2 3

Description

The common name came into use

during the early 1800’s when

‘cockade’ was regularly used to refer

to a ribbon or other ornament worn

on a hat. Female RCWs lack the red

cockade. Juvenile males have a red

‘patch’ in the center of their black

crown. This patch disappears during

the fall of their first year at which

time their ‘red-cockades’ appear.

The RCW shares the southeast with

seven other species of woodpeckers.

Hairy and downy woodpeckers could

be mistaken for RCWs as they are

also small and have black and white

barred wings, but not a barred back.

Only the RCW has the white cheek

patch. Other woodpecker species,

including the red-bellied, red-headed,

pileated, northern flicker and

yellow-bellied sapsucker, can be

distinguished from the RCW by

either having very noticeable red on

their head or lacking the black and

white bars on the back.

The red-cockaded

woodpecker (RCW) is a

small bird measuring

about 7 inches in length.

Identifiable by its white

cheek patch and black

and white barred back,

the males have a few red

feathers, or “cockade”.

These red feathers

usually remain hidden

underneath black

feathers between the

black crown and white

cheek patch unless the

male is disturbed or

excited.

1 Red-cockaded

2 Hairy

3 Downy

4 Pileated

5 Red-bellied

6 Red-headed

7 Sapsucker

8 Flicker

9 Ivorybill

(extinct)

Richard A. Parks

Plate of

southeastern

woodpeckers;

from Thomas

M. Imhof’s

“Alabama Birds”

Southeastern Woodpeckers

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
4 5

Historical Distribution and Abundance

RCWs were once considered

common throughout the longleaf

pine ecosystem, which covered

approximately 90 million acres before

European settlement. Historical

population estimates are 1-1.6 million

“groups”, the family unit of RCWs.

The birds inhabited the open pine

forests of the southeast from New

Jersey, Maryland and Virginia to

Florida, west to Texas and north to

portions of Oklahoma, Missouri,

Tennessee and Kentucky. The longleaf

pine ecosystem initially disappeared

from much of its original range

because of early (1700’s) European

settlement, widespread commercial

timber harvesting and the naval

stores/turpentine industry (1800’s).

Early to mid-1900 commercial tree

farming, urbanization and agriculture

contributed to further declines. Much

of the current habitat is also very

different in quality from historical

pine forests in which RCWs evolved.

Today, many southern pine forests

are young and an absence of fire has

created a dense pine/hardwood forest.

Top: Turn of the century (1900) logging of virgin longleaf

pine forest in east Texas; courtesy of the East Texas

Research Center, Steen Library, Forest History

Collections, Stephen F. Austin State Univ, Nacogdoches,

TX. Bottom: Turn of the century (1900) logging of

longleaf pine forest in east Texas; courtesy of the East

Texas Research Center, Steen Library, Forest History

Collections, Thompson Family Lumber Enterprises

Collection, P90T:202, Stephen F. Austin State Univ.,

Nacogdoches, TX

Virgin longleaf

pine forest in

Escambia Co. FL
6 7

Decline of RCWs

The primary habitat of the RCW, the

longleaf pine ecosystem, has been

reduced to 3% of its original expanse.

This reduction of suitable habitat has

caused the number of RCWs to

decline by approximately 99% since

the time of European settlement (see

map on pages 12-13). The RCW was

listed as endangered in 1970 and

received the protection of the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) with

its passage in 1973. At the time of

listing, the species had declined to

fewer than 10,000 individuals in

widely scattered, isolated and

declining populations. Today there

remains about 5,600 groups or 14,000

birds. Most populations were

stabilized during the 1990’s due to

management based on new

understanding of RCW biology and

population dynamics. However, there

are still populations in decline and

small populations throughout the

species’ current range are still in

danger of extirpation.

