Tanner in his 

1989 update to his 1942 report)

(B-7*) Baker County 

(Okefenokee-Pinhook region), 

FL (four specs.); February 1914 

(#37; Tanner listed this report 

without dates or references to 

specimens that are listed in Hahn; 

acknowledged by Tanner in his 

1989 update to his 1942 report) 

(E-4*) Jefferson County (Wacissa 

region), FL (spec.); January 1910 

(Hahn)

(E-5*) Aucilla River, FL (spec.); 

May 1917 (#19)

(E-11) Wakulla Springs, FL 

(a pair seen by H.L. Beadle; 

reported by Stoddard to Sprunt); 

April 1918 (Sprunt 1954; 

acknowledged by Tanner in his 

1989 update to his 1942 report)

(F-10) Suwannee Hammock, Levy 

County, FL; 1917 (#31)

(G-8) Alachua County, FL; about 

1910 (#39)

(G-2) Between Welaka and 

Rodman, FL; 1916 (#41)

1920-1929

(A-2) Altamaha River, Tattnall 

County, GA; around 1925 (#1)

(B-4) Okefenokee (Minnie’s 

Island), GA (still nesting 

according to B. Carter); 1924 

(S. Willis, pers. comm., USFWS 

2007)

(D-4) Apalachicola River Swamp, 

FL; 1920 (#11)

(E-10) Wacissa River Swamp, FL; 

1923 (#18)

(F-10) Suwannee Hammock, Levy 

County, FL; about 1925 (#31) 

(G-3) Oklawaha River Swamp, 

FL; 1923 (#42)
79

1930-1939

(B-4) Okefenokee (Minnie’s 

Lake Island), GA (possible 

nesting C. Elliot); 1931 (Jackson 

2004; various other references 

during the 1930’s give conflicting 

interpretations but suggesting 

persistence with Greene 1936 

and especially Burleigh 1958 

quoting F. Hebard that not until 

the “great fire” of 1932 was this 

species noted since 1912, and with 

Jackson recounting that Tanner 

had spoken with E. Adams, 

a technician for the refuge, 

about his sighting presumably 

in the mid-1930s, but with 

Tanner himself treating these 

as “rumors” and on the basis of 

what he did observe of the habitat 

in 1939 he considered to look 

unsuitable, mostly pond cypress)

(D-4) Apalachicola River Swamp, 

FL; about 1935 (#11)

(E-11) Wakulla County, FL; June 

1936 and January 1937 (#12)

(E-4, E-10) Wacissa River 

Swamp, FL; December 1932 up to 

1937 (#17 and 18)

(F-14) Sim’s Ridge, Gulf 

Hammock, Levy County, FL; 

1932-1934 (#36)

1940-1949

(A-2) Altamaha River, GA; 1940s 

(Stoddard 1969)

(B-5) Suwannee Canal, 

Okefenokee, GA; 1941-1942, 1946, 

1948 (Loftin 1991, Jackson 2004)

(D-2 through D-4) Apalachicola 

region, FL (Figure 16 in Tanner; 

reach from Bristol to Apalachicola 

Bay; 4 individuals estimated on 

the basis of Tanner’s assessment 

of “carrying capacity of region 

and reports of natives;” also a pair 

reported by Eastman in March 

1949); 1940s (Tanner)

(F-2 through F-13) Gulf 

Hammock-Suwannee region, 

FL (Figure 15 in Tanner; area 

from Steinhatchie River to 

Gulf Hammock; 4 individuals 

estimated on the basis of Tanner’s 

assessment of “carrying capacity 

of region”); 1940s (Tanner)

(G-9) Silver Spring swamp near 

Ocala, FL (pair seen by L. L. 

Henniger); October 1949 (Sprunt 

1954; acknowledged by Tanner 

in his 1989 update to his 1942 

report)

1950-1959

(A-2) Altamaha River, Tattnall 

County, GA (H. Stoddard 

observed one from plane); 1958? 

(Stoddard 1969, Jackson 2004, 

USFWS 2007)

(C-1) Red Hills, Thomas County, 

GA (H. Stoddard observed two 

birds feeding in beetle killed 

spruce pine); Spring 1952 

(Stoddard 1969; Crawford 1998, 

Jackson 2004) 

(D-5) Chipola River, Calhoun 

County, FL (numerous observers, 

most prominent H. M. Stevenson 

along with R. West); 1950-1951 

(Stevenson and Anderson 1994, 

J. V. Dennis 1967, 1979, and 

W. Eastman 1958; the original 

reports doubted by both Stoddard 

and Tanner, who were aware at 

the time, but did not discount, 

Stevenson’s observation during 

the same time period)

(E-12) Wakulla County, FL (flying 

across road between Wakulla 

Station and St. Marks by S. 

Grimes along with R. Hallman); 

July 1952 (Stevenson and 

Anderson 1994; acknowledged by 

Tanner in his 1989 update to his 

1942 report) 

(E-5) Taylor County, FL (female 

1 mile east of Aucilla River, west 

of Perry, by W. L. Rhein); 1959 

(Jackson 1996) 

1960-1969

(B-6) Stephen Foster State 

Park, Okefenokee Swamp, 

Charlton County, GA (supposedly 

photographed by Park 

Superintendent and Nova Scotia 

naturalist [names?] relayed to 

J. J. Shoman and then to L. R. 

Short); 1965? (USFWS 2007) 

(C-1) Red Hills, Thomas County, 

GA (G. B. Reynard); 1963 

(Jackson 2004) 

(D-6) West of Apalachicola, FL 

(bird flew across road near Indian 

Pass and flew north to Lake 

Wimico, J. H. Merritt reported 

to Eastman); December 1963 

(USFWS 2007) 

1970-1979

(D-3) Apalachicola National 

Forest, Liberty/Gulf County, FL 

(pair with female sticking head 

out of cavity by J. Stevenson); 

March “late 1970s” (Stevenson 

2006, letters between D. Pashley, 

C. Hunter and H. Stevenson 1990-

1991, USFWS 2007 [see 1980s]) 

1980-1989

(D-3) Apalachicola National 

Forest, Liberty/Gulf County, FL 

(J. Stevenson reported finding 

breast and secondary feathers 

inside the cavity of the same 

tree as in previous decade that 

was blown down November 1985 

from Hurricane Kate, [location 

of feathers are at present known 

to J. Stevenson and the museum 

curator who identified them 

as from Ivory-bill; also in the 

aforementioned correspondence, 

H. Stevenson describes a possible 

sighting in the same general area 

himself in 1985 or 1986]); Spring 

1986 (Stevenson 2006, letters 

between D. Pashley, C. Hunter 

and H. Stevenson 1991, USFWS 

2007 [see 1970s])

1990-1999

(D-3) Lower Chipola-Apalachicola 

River (reports given to J. Jackson 

considered “tantalizing”); 1990-

1991 (Jackson 1996) 

(F-8) Lower Suwannee River, 

Gilchrist County, FL (possible 

multiple sightings by M. Rupp 

and E. Rupp); May 1995 (USFWS 

2007) 

2000-

(D-3) Lower Apalachicola River 

(heard possible kent calls by 

Spahr); January 2003 (Spahr 

2006)

(E-13) Between Aucilla River 

and Exit 35 (Highway 221 to 

Greenville) along I-10, Madison 

County, FL (female fly-over 

female seen flying across highway 

in front of vehicle and then briefly 

from the side of same vehicle, 

rear of bird, as it entered woods, 

by S. Willis); April 2007 (USFWS 

2007)
80

Southern Florida (#’s where 

indicated are cross-referenced to 

Figure 5 in Tanner), subregions (all 

restricted to FL): (A) East-Central 

(including upper St. John’s River 

and tributaries), (B) North-Central 

(including Orlando, Green Swamp, 

and upper Kissimmee River), (C) 

Chassahowitzka to Tampa Bay, (D) 

Lower Kissimmee-Highlands-Lake 

Okeechobee, (E) Charlotte HarborFort Myers, (F) Big CypressEverglades, (G) Loxahatchee

1800-1849

None

1850-1859

(A-1) Enterprise (now Benson 

Springs), Volusia County; 

about 1859 (#5; Hahn lists four 

specimens from “April” with no 

year nor collector listed, but in 

the collection records for MVZ 

one specimen [107106] has Bryant 

as the collector whom Tanner 

references for this report)

1860-1869

(A-1*) Enterprise (now Benson 

springs), Volusia County (spec.); 

March 1869 (#5; Tanner did not 

list a specimen, but Hahn lists 

a specimen from March 1869 

taken by J. Allen whom Tanner 

references for this report)

(A-2*) Hawkinsville and Lake 

Jessup (two specs., one each from 

each location); March and winter 

1869 (#6; Hasbrouke 1891 reports 

from essentially an anonymous 

author, “W.A.D. of Hawkinsville, 

that he and his brother collected 

20 to 25 for a taxonomist in 

Palatka, possibly during the 

1870s with the last bird seen 

during May 1885, but no specific 

locations or dates for any of the 

specimens)

1870-1879

(A-3*) Wekiva River (twelve 

specs.); June 1878 (#4; Tanner 

cites one specimen being at MCZ, 

but Hahn lists two there with the 

date of June 1876 with another 

two specimens with date August 

1876; in addition Hahn lists from 

other collections three specimens 

dated July 1876, one with date 

of July 1877, two with dates of 

August 1877, and two with dates 

of dated September 1877)

(A-4) Turnbull Swamp or 

Hammock, Volusia County; 1872 

(#8; Hasbrouke 1891 cites this 

report as from New Smyrna 

Beach)

(A-5*) Merritt Island (spec.); 

1870 (#22; Tanner did not list 

a specimen, but Hahn lists a 

specimen from “Brevard” in 

April 1870, presumably the same 

report as Merritt Island is within 

Brevard County)

(B-1*) Panasofkee Lake, Sumter 

County (spec.); spring 1876 (#3; 

Tanner did not list a specimen, 

but Hahn lists a specimen from 

February 1876)

(C-1) Mouth of Withlacoochee 

River; 1879-1880 (#1)

(C-2*) Hernando County (two 

specs.); March 1876 and January 

1877 (#10)

1880-1889

(A-2) Sanford; around 1885 (#6)

(A-3*) Wekiva River (three 

specs.); about 1885 (#4; Tanner 

did not list any specimens, but 

Hahn lists two specimens with 

dates of February 1883 and one 

March 1883)

(A-6*) Indian River (spec.); 

February 1885 (#9)

(B-2*) Linden (spec.); March 1886 

(#11)

(B-3*) Polk County (spec.); 1889 

(#13; Tanner cites the Museum of 

Comparative Zoology at Harvard 

College as housing this specimen, 

possibly from Brewster as cited 

by Hasbrouke 1891, but Hahn 

does not list a specimen with 

either this location or date there, 

while listing a specimen from Polk 

County not otherwise cited by 

Tanner collected by John Lamb 

on March 28, 1899, not 1889, 

and housed at the Charleston 

Museum, Charleston, SC)

(B-4*) Davenport (spec.); June 

1889 (#14)

(B-5*) Kissimmee (spec.); 1887 

(#17; Tanner cites the Field 

Museum at Chicago [Hahn refers 

to this as the Chicago Natural 

History Museum) as housing this 

specimen, but Hahn lists as the 

only specimen from Kissimmee as 

housed at the Peabody Museum 

of Natural History at Yale 

University with date January 15, 

1890; however, Hahn does list 

two specimens from an unknown 

location at the Field Museum 

with the year 1887 and the 

Field Museum itself does list a 

specimen from Kissimmee dated 

October 1892)

(B-10*) Near Orlando (two 

specs.); April 1886 (Hahn)

(C-1) Mouth of Withlacoochee 

River; 1879-1880 (#1)

(C-3*) Crystal River, Citrus 

County (spec.); July 1889 (#2)

(C-4*) Cypress swamp near 

Tarpon Springs (five specs.); 

March 1887 (#24; Hahn lists 

three specimens from March 

1887, but also one from October 

1886 and one from April 1889, 

included in total here)

(C-5) Clearwater; 1880 (#26)

(C-6*) Tampa (two specs.); 

September 1883 (#27)

(C-7*) Southeast of Tampa (three 

specs.); 1883-1889 (#28; Hahn 

lists specimens dated October 

27, 1881, February 10, 1885, and 

1885) 

(C-8*) Manatee County (four 

specs.); March 1889 (#30; Hahn 

lists three specimens collected in 

March 1889, two specifically listed 

as collected at Mill Creek; Hahn 

also lists one taken in May 1885)

(E-1) Punta Rassa; 1889 (#40)

(E-2*) Fort Myers (#38; spec.); 

winter 1887-1888 (Hahn)

(E-3*) Caloosahatchie River 

(spec.); 1881 (#39; Hahn)

(E-5*) Desoto County (six specs.); 

1886-1887 (#35; Tanner listed 

no date but cited Hargitt 1890 

entitled “Catalogue of birds of 

the British Museum,” and Hahn 

1963 lists a total of five specimens 

from the British Museum at this 

location with one December 1886, 

three February 1887, and one 

May 1887; another specimen is 

listed at the American Museum 

dated February 1887)
81

(F-7*) Big Cypress, Dade County 

(three specs.); May 1889 (Hahn; 

there is some confusion over 

what constitutes the Big Cypress 

in Dade County as this county 

overlaps the very peripheral 

eastern edge of the swamp, 

perhaps this location is best 

considered the “eastern” Big 

Cypress; Hasbrouke 1891 does 

cite Brewster as the source of this 

report and specimens)

(F-8*) Everglades, coastal, 

“Marco” (spec. by W. Calhoon 

at Smithsonian, presumably 

Marco Island, presently in Collier 

County, not listed in Tanner nor 

Hahn), Chatham Bay (presently 

Chevalier Bay), Monroe County 

(spec.); March 1886 and July 

1888 (Hahn 1963, Stevenson and 

Anderson 1994)

(F-9*) Everglades, interior (two 

specs.); 1884 (Hahn; no mention 

of these specimens in Tanner 

and it is unclear what area 

specifically is being referenced, 

but it is assumed here that when 

the “Everglades” is listed as the 

location it is likely in reference to 

the forested “keys” in the interior 

of the Everglades, such as Long 

Pine Key and Paradise [Royal 

Palm Hammock] Key)

1890-1899

(A-13) Chuluota, Seminole 

County; 1896-1899 (Stoddard 

1969; between 12 and 

15 observed prior to 1900 by 

Stoddard, who was between seven 

and ten years old; acknowledged 

by Tanner in his 1989 update to 

his 1942 report)

(B-6) Reedy Creek; October 1892 

(#16)

(B-10*) Near Orlando (spec.); 

December 1894 (Hahn)

(C-9*) Eastern Hillsborough 

County (two specs.); March 1890 

and March 1893 (#29; Tanner 

cited Scott as the collector and 

the specimen housed at the 

American Museum of Natural 

History, where no specific date 

is listed; two other specimens 

are listed by Hahn, but no name 

of the collector: one at Regar 

Memorial Museum, Anninston, 

AL, dated March 1890, and 

the other at Milwaukee Public 

Museum dated March 1893)

(D-1) Fort Drum; May 1899 (#34)

(D-2*) Lake Okeechobee (three 

specs.); May 1898 (#36)

(E-2*) Fort Myers (six specs.); 

November and December 1891 

(#38)

(E-3) Caloosahatchie region; 

1891 (#39; Stevenson and 

Anderson 1994 state that Scott’s 

observations spanned from 1891 

to 1892)

(F-1*) Big Cypress (three specs.); 

February 1898 (#43; Tanner 

cites Ridgway 1898 and states 

that the U.S. National Museum 

[Smithsonian] housed the 

specimen with date of collection 

February 15, 1898, while 

Ridgway reported collecting two 

specimens on successive days; 

Hahn does not list specimens 

at the U.S. National Museum 

specific to Big Cypress, but 

does list two specimens from 

“Corbett’s” in Florida collected 

on February 16 and 18, 1898, 

which appear to be at nearly 

the time Ridgway’s birds 

were collected but no collector 

is named in Hahn; further 

complicating the picture, two 

skeletons in the same collection 

are attributed to Ridgway 

and are both dated February 

16, 1898, from “Okalocoochee 

Slough,” Okaloacoochee Slough 

near Immokalee, Collier County, 

is indeed within the vicinity 

of the Big Cypress where 

Ridgway appears to have been 

searching, but it remains unclear 

whether the skeletons and skins 

are from the same birds and 

whether “Corbett’s” is the same 

as Okaloacoochee Slough; in 

addition, Hahn lists one specimen 

dated January 2, 1899, again with 

no name given for the collector)

(F-3*) Big Cypress, Lee County 

(two specs., prior to 1930 Collier 

and Hendry Counties were part 

of Lee County and this location is 

presumably near or in Corkscrew 

Swamp, now in Collier County); 

March 1896 (#42, Hahn; not 

mentioned in Tanner, but two 

specimens listed from “Lee 

County”) 

(F-9*) Everglades, interior (two 

specs.); 1890 and November 

1896 (Hahn; neither mentioned 

in Tanner with the 1890 report 

from Wayne of a skeleton and the 

November 1896 specimen said 

to be from the “Florida keys;” 

the latter is housed at Cornell 

University and is actually dated 

November 1898 and may not 

refer to the Florida Keys but to 

the “keys” from the interior of 

the Everglades and is treated this 

way here) 

1900-1909

(A-4) Turnbull Swamp or 

Hammock, Volusia County; 1907 

(#8)

(A-7*) Taylor Creek, (three 

specs.); December 1907 (#20, 

Hahn lists two specimens housed 

at the Field Museum taken 

on December 20, 1907, one 

specifically lists Orange County, 

but there is some question 

whether this and location A-9 

[Tanner’s #19) were both either 

in Orange or Osceola County, 

as raised by Jackson 2004 with 

the 1924 report by Allen; a third 

specimen with date March 20, 

1907, housed at the Field Museum 

is listed from “Halfway Cypress, 

Orlando, Osceola County, but 

Orlando is in Orange and not 

particularly close to Osceola 

County) 

(A-8*) Brevard County (two 

spec., one specifically from Lake 

Washington); 1901-1902 (#23)

(B-5) Kissimmee; 1900 (#17)

(B-7*) Lake County, various 

locations including “near 

Clermont” (two specs., also egg 

collected); March 1904 and March 

1905 (#12; Tanner cites Hoyt 

1905 for this report and did not 

list any specimens, other than the 

egg, but Hahn lists two specimens 

with dates of February 1906, with 

Hoyt named as the collector)

(B-8*) Gotha, Orange County 

(five specs.); 1906 (#15)

(D-2*) Lake Okeechobee (two 

specs.); February 1904 (#36)

(D-3) Kissimmee River, 50 miles 

below Kissimmee; November 

1908 (#33)
82

(E-1*) Punta Rassa (nine specs.); 

February 1904 (#40)

(E-4*) Punta Gorda (two specs.); 

January 1904 (#37)

(E-6*) Charlotte Harbor (two 

specs.); March 1904 (Hahn)

(F-2*) Naples (two specs.); April 

1902 (#41) 

(F-4*) Big Cypress, Lee County 

(spec., near Deep Lake, now part 

of Collier County); February 1908 

(Hahn)

1910-1919

(A-4) Turnbull Swamp or 

Hammock, Volusia County; 1911 

(#8)

(A-9) Taylor Creek, Osceola 

County; about 1916 (#19; north of 

area visited by Allen in 1924, may 

be Orange County?) 

(B-8) Bear Bay, west Orange 

County; October 1913 (#15)

(D-4) “Fort Capron” near 

Kissimmee River (specific location 

not known); 1916 (Tanner)

(F-3) Big Cypress, Lee County 

(near or at Corkscrew Swamp, 

now in Collier County); March 

1911 and March 1913 (#42)

(F-4*) Big Cypress near Deep 

Lake (spec.); February 1914 (#44; 

Hahn lists Kennard’s specimen as 

taken in March 1914)

(F-5) Near Everglades; 1917 

(#45; J. Ellis who reported this 

location gave his residence as 

Chokoloskee and Everglades City 

and his accounts of birds foraging 

in dead pines and nesting in 

cypress suggests the specific 

locations of his reports was 

somewhere in the vicinity of 

present-day Collier-Seminole 

State Park to Everglades City)

(F-9) Royal Palm Park, 

Paradise Key, Long Pine Key, all 

Everglades interior (pair with 

young, other reports); May 1917, 

1919 (Howell 1932, Sprunt 1954, 

Stevenson and Anderson 1994, 

Jackson 2004; several authorities 

including later Howell himself 

doubted the original 1917 report, 

but Jackson adds the 1919 report 

from the same area as a potential 

encounter along with speculation 

that yet another record of a 

specimen taken in 1919 reported 

from “Long Key” was potentially 

misinterpreted as from Dry 

Tortugas when it possibly 

referred to Long Pine Key in the 

Everglades) 

1920-1929

(A-7*) Taylor Creek, (photo and 

specs. of nesting pair); April 1924 

(#20; same general area as #19, 

but there is confusion on whether 

reports along Taylor Creek were 

in Orange or Osceola County, 

or both; a report of four birds 

seen by W. H. Mann on Taylor 

Creek in Osceola County 1923 not 

mentioned by Tanner, but was by 

Howell 1932 and Jackson 2004, 

likely sparked Allen’s interest in 

visiting this area the following 

year; the whereabouts of the 

pair collected soon after Allen 

left Taylor Creek in April 1924 

remains a mystery with Jackson 

suspecting that the pair of birds 

at the Florida Natural History 

Museum labeled as being taken 

at Bull Creek, Osceola County 

more than 20 miles to the south 

of Taylor Creek, about June 1925, 

is in his view likely the Taylor 

Creek pair; further confusing the 

issue, Tanner in his 1989 update 

to his 1942 report added Bull 

Creek 1925 to his list of Reports, 

suggesting that he considered 

these specimens to be separate 

from Allen’s Taylor Creek birds) 

(A-10) Wolf Creek, Osceola 

County; 1920s? (#21)

(A-12) Lake Poinsett, along the 

St. Johns River, Brevard County 

(a pair by D. J. Nicholson; Howell 

1932); February 1924 

1930-1939

(A-11) Jim Creek, Orange 

County; December 1936 (#18)

(B-3) Northwest of Polk City, Polk 

County; about 1930 (#13)

(B-6) Reedy Creek, Polk County; 

about 1930 (#16)

(D-5) Highlands Hammock, 

Highlands County; 1937 (#32)

(F-4) Deep Lake, Big Cypress 

10 miles north of Tamiami Trail 

(flew over Highway 29 seen by A. 

Cruickshank; same as the 1950’s 

report mentioned by Robertson to 

Jackson?); (Sprunt 1954, Jackson 

2004); March 1938 

(F-6) Big Cypress, East Crossing 

region; around 1937 (#46)

(F-8) Shark River and Lostman’s 

River; around 1935 (#47)

1940-1949

(D-5) West-central, Highlands 

County (2 individuals estimated 

based on Tanner accepting that 

they were “Known to be there 

in late 1937 by O. E. Baynard”); 

1940s (Tanner) 

(F-3 through F-6) Big Cypress 

area, Collier and Hendry 

Counties (Figure 14 in Tanner; 

6 individuals estimated based on 

Tanner’s assessment of “carrying 

capacity of region and locations of 

reports,” one report of a female 

at Deep Lake [F-4] May 1941; 

Meyer de Schauensee 1941); 

1940s (Tanner)

(F-9) 12 miles southwest of 

Homestead, Dade County (one 

report of a female apparently 

near Royal Palm Park today 

within the Everglades National 

Park; Meyer de Schauensee 

1941); May 1941

1950-1959

(C-9) Polk-Hillsborough County 

line (male flying across road by W. 

Eastman); March 1954 (Eastman 

1958, USFWS 2007) 

(C-10) Eight miles south of 

Homosassa Springs, near Citrus 

and Hernando County line (a pair 

seen flying across US 19 by J. 

Terres); April 1955 (Terres 1986, 

Stevenson and Anderson 1994, 

Jackson 1996) 

1960-1969

(B-9) Green Swamp north of 

Haines City, Polk County (visual 

of female flying across road at 

close range by D. Lee); Summer 

1967 (Jackson 2004)

(D-5) Highland Hammock State 

Park (F. C. Davis); fall 1968 

(USFWS 2007) 

(D-6) South Central, Highlands 

or Polk County (multiple reports 

including a cavity that held a 

secondary identified as “fresh not 

worn” by Alexander Wetmore, 
83

but not known how old the feather 

was when found; both now at 

Florida Museum of Natural 

History); 1967-1969 (Agey and 

Heinzmann 1971, Jackson 2004)

1970-1979

None

1980-1989

(A-3) Wekiva River (two 

independent reports given to J. 

Jackson); 1987 and 1988 (Jackson 

2004) 

(F-4) Fakahatchee Strand, Collier 

County (two independent reports 

given to J. Jackson); 1980s 

(Jackson 1996) 

(G-1) Loxahatchee River, 

Jonathan Dickinson State Park 

(D. G. Garratt); April 1985 

(Jackson 2004) 

1990-1999

(F-4) Fakahatchee Strand, 

Collier County (several reports 

given to J. Jackson considered 

“tantalizing”); 1990-1991 (Jackson 

1996) 

2000-

(F-4) Fakahatchee Strand, Collier 

County (three independent 

reports given to J. Jackson); since 

1999 (Jackson 2004) 

(F-8) Shark River, Lostman’s 

River, Whitewater Bay, Monroe 

County (several reports of large 

black woodpecker unlike Pileated 

Woodpecker, including one by W. 

Hodge with view of underwing 

which was white along the leading 

and trailing edge with black 

band separating the white in 

2003 and another seen in 2007 

from above with more white on 

wing tops than a typical Pileated, 

larger than Pileated, and with a 

straight flight while conducting 

an Everglades National Park 

aerial waterbird survey by L. 

Oberhofer); February 2003 

and January 2007 (reported 

to S. Snow and S. Bass with 

Everglades National Park)

Alabama (#’s where indicated 

are cross-referenced to Figure 

6 in Tanner), subregions: (A) FL 

Panhandle, FL-AL, (B) Lower 

Tombigbee-Alabama-Mobile 

rivers, AL, (C) Upper Tombigbee 

River, AL-MS, (D) Pascagoula 

River and coastal Mississippi, MS, 

(E) Pearl River, MS-LA

1850-1859

(B-1) Near the Alabama River 

and Selma, Dallas County, AL; 

around 1850 (#6; two specimens 

now unaccounted for, but two 

specimens in Hahn dated “abt. 

1850” may refer to these at the 

collection in Kessel, Germany)

1860-1869

(B-2) Tombigbee River, Marengo 

County, AL (Tanner mistakenly 

listed MS); 1865 (#5; specimen 

now unaccounted for)

1870-1879

None

1880-1889

(A-6*) Blackwater River, FL 

(two specs.); March 1883 (Hahn; 

Tanner did mention this report 

but did not know location nor the 

date)

(B-3) Cypress Slough, 10 miles 

west of Greensboro, Hale County, 

AL; 1886 (#4; specimen now 

unaccounted for)

(B-4) Wilcox County, AL; 1889 

(#7)

(C-1) Monroe County, MS; 1885 

(#1)

(C-2) Crump Springs, Lamar 

County, Buttahatchie River, AL; 

1886 (#2)

(C-3) Clay County, MS; 1885 (#3)

(E-1) Near Bay St. Louis, MS; 

1885 (#9)

1890-1899

(D-1*) Mississippi City, Harrision 

County, MS (two specs.); March 

1893 (#10; Hahn 1963 also lists 

a specimen taken in April 1893 

included in total here)

1900-1909

(A-1) Conecuh Swamps, north of 

Troy, Pike County AL; 1907 (#8; 

specimen now unaccounted for)

(D-2) Big Black River, MS (one 

pair reported by M. Vaiden); 1908 

(Jackson 2004, USFWS 2007)

1910-1919

None

1920-1929

(D-3) Pascagoula Swamp, Jackson 

County; December 1921 (#11)

1930-1939

(A-2) Escambia River, FL; 1936 

(Weston 1965, Stevenson and 

Anderson 1994)

1940-1949

(A-3) Perdido River, FL; 1945 

(Weston 1965, Stevenson and 

Anderson 1994)

1950-1959

(D-4) About 30 miles north of 

Meridian, MS (B. Chauncey); 

1953 (Moore 1954, Jackson 2004)

(E-2) East side of Pearl River, 

adjacent to lock #1, St. Tammany 

Parish, LA, Hancock County, 

MS (one male foraging on sweetgum, by J. Merritt); October 1955 

(USFWS 2007) 

1960-1969

(A-4) Eglin Air Force Base near 

Yellow River, FL (two birds seen 

Boiling Creek; B. Brown and J. 

Sanders reported to Dennis); 

August 1966 (Jackson 2004)

(D-5) Leaf River swamp (1 mile 

north of US Hwy 98), Perry 

County, MS (2 seen briefly in 

“big gum” trees); December 1960 

(USFWS 2007)

1970-1979

(C-4) Noxubee River, near 

junction with Tombigbee River, 

Sumter County , AL (possible 

flyby by J. Jackson); March 1973 

(Jackson 2004)

(D-6) Near where Black Creek 

joins Pascagoula River, Jackson 

County, MS (one possible heard 

“kenting” but never seen by R. 

