Draft Recovery Plan for the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

(Campephilus principalis)
 

 

Draft Recovery Plan for the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

(Campephilus principalis)

Prepared by 

J. Andrew, Team Leader, U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service 

E. Clark, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

R. Cooper, University of Georgia 

 T. Foti, Arkansas Natural Heritage Foundation 

L. Fenwood, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

D. Fuller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

C. Hunter, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

J. Jackson, Florida Gulf Coast University 

M. Lammertink, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology 

K. Ribbeck, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

K. Rosenberg, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology 

R.V. Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

for 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

August 2007 
 

 

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 represents 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 Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia. 

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. 2006. Recovery Plan for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

(Campephilus principalis). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. ___ 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 

Bird species names are in accordance with the American Ornithologists Union common names. 

Scientific names of species in the text are found in Appendix G. 

Cover Illustration Credit: James T. Tanner, 1937
- i - 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Despite having been listed as an endangered species since 1967, no recovery plan was ever 

prepared for this species. This was in large part due to the lack of any clear evidence of their 

continued existence for the many decades prior to the passage of the Endangered Species Act. 

Perspectives with regard to the need for a plan changed dramatically when evidence supporting 

the presence of at least one bird in the Bayou de View area of Cache River National Wildlife 

Refuge became widely known in April 2004. From the outset there was a strong desire to 

prepare a plan for the many conservation actions needed. Primary needs were to learn more 

about the bird’s occurrence, relocate additional birds, and determine what could done 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 large team of more than 60 technical 

experts was identified. This list eventually grew to nearly 80 people. A list of team members is 

provided in Appendix A. All Team members are acknowledged for their expertise, enthusiasm 

and commitment to the recovery and conservation of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

The Nature Conservancy of Arkansas, the Cornell University 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 recovery effort and 

continued 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 Jerry Jackson 

from Florida Gulf Coast University contributed written portions of the plan. Among U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service staff, Deborah Fuller, Ralph Costa, Charles Hunter, Erin Clark, 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 greatly to 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, Mississippi; and Bob 

Ford, Tennessee. 

The hard work and dedication of those mentioned above as well as the Recovery Team 

members listed in Appendix A is gratefully acknowledged. The Recovery Plan is much better 

for the involvement and collective thinking of such a dedicated and talented group of people. 
 - ii - 

Lastly, 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 have allowed us to sketch a path to recovery. We 

stand on his shoulders and gratefully acknowledge his contribution. 
- iii - 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current Status

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) belongs to a group of 11 species of 

large woodpeckers of the genus Campephilus, inhabiting the Western Hemisphere-primarily 

Central and South America. Two groups within the species of Ivory-billed Woodpecker are 

recognized (American Ornithologists’ Union 1998): the principalis group of the southeastern 

United States and the bairdii group of Cuba. 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 status of the population is limited and current population size and 

distribution is not clearly known. Evidence indicating the presence of a small population in 

central Arkansas exists but confirmation of other populations in the southeastern United States 

is lacking (Fitzpatrick et al. 2005). Many State, Federal and private partners are cooperating to 

continue searching for evidence of the species’ presence (e.g., sightings, nest cavities) some 

additional evidence is considered interesting. Authorities in Cuba (A. Kirkconnel, pers. 

comm.) suspect that the species might persist in a few locations in that country. No critical 

habitat has been designated for this species in the United States. The Recovery Priority 

Number for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is 5 indicating a high degree of threat and low 

recovery potential for this species. 

Habitat Requirements

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker is 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 Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, 

especially in conjunction with an adjacent pine forest (Jackson 2002). In the Tensas region of 

northeastern Louisiana, Tanner (1942) documented use in “upland” sites infrequently flooded 

and forested primarily with species such as Nuttall Oak, Sweet-gum and Green Ash. 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. 

Habitat requirements likely vary seasonally and with habitat conditions, population density, 

food resources and other factors. None of these influencing factors are understood for this 

species. It is clear however that the Ivory-bill requires large tracts of forest for foraging and 

trees large enough for nesting and roosting. 
- iv - 

Limiting Factors 

The primary reason for the decrease in Ivory-billed Woodpecker numbers throughout its range 

appears to be a reduction in suitable habitat (and indirect destruction of their food source) due 

to large scale logging and conversion of forest habitats. 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 their [Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers] 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.” Noel Snyder (in prep) 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 logged over forests. Specific 

to the Singer Tract, before large-scale 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. 