Life History and

Reproductive Biology

The red-cockaded is a territorial,

non-migratory species. The RCWs

social system is more complex than

most species of birds; individuals live

in groups normally consisting of a

breeding pair and zero to four male

(rarely female) offspring from

previous years. These offspring,

know as “helpers”assist in incubating

eggs and brooding and feeding

nestlings produced by the breeding

pair. The RCW social system is

referred to as a cooperative breeding

system, that is, the breeding pair

receives assistance from offspring in

the raising of young. In mid-April,

the female RCW usually lays a clutch

of three to five white eggs in the

breeding male’s roost cavity. Eggs

hatch after 10-12 days of incubation

(among the shortest incubation in

birds) and nestlings fledge from the

nest cavity 24-27 days after hatching.

RCW nestlings are altricial, that is,

they do not have feathers when

hatched and their eyes are not open.

RCW delivering food to nestlings

Above: Seven-day

old RCW nestling.

Nestlings are

banded at 7-10

days old. Right:

Helper male

feeding juvenile

male.

Derrick HamrickRalph Costa, USFWS

Derrick Hamrick
8

9

They require a lot of care from

parents and helpers who will feed the

nestlings and clean the cavity of

waste during the nestling period. In

contrast, quail are precocial; they

hatch fully feathered and are able to

feed themselves when led to food by

the parent. After fledging, the

nestlings continue to be fed by adults

for up to six months at which time the

majority of fledglings disperse from

the territory where they hatched.

Mortality is high (68%) for female

fledglings as they disperse to search

for breeding vacancies. Male

fledglings either disperse or remain

on their natal territory to become

helpers. Annual mortality is also high

(57%) for male fledglings. Although

re-nesting may occur if a clutch or

brood is lost, RCWs typically have

only one successful nesting attempt

annually. Double brooding (two

successful nests in one breeding

season) has been documented but is

extremely rare.

Diet and Foraging Behavior

The diet of RCWs consists mostly of

insects in the egg, larvae and adult

stages. These include beetles, ants,

roaches, spiders and other insects

found in or on pine trees. Fruits and

seeds make up a small portion of the

overall diet. Methods of foraging

include flaking away bark and

probing under the bark using their

specialized forked tongue to extract

insects. Large, older trees are

preferred for foraging. In general,

males forage on the limbs and upper

trunk while females forage on the

trunk below the crown. This division

of foraging area is most noticeable in

winter when insect numbers are at

their lowest and their activity slows

due to cold weather, making it harder

for RCWs to detect prey. Differences

in the foraging behavior of males

and females may help to reduce

competition between them when

food is scarce.

Roosting and Nesting Cavities

The RCW is the only North

American woodpecker to excavate

roost and nest cavities in living pine

trees. While longleaf pine is the

preferred species for excavation,

other species such as loblolly,

shortleaf, slash and pond pine are

also used depending on the local

forest type and tree species

availability. The use of live pines as

roosting and nesting sites may have

evolved in response to living in a fire

maintained ecosystem where

frequent fires, primarily in the

growing season, eliminated most

standing dead pines (snags).

Longleaf pine is thought to be

preferred by the woodpeckers

because it is the most fire-adapted of

the pines. Longleaf pine has a unique

‘grass’ stage when young, producing

an abundance of long green needles

that burn during ground fires, thus

protecting the growing stem.

Longleaf also produces more resin

when wounded than other pines,

making them more resistant to insect

outbreaks such as the southern pine

beetle. RCWs use this increased

Above: Male

RCW bringing

food to nest

cavity (note

difficulty seeing

red-cockade).

Right: RCW

active cavity tree

(note candle-like

appearance and

evidence of recent

prescribed fire).

Jim Hanula, USFS

Ralph Costa, USFWS
10 11

resin flow for cavity defense by

chipping holes, called ‘resin wells’,

above and around the entrance to the

cavity as a defense against predators.

Rat snakes, skillful at climbing trees,

are the main predators of RCW

nests. Resin flow produced by the

wells creates a physical and chemical

barrier that impedes the snake’s

movement up the tree. The birds also

scale the outer bark off the tree

above and below the cavity entrance,

exposing sapwood around the cavity

entrance forming a ‘plate’ around the

cavity. Resin flowing from the wells

created by the RCWs may eventually

coat the trunk, thus making the

cavity tree conspicuous from a

distance, giving it a candle-like

appearance.