Sauey and C. Luthin); January 

1978 (Jackson 2004)

1980-1989

(D-3) West side of Pascagoula 

River, north of Vancleave, Jackson 

County, MS (two birds in a pine 

by M. Morris); February 1982 

(Jackson 2004) 
84

(E-2) Pearl River, St. Tammany 

Parish, LA (a male observed one 

year, a female the following year, 

both by N. Higginbotham); 1986, 

1987 (Steinberg 2008)

1990-1999

(E-2) Pearl River, St. Tammany 

Parish, LA (a pair reported seen 

for 10 minutes by D. Kulivan 

while turkey hunting; extensive 

followup searches in subsequent 

years unsuccessful); April 1999 

(Jackson 2004)

2000-

(A-5) Choctawhatchee River, 

FL (multiple visual and auditory 

encounters by many observers, 

including many recordings of 

putative kents and double-knocks 

and a very poor video); 2005-2007 

(Hill et al. 2006, Hill 2007)

(E-2) Pearl River WMA – Stennis 

Space Center, St. Tammany 

Parish, LA, Hancock County, 

MS (multiple sightings, several 

very poor but at least one 

suggestive video in 2006 of a large 

woodpecker, possibly lacking 

red in the crest; a more recent 

video of a woodpecker in flight 

in 2009 was determined to be a 

Red-headed woodpecker, a 2008 

video is still undergoing review 

by M. Collins and others); 2000, 

2005-2009 (USFWS 2007; Collins 

2005-2009)

Lower Mississippi Delta (#’s 

where indicated are crossreferenced to Figure 7 in 

Tanner), subregions: (A) Lower 

Yazoo Basin, MS, (B) Northeast 

Louisiana (includes Tensas River, 

lower Red River, and south to 

Lake Ophelia), LA, (C) Upper 

Atchafalaya, LA, (D) Lower 

Atchafalaya_Deltaic (includes 

coastal forests), LA

1800-1849

(C-1) Bayou Sara, West Feliciana 

Parish, LA; June 1821 (#13)

1850-1859

(B-1*) Prairie Mer Rouge (spec.), 

LA; Sept.1853 (#3; Tanner did 

not list a specimen taken, but it is 

listed in Hahn)

1860-1869

None

1870-1879

None

1880-1889

(A-1) Sunflower Delta, MS; about 

1888 (#1)

(B-8*) Tensas River, East 

Carroll Parish, LA (spec.); spring 

1888 (#6; Tanner did not list a 

specimen was taken, but one, 

possibly two, listed in Hahn)

1890-1899

(A-2) Yazoo River Delta, MS; 1890 

(#2)

(B-2*) Madison Parish, LA 

(spec.); 1891 (#8)

(B-3*) Roaring Bayou, Franklin 

Parish (four specs.), LA; July 

1899 (#10; Tanner did not 

mention a specimen, but it is 

listed in Hahn along with three 

additional specimens listed at 

LSU collected by Beyer 1900, 

who reported taking seven 

specimens)

(D-1*) Avery Island, Iberia 

Parish, LA (two specs.); 1892, 

1895 (both specs.) (#17)

1900-1909

(B-2*) Madison Parish (six 

specs.), LA; December 1908, (#8; 

specimens and dates listed in 

Hahn are two taken in December 

1908 and four taken in March and 

April 1909)

(B-4) Bowling Green, West 

Carroll Parish, LA; August 1903 

(#4)

(B-5) Bear Lake, Madison Parish, 

LA; February 1904 (#7)

(B-10*) Holly Ridge 18 miles 

north of “station” (?), Richland 

or West Carroll Parish, LA; 

1907 (specimen attributed to E. 

L. Moseley and housed at the 

University of Michigan Museum 

of Zoology, while Tanner in his 

1989 update to his 1942 reported 

it to be from West Carroll Parish 

and housed at the Smithsonian 

and acknowledged Hahn [no 

specific reference was found in 

Hahn; the specimen appears 

to have been collected near the 

Beouf River where the Parish 

line between Richland and West 

Carroll is directly north of the 

town Holly Ridge])

(C-2*) Cow Bayou, Iberville 

Parish, LA (two specs.); March 

1906 (#15)

(D-1) Avery Island, Iberia Parish, 

LA; 1900-1909 (#17)

1910-1919

(B-4) Boeuf River swamp, West 

Carroll Parish, LA; about 1912 

(#4)

(D-1) Avery Island, Iberia Parish, 

LA; 1910-1919 (#17)

(D-2) Lafourche Parish, LA; 1918 

(#18)

1920-1929

(B-6) Bayou Macon Swamp, West 

Carroll Parish, LA; 1926 (#5)

(B-7) Tensas Parish, north of 

St. Joseph, LA; May 1929 (#11; 

Hasbrouke 1891 referenced a 

report from G. Marbett from this 

location with no date, but must 

have been at least 39 years prior 

to Tanner’s citation)

(C-3) Bayou des Ourses, St. 

Martin Parish, LA; about 1920 

(#14)

(C-4) Catahoula, St. Martin 

Parish, LA; about 1920 (#16; 

not Catahoula Lake as listed 

in Tanner, which is in La Salle 

Parish)

(D-1) Avery Island, Iberia Parish, 

LA; 1920-1923 (#17)

1930-1939

(B-5) Near Bear Lake, Madison 

Parish, LA; September 1937 (#7)

(B-8) Tensas River swamp, East 

Carroll Parish, LA; about 1930 

(#6)

(B-9*) Tensas River Swamp 

[i.e., Singer Tract], Madison 

Parish, LA (spec.); 1930-1939 (#9; 

one spec. collected in 1932, not 

specifically mentioned by Tanner, 

was mounted and is now housed 

at the state Headquarters for LA 

Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries; in 

addition many photos, movie, and 

recordings)

1940-1949

(B-9) Singer Tract (i.e., Tensas 

River Swamp), Madison Parish, 

LA (6 individuals estimated 

as “five individuals observed 

and sign of at least one other 

individual”)
85

In addition to Tanner’s report, 

Jackson (2004) lists other reports 

(none supported by photographs 

or other hard evidence) as follows:

R. Peterson (2 females); 1942

R. Pough (1 female); 1943-1944

D. Eckelberry (1 female [sketch 

made]); 1944, the last generally 

accepted sighting of the species in 

the United States

R. Peterson (reported to Peterson 

that one remained); 1946

A. MacMurray (one or a pair 

“believed to be in the region,” as 

reported to Tanner); 1948

The draft Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 2007) adds the following 

reports, again none confirmed by 

photographs:

G. Bick and J. Parker (three seen 

in John’s Bayou area, including 

apparent female hatch-year 

young; Bick 1942, J. Tanner pers. 

comm.); August 1941

J. Tanner (an adult and juvenile 

female on); 21 and 28 December, 

1941

J. Baker (single female; Peterson 

1948); November 1942

1950-1959

None

1960-1969

(B-9) Singer Tract, Tensas River 

near Tallulah, Madison County, LA 

(one possibly heard and glimpsed 

by L. Binford, B. Monore, D. 

Berrett, and K. Arnold); March 

1962 (Jackson 2004)

1970-1979

(C-5) Atchafalaya Basin, I-10 

(flyover, R. Hamilton and flyover, 

R. Bean); one 1973 and the other 

November 1974 (Jackson 2004)

(D-3) Atchafalaya Basin, south 

of US 90 (several sightings, two 

diagnostic photos by F. Lewis 

given to G. Lowrey); May 1971 

(for photos, some suggest they 

could have been staged; Jackson 

2004, Gallagher 2005); and (J. 

Maroney and B. Crider following 

up on report from hunter, heard 

calls, also one possibly seen from 

helicopter); March 1978 (Jackson 

2004)

1980-1989

(A-3) Yazoo River confluence 

with Mississippi River, north of 

Vicksburg, Warren County, MS 

(one possibly heard for about 

20 minutes after playing Singer 

Tract tape, but never seen, by 

J. Jackson and M. Hodges); and 

March 1987 (heard kent calls, 

but not seen, by W. Davis and F. 

Sibley); August 1988 (Jackson 

2004)

(A-4) Headwaters of Yazoo 

River near confluence with 

Yalobusha River, LeFlore County, 

Mississippi (one possibly seen and 

heard giving a “rhythmic” tooting 

by C. Bryson); May 1988 (Jackson 

2004)

(B-9) Singer Tract, Madison 

Parish (G. Heinrich and C. Welch 

possibly heard on two occasions); 

November 1981, April 1982 

(Jackson 2004)

(D-3) Near Duck Lake, 

Atchafalaya Basin, St. Martin 

Parish (T. Michot and D. Hankla); 

April 1981 and Duck Lake, 

Atchafalaya Basin, LA (E. 

Broussard, LWFD); April 1986 

(USFWS 2007)

1990-1999

None

2000-

(D-3) Bayou Sorrel and near 

Patterson, St. Mary Parish, 

LA (former, one seen from 

flyover by R. Boustany, latter 

multiple sightings and auditory 

encounters); 2005-2006 (Steinberg 

2008)

Upper Mississippi Delta (#’s where 

indicated are cross-referenced to 

Figure 8 in Tanner), subregions: 

(A) White-Cache rivers (i.e., Big 

Woods), AR, (B) Mississippi 

mainstem from MS-AR-TN north 

to Reelfoot, (C) Ohio River to 

confluence with Mississippi south 

to include Reelfoot, MO-TN-KY-IL

1800-1849

(B-6) Along Mississippi River, 

north of Fulton, Lauderdale 

County, TN (reports by Audubon 

but not clear which side of the 

river, possibly Mississippi County, 

AR); November 1820 (Jackson 

2004)

(C-1) Junction of Ohio and 

Mississippi Rivers; about 1825 

(#2)

(C-6) Along Mississippi River, 

either Carlisle or Hickman 

County, KY (reports by Audubon); 

early 1800s (Jackson 2004) 

1850-1859

(C-2) White County, 40 miles 

south Mount Carmel, IL; about 

1852 (#1)

1860-1869

None

1870-1879

(B-4*) St. Francis River (near 

Helena?), Phillips County, AR 

(two specs.); 1870 (Hahn)

(C-3) Fulton County, KY; 1872-

1874 (#4)

1880-1889

(A-1) Newport, Jackson County, 

AR; about 1885 (#6)

(B-1) Osceola, Mississippi 

County, AR and Northeast AR; 

1887 and 1888 (#5)

(B-2) Marked Tree, Poinsett 

County, AR; March 1889 (#7)

1890-1899

(B-3*) Bolivar County, MS (two 

specs.); March 1893 (#9)

(C-4) Little River, Stoddard 

County, MO; November 1895 

(#3; Jackson 2004 clarifies 

that allegedly a bird was shot 

near Morley, Scott County, 

then brought to St. Louis from 

Stoddard County, supposedly 

mounted but there is no longer any 

record of the mount ever existing)

1900-1909

(C-5) Ullin, Pulaski County, IL 

(one possibly heard by B. Gault); 

1900 (Jackson 2004) 

1910-1919

(B-4) Helena, Phillips County, 

AR; 1912 (#8)

1920-1929

None

1930-1939

(B-3) Nine miles south of 

Rosedale, Bolivar County (6 

pairs present until World War 

II until logged over to support 

war effort); 1930s (Jackson 2004, 

USFWS 2007)
86

1940-1949

(B-3) Nine miles south of 

Rosedale, Bolivar County (6 

pairs present until World War 

II until logged over to support 

war effort); 1930s (Jackson 2004, 

USFWS 2007)

1950-1959

None

1960-1969

None

1970-1979

None

1980-1989

(A-1) Near Diaz in Village Creek 

floodplain, Jackson County, AR 

(possible visual encounter by H. 

Hagar); October 1985 (Jackson 

2004, USFWS 2007) 

1990-1999

None

2000-

(A-2) South end of White River 

NWR and adjacent properties 

Desha/Phillips/Arkansas Counties 

County, AR (visual encounter of 

female by M. Scott [but not seen 

by others present]; multiple kents 

heard and large woodpecker 

briefly seen by J. and B. Denman; 

visual encounter of one bird by 

S. Sietler; multiple recordings of 

possible vocalizations and doubleknocks;) March 2003 (Gallagher 

2005; USFWS 2007), 2004 (Refuge 

Staff), and January-December 

2005 (Rosenberg et al. 2005, 

USFWS 2007) [search through 

White River refuge files by D. 

Sharp and interviews of retired 

staff by J. Denman, Refuge 

Forester, revealed references to 

previously unknown reports from 

the 1920s, May 1952, and 1979] 

(A-3) Bayou de View, Cache 

River NWR, Monroe County, AR 

(multiple visual reports of male 

bird, possible vocalizations and 

double-knocks, and a 4-second, 

poor, grainy (and controversial) 

video of woodpecker of unknown 

sex; many observers); February 

2004 to December 2005 

(Fitzpatrick et al. 2005, Gallagher 

2005, Rosenberg et al. 2005, 

USFWS 2007)

(A-4) Wattensaw WMA, Prairie 

County, AR (one 10-minute and 

one brief sighting by R. Everrett, 

one brief sighting by A. Mueller, 

multiple kents [many recorded 

by hand-held video camera] and 

double-knocks [several recorded 

by ARU]); December 2006-May 

2007 (USFWS 2007)

(B-5) Hatchie River, Lauderdale 

and Tipton Counties, TN 

(followup to reports from the 

1990s, numerous auditory 

encounters, both kents and 

double-knocks, one visual 

encounter by R. Ford); January 

2006 (continued searching 

in February resulted in no 

additional reports, but additional 

sounds detected in January 2007; 

USFWS 2007)

(B-7) Moss Island WMA, Dyer 

County, TN (several brief 

sightings by multiple observers of 

large woodpeckers with extensive 

white in wings, numerous doubleknocks, one series recorded 

thought by some to possibly be a 

response to distant simulations); 

2007-2009 (TN Working Group, 

Pulliam 2009)

(C-5) Cache River, Pulaski 

County, IL (several independent 

visual reports of large black 

woodpeckers with extensive 

white trailing wing edges, most 

notably by J. White in 2005 

and by A. Albores in 2008; also 

inconclusive reconyx images and 

auditory encounters by G. Erdy; 

a color photograph by S. Sheridan 

reportedly taken in June 2007 

of an unknown woodpecker, 

examined and determined 

unlikely to be of an ivory-billed 

woodpecker, was latter exposed 

as a doctored image); 2005-2008 

(USFWS 2007) 

Arkansas-Oklahoma (#’s where 

indicated are cross-referenced to 

Figure 9 in Tanner), subregions: 

(A) Ouachita and Saline Rivers, 

AR-LA, (B) Red River, OK-TX, (C) 

Canadian and Arkansas Rivers, 

OK-AR, (D) Red and Little Rivers, 

AR-OK, (E) Red River, LA

1800-1849

(A-1) Ouachita River, near 

junction of Saline (Tanner said 

Caddo, but shows Saline River); 

1834 (#6)

(B-1) near Gainesville, Cooke 

County, TX; 1849 (Oberholser 

1974, Shackelford 1998; 

acknowledged by Tanner in his 

1989 update to his 1942 report) 

(C-1) Near the “falls” of the 

Canadian River, OK; 1820 (#2)

1850-1859

(B-1) near Gainesville, Cooke 

County, TX; 1851 (Oberholser 

1974, Shackelford 1998; 

acknowledged by Tanner in his 

1989 update to his 1942 report) 

(C-2) Timber of the Arkansas 

River, OK; 1850 (#1)

1860-1869

None

1870-1879

(B-1) Cooke County, TX; about 

1875 (#5)

(B-2) Old Boggy Depot, Atkoa 

County, OK; 1870-1874 (#3)

1880-1889

(B-3) Blue River, near Caddo, 

OK; 1883-1884 (#4) 

1890-1899

(B-4) Bonham area, Fannin 

County, TX; 1890 (Oberholser 

1974, Shackelford 1998; 

acknowledged by Tanner in his 

1989 update to his 1942 report) 

1900-1909

None

1910-1919

None

1920-1929

(E-1) Red River Parish (birds 

seen by S. Christopher whose 

description convinced J. Jackson 

that she had observed this 

species); 1927-1928 (Jackson 

2004) 

1930-1939

None

1940-1949

None

1950-1959

None

1960-1969

None

1970-1979

None
87

1980-1989

(D-1) Porter Tract near Millwood 

Lake and Grassy Lake, Little 

River County (possible visual 

encounter with pair by R. 

Weaver); late 1980s or early1990s 

(USFWS 2007) 

1990-1999

None

2000-

(A-1) Within and near Felsenthal 

NWR, Ashley County, AR 

(several visual reports by Refuge 

staff, the most detailed from 

the Saline River where refuge 

forester L. Threet and a private 

citizen reportedly saw two birds 

at close range, one with a black 

crest the other with possibly a 

small amount of red in the crest, 

otherwise described as large 

woodpeckers with extensive white 

in the wings dorsally and flying 

like crows); August 2007 (USFWS 

2007)

(D-1) Near Pond Creek NWR, 

Sevier County, AR (visual by B. 

Petersen, while deer hunting, 

of large black woodpecker with 

extensive white trailing edge 

when the bird swoop up into a 

cypress stand); October 2007 

(USFWS 2007)

East Texas (#’s where indicated 

are cross-referenced to Figure 

10 in Tanner), subregions: (A) 

Sabine and southwest Louisiana 

(including Calcasieu River), LA-TX, 

(B) Neches and Angelina rivers 

(includes Big Thicket), (C) Trinity 

and San Jacinto rivers, (D) Brazos 

River 

1800-1849

(C-1) Buffalo Bayou, San Jacinto 

River, Harris County, TX; 

around 1840 (#6; Jackson states 

1837 and Audubon considered 

the species abundant there 

as well as at nearby Ft. Bend 

County; Shackelford 1998 notes 

that Audubon secured several 

specimens but these are now 

unaccounted for)

1850-1859

None

1860-1869

(C-2) Trinity River, TX; 1864 (#4)

(D-1) Brazos River, TX; May 1864 

(#8)

1870-1879

None

1880-1889

(B-1) Neches River, Jasper 

County, TX; May 1885 (#1)

(B-2) Russell Creek area, 

Tyler County, TX; about 1880 

(Oberholser 1974, Shackelford 

1998; acknowledged by Tanner 

in his 1989 update to his 1942 

report)

(C-3) Northern Harris County, 

TX; about 1880 (#5)

(C-4) Northern Montgomery 

County, TX; 1880-1881(Oberholser 

1974, Shackelford 1998)

(D-2) Brazos River, TX; around 

1880 (#7)

1890-1899

None

1900-1909

(B-3) Near Sour Lake, Hardin 

County (J. H. Gaut); MarchApril 1905 (Oberholser 1974, 

Shackelford 1998)

(B-4) Neches River bottoms (R. 

Gann); pre-1910 (Oberholser 1974, 

Shackelford 1998; acknowledged 

by Tanner in his 1989 update to 

his 1942 report)

(C-5*) Tarkington, Liberty 

County, TX (2 spec., total of six 

birds observed); November 1904 

(#3)

(C-6*) Bois d’Arc Island, Trinity 

River bottoms, Dallas Co., (1 

spec.; collected by W. A. Mayer, 

spec. #6216 at Dallas Museum 

of Natural History); 1900 

(Oberholser 1974, Shackelford 

1998)

(C-7) Tarkington road, east of 

Cleveland, Liberty County (J. 

H. Gaut); April 1905 (Oberholser 

1974, Shackelford 1998)

1910-1919

(B-5) Near Lufkin, Angelina 

County (J. Shotwell); 1910-1915 

(Oberholser 1974, Shackelford 

1998; acknowledged by Tanner 

in his 1989 update to his 1942 

report) 

(B-6) Near Marshall, Harrison 

County (A. D. Martin); March 

1918 (Oberholser 1974, 

Shackelford 1998; acknowledged 

by Tanner in his 1989 update to 

his 1942 report) 

(C-6) Boisd’Arc Island, Trinity 

River bottoms, Dallas Co. (W. A. 

Mayer); 1910 (Oberholser 1974, 

Shackelford 1998; acknowledged 

by Tanner in his 1989 update to 

his 1942 report) 

(C-8) Spring Creek, Harris 

County (F. Schneider); June 1913 

(Oberholser 1974, Shackelford 

1998) 

1920-1929

(B-7) Tyler County, (B. M. Reid); 

April 1929 (Oberholser 1974, 

Shackelford 1998) 

(C-6) Bois d’Arc Island, Trinity 

River bottoms, Dallas or 

Kaufman County, (collected by 

J.E. Stillwell, but specimen not 

located); about 1920 (Oberholser 

1974, Shackelford 1998; 

acknowledged by Tanner in his 

1989 update to his 1942 report) 

(C-9) Mouth of East Fork, Trinity 

River, Kaufman County (caught 

in trap by B. C. Hays, examined 

by E. R. Huck, specimen 

not preserved); winter 1927 

(Oberholser 1974, Shackelford 

1998)

(D-3) Near Brazoria, Brazos 

County, Brazos River bottoms 

(one found freshly killed by 

F. C. Clarkson, specimen not 

preserved); May 1927 (Oberholser 

1974, Shackelford 1998); 

1930-1939

(B-8) Junction of Village Creek 

and Neches River, Hardin 

County (C. H. Hooks and B. M. 

Reid); 1933 (Oberholser 1974, 

Shackelford 1998) 

(B-9) Angelina River, Jasper 

County (B. M. Reid); 1934 

(Oberholser 1974, Shackelford 

1998) 

(B-10) lower Neches River 

bottoms, Jefferson-Orange county 

line (B. M. Reid); May 1937 

(Oberholser 1974, Shackelford 

1998) 

(B-11) Orange County (B. M. 

Reid); 1938 (Oberholser 1974, 

Shackelford 1998); 
88

(B-12) Bunn Bluff area, Jefferson 

County (B. M. Reid); prior to 

October 1938

(Oberholser 1974, Shackelford 

1998) 

1940-1949

None

1950-1959

(B-4) Big Thicket area (B. M. 

Reid); March 1956 (Oberholser 

1974, Shackelford 1998) 

1960-1969

(A-1) Sabine River valley, along 

State Highway 87 between 

Evadale and Kirbyville, Newton 

County (bird flushed off of large 

rotting log by R. Parker); spring 

1968 (USFWS 2007)

(A-2) Navasota River, near 

Highway 158 bridge (several 

observations including R. Lys and 

M. Steward); 1968-1969 (perhaps 

to 1972; USFWS 2007) 

(B-4) Big Thicket area of Tyler 

and Jasper counties including the 

following accounts: Neches River 

bottoms, Dam B Reservoir area, 

Tyler and Jasper Counties (by 

J. Dennis and A. Yramatequi); 

February 1966 (Dennis 1967) 

Near Evadale in Neches River 

bottoms, Tyler and Jasper 

Counties (followup to initial 

sighting by O. Lloyd, heard kents 

on three separate days and poor 

view of one bird with distinct 

white trailing edge to wings by 

J. Dennis and A. Yramatequi); 

December 1966 (Dennis 1967, 

1979, Shackelford 1998, USFWS 

2007) 

North of Evadale in Neches 

River bottoms, Jasper County 

(observed by K. Newsom); April 

1967 (Dennis 1967, Shackelford 

1998) 

Neches River bottoms, Jasper 

County; February 1967 (Dennis 

1967, Shackelford 1998)

Neches River, Tyler and Jasper 

counties (multiple sightings 

and kent calls heard by five 

separate observers interviewed 

by J. Dennis; three of these 

observers were also interviewed 

by P. Sykes, who did not consider 

these reports reliable); 1967-1969 

(USFWS 2007) 

Big Thicket National Preserve 

area (recording of double-knock 

by G. Reynard); 1969 (Reynard 

and Garrido 1988 [“Bird Songs 

of Cuba”], Jackson 2004 [not 

thought to be Ivory-bill by 

Tanner], Shackelford 1998) 

(B-8) Big Thicket area of Hardin 

County including the following 

accounts:

Sternberg Tract on Village Creek 

in Neches River bottoms, Hardin 

County (sighting and kent calls 

heard and recorded by J Dennis, 

M. Isleib, G. Watson); February 

1968 (Hardy 1975 [recording 

deemed inconclusive but 

favored Ivory-bill], Dennis 1967, 

Shackelford 1998) 

Village Creek area of Big 

Thicket National Preserve, 

Hardin County (J. Dennis); 1968 

(Shackelford 1998) 

Big Thicket area, presumably 

near Silsbee, Hardin County (a 

pair reported and photographed, 

nesting attempted but 

unsuccessful each of three years; 

at least two slides of apparent 

female protruding from a cavity 

in hackberry by N. Wright [one 

of the observers interviewed in 

previous accountby P. Sykes, but 

he was not made aware of these 

slides at the time] copied by G. 

Reynard who donated them to 

VIREO); 1967-1969 (Collins 1970, 

Jackson 2004, Hunter et al. in 

prep.) 

(B-13) Between Trinity and 

Neches rivers (2 pairs, one lone 

female, and others noted by W. 

Eastman); 1960-1963 (Oberholser 

1974, Shackelford 1998) 

(B-14) Pine Island Bayou, 

Hardin County (G. Watson and 

D. Watson); December 1968 

(USFWS 2007)

1970-1979

(B-15) Near Wolf Creek by 

Steinhagen Reservoir, Jasper 

County (two sightings by W. 

Mounsey and students from “The 

University of the Wilderness”); 

May 1976 (Dennis 1979, 

Shackelford 1998) 

(C-10) Raven District, Sam 

Houston National Forest, San 

Jacinto County (up to four 

sightings and calls heard on two of 

them by collectively W. Ruediger, 

F. Wojcik, B. Ruediger, and T. 

Davis; led to development of forest 

management plan for the District); 

December 1970-February 1971 

(USFWS 2007)

(C-11) Tanner Bayou of lower 

Trinity River bottoms, Liberty 

County (flyover by L. Risner); 

July 1972 (Fisher et al. 1972, 

Shackelford 1998) 

1980-1989

(A-3) Toledo Bend Reservoir, 

Sabine River, north of Pendleton 

Bridge, compartment 101 of 

Sabine National Forest, Sabine 

County (family group [4-5 birds], 

at least one bird observed for 

more than 10 minutes, bill grayivory, trailing edge of wing white 

both above and below, observer 

familiar with Pileateds, J. Hyde); 

summer 1985 (USFWS 2007) 

(A-4) Calcasieu River, LA (H. 

Ardoin, heard notes like child’s 

tricycle horn); May (?) 1986 

(USFWS 2007) 

(B-8) Silsbee, Big Thicket area, 

Hardin County (pair of birds seen 

twice, presumably same, first 

time feeding on loblolly pines 

killed by pine beetles and in direct 

comparison with many Pileateds 

in view by A. McKinnon); July 

and October 1981 (USFWS 2007)

(B-15) Multiple locations 

including Big Thicket, Steinhagen 

Lake, (reports in all areas with 

observer searching in “oldgrowth areas” located from 

soil conservation service maps, 

including a pair with 2 young 

[which location?] by E. Allen); 

May, June, and November 1985 

(USFWS 2007) 

(B-16) Chireno, southeast 

Nacogdoches County (5-7 minute 

observation, extensive white 

in wings and bill dirty white 

otherwise similar to Pileateds, 

with 1-note calls given by W. 

Whitehead); February 1985 

(USFWS 2007) 

1990-1999

None
89

2000-

None

Extralimital (with respect 

to Tanner’s 1942 range map) 

published reports of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers in the United States

Historic documented locations 

north or west of distribution as 

defined by Tanner (1942) along 

Atlantic seaboard:

Fort Macon, near Morehead 

City, NC ; 1878 (Hasbrouke 1891, 

Jackson 2004; single sighting 

reported to Coues and Yarrow 

by “an apparently respectable 

source...the statement given for 

what it is worth, no specimen...”) 

Fairchance, Moundsville, 

Marshall County, WV (two 

lower bill sections recovered in 

midden debris, not a burial site, 

suggesting it could be either 

discarded trade item or locally 

acquired); 0-200 A.D. (Parmalee 

1967, Jackson 2002) 

Between Martinsburg, WV, and 

Winchester, VA (one reported 

collected by A. Wilson); prior to 

1810? (Hall 1983, Jackson 2004)

Doddridge County, WV; about 

1900 (Hall 1983, Jackson 2004)

Maryland (statement attributed 

to Audubon from Audubon and 

Chevalier, The Birds of America, 

Volume 4, that “now and then an 

individual may be accidentally 

found in Maryland); prior to 1844 

(Jackson 2004)

Reedy River, Greenville County, 

SC (in the Piedmont, to the west 

of Tanner’s boundary, nest with 

eggs collected by E.J. DeCamps, 

later lost); May 1896 (listed by 

Sprunt and Chamberlain 1949, as 

only known “definitive” nesting in 

South Carolina)

Etowah Mounds, near 

Cartersville, Bartow County, 

GA (in the Ridge and Valley of 

northern Georgia, well north 

and west of Tanner’s boundary, 

archeological specimens at 

Smithsonian Institution, 

presumably considered not to be 

a trade item, but requires further 

discussion); pre-Columbian 

(Richard Warner, USFWS, pers. 

comm.). 

Historic locations north, east, 

and west of distribution as 

defined by Tanner (1942) along 

the Mississippi and Ohio 

drainages:

Near Stanford, Lincoln County, 

KY (two observed, one of these 

collected, by Col. W. Fleming); 

March 1780 (Schorger 1949, 

McKinley 1958, Jackson 2004; 

acknowledged by Tanner in his 

unpublished 1989 update to his 

1942 report)

Ross, Scioto, and Muskingum 

county, OH (tarsometatarsi found 

from an excavated archaeological 

sites and argued likely to have 

not been trade items); dated from 

1100s to 1500s (Wetmore 1943, 

Peterjohn 2001, Jackson 2004; 

acknowledged by Tanner in his 

unpublished 1989 update to his 

1942 report)

Franklin and Monroe counties, 

IN (reported to have occurred, a 

specimen from Franklin County is 

mentioned but not now known to 

exist); prior to 1869 and possibly 

during the 1890s (Jackson 2004)

Along the Mississippi River north 

to near the confluence with the 

Missouri, MO and IL (reported 

by Audubon); early 1800s 

(Jackson 2004)

Cahokia, Madison County 

near East St. Louis, IL 

(tarsometatarsus found from 

excavated site, not part of the 

skull suggesting it was locally 

acquired and not a trade item); 

1500s or earlier (Parmalee 1958, 

Jackson 2004; acknowledged by 

Tanner in his unpublished 1989 

update to his 1942 report) 

Near the confluence of the 

Missouri and Mississippi rivers 

at Forest Park (spec. near St. 

Louis), MO, May 8, 1886 (Hahn 

1963, Jackson 2004; acknowledged 

by Tanner in his unpublished 1989 

update to his 1942 report)

Along the Missouri River from 

at Fayette and Kansas City, 

central to western MO (scattered 

reports); late 1800s and early 

1900s (Cooke 1888, Jackson 2004)

Reports from southern Missouri; 

into the 1930s and as late as 1949 

(AOU 1931, Jackson 2002, Moore 

1949 [G. E. Moore, Elusive Ivorybills. Bluebird 16(12):1])

Historic locations west or north 

of distribution as defined by 

Tanner (1942) in Oklahoma:

Alluwee, along the Verdigris 

River, Nowata County, OK (stated 

by G. Sutton as northward range 

limit); (Sutton 1967, Jackson 2004)

House Creek, Pawnee County, OK 

(one seen by S. W. Woodhouse); 

October 1849 (Jackson 2004; 

Sutton apparently thought 

Woodhouse collected the bird he 

saw, but Jackson could not find a 

tagged specimen Sutton thought 

was at the Academy of Natural 

Sciences in Philadelphia)

Historic locations west or south 

of distribution as defined by 

Tanner (1942) in east Texas:

San Marco and Guadalupe rivers 

and from New Braunfels, Comal 

County, all south-central TX 

(multiple reports including a 

bird killed but not preserved); 

around 1900 (at least for one of 

these reports; Shackelford 1998, 

Jackson 2004)
90

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.coastalgeorgiabirding.org...heinzmann1.pdf; http://www.

coastalgeorgiabirding.org...heinzmann2.pdf; http://www.coastalgeorgiabirding.org...heinzmann3.pdf)

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.

audubon.org/bird/BoA/F26_G1b.html)

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: http://www.houstonaudubon.org/html/GFCIvorybill1970.pdf )

Collins, M. 2005-2010. Log of Search Efforts Along the Pearl River, MS/LA: http://www.fishcrow.com/index.

html

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 

308:1460-1462.

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, 

Ontario.

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-

651.

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: http://www.ace-eco.org/vol1/iss3/

art...CO-2006-78.pdf)

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 

0-374-36173-8

Howell, A. H.. 1932. Florida Bird Life. Florida Dep. Game Fresh Water Fish, Tallahassee.
91

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 

1-58834-132-1.

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 

4:8. 

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. http://bbill.blogspot.com

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
92

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: http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/

IBWDraftRecoveryPlan.pdf ) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Ivory-billed Woodpecker Search Season Summary for 2006-2007. 

(Available here: http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill ) 

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. 
93

Michael J. Conroy, USGS Georgia 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit and Warnell 

School of Forestry and Natural 

Resources, University of Georgia, 

Athens

Robert J. Cooper, Warnell 

School of Forestry and Natural 

Resources, University of Georgia, 

Athens

Brady J. Mattsson, Warnell 

School of Forestry and Natural 

Resources, University of Georgia, 

Athens

Clinton T. Moore, Patuxent 

Wildlife Research Center, 

University of Georgia, Athens.

Rua S. Mordecai, Warnell 

School of Forestry and Natural 

Resources, University of Georgia, 

Athens

James T. Peterson, USGS Georgia 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit and Warnell 

School of Forestry and Natural 

Resources, University of Georgia, 

Athens

Objective Statement: 

The purpose of this document 

is to describe a survey design 

and field protocol for the Ivorybilled Woodpecker search effort 

that will: (1) allow estimation of 

occupancy, use, and detection 

probability for habitats at two 

spatial scales within its former 

range, (2) assess relationships 

between occupancy, use, and 

habitat characteristics at those 

scales, (3) allow the development 

of a population viability model 

that depends on patch occupancy 

instead of difficult-to-measure 

demographic parameters, and 

(4) be adaptive, allowing newly 

collected information to update 

the above models and search 

locations. A more statistically 

detailed version of this document 

will undergo peer review by the 

USGS.

Appendix F. 

Protocol to Estimate Occupancy and Related Parameters 

for the Region-wide Search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

Background

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

was once relatively abundant 

in floodplain forests of the 

southeastern U.S. By 1900, 

its range and numbers had 

declined precipitously due to 

habitat loss and various types of 

maltreatment. The last known 

population was studied in a 

remnant patch of old-growth 

forest known as the Singer Tract 

in northeast Louisiana in the 

late 1930s by Tanner (1942). The 

tract was subsequently logged, 

and since that time, numerous 

individual sightings have 

occurred, mostly in and near the 

few remaining large patches of 

contiguous bottomland forest 

(Figure 1). Also since that time, 

however, a number of bottomland 

forest patches have come under 

public protection and have grown 

to mature forests, and others 

have been reforested under 

several large-scale conservation 

efforts (e.g., Twedt et al. 2006).

The stunning rediscovery of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the 

Cache-lower White River Basins 

initiated a new search effort. The 

primary objective of the search 

has been to find the bird and 

document its existence, searching 

mostly those locations that were 

believed—mainly on the basis 

of the limited data provided 

by Tanner—to be optimal. 

Meanwhile, other searches 

were initiated in other locations 

within the former range where 

unsubstantiated sightings have 

been reported in recent decades, 

again focusing on places that 

were believed to have the best 

chance of being occupied. Some 

observations and other promising 

data have been collected in 

these places, but many other 

observations were made in areas 

that were not consistent with 

prior expectations (i.e., smaller 

tracts, few large trees and snags). 

It is apparent that we have much 

to learn about the ecology of this 

species. To this point, significant 

money and effort have been spent 

on searching. Although great 

advances have been made on 

search techniques and associated 

technology, little information 

useful to management and 

recovery has been obtained.

An Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

recovery team has been formed 

and a recovery plan has been 

written. Among the recovery 

actions in that plan are at 

least a dozen that pertain to 

developing an adaptive search 

design, estimating occupancy and 

detection probability, assessing 

habitat associations, and modeling 

population viability. The 

approach we advocate will begin 

to address all of these actions.

Justification for the Occupancy 

Estimation Approach

There are several problems 

with searching only in what are 

believed to be the best places. 

For example, (1) optimal sites 

have not been confirmed, so that 

it is not known what and where 

those places are, (2) searching 

only in the “best” places does not 

permit inferences about places 

not searched; that is, one cannot 

make an inference about the 

larger population because the 

selection of search locations lacks 

randomization, (3) one cannot 

estimate occupancy, use, detection 

probability, or the sampling 

effort required to estimate 

those parameters, (4) in order to 

understand habitat associations, 

a range of habitat values needs 

to be represented in the sample 

being analyzed, and until this 

happens (5) it is not possible 

to build predictive habitat and 

population models, or to learn in a 

systematic, repeatable way from 

the data collected how to improve 

the search.
94

Rather than focus solely on 

finding the bird, we advocate 

a primary focus of estimating 

occupancy and use, from which 

many other useful parameters 

and products can be obtained, 

and in the process of conducting 

the surveys with that paramount 

objective, follow good leads and 

find the bird.

Occupancy is the actual 

occurrence of an animal at a 

site of interest, as opposed to 

its detection or non-detection, 

and is defined as the probability 

that a randomly selected site is 

occupied; alternatively, it is the 

proportion of sites in an area of 

interest that are occupied by a 

species (MacKenzie et al. 2006). 

It is possible (arguably likely) 

that one can visit a site that is 

occupied and not detect a bird on 

a given occasion (a false negative). 

Thus, one does not know if an 

“absence” (i.e., non-detection) is 

actually due to non-occurrence, 

or rather the failure to detect the 

species when it is in fact present. 

This problem is addressed by 

multiple visits to a site, which 

allows estimation of detection 

probability, which is then used 

to “adjust” occupancy estimates. 

If an animal is likely to move in 

and out of the surveyed area, and 

that movement is random, it is 

also possible to apply the same 

methodology used to estimate 

occupancy, only in this case it will 

estimate the probability of use 

(MacKenzie et al. 2006). Habitat 

variables are also measured in 

each site. Occupancy can be 

related to habitat variables using 

a variation of typical logistic 

regression corrected for detection 

probability.

In order to develop occupancy 

models, sites must be randomly 

chosen to make inferences 

that can be generalized to the 

entire population. Inaccessible 

sites and sites that are judged 

to be entirely unsuitable for 

woodpeckers (e.g., non-forested 

sites) can be eliminated from 

the sampling frame (the list of 

sample units in the population 

that could potentially be included 

in the sample). Further, selection 

of patches can be weighted by 

prior belief of their suitability and 

results from existing searches; so 

that most but not all effort is still 

expended in the “best” locations 

(see below).

This approach is substantially 

different from what is being 

done now, although the field 

methodology is not. Field 

methodology can include any of 

the major techniques now being 

used (e.g., ground surveys for 

birds, cavities or feeding sign, 

recording devices, aerial surveys). 

Costs may be slightly higher (see 

below), but the benefits in terms 

of the quality of information 

obtained will be a substantial 

improvement over current 

approaches. We believe that the 

additional costs will be more than 

justified by the gain in the quality 

of inference obtained under this 

approach. The approach does not 

detract from efforts to document 

the bird’s existence; indeed, we 

suggest that our approach may 

even increase the likelihood of 

finding birds at multiple locations.

Approach

The following represents our 

thinking now, after one search 

season (2006-07) and could be 

modified in the future; however, 

data collected under this plan will 

be useful under future variations 

of this design. Survey sites 

will be defined and selected at 

two levels or spatial scales, the 

primary level (river basins) and 

secondary level (patches within 

river basin).

Primary level. The primary site 

will be a river basin within the 

former range of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker (Figure 2). Many 

of those can be eliminated from 

further consideration due to 

their (believed) complete lack of 

suitability. Culling unsuitable 

sites will help to create a defined 

sampling frame. River basins 

with consistent sightings and/

or sound recordings (i.e., high 

quality evidence) will always 

be selected to survey. At this 

point those would be the Cache/

lower White in Arkansas, the 

Choctawhatchie in Florida, 

and the Congaree/Wateree in 

South Carolina. Other river 

basins may also be selected nonrandomly on the basis of recent 

historical sightings. Remaining 

basins in the sampling frame 

should be randomly selected 

with weights based on the 

subjective probability of Ivorybilled Woodpeckers occurring 

in the area. This process will 

yield many basins with high 

occupancy probability and few 

with low occupancy probability. 

Eventually, exact criteria for 

selection will be developed jointly 

by experts in order to gain 

consensus. A step towards this 

consensus was attained at the 

recent Congaree meeting. 

Secondary level. Within selected 

river basins, sampling units 

in the secondary level will be 

defined as approximately 2km2 

patches of land. As individual 

birds are almost certain to 

use areas greater than 2km2, 

the secondary level will be 

estimating probability of a unit 

being used. These patches can 

be a consistent square or some 

other shape in a grid as in Figure 

3, or a variable shape and, to 

some extent, size in order to 

follow existing features of the 

landscape such as water features 

or management compartments. 

Squares can be problematic if, for 

example, they include both sides 

of a watercourse large enough to 

prevent easy crossing. The 2km2 

size was chosen because it seems 

functional, and it is currently 

in use as part of the Lower 

Mississippi Valley Joint Venture 

habitat survey (LMVJV refers 

to these patches as stands, which 

are subunits of management 

compartments on public land in 

the survey). Feedback from most 

groups that used this sampling 

design in the 2006-07 search 

season supports this patch size. 

Again, patches that are 

inaccessible due to logistics or 

landowner permission can be 

omitted from the sampling frame, 

as will completely unsuitable 

patches; the resulting system 

of patches constitutes the 

sampling frame at the secondary 

level. Selection of patches will 

occur in a similar fashion to the 

primary level except no patches 

in the sampling frame will be 
95

guaranteed selection. Patches 

will be randomly selected with 

weights based on the probability 

of Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

use. Exact criteria for selection 

eventually will be developed by 

expert consensus. 

Note that an investigator in 

a particular area can survey 

additional patches not selected 

in the sample. However, because 

of the need for randomization, in 

our approach only the patches 

selected in the sample will be 

included in the analysis. As 

an approximate rule of thumb, 

about 90% of overall search effort 

should be done in randomly 

selected patches. If new 

information is obtained, such as 

a hunter reporting a bird in a 

patch that is not in the sample, 

then the design can and should be 

modified on the basis of the new 

information. Eventually, a formal 

set of protocols will be developed 

that will allow searchers this 

flexibility in a truly adaptive 

search design. For now, if this 

situation (i.e., new or ‘found’ data) 

should arise, then the search team 

should consult with the UGA 

team as to how the design might 

be altered.

Field Procedures

Searches

Again, field methodology 

can include any of the major 

techniques now being used (e.g., 

ground or canoe/kayak surveys 

for birds, cavities or feeding sign, 

recording devices, aerial surveys). 

However, in order to develop 

models that use and learn from 

data collected from multiple river 

basins, it would be better to have 

comparable field methods to help 

build more rigorous detection 

models. We suggest that active 

ground surveys for birds and sign 

should be the standard approach 

that all surveys use. In the 2007-

08 search season, this design 

may be altered to include active 

double-raps using sticks and a 

resonating wooden box. 

Standard survey units can also 

be developed for techniques 

such as autonomous recording 

units (ARUs), but it is likely that 

only a few sites will use ARUs in 

quantities large enough to use in 

models that involve multiple river 

basins (i.e., the primary level). 

Investigators that make extensive 

use of ARUs or other methods 

unique to particular river basins 

can use those data to develop 

basin-specific models, but results 

may not be comparable with other 

sites unless those areas also used 

similar survey methods.

Habitat surveys

The habitat protocol stems from 

the LMVJV habitat measurement 

protocol, which involves taking 

many measurements on 4 

“transects” of 5 plots each, or 

n=20 plots per patch. Circular 

plots are 0.2 acres (0.08 ha) in 

size, with a 52.7’ radius. However, 

this level of time commitment 

may not be within the means of 

all investigators. In this case, a 

reduced number of measurements 

can be taken on these plots. We 

suggest that, as a minimum, 

density of large (>24” dbh and 

>36” dbh) trees, density of snags, 

and dominant tree species should 

be recorded. Based on feedback 

from searchers in the 2006-07 

season, we believe that most of 

the data on dominant tree species 

can be obtained using remotely 

sensed data, so tree species does 

not need to be recorded.

However, two additional 

measurements requiring more 

precision must be made. Rather 

than measuring all trees, only 

trees >24” dbh and >36” dbh 

and all snags >10” dbh are 

counted, using one or several 52.7’ 

sections of cord to ascertain the 

plot boundary, and a Biltmore 

stick to assess dbh class quickly. 

We estimate that, with a little 

practice, a plot such as this should 

take < 5 minutes to complete by 

one person. 

The 20 plots per patch should 

be randomly located and 

established using a GPS unit. 

They can be located using simple 

random sampling or systematic 

random sampling. The latter 

is likely to be more practical if 

double-rapping is to be done 

systematically throughout the 

patch anyway. Alternatively, 

habitat surveys can all be done in 

the middle of the day at random 

locations. Once habitat surveys 

are done for a patch, they do not 

need to be done again, unless 

additional or different data 

are required, or the patch has 

undergone significant change 

since the last survey.

Database and Data Entry

All data should be entered into 

the centralized database within 

two months of the end of the 

field season. Long-term data 

storage options are currently 

being discussed with a strong 

possibility that data for the 2007/8 

field season will be entered into 

the USGS point count database 

(http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/point/)

Literature Cited

Fitzpatrick, J. W., M. 

Lammertink, M. D. Luneau, Jr., 

B. R. Harrison, G. M. Sparling, K. 

V. Rosenberg, R. W. Rohrbaugh, 

E. C. H. Swarthout, M. S. 

Dantzker, R. A. Charif, T. R. 

Barksdale, J. V. Remsen, S. 

D. Simon, and D. Zollner. 

2005. Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

(Campephilus principalis) 

Persists in Continental North 

America. Science 308:1460-1462.

MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols, 

J. A. Royle, K. H. Pollock, L. L. 

Bailey, and J. E. Hines. 2006. 

Occupancy Estimation and 

Modeling. Academic Press, New 

York.

Royle J.A. and W.A. Link. 2006. 

Generalized Site Occupancy 

Models Allowing for False 

Positive and False Negative 

Errors. Ecology 87(4):835-841.

Tanner, J. T. 1942. The Ivorybilled Woodpecker. Research 

Report No. 1, National Audubon 

Society, New York.

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 20:100-110.
96

Figure F-1. Possible encounters since 1944 are primarily in large patches of contiguous bottomland forest.

89
97

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

90

Figure 2. River basins within the former range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
98

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).

91

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). 
99

ADDENDUM. Implementation of 

Adaptive Design for Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker Occupancy Protocol

Michael J. Conroy, USGS Georgia 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit and Warnell 

School of Forestry and Natural 

Resources, University of Georgia, 

Athens

Robert J. Cooper, Warnell 

School of Forestry and Natural 

Resources, University of Georgia, 

Athens

Brady J. Mattsson, Warnell 

School of Forestry and Natural 

Resources, University of Georgia, 

Athens

Clinton T. Moore, Patuxent 

Wildlife Research Center, 

University of Georgia, Athens.

Rua S. Mordecai, Warnell 

School of Forestry and Natural 

Resources, University of Georgia, 

Athens

Krishna Pacifici, USGS Georgia 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit and Warnell 

School of Forestry and Natural 

Resources, University of Georgia, 

Athens

James T. Peterson. , USGS 

Georgia Cooperative Fish and 

Wildlife Research Unit and 

Warnell School of Forestry and 

Natural Resources, University of 

Georgia, Athens

Objective:

As we originally intended for the 

survey design and field protocol 

for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

to be adaptive, we have 

augmented the current protocol 

to incorporate newly collected 

information. In response to 

feedback from search teams 

regarding search behavior and 

specific concerns about effort, 

we have also updated our survey 

design in an attempt to increase 

the chance of finding the bird 

while maintaining the current 

probabilistic framework and 

scientific rigor. This document 

provides the minor modifications 

to the survey design and field 

protocol.

Justification:

We have modified the survey 

design to allow for additional 

information coming from outside 

sources, e.g. hunter sightings, 

which potentially would not be 

from areas surveyed originally. 

We have also updated the protocol 

to allow for more effort in areas 

with defensible detections of 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. The 

allocation of more effort is twofold, 1) we have allocated more 

patches, specifically, adjacent 

patches to be searched when a 

high-quality detection has been 

made or confirmed, and 2) we 

have allocated an increase in 

repeat visits in those patches with 

a high-quality detection and in 

the adjacent patches. We believe 

these modifications increase our 

overall flexibility and ultimately 

our probability of observing a 

bird. 

Approach:

The original approach will stay 

intact at both the primary and 

secondary level.

The survey design will change 

only when a specific type of 

encounter is confirmed. This 

specific encounter will be called 

a trigger. A trigger can be of 

several forms: visual detection, 

auditory detection, or detection 

from helicopter survey.

Visual Detections:

A visual detection trigger is any 

visual detection of category 1, 

category 2, or category 3 on the 

CLO visual encounter ranking 

system (see below and pages 21 

and 31 of RFP). These visual 

detection triggers can come from 

the following sources:

1. a randomly selected patch 

within secondary level 

sampling frame, 

2. a patch searched during the 

25% allocated free time in 

either primary or secondary 

sampling frame, or outside of 

the primary sampling frame or,

3. an outsider’s report (e.g. a 

hunter) and potentially in 

a patch not in primary or 

secondary level sampling frame 

and not originally intended to 

be surveyed.

Visual Encounter Ranking System

Any large woodpecker falling into 

either of the following categories:

Category 1—an encounter 

with documentation that can be 

repeatedly interpreted the same 

way by independent observers, 

such as where definitive 

photographic evidence is collected 

by the field observer.

Category 2 - an encounter with at 

least two diagnostic field marks 

clearly observed and described, 

and the bird remaining in view 

long enough for the observer 

to reconfirm the observed field 

marks, but no independently 

verifiable evidence such as a 

photograph. Diagnostic field 

marks include:

a. White trailing edge of wing 

on either the dorsal or ventral 

surface.

b. White ‘shield’ formed by folded 

wings over the lower back of a 

perched bird.

c. White lines starting behind the 

eye, continuing down the neck 

and onto the back of the bird.

d. Black chin

e. Large woodpecker with one 

of the above diagnostic field 

marks and clearly heard giving 

‘kent’ calls or double knocks.

Category 3—an encounter that 

includes the description of one 

definitive or several partial or 

poorly observed field marks.

Auditory Detections:

An auditory detection can be used 

as a trigger only if it meets the 

following criteria:

1. It is a clear double-knock or 

kent call, and

2. It was made by personnel 

with extensive experience and 

training (i.e. member of the 

search team).

3. Does not displace more than 

25% of the search time for the 

original occupancy protocol.

Auditory detections can be 

followed at any time during 

the search period regardless of 

whether it originates in a selected 
100

sample plot or in a plot within 

the sampling frame, given that it 

meets the above criteria. 

Helicopter Survey Detections

At this time we are not addressing 

the sampling procedure and/or 

approach for helicopter surveys. 

We can however give procedures 

for the incorporation of highquality detections (CLO visual 

encounter category 1, 2, or 3) 

from a helicopter survey. The 

high-quality detections will be 

used in the same manner as found 

data from an outside source 

(e.g. a hunter) to reallocate the 

sampling effort. This can be 

done for helicopter detections in 

any area regardless of whether 

it is in the primary or secondary 

sampling frame. The site of the 

detection (gps units) will be used 

to determine the appropriate 

initial trigger plot. The protocol 

will then follow the steps outlined 

below.

Adaptive Field Procedure

Once a detection trigger has 

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. 

If no additional triggers are 

found, return to the random 

patches originally selected for 

the occupancy model.

5. Continue process to create 

network of patches until no 

new triggers have been found. 

This will result in edge patches 

(Figure 3).

6. Follow the normal occupancy 

protocol for all other 

detections. 

Time Allocation

The adaptive augmentation 

described here will not come out 

of allocated free time and will be 

considered as part of the directed 

occupancy protocol (75% of the 

total time spent searching). If 

Category 3 visual detections 

become abundant and are 

requiring a significant amount of 

the search team’s time (> 25%) 

the search team should consult 

with the University of Georgia 

Research Team to modify the 

protocol as needed. 
101

Figure F-4. Initial detection trigger identified and confirmed.

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

95

Figure 4. Initial detection trigger identified and confirmed. 

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

95

Figure 4. Initial detection trigger identified and confirmed. 

Figure 5. Four adjacent patches plus initial trigger patch searched five times. 
102

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.

96

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. 
103

Guidelines for Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker Searches in the 2007-

2008 Season

Recommendations from Cornell 

Lab of Ornithology

Double Knock Imitations and the 

Double Knocker Loan Program

For the 2007-08 search season no 

large-group searches are planned 

as in previous years in Arkansas 

and Florida. Instead, small 

teams of searchers will explore 

priority areas. Although areas 

cannot be searched exhaustively 

with a small team, broadcasting 

of double knock playbacks 

can increase the effective area 

searched. Tanner (1942) reported 

a higher response rate of Ivorybilled Woodpeckers to double- or 

single-knock imitations than 

to kent-call imitations. Other 

Campephilus species generally 

also readily respond to doubleknock imitations. Because of a 

large carrying distance, doubleknock imitations sample a larger 

search area than kent-call or 

double knock playbacks through 

a speaker system. For these 

reasons, double-knock imitations 

appear a more suitable technique 

than playbacks. 

During the 2006-2007 season, 

the Mobile Search Team of 

the Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology (CLO) in cooperation 

with D. Martin developed and 

tested a mechanical device 

designed to imitate double 

knocks. It consists of a wooden 

box, open on two sides, which 

is strapped to a tree trunk and 

rapped upon with a hand-held 

tool consisting of two wooden 

dowels that are attached in such 

a way as permits them to pivot 

independently of each other. The 

angle and length difference of 

the dowels causes them to strike 

the box in succession, producing 

a signal with the sound quality, 

spacing, and amplitude ratio of a 

large Campephilus woodpecker 

double knock. The signal carries 

400-600 m in denser woods with 

foliage, and up to 1.4 km in 

more sparse winter woods and 

under ideal weather conditions. 

In collaboration with C. Saker 

of York University, Toronto, a 

double knocker of CLO design 

is being tested with Pale-billed 

Woodpeckers (Campephilus 

guatemalensis) from SeptemberDecember 2007, to assess 

response patterns. First results 

indicate that the Pale-bill is highly 

responsive to these imitated 

sounds, much more so than to 

Pale-bill calls or double knocks 

played through a speaker from a 

recording.

During the summer of 2007, the 

carpentry shop at Congaree 

National Park produced 30 

double knocker (DK) tool sets 

after the CLO design. These 

double knockers are now 

available as part of the equipment 

loan program for Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker searches in the 2007-

08 season and can be requested 

by sending an e-mail to Marty 

Piorkowski <mp362@cornell.

edu>. Instructions for using the 

DK tool set will be distributed 

with each loan. 

Double Knocker Use Protocol

We recommend using doubleknock imitations frequently to 

try to elicit a response when 

exploring areas with suitable 

habitat and/or recent reports of 

Ivory-bills. If an Ivory-bill is 

confirmed or strongly suspected 

to be present, double knock 

imitations should be avoided 

or used very rarely to avoid 

potential harassment.

The DK tool set can be carried in 

a small day backpack, permitting 

each member of a field team to 

have a DK tool set with them. 

DK sessions should be conducted 

along the searcher’s route of 

travel and are best done in areas 

of good visibility, such as open 

forest. Working from a lightly 

elevated location (i.e. a hill or high 

river bank or fallen tree) will help 

facilitate sound travel and permit 

a better line of sight [this is said 

again below]. If an unprovoked 

double knock is heard during 

the course of regular searching 

and attempts to see the bird 

fail, then a DK series should be 

conducted immediately. In Palebilled Woodpeckers it has been 

found that birds already engaged 

in drumming are especially 

responsive to DK imitations. DK 

imitations should be concentrated 

at times of day with high bird 

activity, typically early or late in 

the day, but on crisp, clear winter 

days bird activity can remain 

high, permitting DK sessions 

to be conducted throughout the 

day. If a searcher plans to be at 

one spot for an extended period 

(i.e., a stationary watch, lunch 

break, vegetation sampling) it is 

recommended that a DK session 

be initiated at the beginning of 

this period. 

A DK session consists of a bout 

of seven double knocks spaced 

10 seconds apart, a 4-minute 

pause, and another bout of seven 

double knocks at 10 second 

intervals. This temporal spacing 

of double knocks is modeled after 

recordings of other Campephilus 

drum signals. The spacing is 

on the high end of the range 

observed in recordings, aiming 

to arouse the attention of a bird 

if present. If working in a team, 

and if the team uses Garmin GPS 

units with radio function, several 

minutes in advance of a DK 

session a searcher should send 

out the coordinates and timing of 

the session so that co-searchers 

are aware of the upcoming 

imitations and can listen for 

responses. Sessions should start 

at the top of a minute according to 

standardized, satellite-corrected 

time on a GPS unit. A log must 

be kept of all imitated double 

knocks, so that if members of the 

public or team members who are 

beyond radio reach report double 

knocks, these can be compared 

with the log of broadcasts. 

The log should contain GPS 

coordinates of the broadcast site 

and exact time of the onset of the 

two one-minute imitation bouts of 

a session. It is recommended that 

each searcher perform between 3 

and 6 DK sessions per day. 

If a double knock or kent call 

is heard, or an Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker flies in: (1) prepare 

your camera, (2) if the sound 

or bird is close and the forest 

navigable, leave your double 

knocker box strapped to the tree 

and carefully approach the bird, 

(3) take the picture or video, (4) 

clean up your pants; alternatively, 

if the source cannot be found, or if 
104

the landscape prevents approach, 

try bringing the bird closer with 

occasional double knocks, each 

separate by about one minute. To 

avoid harassment, interactions 

should preferably remain under 

30 minutes, and should never 

extend beyond 60 minutes. 