Each member of the group roosts

in a separate cavity. Cavities are

excavated in mature pines, generally

over 80 years old. Cavity excavation

takes one to six years. The birds

slowly excavate through the resinous

sapwood before reaching the

relatively sap-free heartwood.

RCWs choose older trees for cavity

excavation. They need trees mature

enough to have sufficient heartwood

for a cavity free of sap and because

many mature trees are infected with

red heart fungus. This fungus softens

the heartwood and allows for easier

excavation of the roosting chamber.

Individual cavities are known that

have been used by RCWs for over six

generations, or approximately 30

years. The aggregate of cavity trees

used by a group is referred to as a

‘cluster’. The cluster consists of one

to numerous cavity trees; trees may

contain new cavity ‘starts’ and

completed cavities. Cavity trees

within a cluster may be ‘active’,

currently being used by a RCW, or

‘inactive’, not being used by a RCW.

Above: Female

RCW working on

resin well. Right:

Black rat snake

climbing RCW

cavity tree.

Above: Juvenile

male RCW, just

prior to fledging.

Right: Active

RCW cavity with

many resin

wells, heavy

resin flow and

cavity “plate”.

Below right:

Advanced cavity

start, almost to

heartwood.

Derrick Hamrick

Richard N. Conner, USFS

Derrick Hamrick

Bob Hooper, USFS Ralph Costa, USFWS
12 13

Ecological Niche

Besides being unique among

North American woodpeckers,

red-cockaded woodpeckers are

‘primary’ cavity nesters, meaning

they are responsible for the

construction of cavities. In the

southern pine ecosystem there are

many ‘secondary’ cavity users that

benefit from the RCWs work. RCWs

are considered a ‘keystone’ species

because use of their cavities by these

animals contributes to the species

richness of the pine forest. At least

27 species of vertebrates have been

documented using RCW cavities,

either for roosting or nesting.

Species include birds, snakes, lizards,

squirrels and frogs. Many of these

species, for example wood ducks,

only use the cavities that have been

abandoned by RCWs; abandonment

usually occurs because the entrance

tunnel was enlarged by pileated

woodpeckers. However, southern

flying squirrels, red-bellied

woodpeckers, red-headed

woodpeckers, eastern bluebirds,

brown-headed nuthatches, tufted

titmice and great crested flycatchers

are the species most commonly seen

in RCW cavities, and can use normal,

unenlarged cavities that RCWs could

also use. RCW cavities are a valued

resource for many species and

competition occurs for their use.

Red-cockaded Woodpeckers and Fire

A healthy, productive RCW

population is also an indicator of a

healthy southern pine ecosystem.

RCWs and southern pines both

evolved in a fire-dominated system.

Many other species within this

system show adaptations to fire. The

most prominent adaptation of RCWs

is their use of living pines for cavity

excavation. The history of fire in the

southeast has a natural and human

component. Research has suggested

the ecosystem evolved in response to

slow-moving ground fires started by

Above: Completed,

very active cavity

(note the large

resin wells, thick

resin flow and

plate formation,

indicating a

cavity that has

been in use for

years). Right:

RCW cluster in

longleaf pine

forest. Bottom

right: RCW

cluster in shortleaf

pine/loblolly pine

forest.

Right: Greatcrested flycatcher

using inactive

RCW cavity for

nest. Below:

Southern flying

squirrel using

RCW cavity.

Bob Hooper, USFS

Bob Hooper, USFS Phillip Jordon

D. Craig Rudolph, USFS

Derrick Hamrick
14 15

lightning strikes, which occur more

frequently in the southeast than

anywhere else in North America.

Most fires started by lightning

strikes occur in the spring and

summer growing season, when

thunderstorms are more prevalent.

Native Americans and later

European settlers used fire to clear

land and improve hunting grounds.