Keeping a List of Bird 

Observations 

In the 2007-2008 season, each 

searcher is asked to keep a 

daily record of the number of 

individuals of each bird species 

seen for entry into the eBird 

project database (http://ebird.

org). Special emphasis is on the 

keeping of records on species of 

conservation concern, i.e. Rusty 

Blackbird, Swallow-tailed Kite, 

and Swainson’s Warbler, as well 

as on woodpeckers, because 

woodpecker abundance can be 

used as a measure of habitat 

suitability for Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker. If two searchers 

travel together, for instance in a 

shared canoe, only one list should 

be kept. Along with the daily 

checklist of birds the following 

data should be recorded: 

(1) length of the day’s route by 

non-motorized means, during 

daylight hours, according to your 

GPS track, 

(2) the coordinates of the central 

(mid-way) point of the track (in 

decimal degrees, not UTMs – to 

get these, temporarily switch the 

coordinate format in your GPS 

settings at the end of the day), 

(3) start time of the survey,

(4) duration of the survey in 

hours, 

(5) main observer and coobservers, 

(6) mode of transportation 

(walking, canoe, etc), 

(7) name of the general area and 

state (e.g., Congaree NP, SC), 

(8) specific location of the 

searched area (e.g., Boggy Gut). 

If the day’s efforts include 

exploration of a 200-ha patch for 

the Occupancy Model, a separate 

track and list must be kept for 

the part of the search route that 

falls within the boundaries of the 

patch, and the name of the specific 

locality must match the name of 

the patch. After November 15, 

2007, an electronic file from which 

a data sheet can be printed for 

daily bird data, consisting of a 

species checklist and the required 

data fields, can be requested from 

Marty Piorkowski <mp362@

cornell.edu>.

What to Do in Case of an Ivorybilled Woodpecker Find

If an Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

is convincingly seen in a search 

area (with two or more diagnostic 

characters reported) but not 

documented with an image (i.e., a 

Category 2 sighting), the dilemma 

arises whether continued search 

effort should continue with a 

small team or whether a larger 

team should be formed. A small 

team minimizes the risk of 

disturbance but undermines the 

chances for repeated encounters 

and documentation. Conversely, 

a large team brings risks of 

disturbance but increases the 

chances for documentation. As 

a compromise, it was decided 

during the July 2007 Atlanta 

meeting of Ivory-bill searchers 

that in case of an undocumented, 

plausible find, both methods will 

be tried, in sequence. A small 

team of 4-6 people, typically 

the team that made the original 

find, will try daily for up to 4 

weeks after the initial sighting 

to obtain an image of the bird. 

If that fails, additional teams 

that are active with searches in 

other states should be called in 

to assist. The contact persons 

to discuss expansion of search 

effort towards the end of the 

initial 4-week small team 

effort are Laurie Fenwood 

<Laurie_Fenwood@fws.gov> 

and Ron Rohrbaugh <rwr8@

cornell.edu>. Developments 

will be treated with appropriate 

discretion. Credits for the original 

discovery, and decisions how and 

when to release the discovery 

information, remain with the 

original finders. 

Conducting Helicopter Searches 

for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

Background

In April 2005, rediscovery of 

the endangered Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker on Cache River 

NWR in Monroe County, eastcentral Arkansas was announced. 

In September 2006, additional 

evidence for the persistence 

of the Ivory-bill in Florida 

was presented by a group 

of researchers from Auburn 

University.

Thousands of hours of intensive 

searching using a variety of 

techniques (boats, walking, 

blinds, cameras, sound recording 

units) during the 2004-05 and 

2005-06 field seasons produced 

only six additional observations 

in Arkansas. Intriguing sound 

recordings and a number of 

possible sightings were also 

documented, but this massive 

search effort with few positive 

results demonstrates the difficulty 

of finding this charismatic and 

elusive bird.

No state search group is 

compelled or required to perform 

helicopter surveys. The following 

guidelines are the result of 

several conference calls and 

review by a sub-set of the search 

groups’ membership with interest 

and expertise in aerial surveys. 

These guidelines may be used to 

help formulate an appropriate, 

consistent strategy if helicopters 

are used at some point during the 

2007 search season. 

Rationale

Adding aerial helicopter searches 

can make the total regional, 

multi-state effort more efficient, 

by systematically covering a 

larger area, and/or accessing 

areas inaccessible via ground 

techniques (due to hurricane 

damage, lack of roads, lack of 

flooding for water access, no 

public right of way, etc.), thereby 

increasing the chance of locating 

a center of activity for the Ivorybill. 

The feasibility of using fixed-wing 

ultra-light aircraft for Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker aerial searches was 

tested on a portion of the White 
105

River NWR in the winter of 2006. 

From this slow aircraft, common 

forest birds could be identified 

and video imagery collected; 

however, the ultra-light aircraft 

were unstable at low altitudes 

with even slight winds produced 

over the forest. This finding led 

to the recommendation to use 

the more powerful and stable 

helicopter. Other commonly 

available fixed-wing options 

do not maximize the ability to 

fly close to the canopy at lower 

airspeeds to enable identification 

and photo-documentation of 

flushed birds. 

Helicopter searches and surveys 

are an accepted, cost effective 

means for locating and counting 

wildlife or finding habitat 

features. Though population 

estimates derived from this 

type of aerial survey frequently 

underestimate the actual 

number of individuals present 

due to visibility bias (i.e., not all 

animals are sighted), helicopter 

searches can be used to document 

the presence of at least one 

individual. This can be followed 

up with a thorough ground search 

of areas where the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker is documented.

The first objective of a helicopter 

search is to locate and capture 

definitive still camera or video 

imagery of an Ivory-bill. 

Widely accepted proof would be 

invaluable in resolving differences 

of opinion within the scientific 

community over the rediscovery 

of this species as well as in 

promoting appropriate, effective, 

on-going conservation efforts.

If Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are 

located during the aerial search, 

ground crews can be deployed to 

a much smaller area to focus on 

roosting or nest cavity location. 

Locating these important habitat 

elements will enable researchers 

to gather information that could 

make significant contributions 

to the knowledge and recovery 

of the species. This sharper 

focus can be expected to be much 

more efficient and likely to yield 

results, since searching habitat on 

the ground is difficult and timeconsuming. Smaller areas can be 

searched more intensively. 

Safety

Aircraft are mechanical devices 

that can malfunction or be 

affected by wind, weather, and 

earth-based objects such as trees 

and hills; therefore, safety must 

be the number one priority. Our 

decision-makers for this will be 

the helicopter pilots. Additionally, 

Federal and state resources are 

bound by strict requirements, 

and acceptable contractors will be 

required to meet these standards 

as determined by the hiring/

acquisition agency. Occupants 

of the helicopter must adhere 

to all required safety rules and 

respective agency requirements 

while conducting the surveys. 

Search Areas

Each state search group will 

determine geographic priorities 

using historical information, 

recent and reliable reports of 

sightings, and habitat information 

(see Request for Proposals 

Criteria). Additionally, selection 

of areas will depend on several 

variables including the type of 

helicopter as well as its cost and 

availability, logistics for aerial 

and ground crews, local weather 

conditions, issues associated 

with public lands management or 

private lands, season of search, 

and accessibility. Randomization 

can be included for development 

of the occupancy model. 

Search Guidelines

Observers and Cameras

If searches involve low altitude 

helicopter flights, a total of 3-4 

observers including the pilot 

should be used, depending on 

the type and capacity of the 

aircraft and pilot discretion. Pilot 

observations will be subordinate 

to flight operations. Safety will 

be the first priority for all of the 

flights. In addition to looking 

actively for flushed Ivory-bill, the 

port side cockpit observer can 

help coordinate the operation, and 

monitor on-board or handheld 

GPS equipment. Ideally, there 

will be two observers positioned 

in the back seat of the ship with 

doors removed. These observers 

will be tethered to the ship with 

safety harnesses. In addition to 

scanning constantly for flushed 

Iviroy-bills, each of the back-seat 

observers should have a high 

quality SLR camera pre-set/

focused and ready to point and 

shoot still images of flushed 

Ivory-bills. Observations will 

likely be brief, no more that 

two-three seconds, and the 

observers will have to be familiar 

and very proficient with SLR 

use. Additionally, there should 

be a high-definition video camera 

mounted to the helicopter. 

Preferably, the camera will be 

fitted with a wide angle lens 

directed down and forward 

of the flight path, capturing 

constant video footage of the area 

immediately in front of the ship. 

In addition to documenting Ivorybilled Woodpecker sightings, the 

video imagery will be a way to 

record and later to assess habitat 

characteristics in inaccessible 

areas. 

Transects

The pilot will fly previously 

defined transects downloaded 

into GPS units monitored by 

the pilot and cockpit observer. 

Transects will be defined using 

landform characteristics and 

shape of the survey area with 

consideration for making the 

most efficient use of available 

flight time on individual flights. 

Individual flights should last no 

more than 2 to 2.5 hours in order 

to minimize observer and pilot 

fatigue. Flights can be planned to 

take place during the hours 0900 

through 1600, to take advantage 

of maximum sunlight. Additional 

flights can be scheduled in early 

or later daylight hours depending 

on effective times for flushing and 

observing birds. Flight times and 

duration can be varied according 

to local needs and issues. 

Adaptive changes are expected 

as the crew learns from initial 

efforts.

Transect spacing can be varied 

to allow adequate observation of 

flushed birds. Airspeed should 

be consistently maintained, if 

possible. Depending on the ship 

used, slower airspeeds (40 miles 

per hour) will aid observers. 

Altitudes will depend on local 

issues and safety concerns. The 

pilot can adjust flight parameters 

and transect orientation to 
106

maximize viewing ability and 

adapt to local conditions and 

safety considerations. 

Preliminary test flights can 

help determine what will work, 

adapting for optimum results, 

then maintaining a flight pattern, 

speed, and altitude that are as 

consistent as possible. These test 

flights would ideally use a ground 

crew making simultaneous 

observations of flushed and/or 

hiding birds during the helicopter 

run. 

Crew and Pilot 

Onboard GPS units monitored 

by the pilot and cockpit observer 

will record waypoints of Ivory-bill 

sightings, waypoints of habitats 

of interest, and track logs of all 

flights. 

Crew members may come from 

partner agencies. Completion of 

AMD Basic Aviation Safety (B-3) 

online training is mandatory for 

all Federal flight crew members. 

All personnel should wear an 

approved flight helmet, nomex 

clothing and gloves, and leather 

boots during the flight. If flights 

are to be made over water, an 

aircraft, approved, personal 

flotation device will be worn by all 

occupants when flying beyond the 

glide slope of the land. During 

all surveys the two observers 

positioned in the back seat of 

the ship will remain tethered to 

the ship with approved safety 

harnesses. On-board radio 

communication between the 

pilot and flight crew will be 

maintained via flight helmet 

voice activated microphones. 

Air-to-ground communication 

between the helicopter search 

team and ground search teams 

will be established via cell phone 

after Ivory-bill encounters. If 

needed, additional air-to-ground 

communication capability 

will be maintained between 

the helicopter search team 

and ground search team via 

programmable handheld radio. 

All project flights will file flight 

plans using the FAA Flight 

Service or Agency Flight 

Dispatch Offices. The pilot is 

responsible for the accurate 

performance, and weight and 

balance calculations for each 

flight. An analysis of aerial 

hazards will be done prior to 

searches, and maps displaying 

aerial hazards will be provided to 

the pilot.

Timeline

Air searches are best conducted 

during leaf-off condition in order 

to have the greatest chance of 

detecting and capturing still or 

video imagery of a flushed Ivorybill. Due to the high costs of 

ferry time the helicopter searches 

should be completed in blocks 

of use. Late January, February, 

and March are expected to be the 

most effective months.

Issues

Waterfowl

The primary purpose for much of 

the NWR lands to be searched is 

to provide habitat and protection 

for wintering waterfowl. 

Conducting the flights at any 

time during the leaf-off period 

will temporarily disturb and 

displace waterfowl in the specific 

area where the flights take 

place. The disturbance will be a 

short-duration, single-day event 

and should not offer significant 

impacts to wintering waterfowl. 

For example, January through 

mid-February are the peak 

months of wintering waterfowl 

use on the Arkansas refuges; 

scheduling after this time period 

would offer the least disturbance 

to wintering waterfowl.

Local managers have a good 

understanding of how seasonality, 

weather, and water levels 

concentrate wintering waterfowl. 

Where wintering waterfowl 

concentration has been identified 

as an issue, input from local 

managers should be used to 

modify flight plans and avoid 

areas of waterfowl concentration. 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker

Helicopter Ivory-bill sightings 

would enable immediate 

redirection of searchers to 

areas of Ivory-bill encounters. 

Accurately located sightings will 

help search teams dramatically 

increase chances of locating an 

active roost or nest cavity. This 

means the bird(s) will be flushed. 

Flushing an animal to flight does 

cause energy expenditure and 

stress. Again, the trade-off is 

explicit between the management/

conservation need to find and 

document the bird, then reliably 

locate a roost or nest cavity 

and a temporary disturbance of 

extremely short duration. Under 

the Endangered Species Act, 

harm or “take” of a listed species 

without a permit is expressly 

prohibited. In this case, the 

“take” potentially occurring is 

harassment via disturbance of 

whatever activity the bird was 

engaged in prior to flushing.

The 2007 helicopter searches will 

be performed by state search 

groups in cooperation with 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Barring an aerial strike, which 

will be avoided by the pilot 

for obvious reasons, the only 

disturbance that will occur is 

flushing one or more birds to 

flight. Currently, all search 

and monitoring activities which 

may potentially harass a bird 

are permitted via the Service’s 

own Section 10(a)1(a) permit 

or the Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology permit. Location of 

ground searchers in response to a 

helicopter sighting may allow the 

location of a nest or active roost 

which can result in additional 

disturbance/harassment. The 

unlikely worst case scenario 

would include nest abandonment, 

although this is extremely 

unlikely. Additional minor 

impacts would include flushing 

the bird(s) repeatedly. Given the 

habitat conditions and results of 

the last two years of intensive 

searching, birds will likely 

temporarily leave the immediate 

area. Care will be required in 

the observation, monitoring, 

and photography of a cavity 

believed to be a roost or nest. 

Requirements are documented 

in the current region-wide 

Cornell permit and should be 

adhered to for follow-up, focused, 

ground searches. The intraservice Section 7 consultation 

for this permit resulted in a 

Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

determination by the Regional 

Office and was concurred with 

by three Ecological Services 

Field Offices (Conway, Panama 
107

City, Lafayette). Copies of the 

permit are held by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology, with 

specific requirement information 

available from Ron Rorbaugh, 

Cornell University and Laurie 

Fenwood, US Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

Other Wildlife

If extensive areas are flooded, 

some unsubmerged lands may 

harbor wildlife concentrations 

which could be disturbed 

by a low-flying helicopter. 

This disturbance will be of 

short duration, and if large 

concentrations of sensitive 

species are noted by local officials/

coordinators, these areas could 

be avoided. Most migratory, 

non-waterfowl species will not 

have arrived in the bottomland 

hardwood habitats. Resident 

species will, however, be in a 

relatively stressful period of the 

year. Recognition of these trade 

offs should be made. Where 

compatible with the primary 

objective, efforts to minimize 

disturbance and fulfill additional 

objectives, such as eagle surveys, 

can be accomplished.

Hunting

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 Ivorybilled 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 

about government intrusion, 

lack of confidence in assurances 

that no trespassing will occur, 

and fear of potential regulation 

associated with owning habitat 

used by endangered species 

make this a sensitive issue. Some 

over-flight of private lands will 

be unavoidable as the helicopter 

makes turns to follow transects 

determined for surveys focused 

only on public land. Potential 

negative reactions to this can be 

managed by assuring adjacent 

landowners that public lands are 

the focus of the flights. Overflights on private lands are not 

illegal and are largely constrained 

only by safety concerns (via 

FAA regulations and advisories). 

However, good sense and gauging 

local reactions must prevail in 

each case in order to promote 

the long-term conservation of 

this species, which will depend 

on appropriate private land 

management. A public outreach 

effort should be undertaken 

where needed. 
108
109

Action Plan In the Event of 

Definitive Information of the 

Presence of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker In Arkansas

Need for Action Plan

The search for the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker is on-going in 

Arkansas, with intensive search 

efforts occurring from December 

through April. Search activities 

continue to be more specific 

and highly targeted with each 

search season as search areas 

incorporate several years of 

sighting data, search experience 

and narrowing of the field of 

search, as well as investigations 

in previously untargeted areas 

through use of occupancy model 

protocols. Search activity is 

significantly enhanced annually 

and more focused on the basis 

of information gained from 

the each previous field season. 

Searches are conducted by 

professional employees from 

several organizations, as well as 

volunteers. Cornell Laboratory 

of Ornithology (CLO), Audubon 

Arkansas (AA), The Nature 

Conservancy of Arkansas 

(TNCA) and Arkansas Game & 

Fish Commission (AGFC) are 

participators in the organized 

search effort. All search efforts 

are unified under the field 

coordination and permits of CLO. 

It is anticipated that there will 

continue to be a great number 

of birders and curiosity seekers 

in the field, as has occurred in 

previous years. Traditional users 

such hunters and anglers will 

also be in the field and are aware 

of the search for the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker. Additionally, a cash 

reward (initially $10,000 and 

currently $50,000 for leading 

an official to an Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker) has been offered 

to the public for locating the 

bird, and this incentive has 

raised both public awareness and 

participation. It is therefore more 

likely than ever that additional 

Appendix G. 

Example of Action Plan and Private Lands Considerations 

for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker

evidence of the species will be 

forthcoming.

Sighting information collected 

in association with the winter 

search effort could significantly 

inform species management and 

any associated public use. There 

is a need to describe how this 

information is handled in the 

short term, including how and 

when to convey the information to 

the general public and the media. 

This brief action plan is an 

attempt to map out a sequence 

of events that should take place 

if significant information on the 

status of the species is obtained.

Definition of Events

It is considered likely that 

information on the rediscovery 

will result from the efforts of the 

search teams under permit. It 

is, however, quite possible that 

significant information could 

be obtained from independent 

parties. To maintain awareness 

of possible independent sightings 

the various list serves used 

by the birding public will be 

monitored daily. Management 

of the response in these cases 

is dependent on obtaining 

information from parties who 

may or may not be willing to 

share it. Given the high degree 

of interest, it is likely that any 

significant information will come 

to the attention of the search 

teams or government officials in a 

matter of days or less. Therefore, 

we will consider the sequence of 

events to be the same regardless 

of the source of information, 

with the response dependent on 

the quality of the information 

received.

Ivory-billed Woodpecker sighting 

reports are no longer infrequent 

in the Big Woods of Arkansas. 

Reports vary tremendously in 

credibility due to differences 

such as observer experience, 

field marks observed, length 

and clarity of the observation, 

and context of the sighting 

(habitat type, location, observer 

credibility). Several years 

of experience have provided 

an education in assessing 

the significance of reported 

encounters, and such is done 

routinely by Service and Cornell 

personnel.

This Action Plan is in effect to 

streamline a swift and effective 

response to the identification 

of the location of Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker(s) by Service and 

ESA permittee decision-makers. 

It is not valuable or effective to 

respond to each and every Ivorybill sighting report according 

to the Response Sequence laid 

out in this document, but rather 

to those judged to be actual 

observations of the species 

and with significant behavioral 

components likely to lead to 

further observations. Therefore 

sightings which are judged to 

be ‘Confirmed Encounter with 

Documentation’ or ‘Probable 

Encounter’ will initiate the 

Action Plan Response Sequence. 

Less definitive sighting reports 

(‘Possible Encounter’, ‘Putative 

Encounter’) will be shared among 

primary agency and permittee 

representatives, but will not 

initiate the Response Sequence. 

Particular attention will be given 

to this shared information if the 

sighting report investigator is 

inclined to believe that the report 

is likely to lead to ‘Confirmed’ 

or ‘Probable’ encounters, given 

further investigation. The 

Response Sequence is, in effect, 

the equivalent of calling ‘the red 

phone’ to notify the Incident 

Response Team of a significant 

event which will require team 

decision-making. 

Possible Significant Events

Significant events could take 

several forms. For purposes of 

developing appropriate responses 
110

the following scenarios are 

considered here:

1. Fly-by Ivory-bill - Credible 

sighting reports of a bird flying 

by a location with no known 

focus of activity.

2. Foraging Ivory-bill - 

Documentation is received of 

IBWO feeding in a specific 

area, possibly on an identified 

food resource. Flood killed 

trees or possibly one of the 

“morticulture” sites could 

result in attracting a bird or 

birds on a regular basis. 

3. Roosting Ivory-bill - A bird 

or birds are documented 

frequenting a roost tree.

4. Nesting Ivory-bill - A bird or 

birds are observed exhibiting 

nesting behavior at a cavity 

tree.

5. Dead or Injured Ivory-bill 

- The remains of a bird are 

recovered or an injured bird is 

recovered.

There are of course other possible 

scenarios or combinations but 

these five likely encompass most 

of the general types of situations 

which could be encountered.

Encounter Classifications:

Each sighting will undergo an 

assessment led by CLO personnel 

to determine the degree of 

confirmation of the particular 

encounter. The review will result 

in a classification of the encounter 

into one of four categories:

Category 1

An encounter with documentation 

that can be repeatedly 

interpreted the same way by 

independent observers, such as 

where definitive photographic 

evidence is collected by the field 

observer.

Category 2

An encounter with at least two 

diagnostic field marks clearly 

observed and described, and 

the bird remaining in view 

long enough for the observer 

to reconfirm the observed field 

marks, but no independently 

verifiable evidence such as a 

photograph. Diagnostic field 

marks include:

e. White trailing edge of wing 

on either the dorsal or ventral 

surface.

f. White ‘shield’ formed by folded 

wings over the lower back of a 

perched bird.

g. White lines starting behind the 

eye, continuing down the neck 

and onto the back of the bird.

h. Black chin

e. Large woodpecker with one 

of the above diagnostic field 

marks and clearly heard giving 

‘kent’ calls or double knocks.

Category 3

An encounter that includes the 

description of one definitive or 

several partial or poorly observed 

field marks.

Category 4

An encounter based solely on 

the observer’s impression of the 

bird with no identifiable field 

marks unambiguously observed; 

encounter lacks sufficient 

information to make qualitative 

assessment about the identity of 

the bird.

In conveying information on 

sightings use should be made of 

the categories above so all team 

members are aware of the degree 

of confirmation with regard to the 

sighting.

Response Sequence 

(Attachment 1.):

For confirmed Ivory-bills flybys or probable encounters, 

notification of the Initial 

Response Team members should 

be made, and the need for any 

management action should be 

assessed via a conference call or 

meeting.

The following numbers may be 

used at any time to convene a 

conference call:

Phone number = ?????

Passcode = ?????

For all other definitive sightings 

information (e.g., confirmed 

or probable nesting, roosting, 

feeding, dead or injured) the 

following actions should be taken:

Action 1—Communicate 

Information to Initial Response 

Team (Attachment 2):

The below persons will be 

considered members of the Initial 

Response Team. This group is 

kept to a minimal size to facilitate 

quick response and decisions. 

Membership is dictated primarily 

by legal requirements (access and 

permits) and those in the lead 

on conducting the search. Team 

members will be responsible 

for informing other personnel 

within their program/agency as 

appropriate.

All the members of the Initial 

Response Team will be informed 

of the information as soon as 

possible regardless of where 

the definitive record occurs in 

Arkansas. Contact should be 

made by phone if possible and 

backed up by e-mail. Emphasis in 

order of contact should be based 

on the location of the sighting, 

e.g., on Cache River NWR 

priority should go to contacting 

Jonathan Windley first.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Primary Contacts:

?????

Arkansas Game and Fish 

Commission

Primary Contacts:

?????

Arkansas Natural Heritage 

Commission

Primary Contact:

?????

Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology

Primary Contacts:

?????

Action 2: Convene Initial 

Response Team

An Initial Response Team 

Meeting will be convened. It is 

expected that this meeting will 

be convened within hours of the 

information becoming available. 

Representatives of the following 

shall be present if feasible: FWSRefuges, Ecological Services 

and External Affairs programs, 
111

State of Arkansas (individuals 

to be identified by State of 

Arkansas), the Cornell Search 

Team leaders or their designees, 

and the person(s) providing the 

information or sightings. 

The purpose of the meetings 

will be quickly to review the 

information received, confirm the 

validity, and determine the initial 

steps which would need to be 

taken to assure protection of the 

bird or birds being observed. 

If the sighting occurs on 

public lands, such protective 

measures may include cessation 

or modification of public use 

activities, management programs, 

search effort, or any other activity 

that may be deemed to have an 

adverse impact on the birds. 

If the definitive sighting 

information is on private 

land, a meeting of the Initial 

Response Team should 

still be convened as soon as 

possible and should include 

the land owner if the person 

is willing and circumstances 

allow. The presence of Ivorybilled Woodpecker on private 

lands will obviously create a 

different scenario in terms of 

protective measures that can 

be implemented. Involvement 

of members of the Corridor of 

Hope Team should be considered 

depending on the circumstances. 

Special consideration should be 

given to the desires of the private 

land owner to maintain privacy 

and protect his/her property and 

activities from birders or others.

An assessment of the methods 

for monitoring activity will be 

necessary. In general, the least 

obtrusive methods should be 

used. Remote cameras or blinds 

should be considered. The need 

for predator control devices 

such as snake guards should 

be assessed. Deployment will 

depend on the location of the nest 

and time of year, among other 

factors.

If a dead bird or parts of a bird 

are recovered, the events above 

should still take place, but the 

Office of Law Enforcement and 

the refuge officers for the area 

in question should be included 

in the initial response meeting. 

Likewise, State of Arkansas Law 

Enforcement personnel should be 

offered the opportunity to attend 

the meeting.

If an injured bird or abandoned 

nestling (e.g., from a fallen nest 

tree) is encountered, speedy 

assessment will provide the 

best chance for recovery. The 

welfare of the bird should be 

the primary concern, but notify 

the Initial Response Team and 

law enforcement officials as 

soon as possible–preferably 

before transport of the bird. If 

the nature of the injuries bird 

warrant it, e.g., gun shot wounds, 

notify State and Federal law 

enforcement officials immediately 

and be careful to preserve any 

evidence of a crime. The bird 

should be conveyed to the facility 

identified in Attachment 1 as soon 

as practicable.

Contact information for injured 

birds or nestlings: 

The initial response meetings 

will continue at least once per 

day or as agreed to until no 

longer needed. Involvement of 

other conservation partners in 

these meetings may be expanded 

following the initial response and 

placement of protective measures 

should an y be needed.

Concurrent with the convening 

of the Initial Response Team, 

bird list serves such as Bird 

Chat and Rare Bird Alerts such 

as Birdingonthe.net will be 

monitored to evaluate awareness 

in the birding community.

Action 3: Implement Protective 

Measures

Put protective measures in 

place. This may require tasking 

enforcement personnel, signage 

or other measures. In some cases 

there may be minimal need for 

these actions. The response will 

be tailored to fit the particular 

situation. It is not possible 

to identify the combination of 

protective measures that may 

or may not be needed until the 

specific location of the activity 

is known. In the case of a nest 

or roost tree it is likely a buffer 

zone approach will be used that is 

similar to that employed for Bald 

Eagles. Management actions and 

permitted activities in the vicinity 

of the nest tree will be limited to 

those necessary to assure the well 

being of the bird or birds present. 

Research methods will be noninvasive in nature.

Public use and viewing should 

be discouraged in the initial 

response. Once the behavior 

of the birds and the terrain 

surrounding the sighting are 

more clearly known, options for 

some type of public viewing could 

be evaluated. 

In the event the birds are using 

private lands, discussion with 

the land owner on how best to 

provide protection for the bird(s) 

as well as the interests of the 

land owner will be necessary. 

Involvement of the Corridor of 

Hope Conservation Team should 

be considered when dealing 

with private land owners. Their 

involvement will be somewhat 

dependent on the circumstances, 

e.g., the desires of the private 

land owner. In addition, should 

trespass issues develop, Federal 

or State law enforcement 

could assist with this to assure 

thatdisturbance to the bird(s) 

does not occur and that the 

private property owner is not 

adversely impacted. Discussions 

with the private landowner 

regarding future management 

and liability avoidance as well as 

incentives for management and 

protection of his/her land will be 

required.

Action 4: Review Permit 

Requirements and Issue Permits 

as Appropriate

Permits (ESA and refuge/

State) for work proposed by 

researchers or other personnel 

will be evaluated and permits 

issued as appropriate. A separate 

ESA permit may be required for 

work in association with a nest or 

roosting bird(s), although this is 

dependent on the nature of the 

anticipated activity. In addition, 

if the event occurs on State or 

Federal land there may be a need 

for an additional permit from the 

land-managing entity.
112

Action 5: Notify Public of 

Significant Information

Once protective measures are in 

place, notify the public. External 

Affairs personnel of the FWS 

and the State will have the 

lead with coordinating media/

public outreach in consultation 

with members of the Initial 

Response Team. The Outreach 

and Communications Committee 

formed under the Recovery Team 

could serve as an appropriate 

vehicle for disseminating 

information over the longer term.

Action 6: Monitor Response of 

Birds and Public and Adjust as 

Necessary

Action 5 will complete the initial 

response. This does not mean 

that the events which follow the 

initial response will be predictable 

or manageable. It will be 

necessary to monitor and evaluate 

the situation continuously as it 

develops and to adjust permitting, 

protection, and communication as 

needed.