However much of this burning was

accomplished during the winter, the

non-growing season. Frequent fires

created an open forest, with large

pines, little to no mid-story, and a

diverse herbaceous groundcover;

described by many 19th century

naturalists as ‘park-like’ because they

could easily ride horses and wagons

across the land. Many of the

groundcover plant species show

adaptations to fire and are termed

‘pyrophytic’ or ‘fire-loving’. For

example, wiregrass is a highly

flammable bunchgrass, typically

producing seed only after a summer

growing season burn. Because of its

unique fire-loving properties, the

biodiversity of herbaceous

groundcover in longleaf pine forests

is among the world’s highest.

Above:

Lighteningignited wildfire

in longleaf pine

forest. Below:

slow moving

ground fire in

longleaf pine

forest likely

typical of

‘historic’ natural

and human

ignited fires.

Top: White birds-in-a-nest (Macbridea alba), federally

listed as threatened, endemic to longleaf pine forests in

Florida; one of many listed, rare, endemic, herbaceous

plants unique to southeastern pine ecosystems. Bottom:

Longleaf pine—wiregrass habitat; a result of frequent

growing season prescribed fires.

Joan Walker, USFS Joan Walker, USFS

Ralph Costa, USFWS

D. Craig Rudolph, USFS
16 17

Historic and current (1995); updated 2002, distribution

map of RCW; courtesy of Our Living Resources: A

Report to the Nation on the Distribution, Abundance,

and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems,

National Biological Service, USDI. Red-cockaded

Woodpecker; Costa and Walker, 1995

Historic Distribution of Red-cockaded

Woodpecker (Jackson 1971, Hooper et al.

1980).

Current Red-cockaded Woodpecker

Distribution (Federal, State, and Private

Sector Biologists 1993, 1994; updated 2002)

★

Distribution of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers

?
18 19

Habitat Management

Degradation and loss of habitat led to

the rapid decline of RCWs.

Conservation and management of

adequate habitat is central to

recovery goals. Quality habitat

includes forests with trees old

enough for roosting, generally at

least 80-120 years old, depending on

species of pine. Hardwood midstory

results in cluster abandonment;

therefore, it is critical that hardwood

midstory be controlled. Prescribed

burning is the most efficient and

ecologically beneficial method to

accomplish hardwood midstory

control. Either mechanical and/or

chemical treatment may also be

required for initial control of the

midstory. Foraging habitat must also

consist of a forest of older pines with

little or no midstory. Each RCW

group uses from 75-200 acres of

foraging habitat. The acres used

depend upon habitat quality and

population density. For example, a

park-like forest of older, larger pines

and open understory is of higher

quality than a dense forest with many

small, young pines. The area

required for RCW foraging on high

quality sites is less than sites of lower

quality. However, habitat

management for forage and cavity

trees must include the development

of a young age class of pines to insure

the necessary older trees for future

generations of RCWs. The

application of controlled burns is

essential in keeping the structure of

the forest beneficial to RCWs.

Above: Longleaf

pine forest with

young trees

and wiregrass

understory.

Right: Longleaf

pine forest

with turkey

oak midstory.

Bottom right:

High quality,

longleaf pine

RCW foraging

habitat.

Prescribed

burning in

longleaf pine

forest. D. Craig Rudolph, USFS

Joan Walker, USFS

Ralph Costa, USFWS Felica Sanders, USFWS/Clemson University/SCDNR
20 21

Cavity Management and

Population Augmentation

Today’s RCW populations, especially

small ones, will not increase to viable

sizes without human intervention.

Several management techniques,

introduced in the early 1990’s, have

been responsible for increasing RCW

populations. One of the most

successful has been the installation of

artificial cavities. Cavities are critical

to RCWs nesting and roosting and

their presence for each group

member increases the chances for

survival and persistence of the group.

There are two main techniques for

providing artificial cavities for

RCWs. These include drilling holes

that mimic natural cavities and

installing boxes called ‘inserts’ within

a suitable tree.

These techniques were put to the test

after Hurricane Hugo destroyed 87%

of the active cavity trees on the

Francis Marion National Forest in

1989, the second largest RCW

population at the time. Installation of

artificial cavities, both inserts and

drilled, helped to stabilize the

population after this devastating loss.

Translocation of juvenile RCWs is

another management technique used

in RCW recovery. Translocation

involves moving one or more juvenile

RCWs between or within populations

to achieve management goals. These

goals include saving critically small

populations in danger of ‘extirpation’

or disappearing; developing a better

spatial arrangement of groups to

reduce isolation; introducing birds to

suitable habitat; and increasing

genetic diversity in critically small

populations. Typically, two types of

translocations are conducted: a

female juvenile is moved to a solitary

male group; and an unrelated male

and female juvenile are moved to a

‘recruitment’ cluster in hopes of

establishing a new group.

Recruitment clusters are established

by installing artificial cavities in

unoccupied but suitable habitat.

Refining translocation techniques has

made this an invaluable tool for

recovery. The most important

component, quality habitat,

consisting of open park-like pine

forests, suitable nesting and roosting

cavities, and adequate foraging

habitat, must be in place before

translocations are conducted.

Right: Hurricane

Hugo, September

1989, eye

centered over the

Francis Marion

National Forest.

Bottom right:

Francis Marion

National Forest

post-Hurricane

Hugo.

Above right:

Subadult female

and male in

preparation for

translocation to

a recruitment

cluster. Above:

Wildlife biologist

installing

artificial cavity

insert.

NASA Ralph Costa, USFWS

Mike Lennartz, USFS

USFS
22 23

Conservation Efforts

Recovery efforts for the RCW began

with the listing of the bird in 1970

and passage of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973. The U. S. Fish

and Wildlife Service outlined goals

and guidelines for recovery of the

RCW in the Recovery Plan written in

1979 and revised in 1985 and 2003.

Recovery will be achieved when we

have numerous self-sustaining

populations of woodpeckers. Once

Endangered Species Act de-listing

criteria are met, the size, number,

and distribution of populations will

be sufficient to counteract threats

associated with small population size,

environmental factors, such as

annual fluctuations in weather and

prey abundance, genetic viability,

and catastrophic events, thereby

maintaining long-term viability for

the species as defined by current

understanding of these processes.

Regions and habitat types currently

occupied by the species will be

represented as adequately as

possible, given habitat limitations.

The Recovery Plan identifies eleven

recovery units based on ecoregions.

Populations required for recovery

are distributed among the recovery

units to ensure the representation

of broad geographic and genetic

variation within the species historic

range. The recovery strategy

includes the participation of federal

agencies, state agencies and private

landowners. Approximately 66%

of RCWs occur on federal lands,

including numerous national forests,

national wildlife refuges, and

military installations, one national

park and one Department of

Energy facility. Eleven percent of

RCWs occur on state lands and

private lands harbor approximately

23% of known RCWs.

Knowledge of RCW biology and

life history increased significantly

during the 1990s. Research findings

have led to significant conservation

initiatives. Many property managers

and biologists band their RCWs

(both adults and nestlings), survey

and map cavity trees and annually

monitor nesting activities to assess

population health. Research findings

on the bird’s natural history and

ecology have enabled landowners and

managers to implement habitat

improvement programs. The positive

population trends (early 1990’s to

present) on many public and private

lands are a direct result of successful

implementation of a well-coordinated

regional translocation program and

habitat improvements, such as

controlling midstory, prescribed

burning, and installing artificial

cavities.

Right: Artificial

cavity insert with

metal restrictor

plate to prevent

damage by

pileated

woodpeckers

(note artificially

created resin

wells and nontoxic white paint

to imitate resin

flow). Below

right: wildlife

biologist banding

eight-day-old

RCW nestling.

Wildlife biologist

climbing RCW

nest cavity tree,

with ten foot

sectional

Swedish

climbing ladders,

to capture and

band nestlings.