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 

approach:

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 

measures.

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 

greatly by the specific 

characteristics of the individual 

case. It may be necessary 

to deploy remote cameras. 

Some type of monitoring 

will probably be needed for 

research and protection 

purposes.

4. Development/revision of 

Section 7 guidelines and all 

other ESA compliance may be 

necessary.

5. Compatibility determinations 

and refuge step down plans 

for public use, forestry 

management, and other 

management will need review 

to assure they are consistent 

with the recovery and 

management of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers.
113

Figure G-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.

113

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.
114

Living With the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker: Private Landowner 

Considerations 

“The plain lesson is that to be a 

practitioner of conservation on a 

piece of land takes more brains, 

and a wider range of sympathy, 

forethought, and experience, 

than to be a specialized forester, 

game manager, range manager, 

or erosion expert in a college or a 

conservation bureau.” 

- Aldo Leopold, 1934

Background

The announcement of the 

rediscovery of the Ivorybilled Woodpecker on Cache 

River NWR was made on 

April 28, 2005. This was the 

first scientifically documented 

sighting of a magnificent bird 

that had not been seen for 

almost 60 years. The Recovery 

Team was established; the 

Corridor of Hope Conservation 

Team was convened; Town Hall 

meetings were held to involve 

public citizens. Additionally, 

there has been consultation 

with ornithological experts, an 

assessment of habitat in the Big 

Woods, communication exchanges 

among scientists about the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker, and 

discussions about survey and land 

acquisition needs. 

The most important conservation 

discussion continues. How can 

we manage for the needs of this 

species? While the Recovery 

Plan is still undergoing review, 

the reality is that we all have the 

opportunity to work together 

towards recovery. The Ivorybilled Woodpecker presents all of 

us with real challenges, mainly 

because there is so little biological 

information about its ecology, life 

history, nutritional requirements, 

habitat preferences, and current 

threats. James Tanner’s 1942 

work provides us with perhaps 

the best information we currently 

have.

As Jerome Jackson writes in the 

ending of his book on the Ivorybilled Woodpecker “If there is 

habitat, there is hope. If there 

are Ivory-bills out there, there is 

hope” (Jackson, 2004). We all now 

know there is hope.

Recent Surveys

Efforts to document the presence 

of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers have 

been underway since late winter 

of 2004. Additional surveys have 

taken place in 2005, 2006, 2007, 

and 2008. Since much of the best 

remaining forested habitat is 

found on public lands, search 

efforts have been focused in 

areas such as Cache and White 

River NWRs, and State lands 

on Dagmar and Rex Hancock/

Black Swamp WMAs in Arkansas, 

Congaree National Park in South 

Carolina, Municipal Water District 

land on the Choctawhatchee 

River in Florida, the Big Thicket 

areas in Texas, Pearl River in 

Mississippi and Louisiana and 

the Atchafalaya River Basin 

in Louisiana, as well as the 

Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia. 

While some of these areas have 

yielded intriguing sightings 

and vocalizations, no additional 

photographic or videographic 

evidence has been obtained. 

Debate in the scientific community 

continues regarding if and where 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers exist. 

Rediscovery of an Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker on Private Land

A significant amount of private 

land could support the Ivorybilled Woodpecker. Some of this 

land is intermixed with public 

land or adjacent to it. It is 

possible that use of private lands 

by Ivory-bills could be occurring 

and the search team or private 

landowners may find evidence of 

such activity. Increased search 

intensity during 2006 and 2007 

added to the general awareness 

of the possible presence of the 

Ivory-bill and improved the 

likelihood of its discovery on 

private lands.

Rediscovery could take several 

forms. A landowner sees a bird 

feeding on private forest land. A 

roost tree or even nesting of a 

pair of Ivory-bills could also be 

documented. Evidence of past 

nesting could be discovered. 

The characteristic call of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker, which 

resembles the “toot-toot” of a 

toy tin horn, could be detected. 

Potentially, a bird could be seen 

flying through private property 

with little or no information on 

the focal point of activity. In any 

of these cases, the immediate 

question will be “What should the 

landowner do?”

Private landowners who believe 

they may have Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers on their land 

should be encouraged to share 

such information with the Fish 

and Wildlife Service or the 

appropriate state fish and game 

agency (contacts are listed at 

the end of this paper). The 

following concepts help assure 

that landowner interests will be 

protected and that the bird is 

conserved:

1. Don’t kill, harm, wound, or 

harass a listed species such as 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Such things are prohibited 

under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). Habitat 

destruction or removal may 

constitute a violation of the 

ESA. Cooperation and seeking 

opportunities for partnership 

are the best approach to 

conserving listed species, which 

is the real purpose of the law. 

Through cooperation, potential 

concerns can be addressed, 

and the habitat conditions 

supporting this rare and 

elusive bird can be maintained 

and improved.

2. Existence of a resident bird 

is a good indicator that the 

landowner’s current use, 

management, and protection of 

the land has offered something 

attractive to the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service, other Federal 

and state agencies, and private 

conservation organizations 

will be interested in providing 

financial and technical 

assistance to the landowner 

aimed at continuing these 

benefits. 

3. Providing information about 

a bird passing through the 

area may mean that the larger 

landscape is still capable 

of supporting Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers. This information 

will assist ongoing search and 

location efforts, lending to the 

recovery of this species. 
115

4. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s goal is to find ways 

for you to maintain your 

traditional use of the property 

while protecting this species. 

Hunting, fishing, and other 

recreational activities are 

unlikely to present a problem 

and timber management 

activities may be compatible 

as well. It is impossible to 

predict in advance the exact 

situation or circumstances that 

may arise on any particular 

piece of property, so we cannot 

make blanket promises about 

a particular land use activity. 

However, no private lands 

have been taken or condemned 

by any government agency 

to protect this species, and 

we have no intention of 

doing so. Our goal is to work 

cooperatively with private 

landowners to meet their needs 

and the needs of the bird. 

The following website provides 

identification tips. (http://www.

fws.gov/ivorybill/seenone.html) 

To report a sighting, visit http://

www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/

identifying 

Conservation Options

Private lands are vitally 

important to the future of 

endangered, threatened and 

other at-risk species in the 

United States. For example, 

approximately half of all 

Federally listed endangered 

species depend on private lands 

for 80 percent of their habitat 

needs (Clark and Downes, 

1995). Private lands, at the same 

time, are under tremendous 

pressures for development, and 

fragmentation of habitat is a 

major conservation issue. Local 

conservation groups as well 

as Federal and state agencies 

recognize that they cannot and 

should not rely solely on land 

acquisition for conservation. 

Many new incentives have 

been established for private 

landowners that desire to 

undertake actions to help improve 

conservation for imperiled 

species. 

There are two major points that 

all landowners should know:

1. As with any endangered 

species, there are obligations 

to avoid “take” which is 

defined in the Federal 

Endangered Species Act as 

follows: “....to harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, 

kill, trap, capture, or collect, 

or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct.” Frequently, 

existing land use activities can 

be continued with little or no 

change. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service is ready to work with 

landowners to help avoid “take” 

and to continue their current 

land use to the greatest extent 

practicable.

2. Because the rediscovery of 

this bird is so spectacular and 

such an exciting conservation 

opportunity, conservation 

groups will be very interested 

in assisting any private 

landowner who has an 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

regularly using their property. 

Federal, state and private 

conservationists will be anxious 

to work with these landowners 

to assure that conservation 

opportunities are implemented 

to protect the bird. The 

landowner may have a potential 

entrepreneurial enterprise 

providing viewing opportunities 

of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, 

with the requirement that the 

bird be fully protected. There 

are many direct assistance 

programs available to fund 

conservation activities, 

purchase easements, and 

provide other financial 

incentives for conservation to 

the landowner. Some of these 

are described below.

Federal Programs Available for 

Endangered Species Conservation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1. Landowner Incentive Program

The Landowner Incentive 

Program (LIP) program 

provides financial assistance to 

states and tribes to establish 

or implement programs 

that protect and restore 

habitat on privately-owned 

lands to benefit federally 

listed endangered and 

threatened species, proposed, 

candidate or other at-risk 

species. It is designed as 

a program whereby states 

can provide technical and 

financial assistance to private 

landowners who desire to 

undertake habitat management 

or restoration for federally 

listed endangered, threatened 

and other at-risk species. 

The Service administers 

this program; funds are 

competitively awarded to the 

states and tribes to establish 

a LIP program as well as for 

implementing an LIP program. 

State agencies with primary 

responsibility for fish and 

wildlife may submit proposals, 

although other agencies or 

organizations may partner with 

or serve as a sub-grantee of the 

fish and wildlife agency. The 

States must provide a minimum 

of 25 percent non-federal 

matching funds; applications 

that propose a higher matching 

amount will score better, since 

matching funds beyond the 

required amount is one of the 

ranking criteria. 

Arkansas received an LIP 

grant in FY 2005 to initiate 

an on-the-ground Landowner 

Incentive Program. Rare 

plants and animals (birds, 

fish, mammals, insects, and 

crustaceans) that are identified 

by each state include state 

and federally listed species, 

and other species with small 

and/or declining numbers in 

the state. These species may 

be prevented from becoming 

“listed” as endangered 

or threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act by 

timely habitat or population 

enhancement on private lands. 

It is expected that LIP funds 

will be used in conjunction 

with other conservation efforts 

such as Federal farm program 

conservation initiatives and 

non-governmental organization 

funding. 

This program helps to:

n Encourage private 

landowners to conserve and 

manage important habitat 
116

n Protect habitat through 

conservation easements 

n	 Prevent rare or declining 

species from being “listed”

 For more information: 

http://Federalasst.fws.gov/

lip/lip.htm

2. Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program

The Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife (Partners) Program, 

established in 1987, restores, 

improves, and protects fish 

and wildlife habitat on private 

lands through voluntary 

partnerships between the 

Service, other agencies and 

organizations, and private 

landowners, while leaving the 

land in private ownership. The 

Partners Program operates in 

every state and can assist with 

habitat projects in all habitat 

types where trust resources 

are involved. The Partners’ 

Program works with private 

landowners by providing 

technical and financial 

assistance with a flexible goal 

of achieving 50% of the total 

project costs from partners. 

Partners’ projects include those 

on private and non-Federal 

lands that conserve native 

vegetation, hydrology and 

soils associated with imperiled 

ecosystems such as bottomland 

forest wetlands, longleaf pine, 

native prairies, marshes, rivers 

and streams, or otherwise 

provide an important life 

requisite for a rare, declining 

or protected species. Typical 

projects include: planting 

of bottomland hardwood 

wetlands and other wetland 

restoration; site preparation 

and planting of longleaf pine 

and subsequent prescribed 

burning; fencing cattle out of 

streams; in-stream habitat 

re-establishment; planting of 

riparian vegetation; and many 

other projects that result in the 

restoration and enhancement 

of important fish and wildlife 

habitat. Interested landowners 

should contact their local Fish 

and Wildlife Service Ecological 

Service’s Office. Projects must 

benefit federally protected or 

candidate species, migratory 

birds, or other trust resources, 

such as wetlands and stream 

habitats. Applications are 

received continuously.

In Fiscal Year 2005 (from 

October 1, 2004 through 

September 30, 2005), 

approximately $2.3 million 

was available for habitat 

improvement projects in the 

Southeast Region. Detailed 

information can be found on the 

Internet Site at: http://www.

fws.gov/southeast/partners

3. Conservation Banks

Conservation banking is a 

relatively new practice that 

is becoming more attractive 

to private landowners and 

developers who are interested 

in protecting endangered and 

threatened species and their 

habitat to achieve a market 

enterprise. A conservation 

bank is basically a tract of land 

that the landowner has decided 

to protect for the benefit of a 

particular species; in return 

for protecting the land in 

perpetuity, the landowner 

achieves “credits” that can be 

sold to others who need to offset the environmental impacts 

of their development projects. 

However, conservation banks 

are not appropriate when the 

lands in question are already 

protected for conservation; 

conservation banks may 

also not be effective if they 

are small in size and neglect 

landscape-level planning. It 

is often quite costly to restore 

and protect conservation 

bank lands; and long-term 

management needs sometimes 

are difficult to address. On 

the other hand, a conservation 

bank provides needed or 

improved habitat for the 

species in question; it reduces 

risks for developers by 

providing regulatory avenues 

for mitigation; it can simplify 

Federal and State permitting, 

thus improving efficiency; and 

it can provide economic return 

for the owner of the bank. 

Conservation banking is a 

new tool that is appropriate in 

certain situations and can serve 

a valuable role in the recovery 

of endangered and threatened 

species. For more information 

about such an opportunity, 

discuss plans with the local 

Fish and Wildlife Service office.

4. North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act (NAWCA)

The North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act is a Federal 

grants program that funds 

partnership projects for 

wetland restoration, wetland 

management or acquisition for 

waterfowl throughout North 

America. There are two major 

types of NAWCA grants, 

standard grants ($50,000 - 

$1,000,000) and small grants 

(<$50,000), and the grant 

requests for proposals are 

generally open twice a year. 

Competition for these grants 

is keen; potential applicants 

are strongly encouraged to 

coordinate with the “Joint 

Venture” contact for their 

area (http://www.fws.gov/

birdhabitat/NAWCA/jvdir.

htm). Specific criteria apply, 

and a minimum of a 1:1 nonFederal to Federal match 

is required. The Service 

administers this program, 

but the North American 

Wetlands Conservation Council 

establishes the policies that 

govern the grant selection 

process. For more information 

visit: http://www.fws.gov/

birdhabitat/NAWCA/grants.

htm

5. Willing Seller Purchase of 

Easement or Fee Title

Should a landowner be 

interested in sale of his/

her property, two sources 

of Federal funding are 

available. The Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF) 

can be used to purchase land 

for addition to the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

Approximately one- quarter of 

Cache River NWR has been 

acquired using these funds. It 

is also possible to purchase 

easements with these funds 

although the cost of easements 

often approaches the value 
117

of purchase in fee title and is, 

therefore, infrequently used.

 The Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund (Duck 

Stamp Fund) has been used 

to purchase about 75 percent 

of Cache River NWR. Funds 

are generated through 

the purchase, primarily 

by waterfowl hunters, of 

the Federal Duck Stamp. 

Purchases made with these 

funds are generally focused on 

lands and waters of value to 

waterfowl. 

 Some landowners may not 

want to sell their land. In these 

instances it may be possible 

for private landowners to work 

with conservation organizations 

on easements or other ways 

to facilitate achievement of 

protecting or conserving Ivorybilled Woodpeckers and their 

habitat.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

A number of Department of 

Agriculture programs provide 

funding that can be used to 

improve wildlife habitat on 

private lands. The Conservation 

Reserve Program, Wetlands 

Reserve Program and 

Conservation Enhancement 

Program are all set-aside 

programs while other programs 

are designed to address on-theground habitat improvements. 

Short summaries are provided 

below, but for further information 

about each of these programs 

we urge private landowners 

to contact their local NRCS 

representative.

1. Conservation Reserve Program

 The Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP) 

is administered by the 

Commodity Credit Corporation 

working with the Department 

of Agriculture’s Farm Service 

Agency. This program is 

designed to provide costshare assistance and annual 

rental payments to private 

agricultural landowners who 

voluntarily wish to establish 

long-term cover on their lands. 

Criteria apply and the program 

focuses on enrolling croplands 

where soils are highly erodible, 

cropped wetlands, or on other 

lands with high environmental 

values (e.g., riparian corridors; 

wetland protection areas). 

Contracts may be for 10 – 15 

years. For more information, 

contact: http://www.fsa.usda.

gov/dafp/cepd/crp.htm

2. Wetlands Reserve Program

 The Wetlands Reserve 

Program (WRP) is a 

voluntary landowner program 

administered by the Natural 

Resources Conservation 

Service that offers financial 

and technical assistance to 

those interested in restoring, 

protecting and enhancing 

wetlands on their property that 

were converted to cropland 

or pasture prior to December 

23, 1985. Landowners restore 

the wetlands and may develop 

wildlife recreation on the 

lands. In return, NRCS may 

provide easement payments, 

cost-share financial assistance 

for wetland restoration, and 

technical assistance. Three 

types of agreements are 

available: 10 year restoration 

cost-share agreements, 30 year 

easements, and permanent 

easements. For more 

information, contact: http://

www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/

wrp/

3. Wildlife Habitat Incentives 

Program (WHIP)

 The Wildlife Habitat 

Incentive Program (WHIP) 

provides financial and 

technical assistance to private 

landowners who voluntarily 

desire to improve or restore 

their lands for fish and wildlife 

habitat. The program is 

administered by the Natural 

Resources Conservation 

Service’s district offices, 

and funding is provided 

by the Commodity Credit 

Corporation. The State 

Conservationist in each State 

seeks input from the State 

Technical Committee during 

the development of the State 

WHIP Plan. The ranking 

criteria for applications to this 

program are derived from the 

State WHIP Plan, and thus, 

the program works towards 

addressing State wildlife 

habitat priorities. Landowners 

may apply at any time to this 

program. The NRCS will work 

with the landowner to develop 

a wildlife habitat development 

plan, and this is used in the 

development of the cost-share 

agreement. Agreements 

typically run from 5 – 10 years. 

The NRCS reimburses up 

to 75 percent of the wildlife 

restoration costs, but costshare approval may not exceed 

$10,000 per contract. For more 

information: http://www.nrcs.

usda.gov/programs/whip/

4. NRCS Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program (EQIP)

 The Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program 

(EQIP), also administered 

by the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, and is 

designed to address a variety 

of conservation issues including 

air quality, water quality, soil 

health, and at-risk wildlife 

habitat. The EQIP program 

pays up to 75 percent of the 

project costs (more in some 

cases) and is competitive at 

the State level. Applications 

can be filed at any time; upon 

selection, NRCS will work with 

the landowner to develop the 

conservation practices. This 

program has funded important 

conservation projects such as 

fencing cattle out of streams, 

prescribed burning, wetland 

habitat restoration, and stream 

habitat improvement. For 

more information, contact: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

programs/equp/

5. Conservation Reserve 

Enhancement Program. 

 In 2001, the Department of 

Agriculture and Arkansas 

initiated a $10 million 

Conservation Reserve 

Enhancement Program 

(CREP) to benefit the Bayou 

Meto Watershed in five 

counties in central Arkansas, 

including Arkansas, Jefferson, 

Lonoke, Prairie and Pulaski 

Counties. Two of these 
118

counties are located within 

the Big Woods, Arkansas 

and Prairie. The CREP 

provides landowners with 

the option of removing land 

from agricultural production 

and planting trees or other 

vegetation to improve soil 

conditions, water quality and 

wildlife habitat. In return, 

the landowners receive 

rental payments and other 

financial incentives. The 

program is administered by 

the Farm Service Agency. For 

more information, contact: 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/

pas/publications/facts/html/

crepar01.htm

6. Healthy Forests Reserve 

Program

 The Healthy Forests Reserve 

Program was established 

to help restore forest 

ecosystems. Its focus is 

on restoring or enhancing 

habitat for endangered, 

threatened and rare species, 

increasing biodiversity in our 

nation’s forests, and serving 

as an incentive for carbon 

sequestration. The program is 

open to private landowners who 

voluntarily desire to implement 

conservation practices and 

place an easement on their 

forest lands. Easement options 

include 10 year agreements, 

30 year agreements, and 99 

year agreements. For more 

information, contact: http://

www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs

Private Incentives Available for 

Endangered Species Conservation

In addition to Federal and State 

programs, there are a number 

of private organizations that 

are engaged in conservation of 

endangered species, protection 

of biological diversity, and land 

protection efforts. These offer 

more alternatives for private 

landowners to consider. 

The Nature Conservancy 

Private lands conservation is an 

innovative tactic that leverages 

the increasing interest of the 

private sector to take part in 

conservation. The Conservancy 

works with landowners, 

communities, cooperatives and 

businesses to establish local 

groups that can protect land. 

Some of the main tools used to 

achieve these goals include land 

trusts, conservation easements, 

private reserves and incentives. 

In addition, a Private Lands 

Program was developed by The 

Nature Conservancy to use our 

experience in the United States 

in developing land conservation 

tools internationally.

Acquiring Land

In the United States, The 

Nature Conservancy uses land 

acquisition as a principal tool 

of its conservation effort. The 

Conservancy helps to protect 

approximately 15 million acres in 

the United States. Outside the 

U.S., the Conservancy does not 

generally acquire land for its own 

protection but instead works with 

local communities and national 

governments to encourage the 

protection of ecologically sensitive 

land.

Conservation Easements

Conservation easements are one 

of the most powerful, effective 

tools available for the permanent 

conservation of private lands. 

Their use has successfully 

protected millions of acres of land 

while keeping it in private hands 

and generating significant public 

benefits.

A conservation easement is a 

restriction placed on a piece of 

property to protect its associated 

resources. The easement is either 

voluntarily donated or sold by 

the landowner and constitutes 

a legally binding agreement 

that limits certain types of uses 

or prevents development from 

taking place on the land in 

perpetuity while the land remains 

in private hands. Conservation 

easements protect land for 

future generations while allowing 

owners to retain many private 

property rights and to live on and 

use their land, at the same time 

potentially providing them with 

tax benefits.

Conservation Buyer Projects 

In recent years, the Conservancy 

has begun working with private, 

conservation-minded individuals, 

or “conservation buyers,” 

interested in acquiring and 

protecting ecologically-valuable 

lands. Through this program, 

the Conservancy identifies and 

purchases target properties 

within priority conservation 

areas, or in zones that buffer 

and surround core natural 

areas. The Conservancy then 

widely and publicly markets 

the property, seeking a buyer 

committed to protecting the 

property’s important natural 

values and willing to ensure the 

land’s long-term conservation by 

placing a conservation easement 

on the land. The value of the land 

before and after the conservation 

easement restrictions is 

established by professional, 

independent appraisals. The 

Conservancy prohibits sales of 

conservation lands to any related 

parties.

National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation

The National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation (NFWF), a nonprofit tax-exempt organization, 

established by Congress in 1984 

to assist the Fish and Wildlife 

Service in the development of 

partnerships with others for the 

conservation of fish and wildlife 

and plants. The Foundation 

has worked with many different 

partners over the years, as 

demonstrated by the fact that it 

has awarded over 7,000 grants 

to 2,600 organizations and has 

leveraged over $300 million 

in Federal funds into more 

than $1 billion dollars worth of 

conservation projects (NFWF, 

2005).

The NFWF issues general 

requests for proposals 

three times per year and 

has numerous special grant 

opportunities, ranging from 

Refuge Friends Group 

opportunities to grants that 

enhance carbon sequestration 

efforts. They prefer on-theground conservation projects, 

and most grantees provide a 

2:1 (two private dollars to every 

Federal dollar) matching fund 

ratio. Project criteria depend on 

the type of grant one is seeking. 

The NFWF does not fund 

advocacy, litigation, shortfalls in 
119

government budgets, overhead 

and indirect costs, multi-year 

projects or research. They do, 

however, provide funding for 

land acquisition, conservation, 

restoration and creative new 

approaches that could serve to 

stimulate similar environmental 

projects in other areas. Their 

contribution to the conservation 

of fish and wildlife resources has 

been remarkable.

Contact Information

Private landowners are 

encouraged to explore the 

options in this paper and contact 

the organizations below if they 

desire more information or 

are interested in supporting 

conservation of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker or other fish and 

wildlife.

Regional Contacts

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Recovery Coordinator

Refuges and Wildlife 

Management

1875 Century Blvd, Suite 420

Atlanta, GA 30345

Phone: 404/679 4016

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Assistant Regional Director – 

Ecological Services

1875 Century Blvd, Suite 200

Atlanta, GA 30345

Phone: 404/679 7085

Arkansas

Arkansas Fish and Game 

Commission

Endangered and Threatened 

Species

2 Natural Resources Drive

Little Rock, AR 72205

Phone: 501/223 6300

Or 800/364 4263

http://www.agfc.com

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services Arkansas 

Field Office

110 South Amity Road, Suite 300

Conway, AR 72032

Phone: 501/513 4470

http://www.fws.gov/

arkansas%2Des/

Florida

Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission

620 South Meridian Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600

850/488 5460

http://myfwc.com

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services

Panama City Field Office

1601 Balboa Avenue

Panama City, FL 32405-3721

850/769 0552

Louisiana

Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries

2000 Quail Drive 

Baton Rouge, LA 70808

225/765 2800 

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services

Lafayette Field Office

646 Cajundome Boulevard

Suite 400

Lafayette, LA 70506

Phone: 337/291 3100

Mississippi

Mississippi Wildlife, Fish, and 

Parks

1505 Eastover Drive 

Jackson, MS 39211-6374

Phone: 601/432 2400

http://www.mdwfp.com

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services 

Jackson Field Office

6578 Dogwood View Parkway

Suite A

Jackson, MS 39213

601/321 1122

South Carolina

South Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources 

Rembert C. Dennis Building

1000 Assembly Street

Columbia, SC 29201

Phone: 803/734 3886

http://www.dnr.sc.gov

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services 

Charleston Field Office

176 Croghan Spur Road Suite 200

Charleston, SC 29407

843/727 4707

National Park Service

Congaree National Park 

100 National Park Road 

Hopkins, SC 29061 

803/776 4396, ext. 0 

http://www.nps.gov/cosw/

Non-Government Contacts:

The Nature Conservancy

South Central Division Office

601 N. University Avenue

Little Rock, AR 72205

Phone: 501/663 6699

National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation

1120 Connecticut Ave NW

Suite 900

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: 202/857 0166

Fax: 202/857 0162 
120

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. 

638pp.

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.
121

Randy Wilson, Kenny Ribbeck, 

Jeff Denman, Eric Johnson, and 

Martin Blaney with statistical 

assistance from Ken Reinecke

Introduction

In 1942 James Tanner provided 

the most comprehensive life 

history account of the Ivorybilled Woodpecker throughout 

its historical range and the only 

in-depth, ecological investigation 

conducted on a population 

of Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Tanner’s observations of the 

Singer Tract population led him 

to hypothesize that foraging 

habitat was the limiting factor of 

habitat occupancy and possibly 

of population growth. Tanner 

went on to describe foraging 

habitat as recently dead trees 

(<4 years) with 84% of the 

foraging observations occurring 

on trees 12-36 inches in diameter. 

Unfortunately, this is the only 

published work detailing habitat 

characteristics associated with 

the occupancy of Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker. 

Since Tanner’s publication, there 

have been numerous reports 

of Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

sightings across the southeast, 

but none have had the benefit 

of being confirmed by a series 

of “re-sightings” or by locating 

a “base-activity” site (i.e., roost 

or nest site). The confirmed 

rediscovery of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker in the Cache/

Lower White River basin of 

Arkansas has set in motion a 

series of conservation actions. 

Key among these activities is the 

continued search effort led by 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. As 

Cornell staff continue to search 

and document evidence (e.g., 

sightings and sound recordings), 

it is imperative that a concurrent 

habitat inventory and assessment 

be conducted to facilitate the 

search efforts, document existing 

habitat conditions, and to provide 

Appendix H. 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker Habitat Inventory and Assessment: 

Public Lands in the Big Woods of Arkansas

land managers with information 

to facilitate future management 

decisions.

To accomplish this habitat 

inventory, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service utilized existing 

infrastructure (e.g. Forest 

Resource Working Group) within 

the Lower Mississippi Valley 

Joint Venture partnership to 

design, implement, collect, and 

analyze habitat data within 

the Cache/Lower White River 

basin. By utilizing this existing 

partnership, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Arkansas 

Game and Fish Commission 

were able to lead a multiagency team representing 

staff from several NWRs and 

the Service’s Migratory Bird 

Program, the Arkansas Forestry 

Commission, Arkansas Game 

and Fish Commission, Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries, and the U.S. Geological 

Survey to complete the habitat 

inventory. 

Objectives

The purpose of this inventory 

was to quantify current habitat 

conditions on public lands within 

proximity to recent Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker sightings, audio 

recordings, and areas perceived 

likely to harbor Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker on the basis of local 

land manager knowledge. These 

data will be used to: (1) develop a 

spatially-explicit decision support 

model to facilitate search efforts; 

(2) provide ground-truth data to 

enhance accuracy of remotelysensed data; and (3) provide land 

managers with a basis for making 

future management decisions. 

Furthermore, it is hoped that 

these data will also facilitate and 

enhance our understanding of 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat 

relationships. 

Study Areas

The areas inventoried included 

public lands in proximity to 

previous sightings and audio 

recordings in the Big Woods 

area of eastern Arkansas; which 

included the Bayou DeView 

area of Cache River National 

Wildlife Refuge, Jacks Bay 

and Prairie Lake area of White 

River National Wildlife Refuge 

and portions of Dagmar WMA. 

In addition to these primary 

locations, additional areas 

perceived by local land managers 

well-acquainted with existing 

forest conditions to be “suitable” 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat 

were inventoried. These locations 

included other areas on White 

River and Cache River NWRs, 

Bayou Meto WMA, Wattensaw 

WMA, Rex Hancock/Black 

Swamp WMA, and Henry Gray/

Hurricane WMA.