USFS Jody Bock, Clemson University

Nancy Jordan, Clemson University
24 25

Private Land Conservation

Partnerships

Although public lands, both federal

and state, are central to recovery

efforts, approximately 23% of RCWs

(1296 groups in 10 states) reside on

private lands. In the early 1990’s, the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

realizing that population declines on

private lands were hindering

recovery efforts, developed and

implemented strategies for RCW

conservation on private land.

The benefits of conserving RCWs

on private lands are numerous.

They include reducing habitat

fragmentation rates, maintaining or

enhancing occupied habitat, restoring

populations to unoccupied habitat,

maintaining or increasing population

numbers, establishing buffers for

adjacent public land populations,

reducing effects of catastrophic

events, such as hurricanes or southern

pine beetle outbreaks, providing

corridors to other populations,

serving as reservoirs of genetic

diversity, providing birds for other

populations, and contributing to

research on life history and ecology,

management techniques and

conservation strategies.

Many private landowners are

concerned with restrictions on

the use of their land should an

endangered species, such as RCWs,

be found on or move to their

property. One of the foundations

of the private land conservation

strategy of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service has been to alleviate

landowner’s fears of endangered

species restrictions while also

minimizing the economic impact

of conservation.

Strategies include Memorandums

of Agreement (MOA), Habitat

Conservation Plans (HCP) and

Safe Harbor agreements. MOAs are

generally between the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and corporations.

They outline actions by which a

corporation can manage for

RCWs and/or their habitat while

simultaneously meeting their

corporate objectives for land

management. HCPs, once approved

by the Service, provide landowners

with “incidental take” (defined by the

ESA as taking that “is incidental to,

and not the purpose of, the carrying

out of an otherwise lawful activity”)

of selected RCW groups in exchange

for ‘creation’ of new groups,

management of occupied habitat

and/or restoration of suitable habitat.

Via an HCP, private landowners

Active

red-cockaded

woodpecker cavity

tree in urban

setting on private

land enrolled in

safe harbor.

Approximately 5%

(70 groups) of the

1296 red-cockaded

groups living on

private land are

in urban settings,

such as horse

farms, golf

courses and

subdivisions.

The remaining

95% are on quail

plantations and

industrial forest

lands.

Protected, active

red-cockaded

woodpecker

cluster on

industrial forest

land. Several

industrial forest

landowners have

taken leadership

roles, via habitat

conservation

plans, in

red-cockaded

woodpecker

conservation and

management on

their property.

Jeremy Poirier, International Paper

J.H. Carter III
26 27

Historic Time Line for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers

1807 Red-cockaded woodpecker “discovered” and

described as new species by Louis Jean Pierre

Vieillot; given scientific name of Picus borealis,

the northern woodpecker.

1810 Alexander Wilson describes the red-cockaded

woodpecker as a new species and names it Picus

querulus. Because Viellot’s scientific name came

first, today the bird is known as Picoides

borealis, the red-cockaded woodpecker, the

common name provided by Wilson.

1821 John James Audubon captures a red-cockaded

woodpecker near Bayou Sara, Louisiana and

paints its portrait from a living specimen; he

releases it two days later.

1880’s Red-cockaded woodpecker populations begin a

precipitous decline that continues through the

1930’s as land is cleared for agriculture, timber

and the war effort (World War I).

1911 F. E. L. Beal publishes first account of the

red-cockaded woodpecker’s diet.

1928 L.A. Hausman describes the red-cockaded

woodpecker as a “very causal visitant into the

southern portion of New Jersey”, suggesting it

has been extirpated by this date (assuming it

nested in the state—likely in the south/central

Jersey pine barrens).

1939 James Gut finds red-cockaded woodpecker fossil

wingbone in a Rock Spring, Florida streambed,

indicating presence of red-cockaded

woodpeckers in Florida during the Pleistocene.

1946 Red-cockaded woodpecker extirpated in Missouri.

1958 Red-cockaded woodpecker likely extirpated in

Maryland; occasional sightings in 1974 and 1976

are considered “transients”.

1968 Department of Interior identifies the red-cockaded

woodpecker as a rare and endangered species.

1970 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially lists the

red-cockaded woodpecker as an endangered

species.

1970 J.D. Ligon publishes first account on behavior and

breeding biology of red-cockaded woodpecker.

1970 First red-cockaded woodpecker symposium held

at Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, Georgia.

typically ‘create’ a new woodpecker

group to mitigate and minimize for

loss of a group they might want to

eliminate from their land.

By far the most successful of the

private lands conservation strategies

is Safe Harbor. Originally developed

for RCW conservation, the Safe

Harbor approach is now being applied

to many other listed species that occur

on private lands. Under a Safe Harbor

agreement, a landowner voluntarily

agrees to protect and manage habitat

for the ‘baseline’ population; that is

the number of groups on the property

at the time the agreement is signed.

The landowner also implements

specific habitat improvements (such

as prescribed burning, midstory

hardwood removal, installation of

cavities) to further enhance occupied

and/or unoccupied, but potentially

suitable, habitat. If the habitat

improvements encourage the creation

of RCW groups above the ‘baseline’,

the landowners are under no

obligation to provide habitat for the

new groups. Safe Harbor agreements

ensure that baseline RCW populations

are managed properly and remove

regulatory concerns of landowners by

eliminating their legal responsibilities

for groups above the baseline.

As of 2002, 146 landowners had

enrolled 338,697 acres in Safe Harbor

agreements, harboring 351 RCW

groups in 5 states. While landowners

are under no obligation to encourage

the creation of new RCW groups,

many have done so by establishing

recruitment clusters. Overall, the

private lands conservation strategy

for RCWs, including MOAs, HCPs

and Safe Harbor, has resulted in the

protection of approximately 561

groups of woodpeckers in 10 states,

43% of groups known on private land.

This significant contribution is

helping to reverse the loss of habitat

and RCWs on private land.

A tract of virgin

longleaf pine

forest on private

land in south

Georgia; oldest

trees are 400-500

years old. Only

about 3000 acres

of the southeast’s

original

90,000,000 acres

of virgin longleaf

pine forest

remains.

Grant Hilderbrand, USFS
28 29

1994 Red-cockaded woodpecker extirpated in

Tennessee because of demographic isolation.

1995 U.S. Forest Service issues “Final Environmental

Impact Statement for the Management of the

Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on

National Forests in the Southern Region”.

1995 “Red-cockaded Woodpecker: Recovery, Ecology

and Management”, the proceedings of redcockaded woodpecker Symposium III, is published.

1995 Safe harbor policy is created and first red-cockaded

woodpecker safe harbor permit is issued for the

North Carolina Sandhills region; similar permits

are issued for Texas (1998), South Carolina (1998),

Virginia (2000) and Georgia (2000).

1995 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues “A Current

Bibliographic Resource for the Red-cockaded

Woodpecker”; updated annually.

1996 U.S. Army issues “Management Guidelines for the

Red-cockaded Woodpecker on Army Installations”.

1998 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues

“Strategy and Guidelines for the Recovery and

Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker

and its Habitats on National Wildlife Refuges”.

1999 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service institutes the

“Annual Red-cockaded Woodpecker Population

Data Report”, a system to track population size

and trend and habitat accomplishments on all

public lands and private lands, in partnerships

with the Service, harboring red-cockaded

woodpeckers.

2000 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launches

red-cockaded woodpecker website

<http://rcwrecovery.fws.gov>.

2001 Red-cockaded woodpecker extirpated in

Kentucky due to catastrophic loss of pine forest

caused by southern pine beetle epidemic.

2001 R.N. Conner, et al. publishes “The Red-cockaded

Woodpecker: Surviving in a Fire-maintained

Ecosystem”, the second book on red-cockaded

woodpeckers.

2003 Second revision of the “Red-cockaded

Woodpecker Recovery Plan” is approved.

2003 Fourth red-cockaded woodpecker symposium

held in Savannah, Georgia.

1970 “Symposium on the Red-cockaded Woodpecker”,

proceedings of the first symposium, is published.