Sampling Framework

This habitat inventory was 

conducted in bottomland 

hardwood forest (excluding 

reforestation and bodies of 

water; e.g., oxbow lakes) within 

the boundaries of the individual 

WMAs and NWRs previously 

identified. Within these public 

lands, the inventory focused 

primarily on areas with evidence 

of Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

existence (e.g., sightings and 

or auditory recordings): Bayou 

DeView area of Cache River 

NWR, Jack’s Bay and Prairie 

Lakes region of White River 

NWR, and a large portion 

Dagmar WMA. Additional 

areas were also assessed in a 

preemptive manner to facilitate 

search efforts to locate the 

bird(s).

Due to the large acreage 

of interest, the inventory 

was sample-based. That is, 

sampling effort was allocated 

and conducted in such a manner 

as to reduce the amount of 
122

time, manpower cost, and 

potential disturbance, all the 

while maintaining a level of 

statistical precision in the data. 

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 

where no additional precision 

can be obtained regardless of 

the number of samples taken. 

One means of assessing these 

trade-offs is to examine pilot 

data collected from the area of 

interest to generate summary 

statistics that provide insight into 

distributional properties of the 

data. In particular, the coefficient 

of variation (CV) is the population 

quantity on which sample size 

depends when one desires to 

control the relative precision 

of the data (Thompson 1992; 

Sampling. John Wiley and Sons 

Inc. 343pp).

To facilitate the determination 

of sample size requirements for 

conducting habitat inventories for 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (e.g., 

the density of large diameter 

trees [>24inches]; density of 

dead/dying trees), pilot data 

from White River NWR was 

subjected to sensitivity analyses 

to assess precision (i.e., stability 

of 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 (e.g., 

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.

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 

of 3; whereas sample sizes >6 

demonstrated little variation in 

the precision estimates (Fig. 2). 

Precision estimates calculated for 

sample sizes of 4 and 5 clusters 

were similar in the amount 

of variation expressed in the 

replicates and also produced 

acceptable levels of precision (i.e., 

none exceeded 15%).

Given the current funding 

constraints, availability of 

manpower, the large area of 

interest in the Big Woods of 

Arkansas (Cache River NWR, 

White River NWR, and Dagmar 

WMA) and the desire to maintain 

an acceptable level of precision 

(i.e., low CV values) in parameter 

estimates, a sample size of 4 

clusters per sampling unit (e.g., 

stand) appeared to be the best 

option. That is, sample sizes of 

3 clusters were not sufficient to 

produce a high level of precision 

consistently. However, sample 

sizes > 4 clusters produced 

precise parameter estimates with 

sample sizes > 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 clusters, given that 

both continuously produced 

acceptable levels of precision (e.g., 

CV 15%). A closer examination 

of CV values for these two sample 

sizes reveals nearly identical 

CV values produced during 

simulation analyses, suggesting 

that a sample size of four clusters 

is sufficient to maintain the 

desired level of precision in 

parameter estimates.

Allocation of Samples

From the sensitivity analyses 

of pilot data, it was determined 

that cluster sampling yielded 

equivalent or higher levels of 

precision in parameter estimates 

than a simple random sampling 

scheme. Thus, we allocated 

samples within a stand using 

cluster-sampling procedures. For 

example, plots were allocated 

using point-transects where 

each transect contains five, 

1/5th acre plots (52.7 ft radius) 

spaced four chains (264 ft) apart 

(Fig. 3) and each stand contains 

129

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 where no additional precision can be obtained regardless of the number of samples 

taken. One means of assessing these trade-offs is to examine pilot data collected from the 

area of interest to generate summary statistics that provide insight into distributional 

properties of the data. In particular, the coefficient of variation (CV) is the population 

quantity on which sample size depends when one desires to control the relative precision of 

the data (Thompson 1992; Sampling. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 343pp). 

To facilitate the determination of sample size requirements for conducting habitat inventories 

for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (e.g., the density of large diameter trees [>24inches]; density 

of dead/dying trees), pilot data from White River NWR was subjected to sensitivity analyses 

to assess precision (i.e., stability of 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 (e.g., 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 of 3; whereas sample sizes >6 demonstrated little variation in the 

precision estimates (Fig. 2). Precision estimates calculated for sample sizes of 4 and 5 

Figure 7. 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.
123

four randomly allocated pointtransects (Fig. 1B). Additionally, 

the use of cluster sampling 

reduced the amount of travel time 

required to move from point to 

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 criteria 

(as noted by local land managers) 

we collected data on a variety 

of forest metrics that address 

forest structure, composition, and 

health. Though our knowledge 

is limited in this area, we believe 

that these metrics provide 

both a quantitative estimate 

of parameters of interest, as 

well as additional qualitative 

estimates that would facilitate 

the characterization of Ivorybilled Woodpecker habitat. 

Furthermore, these data are also 

expected to provide additional 

benefits in terms of assessing 

habitat quality for other priority 

wildlife species (e.g., Swainson’s 

Warbler, black 

bears, etc.).

Figure H-2. Sensitivity analysis to assess implications of sample size 

(e.g., number of clusters) on the coefficient of variation for density 

of large trees (≥24inches dbh) based on pilot data from White River 

NWR.

Figure H-3. Schematic of a point-transect depicting a cluster of five, 

1/5th acre plots spaced four chains (264 ft) apart upon which habitat 

metrics were sampled

Table H-1. Location, number of forest stands and acreage inventoried 

in the Big Woods of Arkansas (through 2006).

* Represents total acreage within forest stands including bodies of 

water that were not inventoried.

130

clusters were similar in the amount of variation expressed in the replicates and also produced 

acceptable levels of precision (i.e., none exceeded 15%). 

Given the current funding constraints, availability of manpower, the large area of interest in 

the Big Woods of Arkansas (Cache River NWR, White River NWR, and Dagmar WMA) and 

the desire to maintain an acceptable level of precision (i.e., low CV values) in parameter 

estimates, a sample size of 4 clusters per sampling unit (e.g., stand) appeared to be the best 

option. That is, sample sizes of 3 clusters were not sufficient to produce a high level of 

precision consistently. However, sample sizes > 4 clusters produced precise parameter 

estimates with sample sizes > 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 

clusters, given that both continuously produced acceptable levels of precision (e.g., CV 

15%). A closer examination of CV values for these two sample sizes reveals nearly identical 

CV values produced during simulation analyses, suggesting that a sample size of four 

clusters is sufficient to maintain the desired level of precision in parameter estimates. 

Allocation of Samples 

From the sensitivity analyses of pilot data, it was determined that cluster sampling yielded 

equivalent or higher levels of precision in parameter estimates than a simple random 

sampling scheme. Thus, we allocated samples within a stand using cluster-sampling 

procedures. For example, plots were allocated using point-transects where each transect 

contains five, 1/5th acre plots (52.7 ft radius) spaced four chains (264 ft) apart (Fig. 3) and 

each stand contains four randomly allocated point-transects (Fig. 1B). Additionally, the use 

of cluster sampling reduced the amount of travel time required to move from point to point, 

thus increasing the overall cost efficiency of the inventory. 

Table 2. Sensitivity analysis to assess implications of sample size (e.g., number of clusters) 

on the coefficient of variation for density of large trees (≥24inches dbh) based on pilot data 

from White River NWR.

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 criteria (as 

noted by local land managers) we collected data on a variety of forest metrics that address 

forest structure, composition, and health. Though our knowledge is limited in this area, we 

believe that these metrics provide both a quantitative estimate of parameters of interest, as 

well as additional qualitative estimates that would facilitate the characterization of Ivorybilled Woodpecker habitat. Furthermore, these data are also expected to provide additional 

benefits in terms of assessing habitat quality for other priority wildlife species (e.g., 

Swainson’s Warbler, black bears, etc.). 

Summary of Results 

During the months of September and October in 2005, foresters and biologists spent greater 

th1200 hiti1200000 f ttil Ibilld 

Figure 8. Schematic of a point-transect depicting a cluster of five, 1/5th acre plots 

spaced four chains (264 ft) apart upon which habitat metrics were sampled.

Table 3. Location, number of forest stands and acreage inventoried in the Big Woods of 

Arkansas (through 2006). 

Location 

Number 

of 

Stands 

Total 

Acreage* 

Cache River NWR – Bayou DeView 43 27,515 

White River NWR – Jacks Bay/Prairie Lakes 241 152,260 

Dagmar WMA 14 7,532 

Rex Hancock/Black Swamp WMA 6 2,698 

Henry Gray/Hurricane Lake WMA 4 2,091 

Trusten Holder WMA 6 2,862 

Wattensaw WMA 3 843 

Bayou Meto WMA 10 5,244 

Total 327 201,045 

* Represents total acreage within forest stands including bodies of water that were not 

inventoried. 
124

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 

logs

1/5th Acre Dead or down wood: 5’ increment. Cruiser 

option: 1 – 4.5 in half-log increments if 

sawlog, 5’ increment for pulpwood.

Required for dead wood. 

Cruiser option on # of logs.

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:

Epicormic Branching

1/5th Acre 1 = Little to None (<20% of bole)

2 = Moderate (20% - 50% of bole)

3 = Heavy (≥ 50% of bole)

Bole is portion of tree beneath 

the crown.

Stress Factor: Bark 

Disfiguration: Ex: 

bleeds, tannin stains; 

bug holes; frass, 

conks 

1/5th Acre 1 = Little to None (<20% of bole)

2 = Moderate (20% - 50% of bole)

3 = Heavy (≥ 50% of bole)

Ex: Red Oak w/ blocky bark; 

Ash w/ smooth bark; Rot; Bare 

wood from beaver, skinning, 

etc.

Overstory Canopy 

Cover

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])

2 = Moderate (25-50% [2 of 4 trees])

3 = Heavy (>50% [3 of 4 overstory trees])

# of dominant or co-dominant 

trees with vines on the bole &/

or canopy

Cane Visible Range 1 = None

2 = Sparse (1% - 25% area coverage)

3 = Heavy (> 25% area coverage)

Station Option

Intolerant 

Regeneration

Visible Range Alpha Code for Tree Species; Appendix 4 Sufficient presence to occur if 

released

Potential IBW Cavity Incidentally 

on Unlimited 

Area

A = very large irregular oval or rectangle, 

4.5” x 5.5”. Record tree species, DBH, 

height to cavity, face (north, west, etc.) 

and GPS coordinates (UTM, NAD 83).

Cavity size follows Cornell Lab 

of Ornithology.

Potential IBW Bark 

Scaling

Incidentally 

on Unlimited 

Area

Extreme horizontal gouges of tight bark. 

Record tree species, DBH, height to 

cavity, face (north, west, etc.) and GPS 

coordinates (UTM, NAD 83).

IBW sighting or 

hearing of kent calls 

or double knocks

Incidentally 

on Unlimited 

Area

Record GPS coordinates UTM, NAD 83. 

Also direction and estimated distance 

to sighting or sound. ASAP contact 

inventory coordinator
125

Summary of Results

During the months of September 

and October in 2005, foresters 

and biologists spent greater than 

1,200 man-hours inventorying 

over 1200,000 acres of potential 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat 

(Table 1). Data gathered 

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 H-4. Preliminary analysis of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat inventory data (i.e. density of trees 

≥24inch dbh), Cache River NWR and Dagmar WMA, September-October 2005.

the remaining portion of White 

River NWR, additional acreage 

on Cache River NWR, Dagmar 

WMA and other parcels of public 

land in proximity to Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker sightings and/

or sound recordings will be 

inventoried.

135

Figure 9. Preliminary analysis of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat inventory data (i.e. density of 

trees ≥24inch dbh), Cache River NWR and Dagmar WMA, September-October 2005.

Dagmar WMA

Cache River NWR

Bayou DeView 
126

Figure H-5. Preliminary analysis of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat inventory data (i.e. density of trees 

≥24inch dbh), White River NWR, September-October 2005.

Figure 10. Preliminary analysis of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat 

inventory data (i.e. density of trees ≥24inch dbh), White River NWR, 

September-October 2005.

Jack’s Bay 

Prairie Lakes

White River NWR
127

The Forest Products Industry 

The forest products industry 

consists of companies and 

individuals that operate primary 

wood-using facilities and/

or manage forests they own 

or control primarily for wood 

products (Society of American 

Foresters, 1998). In the United 

States, the forest products 

industry directly employs about 

1.7 million people in wood and 

paper production, or about 1.1% 

of the U.S. workforce (American 

Forest and Paper Association 

and Clemson University, 2001). 

For every job that is directly 

forest-related, another two 

jobs are related indirectly (e.g., 

transportation, distribution, 

sales); thus, about 5.7 million jobs 

in the U.S. are linked to the forest 

products industry. This industry 

can be vital to rural economies 

such as Mississippi where 8.5% of 

all jobs in the state are forestryrelated, and during 2006 forestry 

contributed 17.4 billion dollars to 

the Mississippi economy.

(http://www.msforestry.net/pdf/

forestryfactsflyer.pdf). 

The considerable complexity of 

the industry is due to the variable 

size, character, and objectives 

of its constituent companies, 

including ownership (individuals/

families or stockholders) and 

source of wood supply (extent to 

which timber is purchased from 

public or non-industrial private 

forests). Companies that require 

wood for solid products often 

recommend or manage using 

uneven-aged systems or evenaged systems with rotations of 30 

years or more, using thinnings to 

remove wood for paper products 

as part of the silvicultural system 

to achieve larger, higher quality 

trees. Companies that primarily 

require wood for paper products 

generally favor even-aged 

systems with short rotations 

(<20 years in the southern 

Appendix I. 

Habitat Conditions across the Historical Range 

of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker

U.S.). Because of variability in 

management approaches and 

resulting forest structure, sitespecific conditions and habitat 

opportunities for conservation 

of Ivory-billed Woodpecker will 

differ among companies.

Over the last several decades, 

ownership of industry land has 

become even more complex, as 

many forest products companies 

have sold lands to organizations 

that manage timberlands on 

behalf of institutional (e.g., 

pension funds, foundations, 

endowments) and other types 

of investors. Known as timber 

investment management 

organizations (TIMOs) or real 

estate investment trusts (REITs) 

(Ravenel et al. 2002, Stanturf et 

al. 2003), some of these ventures 

seek to optimize economic return 

within a much shorter time frame 

(e.g., 10–15 years) than forest 

products companies and may 

include non-timber objectives, 

such as real estate sales, as a 

primary motivation. Thus, a 

growing number of companies no 

longer own forest lands. Rather 

they purchase wood from nonindustrial private landowners 

(NIPFLOs), REITs, TIMOs, and 

others. 

In the United States, over 57% 

of forests are privately owned 

with about 26.9 million ha of land 

owned by the forest industry, 

comprising about 9% of total 

forest ownership (Smith et al. 

2003). About 88.0% of forest land 

in the South is privately owned 

(71.3% owned by NIPFLOs, 

16.7% owned by industry). Most 

industry ownership (14.5 million 

ha) is in the USDA Forest 

Service’s Southern region where 

industry owns about 3 times 

the area of national forests and 

almost 1.5 times that in all public 

ownerships (Smith et al. 2003). In 

2001, the South supplied 58.0% 

of America’s total roundwood 

production (Smith et al. 2003). 

That year, industrial forests 

provided 29% of the Nation’s 

timber harvest and private 

forests in total provided 92% 

(Smith et al. 2003). Therefore, 

the current trend is for increasing 

wood production from private 

lands in the southern U.S. (Wear 

and Greis 2002). 

Existing Habitat Conditions 

for Ivory-billed Woodpecker

To characterize the area and 

structural characteristics of 

forests on private lands and all 

ownerships that potentially could 

support Ivory-billed Woodpecker, 

we summarized USDA Forest 

Service Forest Inventory and 

Analysis data for counties listed 

in Table 1. Because forest 

products companies harvest wood 

on lands they own and purchase 

wood from non-industrial private 

landowners, the characteristics 

of all private ownerships is 

particularly relevant to Ivorybilled Woodpecker recovery. In 

all listed counties, we totaled 

the acres of forestland and 

timberland, number of live trees, 

and volume of live trees (ft3) by 

state and ownership for selected 

forest types and physiographic 

classes (Tables 2 and 3). For 

counties in Arkansas, Louisiana, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, 

and Texas, we also totaled volume 

(ft3) of annual net growth, 

mortality, and removals. Growth, 

mortality, and removals are 

available only in these five states. 

Original sources of data are 

described in Table 4. 

In counties for which FIA 

data were available, there are 

more than 20.1 million acres of 

forestland and 19.8 million acres 

of timberland in the forest types 

and physiographic classes of 

interest (Table 5). Approximately 

88.6% of all forestland is privately 

owned. Similarly, 89.9% of all 

timberland is privately owned, 
128

including 93.7% of pine types and 

84.3% of hardwood types. Public 

and private timberlands differ in 

species composition. Of the 17.8 

million acres of privately owned 

timberland in the counties, 37.6% 

is in hardwood forest types and 

62.4% is in pine types. Of the 2.0 

million acres in public timberland, 

62.6% is in hardwood types and 

37.4% is in pine types.

The area of privately owned pine 

timberland is approximately 

equivalent in small-, medium-, 

and large-diameter size classes 

(35.4, 32.1, and 32.4% of 

private pine timberland area, 

respectively) (Table 5). Area of 

private hardwood timberland, 

however, is predominantly in 

the large-diameter size class 

(60.2% of private hardwood 

timberland area) with much 

less area in medium- (23.4%) 

and small-diameter (16.4%) 

size classes. Public timberland 

area is predominantly in largediameter-class forests for pine 

and hardwood types (60.7% 

and 81.6% of publicly owned 

pine and hardwood timberland, 

respectively).

In counties of interest, there are 

approximately 11.4 billion live 

stems on private timberland and 

1.0 billion on public lands (Table 

5). On private timberland, pine 

stems are most numerous in the 

medium-diameter class (40.0% of 

all pine stems) and less abundant 

in the small- (31.2%) and largediameter classes (28.8%). 

Hardwood stems on private 

timberland are most numerous in 

the large-diameter class (50.0% of 

all pine stems) and less abundant 

in the medium- (29.1%) and smalldiameter (20.9%) classes. On 

public timberland, number of live 

stems is similar in the mediumdiameter class for pine and 

hardwood timberland (22.8% and 

21.1% of all pine and hardwood 

stems, respectively). However, 

hardwood timberland on public 

lands has fewer small-diameter 

stems than pine timberland (4.4% 

for hardwood as over against 

31.2% for pine) and more stems 

in the large-diameter class (74.5% 

for hardwood versus 46.0% for 

pine). 

Volume of live trees is 

approximately 27.4 billion ft3 on 

private timberland and 4.9 billion 

ft3 on public timberland (Table 

5). On private timberland, this 

volume is split almost equally 

between pine and hardwood 

types (49.6% of total volume in 

pine versus 50.4% in hardwood). 

On public timberland, however, 

volume is predominantly in 

hardwood forest types (3.5 billion 

ft3 for hardwood forests versus 

1.4 billion ft3 for pine). On private 

timberland, most volume is in the 

large-diameter size class for both 

pine and hardwood types (61.1% 

for pine and 80.5% for hardwood), 

with 33.2% and 16.4% of total 

pine and hardwood volumes, 

respectively, in the mediumdiameter class. Volume on public 

lands also is predominantly in 

the large-diameter class for both 

forest types (80.3% for pine and 

93.2% for hardwood).

Net growth in hardwoods and 

pines on private timberland was 

primarily in the large-diameter 

class (Table 6); this was most 

especially true for hardwoods. 

For hardwoods on private 

timberland, 71.9% of total volume 

growth was in the large-diameter 

class, 19.9% was in the mediumdiameter class, and only 8.1% was 

in the small-diameter class. For 

pines, however, 46.8% of total 

volume growth was in the largediameter class, 37.5% was in 

the medium-diameter class, and 

15.8% was in the small-diameter 

class. On public lands, net growth 

was predominantly in the largediameter class for both pine and 

hardwood types (76.7% and 87.6% 

of total net growth, respectively).

Most mortality for both pines 

and hardwood types was in the 

large-diameter class for both 

private (71.8% and 74.5% of total 

mortality, respectively) and public 

timberland (76.8% and 95.9%, 

respectively; Table 6). Total 

mortality of hardwoods on private 

timberland was approximately 

2.3 times that for pines, while 

for public lands mortality on 

hardwoods was 3.7 times as great 

in hardwood types than in pine 

types. For large-diameter pines, 

mortality was approximately 0.5% 

and 0.6% of live tree volume in 

that diameter class on private on 

public timberlands, respectively. 

Mortality of large-diameter 

pines was 13.9% of net growth 

in that diameter class on private 

timberland and 19.0% on public 

timberland. For large-diameter 

hardwoods, mortality was 

approximately 0.9% of live tree 

volume on both private and public 

timberlands. Mortality of largediameter hardwoods was 50.3% 

of net growth in that size class on 

private timberland and 57.2% on 

public timberland. 

For hardwood forests on private 

timberlands, removals were 

similar in the small- (44.2%) 

and large-diameter (39.0%) 

classes and least in the mediumdiameter class (16.8%; Table 6). 

In contrast, almost all removals 

(99.4%) on public timberland 

were in the large-diameter class. 

Removals for pines on private 

lands were mostly in the smalldiameter class (65.7%), but on 

public lands were mostly in the 

large-diameter class (66.9%). On 

private timberland, volume of 

large-diameter stems removed 

was 1.7 times greater for pines 

than hardwood. On public 

timberland, however, the trend 

was reversed with total volume 

removed 2.3 times greater for 

hardwoods than for pines. For 

large-diameter pines, removals 

were approximately 1.7% and 

1.3% of live tree volume in that 

diameter class on private on 

public timberlands, respectively. 

Removals of large-diameter 

pines were 47.0% of net growth 

in that diameter class on private 

timberland and 45.0% on public 

timberland. For large-diameter 

hardwoods, removals were 

approximately 0.8% of live tree 

volume on private timberlands 

and 1.0% on public timberland. 

Removals of large-diameter 

hardwoods was 42.2% of net 

growth in that size class on 

private timberland and 66.4% on 

public timberland.

Forest characteristics on private 

and public ownerships are 

described by state in Tables 7 

through 13.
129

Potential Contributions 

of the Industry to Recovery

The Endangered Species Act does 

not require private landowners 

to contribute to recovery of listed 

species. Nevertheless, several 

capacities of the forest products 

industry could potentially be 

brought to bear upon issues 

surrounding recovery of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker. For 

example, the forest products 

industry often purchases wood 

from NIPFLOs, and interacts 

with them through landowner 

assistance programs and other 

avenues. Personnel who work 

for land-owning forest products 

companies commonly interact 

with adjoining landowners and 

others interested in the landscape 

where their lands are located. 

These contacts offer many 

opportunities to communicate 

about silvicultural practices, 

conservation of rare species such 

as Ivory-billed Woodpecker, and 

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.

Literature Cited

American Forest and Paper Association and Clemson University. 

2001. U.S. forests facts & figures, 2001. American Forest and Paper 

Association, Washington, DC. http://www.afandpa.org/Content/

NavigationMenu/Forestry/Forestry_Facts_and_Figures/Forestry_

Facts_and_Figures.htm

Ravenel, R., M. Tyrrell, and R. Mendelsohn. 2002. Institutional 

timberland investment: A summary of a forum exploring changing 

ownership patterns and the implications for conservation of 

environmental values. Global Institute of Sustainable Forestry, School 

of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University. New Haven, 

Connecticut. YFF Review 5(2).

Smith, W. B., P. D. Miles, J. S. Vissage, and S. A. Pugh. 2004. Forest 

resources of the United States, 2002. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report NC-241. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, North Central Research Station.

Society of American Foresters. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry 

(Helms, J. A., ed.). Bethesda, Maryland. 210pp.

Stanturf, J. A., R. C. Kellison, F. S. Broerman, and S. B. Jones. 2003. 

Productivity of southern pine plantations: Where are we and how did 

we get here? Journal of Forestry 101(3):26-31.

Wear, D. N., and J. G. Greis. 2002. Southern forest resource 

assessment: summary report. USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report SRS-54.
130

The following Data Tables reflect analysis completed in 2005.

Table I-1. Counties included in analysis of USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis data.

142

The following Data Tables reflect analysis completed in 2005. 

Table 5. Counties included in analysis of USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and 

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 

Carolina 

Brunswick, Columbus, Robeson 

Oklahoma McCurtain 

South 

Carolina 

Aiken, Allendale, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley, Calhoun, Charleston, 

Chesterfield, Clarendon, Darlington, Dillon, Florence, Georgetown, 

Hampton, Horry, Jasper, Kershaw, Marion, Marlboro, Richland, Sumter, 

Williamsburg 

Texas Angelina, Bowie, Chambers, Hardin, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Newton, 

Orange, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler 
131

Table I-2. USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis physiographic tree species/species group 

codes used as a filter in the analysis.

143

Table 6. USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and 

Analysis physiographic tree species/species group codes 

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 
132

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.

144

Table 7. 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.

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 

plains/Bottomlands 

Flood plains and bottomlands less than 1/4-mile 

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 1⁄4 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 1⁄4 mile 

limit. Excludes swamps, sloughs, and bogs with 

year-round water problems within the 1⁄4 mile 

limit. 

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 
133

Table I-4. Sources of USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis data used for this analysis.

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.

145

Table 8. Sources of USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis data 

used for this analysis.

State Data source

GMR1

Availability

Alabama 2003 Annual

Arkansas 2004 Annual Y

Florida 1995 Periodic

Georgia 2003 Annual

Louisiana 2003 Annual Y

Mississippi 1994 Periodic

North Carolina 2002 Periodic Y

Oklahoma 1993 Periodic

South Carolina 2001 Annual Y

Texas 2003 Annual Y

1

Availability of data for growth, mortality, and removals. Y = 

Yes, data are available for the state.

Table 9. 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.

Public Ownerships Private Ownerships

Variable Size 

Class

Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total

Acres 

Forestland

Small 132,829 70,390 203,219 3,941,352 1,107,110 5,048,462

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

Total 854,843 1,448,090 2,302,933 11,136,973 6,730,351 17,867,324

Acres 

Timberland

Small 130,683 43,155 173,838 3,941,352 1,101,864 5,043,216

Medium 164,085 188,226 352,311 3,575,509 1,571,284 5,146,793

Large 456,024 1,023,795 1,479,819 3,607,623 4,043,138 7,650,761

Total 750,792 1,255,176 2,005,968 11,124,484 6,716,286 17,840,770

No. Live 

Trees 

Small 134,813,748 26,288,801 161,102,549 2,370,055,051 793,248,878 3,163,303,929

Medium 98,408,012 124,450,893 222,858,905 3,037,017,159 1,107,150,711 4,144,167,870

Large 198,534,365 440,419,011 638,953,376 2,190,384,501 1,902,966,598 4,093,351,099

Total 431,756,125 591,158,705 1,022,914,830 7,597,456,711 3,803,366,187 11,400,822,898

Vol. Live 

Trees (ft3

) 

Small 52,075,981 12,638,815 64,714,796 770,413,505 427,383,743 1,197,797,248

Medium 229,375,572 223,401,122 452,776,694 4,508,677,562 2,262,286,839 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

145

Table 8. Sources of USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis data 

used for this analysis.

State Data source 

GMR1

Availability 

Alabama 2003 Annual 

Arkansas 2004 Annual Y 

Florida 1995 Periodic 

Georgia 2003 Annual 

Louisiana 2003 Annual Y 

Mississippi 1994 Periodic 

North Carolina 2002 Periodic Y 

Oklahoma 1993 Periodic 

South Carolina 2001 Annual Y 

Texas 2003 Annual Y 

1

Availability of data for growth, mortality, and removals. Y = 

Yes, data are available for the state. 

Table 9. 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.

Public Ownerships Private Ownerships

Variable Size 

Class

Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total

Acres 

Forestland

Small 132,829 70,390 203,219 3,941,352 1,107,110 5,048,462

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

Total 854,843 1,448,090 2,302,933 11,136,973 6,730,351 17,867,324

Acres 

Timberland

Small 130,683 43,155 173,838 3,941,352 1,101,864 5,043,216

Medium 164,085 188,226 352,311 3,575,509 1,571,284 5,146,793

Large 456,024 1,023,795 1,479,819 3,607,623 4,043,138 7,650,761

Total 750,792 1,255,176 2,005,968 11,124,484 6,716,286 17,840,770

No. Live 

Trees 

Small 134,813,748 26,288,801 161,102,549 2,370,055,051 793,248,878 3,163,303,929

Medium 98,408,012 124,450,893 222,858,905 3,037,017,159 1,107,150,711 4,144,167,870

Large 198,534,365 440,419,011 638,953,376 2,190,384,501 1,902,966,598 4,093,351,099

Total 431,756,125 591,158,705 1,022,914,830 7,597,456,711 3,803,366,187 11,400,822,898

Vol. Live 

Trees (ft3)

Small 52,075,981 12,638,815 64,714,796 770,413,505 427,383,743 1,197,797,248

Medium 229,375,572 223,401,122 452,776,694 4,508,677,562 2,262,286,839 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
134

Table I-6. Net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and Texas.

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 

Class 

Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total 

Acres 

Forestland 

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 

Timberland 

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 

Trees 

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 

Trees (ft3) 

Small 0 190,576 190,576 34,220,929 44,199,332 78,420,261 

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 1. Net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and 

Texas.