1973 Red-cockaded woodpecker receives Federal

protection with the passage of the Endangered

Species Act.

1979 “Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan”

approved by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

1983 Second red-cockaded woodpecker symposium

held in Panama City, Florida.

1983 “Red-cockaded Woodpecker Symposium II

Proceedings”, proceedings of the second

symposium is published.

1985 First revision of the “Red-cockaded Woodpecker

Recovery Plan” is approved.

1986 “Report of the American Ornithologists’

Union Committee for the Conservation of the

Red-cockaded Woodpecker” is published.

1986 First successful translocations of red-cockaded

woodpeckers are conducted.

1987 First in-depth study into the sociobiology of the

red-cockaded woodpecker is published.

1988 First estimate of viable population size is

published.

1989 Hurricane Hugo devastates Francis Marion

National Forest, home of the second largest

red-cockaded woodpecker population.

1990 Scientific Summit on the red-cockaded

woodpecker is held in Live Oak, Florida;

Summary Report is published.

1990 Drilled cavities are invented.

1990 First investigation into the genetic health of redcockaded woodpeckers is published.

1991 Cavity inserts are invented.

1992 R.W. McFarlane publishes “A Stillness in the Pines”,

the first book about red-cockaded woodpeckers.

1993 Third red-cockaded woodpecker symposium held

in North Charleston, SC.

1993 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Georgia Pacific

Corporation establish first private land partnership,

a memorandum of agreement, for conservation and

management of red-cockaded woodpeckers.
30 31

The following federal and state agencies and private

organizations manage lands that are directly involved in

the recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Additionally, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, various other

state agencies (see below), and many individual and

corporate private landowners are assisting significantly

in supporting conservation and recovery programs for

the red-cockaded woodpecker. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service appreciates and is thankful for the numerous

private and public sector partners that are helping save

the red-cockaded woodpecker.

Federal

Department of Agriculture

U.S. Forest Service

Department of Defense

U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S.

Navy, National Guard

Department of Energy

Department of Interior

National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

State

Florida Division of Forestry, Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission, Florida Park Service, North

Carolina Department of Agriculture, North Carolina

Department of Environment and Natural Resources,

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, South

Carolina Forestry Commission, South Florida Water

Management District, Saint John’s River Water

Management District

Private

The Conservation Fund

The Nature Conservancy

North Carolina Chapter, Virginia Chapter

Other state agencies harboring, managing and conserving

red-cockaded woodpeckers on lands under their

administration:

Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry,

Oklahoma Department of Conservation, South Carolina

Department of Natural Resources, South Carolina

Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, South

Carolina Department of Transportation in cooperation

with the South Carolina Chapter of The Nature

Conservancy, Texas Forest Service, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Contributors and Acknowledgements

Project Coordinator: Ralph Costa

Brochure text by:

This pamphlet was originally drafted

by Ms. Felicia Sanders, a Master’s

degree graduate student (1998-2000)

at Clemson University studying

red-cockaded woodpeckers and

enrolled in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service’s Student Career Experience

Program (SCEP) at the Service’s

Clemson Field Office.

Ms. Nancy Jordan, also a Master’s

degree graduate student (2000-2002)

at Clemson University studying redcockaded woodpeckers and enrolled

in the SCEP at the Clemson Field

Office, completed the final draft.

The Clemson Field Office and

the Service’s Regional Office in Atlanta appreciate the significant

contributions of Felicia’s and Nancy’s

graduate programs and SCEP

toward the conservation and

recovery of the red-cockaded

woodpecker.

Layout and design: Ellen Marcus,

USFWS
32

Ralph Costa

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Coordinator

Clemson Field Office

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Department of Forest Resources

261 Lehotsky Hall

Clemson University

Clemson, SC 29634

Phone: 864/656 2432

Fax: 864/656 1350

E-mail: ralph_costa@fws.gov

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

1 800/344 WILD

http://www.fws.gov

October 2002

Cover: male RCW at

nest cavity entrance;

Phillip Jordon