Public Ownerships Private Ownerships

Variable Size 

Class

Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total

Net 

growth 

(ft3

) 

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 

(ft3

) 

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 

(ft3

) 

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
135

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).

146

Table 10. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class 

in Arkansas (2004 Annual Survey).

All Ownerships Private Ownerships

Variable Size 

Class

Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total

Acres 

Forestland

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 

Timberland

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 

Trees 

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 

Trees (ft3

) 

Small 0 2,654,730 2,654,730 200,509,772 39,734,505 240,244,277

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 

(ft3

) 

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 

(ft3

) 

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
136

Table I-9. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Georgia 

(2003 Annual Survey).

147

Table 11. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Georgia (2003 Annual 

Survey).

Public Ownerships Private Ownerships

Variable Size 

Class

Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total

Acres 

Forestland

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 

Timberland

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 

Trees 

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 

Trees (ft3

) 

Small 5,141,872 0 5,141,872 149,468,857 45,573,377 195,042,234

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 

Class

Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total
137

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).

147

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 

Class

Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total

148

Acres 

Forestland

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 

Timberland

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

Trees 

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 

Trees (ft3

) 

Small 1,811,628 6,479,326 8,290,954 23,620,772 61,651,843 85,272,615

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 

(ft3

) 

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 

(ft3

) 

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 

(ft3

) 

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 

Class

Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total

Acres 

Forestland

Small 0 0 0 269,026 56,364 325,390
138

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).

148

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 

Class

Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total

Acres 

Forestland

Small 0 0 0 269,026 56,364 325,390

149

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 3,924 10,887 538,698 124,053 662,751

Acres 

Timberland

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 

Trees 

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 

Trees (ft3

) 

Small 0 0 0 101,667,967 70,790,979 172,458,946

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 

(ft3

) 

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 

(ft3

) 

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 

(ft3

) 

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 

Class

Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total

Acres 

Forestland

Small 93,814 5,002 98,816 808,575 247,489 1,056,064
139

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).

149

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 

Class

Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total

Acres 

Forestland

Small 93,814 5,002 98,816 808,575 247,489 1,056,064

150

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 367,774 146,700 514,474 2,201,907 1,007,091 3,208,998

Acres 

Timberland

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 

Trees 

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 

Trees (ft3

) 

Small 45,122,481 3,314,183 48,436,664 205,018,866 140,258,565 345,277,431

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 

(ft3

) 

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 

(ft3

) 

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 

(ft

3

) 

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 

Class

Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total

Acres 

Forestland

Small 0 5,160 5,160 442,141 94,335 536,476
140

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). Table 1. 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 

Class

Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total

Acres 

Forestlan

d 

Small 0 5,160 5,160 442,141 94,335 536,476

Mediu

m 

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 

Timberla

nd

Small 0 0 0 442,141 94,335 536,476

Mediu

m 

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 

Trees 

Small 0 0 0 278,668,219 91,707,645 370,375,864

Mediu

m 

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

27

Vol. Live 

Trees (ft3

) 

Small 0 0 0 55,906,342 25,175,142 81,081,484

Mediu

m 

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

39

Total 192,220,344 44,217,961 236,438,305 1,381,599,04

1 

997,851,628 2,379,450,6

69

Net 

growth 

(ft3

) 

Small 0 0 0 14,399,806 2,127,980 16,527,786

Mediu

m 

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 

(ft3

) 

Small 0 0 0 1,122,059 466,825 1,588,884

Mediu

m 

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
141

Glossary

Annual mortality - The average 

annual volume of sound wood in 

growing-stock trees that died 

from natural causes during the 

period between inventories.

Annual removals - The net 

volume of growing-stock 

trees removed from the 

inventory during a specified 

year by harvesting, cultural 

operations such as timber stand 

improvement, or land clearing.

Annual growth - Net annual 

sound cubic-foot growth of a 

live tree on timberland. The net 

change in cubic-foot volume per 

year of this tree (for remeasured 

plots (V2-V1)/(t2-t1)). Because 

this value is net growth, it may 

be a negative number. Negative 

growth values are usually due 

to mortality (V2=0) but can also 

occur on live trees that have a net 

loss in volume because of damage, 

rot, or other causes. 

Physiographic class - The 

general effect of land form, 

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.

Note: Size class code, which is 

derived by an algorithm, is a 

classification of the predominant 

(based on stocking) diameter class 

of live trees within the condition. 

Size class is assessed at the 

plot condition level, not the tree 

level. Large diameter trees are 

at least 11.0 inches diameter for 

hardwoods and at least 9.0 inches 

diameter for softwoods. Medium 

diameter trees are at least 5.0 

inches diameter but not as large 

as large diameter trees. Small 

diameter trees are less than 5.0 

inches diameter.

Timberland - Forest land that 

is producing or is capable of 

producing crops of industrial 

wood and not withdrawn 

from timber use by statute or 

administrative regulation. 

Note: Areas qualifying as 

timberland are capable of 

producing in excess of 20 

cubic feet per acre per year of 

industrial wood in natural stands. 

Currently inaccessible and 

inoperable areas are included.
142
143

Appendix J. 

Species Names and Acronyms Used in the Recovery Plan.

Plants

American Elm (Ulmus americana)

Ash (Fraxinus spp.)

Baldcypress (Taxodium spp.)

Bitter Pecan (Carya aquatica)

Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii)

Cotton (Gossypium spp.)

Diamond Leaf Oak (Quercus 

laurifolia)

Elm (Ulmus spp.)

Green Ash (Fraxinus 

pennsylvanicus)

Hackberry (Celtis spp.)

Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda)

Locust (Gleditsia spp.)

Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris)

Nuttall Oak (Quercus nuttalli)

Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata)

Pecan (Carya illinoinensis)

Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) 

Pine (Pinus spp.)

Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) 

Post Oak (Quercus stellata)

Red Maple (Acer rubrum)

Red Oak (Quercus rubra)

Scarlet Oak (Quercus coccinea)

Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)

Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa biflora)

Swamp-privet (Forestiera spp.)

Sweetgum (Liquidambar 

styraciflua)

Tupelo (Nyssa spp.)

Tupelo Gum (Nyssa aquatica)

Water Elm (Planera aquatica)

Water Hickory (Carya 

myristiciformis)

Water Oak (Quercus nigra)

White Oak (Quercus alba)

Wild Grape (Vitis spp.)

Willow Oak (Quercus phellos)

Animals

Barred Owl (Strix varia) 

Beaver (Castor canadensis)

Black Woodpecker (Dryocopus 

martius)

Great Horned Owl 

(Bubo virginianus) 

Great Slaty Woodpecker 

(Mulleripicus pulverulentus 

mohun)

Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

(Campephilus principalis)

Megallanic Woodpecker 

(Campephilus magellanicus)

Pileated Woodpecker 

(Dryocopus pileatus)

Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 

Rat Snake (Elaphe spp.)

Red-shouldered Hawk 

(Buteo lineatus)

Squirrel (Sciuridae family)

List of Acronyms

ANHC 

Arkansas Natural Heritage 

Commission

ASTER 

Advanced Spaceborne 

Thermal Emission and 

Reflection Radiometer

CFI 

Continuous Forest Inventory

DBH 

Diameter at Breast Height

ESA 

Endangered Species Act 

FIA 

Forest Inventory and Analysis

FRWG 

Forest Resource Working Group

GIS 

Geographic Information System

HGM 

Hydro Geomorphic 

IBWO 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker

LDWF 

Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

LIDAR 

Light Detection and Ranging

LMAV 

Lower Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley

LMVJV 

Lower Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley Joint Venture

MAV

Mississippi Alluvial Valley

NASA 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

NLCD 

National Land Cover Data

NWR 

National Wildlife Refuge

SAF 

Society of American Foresters

SURRGO 

Soil Survey Geographic

TNC 

The Nature Conservancy

USDA 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS 

U.S. Geological Survey

WMA 

WMA
144
145

Appendix K. 

Service Response to Public Comments on the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Plan

Comment 1 

[Opposition to plan and recovery 

efforts] Approximately 56 

comments (including one letter 

with 70 signatories) did not 

support the draft recovery plan 

development or implementation 

of recovery efforts because: (1) 

they believed the evidence for 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s 

existence wasn’t strong enough 

to justify those activities; (2) the 

estimated costs for those tasks 

($27 million) was too high or 

could be better spent on other 

species; and/or (3) the Ivorybilled Woodpecker’s decline is 

part of the natural selection 

process. Some commenters 

provided specific information and 

references that dispute or provide 

alternative explanations for 

recent Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

evidence. Two commenters stated 

ancillary benefits received by 

other species during the Ivorybilled Woodpecker recovery effort 

were not sufficient justification 

for using poor evidence for Ivorybilled Woodpecker persistence.

Response 1 

Although the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker has been listed as 

an endangered species since 

1967, no recovery plan was 

ever prepared for the species. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service 

reconsidered the need for a 

plan in 2005 when information 

was released suggesting the 

presence of at least one bird 

in the Bayou DeView area of 

Cache River National Wildlife 

Refuge. Observers reported 

multiple sightings and recorded 

audio and video of what was 

interpreted to be an Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker. This evidence is not 

universally accepted. While there 

continues to be disagreement as 

to the validity of this and other 

reports, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service has received sufficient 

information to warrant additional 

searches and preparation of a 

recovery plan. Dispute over 

the potential cost reflects both 

philosophical and fiscal concerns. 

The estimated costs include all 

funds, including non-federal and 

non-governmental, that could 

be considered for expenditure 

to assist with recovering the 

species. It is not a request for, 

or commitment of, funding. This 

estimate is no longer in the 

recovery plan, it is replaced with 

actual expenditures found in 

Appendix C. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service 

accepted the initial evidence of 

the presence of one bird in the 

Cache River National Wildlife 

Refuge and on the basis of all 

available information believes 

that it is prudent to plan for the 

recovery of the species as part 

of our responsibilities under the 

ESA. Additionally, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, in response to 

the potential that the species may 

exist in isolated locations in its 

former range, initiated regionwide search efforts with state and 

non-government partners. Initial 

searches and actions, as well as 

any others deemed necessary in 

the future, are consistent with our 

interpretations of the evidence, 

our responsibilities under the 

ESA, and the urgency of the 

situation. See Appendix B of 

the final version of the plan for a 

discussion of recent Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker evidence.

Comment 2 

[Discussion of controversy] 

Approximately 10 commenters 

felt that the recovery plan did 

not provide a balanced discussion 

of the controversy among 

ornithologists and the scientific 

community regarding the 

evidence supporting the Ivorybill’s existence. 

Response 2 

Additional discussion of the 

controversy has been added to the 

Recovery Plan in Appendix B. 

Comment 3 

[Support for plan and recovery 

efforts] Approximately 40 

commenters supported the search 

effort and/or recovery plan but 

provided little, if any, comments 

to the plan itself. One comment 

from an organization stated that 

we should increase the funding 

for Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

search and recovery efforts. 

Some simply reported their own 

sightings or other evidence of 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers while 

others hypothesized ways the 

bird could still persist and why it 

may be difficult to document the 

species properly. 

Response 3 

The Fish and Wildlife Service 

appreciated the information 

concerning sightings and 

followed up on this information as 

appropriate. Funding decisions 

take the needs of all listed species 

into consideration, as well as 

the fact that much has been 

accomplished to date concerning 

Recovery Outline and Plan tasks. 

The Service acknowledges the 

difficulty of documenting the 

species. 

Comment 4 

[Habitat Management] Many 

commenters provided a variety 

of habitat protection and 

management recommendations. 

Eight simply stated they support 

land protection efforts specific 

for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Five recommended that land 

acquisition and conservation 

be given greater priority or the 

highest priority in the recovery 

plan, and one pointed out that 

any conservation easements 

used to help recover the Ivorybilled Woodpecker must be held 

by a non-political public interest 

conservation organization that 

is a 501(c) 3. Three commenters 

provided specific management 

actions to improve Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker habitat (i.e., modify 
146

linear rights-of-way maintenance 

activities to promote food 

supplies; decrease habitat impacts 

and disruption by adjusting work 

procedures; install nest boxes in 

forests, such as the Okefenokee 

Swamp, to improve nesting 

habitat for the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker). One commenter 

opposed all development within 

areas occupied by Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers, including public 

access and viewing points. 

Response 4 

The focus on habitat management 

is appropriate; however, what 

is known regarding the habitat 

requirements of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker comes mostly 

from historical observations, 

the work of James Tanner and 

current reports from sites, 

where observers have potentially 

encountered the bird. Any 

surviving birds may have 

persisted under less than optimal 

conditions, given the historical 

assumptions of Tanner and others 

regarding its needs. Therefore 

any future habitat protection 

and management will require 

comparison and evaluation 

against what is unknown as well 

as what is understood about its 

habitat requirements. Specific 

habitat prescriptions for the 

species will be dependent 

upon additional knowledge of 

a specific population’s limiting 

factors. Impacts to the species 

from potential development 

or other management actions 

permitted, funded, or conducted 

by a federal agency can be 

evaluated according to the 

Endangered Species Act’s Section 

7 consultation process. The need 

for access restrictions may be 

evaluated when it is determined 

that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

actively occupy an area. 

Currently, the Lower Mississippi 

Partners in Flight Landbird 

Conservation Plan calls for 

creating large patches of mature 

bottomland forest, with target 

sizes of at least 10,000, 20,000 and 

100,000 acres for different groups 

of area-sensitive landbirds. 

Because it is ecosystem-based 

and emphasizes area-sensitive 

species, this approach also works 

for large-scale management 

potentially needed for the Ivorybilled Woodpecker. Guidelines 

on the sorts of land management 

within those forest patches 

can be found in the publication 

Restoration, Management and 

Monitoring of Forest Resources 

in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: 

Recommendations for Enhancing 

Wildlife Habitat (LMVJV Forest 

Resource Conservation Group 

2007). These guidelines are in use 

on National Wildlife Refuges and 

other public lands. Other Fish 

and Wildlife Programs encourage 

bottomland hardwood restoration 

and management on private 

lands.

Comment 5 

[Species Management] Six 

commenters identified a variety 

of protection, recovery, and 

management recommendations 

for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Such recommendations included: 

(1) keeping all sighting reports 

confidential to ensure protection 

and scientific study; (2) 

increasing fines, jail sentences, 

and penalties under the ESA 

for crimes against the species 

and its habitat; (3) cloning 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers using 

museum specimens as source 

genetic material and pileated 

woodpeckers as surrogates; (4) 

including capture protocols in the 

recovery plan and establishing a 

high priority on captive-breeding 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers; (5) 

initiating efforts to net and tag 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers with 

radio transmitters to obtain the 

appropriate data needed for 

recovering the species; and (6) 

practicing trapping and tracking 

skills on Pileated Woodpeckers. 

Response 5 

The most significant constraint 

to recovery of this species is that 

the population, where there may 

be one, is very small; therefore, 

individuals are extremely difficult 

to detect reliably. The species is 

so rarely reported that learning 

more about the species and its 

habitat requirements and basic 

aspects of its ecology will be the 

primary interim conservation 

action. Conservation efforts to 

date have been directed towards 

confirming the existence of the 

species in multiple locations as 

well as Arkansas and taking 

initial habitat improvement 

and restoration actions. 

Subsequent controversy over 

the evidence supporting the 2005 

announcement did not reduce the 

necessity for these initial actions, 

most of which are complete. 

Research, modeling, and 

habitat inventory projects have 

been undertaken to better 

understand the distribution of 

potential habitat, and enhance 

the methods used to detect 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. In 

addition, models focused on 

foraging energetics, habitat 

characterization and assessment, 

and potential population viability 

were developed.

Knowledge and capabilities for 

captive breeding are poorly 

understood for this species. 

Significant work with surrogate 

species, such as the Magellanic 

Woodpecker, may be needed. 

There is currently no person or 

institution engaged in the captive 

breeding of large woodpeckers. 

Additionally, it is not appropriate 

at this time, since capturing an 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not 

readily accomplished. Surrogate 

ecological studies have been done 

on the Pileated Woodpecker.

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

is currently protected under 

the ESA and is afforded the 

same level of protection as other 

federally listed species. See 

Appendix F for a description 

of the protocol used to protect 

potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

sighting locations. Specific 

species management actions, 

such as those received during 

the public comment period, are 

only possible when Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker populations are 

identified. These management 

options may be evaluated if 

and when such information is 

available.

Comment 6 

[Information Updates] Eight 

commenters recommended 

various updates to the plan. 

Specifically, these included: (1) 

additional reports of sightings 
147

and other evidence gathered by 

Dr. Geoff Hill and his associates 

from Auburn University in the 

Choctawhatchee basin, Florida; 

(2) observations reported in 2005 

and 2006 from Tennessee; and (3) 

Mexico observations previously 

investigated by Dr. James Tanner. 

One commenter suggested that 

the plan include the results of the 

recent federally-funded search 

efforts from 2005 to present. 

Two commenters stated that 

the costs as reflected in the 

Implementation Schedule should 

be updated to exclude past fiscal 

years (i.e., 2006 – 2008). 

Response 6 

The plan has been updated and 

revised, as appropriate, providing 

a response to these comments. 

James Tanner’s Mexico 

observations were descriptions 

of the Imperial Woodpecker, a 

species related to the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker. 

Comment 7 

[Oversight of Plan and Recovery] 

Three commenters expressed 

concern regarding the oversight 

and management of the recovery 

effort and review of the plan’s 

creation. One recommendation 

was to appoint a person from the 

academic community to oversee 

all search and recovery efforts 

for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Another recommended we 

appoint Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

“ambassadors” for every state 

in which search and recovery 

efforts take place to coordinate 

all such activity in that state. 

One commenter requested that 

electric generating companies 

be represented in the Recovery 

Team since their activities could 

impact large portions of potential 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat.

Response 7 

Many partners and cooperators 

assist with Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker searches, research, 

and recovery planning. A team 

of more than 60 technical experts, 

scientists, and managers was 

originally identified. This list 

eventually grew to nearly 80 

people. A list of team members 

is provided in Appendix A of the 

Recovery Plan. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service cooperates with 

all states within the historical 

range. State Search Groups 

independently run their efforts 

(searches, outreach, and state 

management). This effort is 

partially funded and coordinated 

by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Forest industry, academia, 

federal and state government, 

non-government organizations, 

and other private business 

representatives are on the 

Recovery Team. 

Comment 8 

[Editorial and Grammatical] Six 

commenters provided editorial 

and grammatical comments on 

the plan. 

Response 8 

The plan has been edited and 

revised by a technical editor.

Comment 9 

[Recovery Priority Number] 

Three commenters requested 

further explanation of the 

Ivorybill’s Recovery Priority 

Number (RPN) and the process 

and justification for assigning that 

number. 

Response 9 

The plan has been edited to 

respond appropriately to this 

comment

Comment 10 

[Funding] Two commenters 

supported the recent Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker search efforts, but 

not recovery plan development. 

They stated that more funds 

should be dedicated to obtaining 

better evidence of the species’ 

existence. Another believed the 

method for ranking search and 

study areas now and in the future 

for receiving recovery funds 

should be more clearly defined in 

the recovery plan.

Response 10 

Balancing the funding between 

research, habitat analysis, habitat 

management, search effort, and 

recovery planning was a decision 

of the Recovery Team and the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Initial 

funding from multiple programs 

also focused $3.3 million on 

planned refuge land acquisitions, 

$1 million for habitat acquisition 

by the State of Arkansas, and $3 

million on private lands habitat 

restoration. Search effort 

funding totaled $2.1 million from 

Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009. 

These funds were a portion of 

the $4.6 million in total recovery 

funds allocated for Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker from Fiscal Year 

2006 through 2009. State search 

groups decided which areas 

should be priority for searches 

using agreed upon criteria. These 

criteria included recent reports, 

current and historical habitat 

condition, historical records, 

size of habitat area, history of 

disturbances, and professional 

judgment. Selections were also 

assisted by modeled habitat maps. 

Additional search effort will be 

at the discretion of state search 

groups or private organizations.

The ESA requires that every 

listed species is to have a 

recovery plan unless having one 

would decrease its chances for 

recovery. This is not the case for 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Many 

Recovery tasks and actions are 

centered on obtaining more 

evidence and locations of the 

species. During 2006-8 these 

surveys were guided by the study 

design and methodology found in 

Appendix F. 

Comment 11 

[Habitat] One commenter 

requested the plan specify those 

responsible for identifying 

potential remaining habitat and 

refining the methods used to 

identify that habitat.

Response 11 

The plan identifies current 

research efforts aimed at 

identifying potential habitat in 

Appendix D. 

Comment 12 

[Adverse Effects] Three 

commenters requested greater 

detail in the definition and 

discussion of actions that could 

adversely (or beneficially) impact 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers and 

their habitat. One commenter 

stated that the plan should 

identify the types of actions that 

would be considered to impact the 

hydrology of that area adversely. 

The same commenter requested 

a discussion of the potential 
148

impacts to land-use practices, 

such as hunting and the “taking” 

or acquisition of land, caused by 

land-management requirements 

in Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

habitat. One commenter asked 

that the plan address the effects 

to Ivory-billed Woodpeckers from 

increased human utilization of 

public areas. Another commenter 

asked that the plan identify ways 

to alleviate the adverse impacts to 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat 

from hydrological changes.

Response 12 

More information related to 

current habitat needs of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker is 

needed prior to conducting 

a more thorough threats 

assessment for the species. No 

private lands have been taken or 

condemned by any government 

agency to protect this species. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s goal is to maintain 

traditional use of public lands and 

private property while protecting 

this species. Hunting, fishing, 

and other recreational activities 

are unlikely to present a problem, 

and most timber management 

activities may be compatible as 

well. It is impossible to predict 

in advance the exact situation or 

circumstances that may arise on 

any particular piece of property; 

therefore, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service cannot make blanket 

promises about a particular land 

use activity.

Human alteration of hydrology in 

the landscapes of the southeast 

has a long history. Changing 

hydrological regimes cause 

deteriorating conditions (e.g., 

species mortality) in many forest 

communities in the Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley. In Eastern 

Arkansas conditions are becoming 

wetter, while much of Louisiana’s 

portion of the Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley is becoming drier. 

These tree die-offs might be 

considered beneficial for Ivorybilled Woodpecker, providing 

a short-term pulse of foraging 

opportunity. However, these 

apparent shifts in tree species 

composition make it difficult to 

determine whether old forest 

conditions can be restored and 

maintained without correcting 

hydrological conditions. These 

questions are a focus of studies 

unrelated to the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker, but as knowledge 

is gained the plan as well as 

management approaches can be 

updated.

Comment 13 

[Organization] One commenter 

stated that to eliminate 

duplication, all Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker sightings data 

(recent and historical) should be 

located in one section of the plan. 

This commenter suggested that 

discussions of all potential Ivorybilled Woodpecker sightings in 

Arkansas be included in a new 

appendix that combines the 

information found in the draft 

plan’s Appendices B, C and D, 

and that the intended purpose of 

Appendix C should be explained 

at the beginning of the appendix.

Response 13 

Sections were relocated and 

revised; however, recent search 

data is still included in the body 

of the plan. Appendix E now 

contains historical information 

and an analysis of sighting data.

Comment 14

[Animal behavior] One 

commenter stated that the draft 

plan erroneously claims past 

observers, including James 

Tanner, described Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers as having “a more 

rapid wing-beat relative to 

pileated.”

Response 14 

That statement has been modified 

in the final plan to the following: 

“When taking flight, the Ivory-bill 

has been described to have noisy 

wing-beats. In direct flight they 

are said to have a rapid wing-beat 

as well as a slender appearance, 

resembling a Northern Pintail 

(Tanner 1942).”

Comment 15 

[Threats discussion]: We received 

several comments regarding 

our discussion of threats to the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker and its 

habitat. One commenter felt that 

the recovery plan and its recovery 

actions retain an inappropriate 

emphasis on food supplies as 

a factor contributing to the 

species’ imperilment. The same 

commenter also did not support 

the hypothesis that poaching and 

collecting were the main cause 

of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s 

decline. One commenter stated 

that disease (Avian flu and 

West Nile virus) and parasites 

(Trichonomas, mites, and lice) 

may pose a current threat to the 

species and should be addressed 

in the plan. Another commenter 

stated that the plan should 

acknowledge at the beginning 

of the Reasons for Listing/

Current Threats section (Section 

H) that the cause of the Ivorybilled Woodpecker’s decline is 

unknown. The same commenter 

stated that the discussion 

on Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

predation should be limited to 

the beginning sentence, “No 

incidences of predation on Ivorybilled Woodpeckers are known”, 

as any further discussion on the 

subject would be speculative. 

The commenter also stated that 

the plan should include recovery 

actions to identify the Ivorybilled Woodpecker’s threats, prey 

distribution, the role of disease, 

and the sources and significance 

of predation.

Response 15 

The Fish and Wildlife Service 

agrees that much is unknown 

and often information is 

conflicting about the Ivorybilled Woodpecker. However, 

in the interest of balance and 

completeness, discussion of 

all possible threats and causes 

of decline are included with 

appropriate caveats. The ability 

to “address” threats such as 

disease is extremely limited at 

this time. Additional information 

regarding the species will be 

needed to assess current threats 

to the species appropriately.

Comment 16 

[Diet]: One commenter felt 

that the recovery plan and its 

recovery actions incorrectly 

emphasized a narrow diet (e.g., 

wood-boring beetles, longhorn 

beetles, bark-stripping behavior) 

for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

The same commenter provided 

information about the biology 
149

of the longhorned beetle, one of 

the bird’s main food sources, and 

felt that this material should be 

included in the recovery plan.

Response 16 

Research is underway concerning 

potential prey species ecology 

and biology. Information on 

completed and current research 

is found in Appendix D. The 

primary reference for food habits 

and feeding is James Tanner’s 

study on the Singer Tract, and 

that is discussed with appropriate 

caveats in the plan. The Ivorybilled Woodpecker feeds on 

vegetable and animal matter, but 

the importance of beetle larvae 

found under the bark of newly 

dead wood is emphasized. This 

is the literature that we must use 

and consider for the recovery 

plan.

Comment 17 

[Critical Habitat] Two 

organizations stated the Service 

should immediately designate 

critical habitat for the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker and direct a “no net 

loss” of that critical habitat. 

Response 17 

No critical habitat has been 

designated for this species, nor 

is this required due to the date of 

listing. However, the Secretary 

of the Interior may choose to 

designate critical habitat for the 

species in the future when more 

data is available for such an 

evaluation.

Comment 18

 [Management tools] One 

organization stated that Habitat 

Conservation Plans (HCPs), Safe 

Harbor Agreements (SHAs) 

and species take permits (ITPs) 

issued under Sect 7, 10, and 4(d) 

of the ESA, should be amended 

and revoked while the Service 

evaluates critical habitat and 

recovery planning areas. Further, 

the organization stated that 

the Service cannot use HCPs/

ITPs and SHAs as a method for 

recovering the Ivorybill or any 

other listed species, according 

to a recent case finding (Spirit of 

the Sage Council vs. Secretary 

Kempthorne et al. (U.S. D.C. 

Civil Action No. 98-1873(EGS)). 

They also provided specific ways 

for implementing Recovery 

Objectives 1, 2 and 3 of the 

draft recovery plan, which are 

all related to quantifying Ivorybilled Woodpecker habitat and 

the impacts of HCPs, ITPs, and 

SFAs.

Response 18 

Comment on these policies and 

programs is appreciated; however, 

they will not be addressed in the 

Recovery Plan for the Ivorybilled Woodpecker. Recovery 

Objectives 1,2, and 3 are 

generally accepted tenets of basic 

conservation. Additional detailed 

objectives will be developed 

as we learn more about the 

species and locate nesting pairs. 

Such recommendations may 

be included in future revisions 

of the plan when additional 

information on the species’ 

current distribution and biological 

requirements are identified.

Comment 19 

[Policy]: One commenter stated 

that the recovery plan appears 

more like a species status report, 

and that the plan does not meet 

Service policies and guidelines 

for planning and coordinating 

the recovery of listed species. 

Specifically, the plan does not 

include management actions 

necessary to achieve downlisting or a realistic time frame 

and cost estimate required for 

accomplishing recovery that 

is supported by analyses and 

discussion. Further, it does not 

set forth “. . . precise, measurable 

criteria and/or identify research 

needs that will allow the Service 

and others to objectively 

determine when recovery has 

been achieved when it is, in fact, 

achievable.” Also, the commenter 

stated that the plan does not 

follow Service policy in that the 

recovery tasks designated as 

Priority 1 in the Implementation 

Schedule are not justified in the 

Narrative Outline as necessary 

to prevent extinction, and that 

none of the tasks appear to be 

necessary to prevent extinction 

or to prevent the species from 

declining irreversibly in the 

foreseeable future. 

Response 19 

The Fish and Wildlife Service 

has produced this Recovery 

Plan with the assistance and 

input of a large Recovery Team. 

Required elements are included 

and discussed in the amount 

of detail that current data and 

knowledge permit. Precision 

can only match what we know at 

this time. The plan and current 

management approaches can 

be modified as we learn more 

about the current status of the 

species and locate individuals. 

Service policies and guidelines for 

formulating recovery plans allow 

for modifications of a recovery 

plan to fit current knowledge and 

needs of a species.

Comment 20 

[Cuba] One commenter 

expressed concern that the 

recovery plan and its actions 

are too focused on Cuba. 

The commenter felt that the 

statement about the need for 

international cooperation with 

Cuba in the Overview (Section 

A, page 1) is inappropriate and 

premature given that problems 

of recovering the species in the 

United States have not been 

resolved. This person further 

commented that the statement 

would be appropriate only when 

international cooperation would 

be valuable to recovering the 

species. Finally, the commenter 

stated that there is no evidence 

that the species is observable 

in Cuba; therefore, the Cuban 

population should not be included 

in the plan, and the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker’s status in Cuba is 

irrelevant because ESA recovery 

efforts must be focused solely in 

the U.S.

Response 20 

Cuba is mentioned for 

information purposes and to 

be complete in describing the 

range of the species and potential 

actions for recovery. No federal 

intervention or management 

is contemplated there. Any 

cooperation or coordination would 

come from private entities. Fish 

and Wildlife Service policy states 

that recovery plans include a 

species’ status and background 

throughout its entire range 
150

(including other countries). 

When possible or appropriate, 

the Service does work with other 

countries to recover and protect 

listed species. A recovery plan 

is a planning document only. 

Foreign countries choose to 

implement recovery actions at 

their discretion.

Comment 21 

[Citations] One commenter noted 

that some discussions in the plan 

were too speculative and did not 

provide enough cited material, 

particularly regarding discussions 

of the life history, ecology and 

habitat characterization of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker. This 

person commented that the 

second paragraph of Section 

D, page 4, should end after the 

statement “Historic population 

numbers will never be known” 

because the remainder of that 

sentence and paragraph is pure 

speculation that can not be 

supported with citations. Further, 

the commenter stated that there 

are no citable data to support 

the contention that Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers have to range 

farther and are more sensitive to 

habitat alterations than Pileated 

Woodpeckers because of greater 

food demand (Section E, first 

paragraph, page 17). The writer 

also requested that the Service 

provide citations to support 

the statement that Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers were known to fly 

several kilometers each day.

Response 21 

Additional citations have been 

added to the text including 

support for the contention that 

large woodpeckers (and perhaps, 

therefore, the Ivory-bill) are 

capable of expanding their home 

ranges. Some extrapolations, 

based upon use of existing data 

for other species, are made in 

the recovery plan to identify 

potential areas of research, draw 

some conclusions about tentative 

management direction, and apply 

biological principles where there 

are substantial data gaps.

Comment 22

[Recovery method] One 

commenter recommended 

that an alternative method of 

recovering the species would be 

to do nothing, reasoning that 

if past unconfirmed sightings 

are valid and small, difficult to 

detect populations are scattered 

throughout eight states, they have 

survived without intervention. 

The writer commented that 

this method may be the only 

reasonable approach, especially 

since it is unlikely we will ever 

gather the information needed 

to develop effective management 

plans resulting in some form of 

measurable recovery.

Response 22 

The Fish and Wildlife Service 

completed the Recovery Plan 

and many tasks recommended 

by the Recovery Team. Initial 

searches and actions as well as 

any others deemed necessary in 

the future are consistent with 

our responsibilities under the 

ESA. If additional information 

is acquired, appropriate plan 

revisions and management 

changes will be made.

Comment 23 

[Focus] Five commenters felt 

that the draft plan is too focused 

on observations in Arkansas and 

ignores observations from other 

areas within the bird’s historical 

range, such as Louisiana and 

Mississippi. At least one felt that 

the plan relies too heavily upon 

Dr. James Tanner’s study (1942) 

when describing the species’ 

biology and ecology.

Response 23 

Dr. James Tanner’s study is the 

most complete work we have 

concerning this species; our legal 

requirements and policy dictate 

that we use this data. The plan 

has been edited to provide a 

more balanced dicsussion of the 

Arkansas observations as well 

as new information from other 

states.

Comment 24 

[Funding] One commenter 

recommended the Service 

improve communication with 

the public regarding the 

justification for spending the 

resources and funds that have 

been used or allocated, and 

that the ancillary benefits 

(e.g., economic, recreational, 

environmental,and spiritual) 

received during the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker recovery effort be 

included in those communications. 

Two commenters felt that an 

explanation should be provided 

for the cost estimates presented 

in the Implementation Schedule.

Response 24 

Implementation Cost Estimates 

are not included in this version. 

Many tasks are completed; 

therefore, actual expenditures 

and actions which provide more 

useful information are included 

in Appendix C. Cost estimates 

for additional activities that are 

not planned at this time would 

be speculative, given the lack 

of information on the species’ 

current status. 

Comment 25 

[Search locations] One 

commenter requested that 

we search for Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers in the Pinhook 

Swamp, Osceola National Forest, 

and Okefenokee Swamp of 

northern Florida and southern 

Georgia. 

Response 25 

Coordinated searches have 

been made in suitable habitat 

prioritized by State Search 

Groups, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Forest Service, and Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology. The 

commenter’s suggested search 

areas have or will be considered. 

Comment 26 

[Adverse projects] Two 

commenters identified 

construction projects in or near 

potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

habitat that they deemed would 

have an adverse impact to the 

species and requested the Service 

take action to prevent those 

activities. 

Response 26 

The Recovery Plan addresses 

threats but not specific projects 

that may pose a threat. Our 

Endangered Species Act Section 

7 Consultation process provides 

a means to disclose effects and 

identify requirements for projects 

with a federal agency component. 

Private persons or businesses are 

also required not to “take” (harm, 

harass, or kill) species listed 
151

as threatened or endangered 

without authorization from the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Comment 27 

[Peer review] Two commenters 

(one representing members 

of an organization) asserted 

that additional outside peer 

review was needed for the plan. 

Approximately 70 members of 

an organization stated that an 

independent review panel should 

be established to evaluate the 

current Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

data and to publish findings for 

the Service to consider prior 

to implementing any aspect 

of the recovery plan. They 

recommended that members of 

the American Ornithologists’ 

Union North American Checklist Committee and the American 

Birding Association’s Checklist 

Committee be considered for such 

a review panel.

Response 27 

Many partners and cooperators 

assist with Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker searches, research, 

and recovery planning. A team 

of more than 60 technical experts, 

scientists, and managers was 

originally identified. This list 

eventually grew to nearly 80 

people. Representatives from 

the forest industry, academia, 

federal and state government, 

non-government organizations, 

and other private businesses are 

on the Recovery Team. A list 

of team members is provided in 

Appendix A of the Recovery Plan. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service 

cooperates with all state wildlife 

agencies within the historical 

range. 

The Wildlife Society managed 

the peer review of the draft 

plan. It was reviewed by 

seven independent reviewers 

representing a variety of 

backgrounds, including wildlife 

biologists, avian ecologists, 

and environmental scientists. 

The reviewers are employed 

in academia, state or federal 

government, and non-government 

organizations. Additional review 

of recovery plan revisions can be 

considered when needed.

Comment 28 

[Public participation] One person 

believes the recovery actions of 

the plan should reflect the need 

for more public participation, 

especially of the youth. 

Response 28 

The 2005 announcement that 

an Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

had been located in the Big 

Woods of Arkansas generated a 

substantial amount of interest 

among the public. Informational 

materials for the general public 

and numerous stakeholders 

involved or concerned with the 

recovery of the species have 

been developed. Communitybased programs to enhance 

opportunities to learn about and 

promote the conservation of 

the species have been provided 

in cooperation with partners. 

Communication plans and 

strategies have been developed 

and implemented. Continuing 

communications address the need 

for information at various levels 

and for various stakeholders 

(e.g., birdwatchers, local citizens, 

government agencies, industry). 

Outreach tools to help private 

landowners and land managers 

were cooperatively developed 

by the Nature Conservancy for 

Arkansas. Youth programs have 

been implemented, and special 

materials such as coloring books, 

activities, and costumes are 

available for use with younger 

audiences. The purpose of all 

communication efforts is to 

convey a consistent message 

regarding recovery efforts and 

to facilitate those efforts through 

public awareness and education.

Comment 29 

[Methods] One commenter stated 

that the recovery plan should be 

reorganized into tiers that include 

first confirming the species and 

implementing specific recovery 

actions only after the species’ 

presence is confirmed. Two 

commenters stated the recovery 

plan should provide criteria 

for evaluating reported Ivorybilled Woodpecker sightings 

and thresholds for determining 

when federally-funded searches 

should be stopped and the species 

declared extinct.

Response 29 

Criteria for evaluating reports 

of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

are included in Appendix 

F. The plan follows current 

organization guidance. The list 

of completed implementation 

tasks is included and triggers 

for any future actions is included 

in the Executive Summary and 

the body of the plan. Many of 

the Recovery Actions identified 

in the final plan will occur only 

after additional data on the 

species’ current status, location, 

and biological requirements are 

gathered. Much of the habitat 

identified by our partners has 

been surveyed by the date of 

publication. Additional effort may 

be triggered by new information. 

Fish and Wildlife Service policy 

sets protocol for declaring a 

species extinct, which is beyond 

the scope of a recovery plan.

Comment 30 

[Search Methods] Four 

commenters recommended 

specific search methods be 

included in the recovery plan. 

One recommendation was to fund 

2-man stealth audio and video 

teams to monitor “hotspots” 

or areas with recent reports of 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers within 

its historical range, such as North 

and South Carolina. Another 

commenter advocated using 

acoustical attraction methods 

during surveys. Others cautioned 

against extensive search activities 

because they felt such activities 

may disturb the species enough to 

cause irreparable harm.

Response 30 

A balance of conducting a 

thorough search and producing 

potential disturbance is difficult, 

especially when the birds are 

difficult to locate. Searchers 

employed a variety of methods, 

including imitation of double 

knocks and audio playbacks. 

During 2 years of data collection 

we employed an occupancy model 

survey designed to improve our 

chances of detecting and drawing 

conclusions about this hard to 

detect species. Search models 

used allowed for surveyors to 

visit areas of recent reports of 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. This is 

explained in Appendix F.
152

Peer Review Comments 

and Responses

The Fish and Wildlife Service 

contracted with The Wildlife 

Society to conduct a peer review 

of the 2007 Draft Recovery 

Plan. Seven natural resource 

professionals performed the 

independent review representing 

a variety of backgrounds, 

including wildlife biologists, avian 

ecologists, and environmental 

scientists. The reviewers have 

experience in or are employed 

in academia, state or federal 

government, and non government 

organizations. The seven 

individual reviewers made 

individual reports;a consensus 

report was not produced. 

Comments are grouped for 

response, where appropriate. 

Comment 1 

Three reviewers commented that 

the plan was a good summary 

of current information about 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, 

better than many other plans 

for poorly known species, 

with well-expressed goals and 

objectives. Two reviewers 

supported the current research 

direction. However, three 

reviewers expressed their 

dissatisfaction with the plan as 

a whole, noting the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker’s debatable existence 

and subsequently questioning 

the drafting of a Recovery Plan 

and the spending of limited 

resources on a species that may 

or may not exist. Two reviewers 

recommended additional 

discussion of the controversy over 

the continued existence of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Response 1 

Although the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker has been listed as an 

endangered species since 1967, no 

recovery plan was ever prepared 

for the species. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service reconsidered 

the need for a plan in 2005 when 

information was released on the 

presence of at least one bird in 

the Bayou DeView area of Cache 

River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Observers reported multiple 

sightings and recorded audio and 

video of what was interpreted to 

be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

This evidence is not universally 

accepted. While there continues 

to be disagreement as to the 

validity of this and other reports, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service has 

received sufficient information to 

warrant additional searches and 

preparation of a recovery plan. 

The current version contains 

additional discussion concerning 

the debate over evidence of the 

species in Appendix B. 

Comment 2 

One reviewer felt that the plan is 

simplistic and does not sufficiently 

increase the probability of 

recovery, while another reviewer 

saw the plan as incomplete and 

suggested that it be regarded as 

a first step of a work in progress. 

Two recommended rejection of 

the plan as written. 

Response 2 

The Fish and Wildlife Service 

has produced this Recovery Plan 

with the assistance and input of a 

large Recovery Team. Required 

elements are included and 

discussed in the amount of detail 

that current data and knowledge 

permit. Precision can only 

match what we know at this time. 

Appendices D and F have been 

augmented to reflect additional 

historical information and current 

research projects. Additional 

search data have been included. 

However, limited knowledge 

concerning this species constrains 

the discussion of many aspects of 

recovery. The plan and current 

management approaches can be 

modified as we locate individuals 

and learn more about the current 

status of the species.

Comment 3 

Reviewers suggested a number 

of ways to strengthen the plan. 

Two reviewers felt that the 

Service should ensure that the 

goals and recovery actions are 

practical and concise and should 

be streamlined and combined into 

fewer comprehensive, habitatcentered recovery actions that 

are flexible enough to adapt 

constantly and incorporate new 

findings. Reviewers noted the 

need to develop measurable 

results or specific timeframes 

to determine if goals have been 

met. One reviewer felt that 

the Service’s priority should 

focus primarily on locating and 

confirming the existence of Ivorybilled Woodpecker.

Response 3 

The Goals and Recovery Actions 

were recommended by the 

Recovery Team. As much as 

possible, these reflect a balance 

adopted by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service of habitat inventory and 

analysis, habitat conservation, 

search efforts, research, and 

public engagement. These efforts 

all have federal, state, and nongovernment partners. Many of 

the initial actions are completed. 

Some of the actions cannot be 

characterized more specifically 

now because information about 

the current locations and 

conservation needs of the species 

is limited. 

Habitat guidelines for 

management of National Wildlife 

Refuge lands have been adopted. 

These guidelines serve as the 

framework for conserving the 

habitat characteristics believed 

to be needed for Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers as well as many 

other bottomland hardwood 

species.

Searches have been conducted 

throughout the historical range 

in 2006-7, 2007-8, and 2008-9. 

The locations searched by state 

groups reflect a combination of 

criteria, including likely old forest 

habitat, recent reports, historical 

records, tree mortality, and 

patch size. The main focus for 

the interim Recovery Actions is 

locating and delineating Ivorybilled Woodpecker populations.

Comment 4 

Reviewers encouraged both 

diversifying the recovery team 

to include more members outside 

the federal agencies and utilizing 

the expertise of experts who are 

knowledgeable about woodpecker 

management and avian population 

viability. 

Response 4 

The Recovery Team included 

over 70 members representing 

a diverse set of scientists, 

managers, biologists, foresters, 

and technical experts. A full 
153

list of members can be found 

at http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/

recoveryteam.html

Comment 5 

Data used should reference 

other sources to reduce reliance 

on Tanner’s data, as he studied 

a small, isolated, and stressed 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

population almost 70 years ago. 

Six reviewers were particularly 

concerned about the validity 

of his data on Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker tree preference 

and his predictions of maximum 

population densities.

Response 5 

This is a valuable and valid 

comment. However, Tanner’s 

publication is the major reference 

concerning the ecology and life 

history of this species. Reliance 

on this publication is, of necessity, 

evident in the recovery plan. 

Caveats have been added 

concerning Tanner’s data, and 

recommendations have been 

added to this version of the plan 

in response to these concerns.

Comment 6 

It was noted that some references 

mentioned in the text were not 

included in the literature cited. 

Also, five reviewers pointed out 

that relevant literature that 

has been published since plan 

development began should be 

incorporated and cited in the 

draft plan. Additionally, one 

reviewer pointed out that there is 

redundant historical information. 

Response 6 

The plan has been edited 

and revised to include new 

information and delete redundant 

sections,as appropriate. Recent 

or new publications are cited, 

providing a response to this 

comment. 

Comment 7 

Five reviewers suggested that 

protocols be developed (or 

provided in the plan, if already 

developed) for surveying Ivorybilled Woodpecker populations 

including methods for sampling 

distribution, abundance, 

population size, density, and 

habitat use. Three recommended 

developing protocols for 

and implementing captive 

breeding, and/or translocation 

of individuals. Two reviewers 

thought that chain-of-custody, 

evidentiary, and interview (of 

people reporting encounters) 

protocols were very important; 

one reviewer emphasized rapidresponse, emergency protection 

of roost trees and other sensitive 

sites. It was noted that adequate 

statistical reliability should be 

assured for all protocols.

Response 7 

The USGS Cooperative Research 

Unit at the University of Georgia 

and University of Georgia 

professors and graduate students 

developed a protocol for the 

region-wide search for the Ivorybilled Woodpecker. This survey 

design and field protocol for the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker search 

effort was aimed at collecting data 

that would: (1) allow estimation 

of occupancy, use, and detection 

probability for habitats at two 

spatial scales within its former 

range, (2) assess relationships 

between occupancy, use, and 

habitat characteristics at those 

scales, (3) allow the development 

of a population viability model 

that depends on patch occupancy 

instead of difficult-to-measure 

demographic parameters, and (4) 

be adaptive, updating the above 

models and search locations with 

newly collected information. 

Several years of data were 

collected in different locations 

using this protocol. The lack of 

indisputable positive detections 

hampered a full interpretation 

of the data. However, any new 

locations of possible populations 

will have this sampling 

protocol applied in order to 

draw scientifically supportable 

conclusions about occupancy. 

Copies of search protocols and 

methodologies, a rating system of 

sighting reports, and action plans 

are included in Appendix F of the 

Recovery Plan. 

Chain of custody protocols are 

included in the action plan found 

in the appendices of the Recovery 

Plan. It is worth noting that 

any evidence of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers, including sighting 

reports, sound recordings, 

photographs, and videos, are 

subject to intense scrutiny by 

the recovery team and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Analyses 

and vigorous discussions take 

place in the birdwatching and 

ornithological communities of 

any information regarding this 

species. Any new photographs 

submitted to the recovery team 

will be subjected to forensic 

analysis for potential fraud.

The action plan, found in 

Appendix G of the recovery plan, 

outlines the potential protective 

measures to be taken if an Ivorybilled Woodpecker roost cavity or 

nest is located. Initial efforts on 

the Cache River National Wildlife 

Refuge (location of the Luneau 

video) included a limited access 

area managed via permit. No 

extensive closures were deemed 

necessary. Normal uses of the 

refuge continued. Protective 

measures will be applied as the 

situation requires.

Comment 8 

Reviewers questioned the 

proposed recovery date of 

2075, noting that there was no 

explanation why that particular 

date was chosen. Some reviewers 

suggested not choosing a 

target recovery date until more 

information has been gathered 

and the plan is revised to reflect 

the additional information. 

One reviewer requested an 

explanation of the recovery 

number.

Response 8 

The recovery date is a common 

feature of recovery plans and 

provides a goal that guides 

recovery efforts, but it is not 

required. In response to this 

comment and the current lack of 

additional information to evaluate 

the usefulness or accuracy of a 

recovery date for the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker it has been deleted. 

The recovery priority number has 

been given additional explanation 

in this version of the recovery 

plan.

Comment 9 

Five reviewers mentioned the 

need to expand the search area 

and include in the plan more 

information about sightings and 
154

possible remnant populations in 

Florida, southern Louisiana, and 

Cuba.

Response 9 

Search areas have included 

habitat throughout the species’ 

historical range in the U.S. This 

information is included in the 

current version of the plan, as 

well as additional information 

on sightings and historical 

information. The recovery 

strategy contained in this 

recovery plan pertains only to 

the population of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers in the United States, 

but it could also be applied to 

recovery efforts for the Cuban 

population. The U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and its partners 

recognize the need to develop 

cooperation at the international 

level to address conservation of 

the species across its entire range, 

but currently this is not feasible 

for legal and diplomatic reasons.

Comment 10 

One reviewer commented on the 

issue of size comparison between 

the Pileated Woodpecker and the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Response 10 

This statement has been clarified 

in the current version of the 

recovery plan. 

Comment 11 

Four reviewers suggested 

expanding the discussion of 

necessary changes in forest 

management to include which 

current practices should change 

and which new practices should 

be implemented. Stressing the 

use of multiple data sources 

in decision-making, they also 

pressed for clarification of 

habitat management goals as 

well as specification regarding 

the size and species of trees that 

are prime habitat for the Ivorybilled Woodpecker. Additionally, 

three reviewers suggested that 

there was not a good connection 

between loss of food resources 

and endangerment of the Ivorybilled Woodpecker. Two pointed 

out that there is no strong 

evidence of niche specialization, 

such as dependence on 

Cerembycid larvae as a primary 

food source.

Response 11 

In 2003, the Lower Mississippi 

Joint Venture Forest Resource 

Conservation Working Group 

specifically started to address 

issues related to the management 

of the forest resources within 

the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. 

Management issues of concern 

included management of 

existing bottomland hardwood 

forest resources, reforestation 

of agricultural lands, and 

inventory and monitoring of 

all these resources. Instead 

of placing restrictions on 

individual silvicultural practices, 

recommendations target defining 

certain habitat characteristics 

that are necessary to meet the 

annual requirements of the 

multitude of wildlife species 

dependent on these forest 

resources. How forest managers 

achieve and maintain these 

habitat characteristics is 

determined by the individual 

situation. Objectives are set at 

the landscape level, and guidance 

is provided for how to achieve 

these objectives at the stand level. 

Current forest management 

practices affecting Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker habitat in the 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley have 

been examined in the context 

of maintaining sustainable 

landscapes capable of supporting 

desired forest conditions 

for a variety of important 

species. Recommendations 

have been published by the 

Lower Mississippi Valley 

Joint Venture (LMVJV Forest 

Resource Conservation Working 

Group 2007). The publication 

Restoration, Management and 

Monitoring of Forest Resources 

in the Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley: Recommendations for 

Enhancing Wildlife Habitat has 

guidelines which will benefit 

the full suite of bottomland 

species, including the Ivorybilled Woodpecker. Application 

of these recommendations forms 

the backbone of our approach 

to the conservation of potential 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat. 

However, additional adaptive 

change may be required as more 

is learned about the habitat 

preferences of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker. 

The practice of retaining dead 

and dying wood is not viewed as 

negatively as it was in the past. 

Some public land managers are 

experimenting with ways to 

provide more dead and dying 

wood following some of Tanner’s 

suggestions. The amount of 

recently dead and dying wood 

that should be provided for the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker is still 

unclear and may vary among 

forest types. 

Sweetgum and Nuttall oak were 

two species clearly favored 

by Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

in Tanner’s study. Increasing 

the amount of sweetgum and 

Nuttall oak in future forests can 

be a goal in appropriate forest 

management prescriptions. 

Both of these tree species need 

openings of several acres to 

regenerate successfully and to 

produce large diameter trees. 

There is growing recognition that 

sweet gum can play an important 

role in establishing healthy red 

oak stands that in the future will 

dominate the mature forest. It 

must be noted that it is possible 

the apparent preference for these 

trees in Tanner’s study area could 

have been due to their greater 

susceptibility to gradual decline 

after an extended drought and 

subsequent fire that occurred 

about ten years prior to Tanner’s 

study. A photograph documenting 

an Ivory-billed Woodpecker on 

a pine tree in Florida suggests 

some variety of preference in 

trees; the species’ reliance on pine 

in Cuba is well known.

Important as favoring sweetgum 

and Nuttall oak may be, 

management’s larger aim will be 

to produce older forest conditions 

with adequate dead and dying 

trees over large enough acreages 

to allow a more sustainable, 

functioning forest ecosystem. 

Gaps created from dying trees or 

management practices will allow 

development of a diverse forest 

structure and provide conditions 

for the regeneration necessary for 

a resilient ecosystem.
155

Tanner’s description of food 

habits remains the most 

complete documentation of 

diet. On the basis of anecdotal 

observations and the examination 

of the stomach contents of eight 

collected birds, large beetle 

larvae appear to be an important 

component of the diet. Members 

of the long-horned beetle family, 

Cerambycidae, were noted in 

the stomach of Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker several times, but 

many other species of woodboring beetle larvae have also 

been documented. The diet 

also included various nuts such 

as pecans and acorn as well 

as fruits, including hackberry, 

persimmon, wild grape, poison 

ivy and possibly swamp tupelo. 

Due to the paucity of data on 

food items actually consumed 

by the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, 

limited conclusions can be 

drawn concerning preferences. 

Current research with Pileated 

Woodpeckers may shed additional 

light on this issue. This 

discussion is found in Section G, 

Management Considerations.

The current version of the 

recovery plan explores direct 

killing as a cause of the Ivorybilled Woodpecker decline and 

endangerment. Please see 

responses to public comments 15 

and 16 for additional information.

Comment 12 

One reviewer encouraged caution 

in acquiring land solely on the 

assumption that the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker is present. 

Response 12 

The State of Arkansas was 

awarded Recovery Land 

Acquisition Funds in 2005 

to purchase lands in the Big 

Woods area. In 2005, 2006, and 

2007 priority land acquisitions 

were completed for the Cache 

River National Wildlife Refuge. 

National Wildlife Refuge land 

acquisitions were planned before 

the 2005 announcement of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s 

rediscovery, and according to 

system and regional priorities, 

the focus on the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker helped to accelerate 

the additions to the refuge. 

Additional suitable habitat 

reduces fragmentation by 

enlarging blocks of bottomland 

hardwood and providing 

wildlife corridors between 

areas of suitable habitat. 

These acquisitions and all our 

restoration programs benefit 

waterfowl, songbirds, bear, deer, 

turkey, and a host of priority 

species. The landscape goals for 

these habitats coincide with what 

we interpret as good management 

of the ecosystem. Any additional 

land acquisitions would be 

evaluated for their benefit to an 

identified area used by an Ivorybilled Woodpecker as a potential 

foraging, nest, or roost site.

Comment 13 

Three reviewers noted that the 

lack of previous captive breeding 

and reintroduction programs for 

large woodpeckers is a critical 

data gap and encouraged further 

exploration of an experimental 

captive breeding program.

Response 13 

Knowledge and capabilities for 

captive breeding, are poorly 

understood for this species. 

Significant work with surrogate 

species, such as the Magellanic 

Woodpecker may be needed. 

This effort would take some 

time since there is currently no 

person or institution engaged 

in the captive breeding of large 

woodpeckers. At this time, no 

appropriate source population 

of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers is 

available to consider for capture 

and breeding.

Comment 14 

Additional research topics were 

suggested, including roost tree 

availability, surrogate studies on 

Pileated Woodpecker ecology, 

the effects of climate change on 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, 

and hydrological changes or 

stress effects. Two reviewers 

recommended a retrospective 

population viability analysis to 

ascertain the possible effects of a 

genetic bottleneck.

Response 14 

The current version of the 

recovery plan contains abstracts 

of current and completed 

research projects (Appendix 

D). These have been published 

already or will be available in 

scientific journals. “A Stochastic 

Population Viability Analysis for 

Rare Large-bodied Woodpeckers, 

with Implications for the Ivorybilled Woodpecker” by Mattson, 

et al. applied a stochastic, 

stage-based, single-population 

model to available demographic 

rates for Dryocopus and 

Campephilus woodpeckers. This 

study evaluated the combined 

importance of initial population 

size and demographic rates for 

the persistence of large-bodied 

woodpeckers. Matson et al.’s 

model suggests that these species 

can persist as rare (as few as 5 

females), and thus difficult-todetect, populations provided they 

maintain ≥ 1.1 recruited females 

annually per adult female and an 

annual adult survival rate ≥ 0.8. 

Noel, et al. entitle their study 

“Pileated Woodpecker Nesting 

Ecology in the Big Woods of 

Arkansas.” Their preliminary 

findings on large woodpecker 

ecology in bottomland hardwood 

habitats, using Pileated 

Woodpeckers as a model 

species, suggest that certain 

characteristics of nest trees, 

cavity trees, and forage trees 

selected by large woodpeckers 

were different between the 

lower and higher bottomland 

habitats. The fact that adults 

exhibited smaller home-ranges 

than reported in the literature 

suggests that the species’ 

currently occupied habitats 

are rich in food resources. The 

authors also documented nest 

depredation on the Pileated 

Woodpeckers studied. 

Newell and King’s paper, “The 

Ecology of Pileated Woodpecker 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging 

and Saproxylic Beetles in Partial 

Cut and Uncut Bottomland 

Hardwood Forests,”studies 

relative abundance and species 

richness of saproxylic beetles and 

nesting, roosting, and foraging 

ecology of Pileated Woodpeckers 

in recent partial cuts and uncut 

forest during 2006 and 2007. 

This study provides a wealth of 

information concerning nesting, 

roosting and feeding preferences. 
156

Preferred tree species and 

sizes, as well as food items are 

documented. 

 Hamel et al are continuing a 

study that is part of a bundled 

project which includes a 

primary study of attack rates of 

Cerambycid beetles and other 

wood boring insects as potential 

prey organisms of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers, with a growing 

number of collateral projects 

made possible by the initial 

design. The primary study 

addresses the concern that food 

availability is a likely limiting 

factor for the woodpecker. By a 

carefully controlled experiment 

using randomly selected trees, 

Hamel et al. assess the response 

of wood-boring insects producing 

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 timeseries analysis was used to 

compare tree growth with climate 

(temperature, precipitation, and 

Palmer Drought Severity Index) 

and river stage. Future portions 

of the study include quantifying 

fine scale hydrology (surface and 

subsurface) in monitoring wells 

across each geomorphic feature 

and historical flooding regime at 

water wells extrapolated from 

nearby gauges.

Additional government studies 

that focus on the interactions 

of hydrologic modification and 

climate change not specifically 

concerned with Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers may reveal 

important information needed to 

manage Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

habitat in the future. This 

information can be analyzed and 

incorporated into the plan as 

needed.