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 1960’s 

and 1970’s. 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 

provide ideal habitat for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Therefore, until more is learned about 

the Ivory-bill’s habitat requirements, the extensive habitat loss and fragmentation and the lack 

of information on specific habitat requirements remain a 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 1800’s. Jackson (2002) presented 

data indicating that such collecting resulted in the taking of over 400 specimens, mostly 

between 1880 and 1910. By itself, overutilization 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. It is possible that 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 Ivory-bills 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 1800’s (Jackson 2002, Tanner 1942). Early accounts 

gave no accurate or definite estimates of abundance, but populations by this time were 

probably not large and were limited to habitats subject to high tree mortality, e.g., areas that 
- v - 

were regularly flooded or burned (Jackson 2002). The small population size and limited 

distribution of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker place this species (previously thought by many to 

be extinct) at risk from naturally occurring events and environmental factors. 

Additionally, the exact number and genetic health of remaining birds is 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, etc.). 

Recovery Strategy

Our understanding of all aspects of the ecology and biology of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is 

limited. Indeed, it has proven extremely difficult to even briefly encounter the species despite 

extensive survey efforts. Due to it’s rarity for such a long period of time the literature and 

previous research for the species is likewise meager. Much of what is known is derived from 

the landmark studies of James Tanner. The findings of Tanner, knowledge extrapolated from 

other Campephilus species, knowledge of woodpeckers in general, interpretations of 

photographs, and additional anecdotal information (Gallagher 2005, Jackson 2004) comprise 

the state of our understanding of the Ivory-bill. Clearly, any strategy aimed at recovery of this 

species must focus on intensive surveys to document the presence of the species. Much more 

could be learned about the ecology and biology of the species. 

Our poor understanding of the species has largely directed the recovery strategy to one of 

learning more about the species status and ecology as opposed to developing specific habitat 

management actions to be taken. Habitat management and land protection efforts are 

important but, at this early stage of recovery, the current focus is on learning more about where 

birds persist and then to examine those habitats to reveal ways in which specific conservation 

actions could be developed. 

Spatially explicit population goals have not been identified here but are recognized as a key 

part of this recovery plan. Recognizing this, modeling of habitats and populations is currently 

underway. The end result of these efforts will help inform the development of spatially 

explicit population and habitat goals. When these analyses are completed the plan can be 

revised to reflect the findings of modeling and research activities. 

Recovery Goal 

The goal of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker recovery program is to 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. 
- vi - 

Recovery Objectives

This recovery plan identifies 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. Management to reduce risks to the existing population, 

2. Protection and enhancement of suitable habitat, and; 

3. Actions to reduce or eliminate threats sufficient to allow successful restoration of 

additional wild populations. 

The emphasis in this recovery plan on the distribution of additional 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 do 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 1997). 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. Determine current habitat use and needs of existing populations. 

2. Survey potential habitats for new occurrences. 

3. Conserve and enhance habitat on public land. Add additional acreage to public 

habitat inventory via land acquisition from willing sellers. 

4. Conserve and enhance habitat on private lands through the use of agreements, 

conservation easements, habitat conservation plans, and public outreach to 

facilitate appropriate management actions. 

5. Determine viability of existing populations (numbers, breeding success, 

population genetics, and ecology). 
 - vii - 

6. Determine the number and geographic distribution of subpopulations needed for a 

self-sustaining metapopulation and evaluate suitable habitat for species 

reintroduction. 

Recovery Actions Needed 

The primary actions needed to accomplish delisting and interim downlisting recovery goals 

are: (1) population surveys and monitoring with an emphasis on the Cache and White River 

Basins and additional survey work in other parts of the historical range where habitat and 

sighting information indicates potential for the presence of the species, (2) habitat inventory 

and monitoring in the Cache and White River Basins and at larger spatial scales in the 

historical range of the species, (3) population and habitat modeling at various spatial scales to 

facilitate survey efforts and to inform potential management actions, (4) assumption-driven 

research directed at testing the biological assumptions otherwise implicit in modeling and 

management actions, (5) landscape characterization and assessment of the Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley and specifically the ability of the Cache and White River Basins to support recovery 

populations, (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 to protect occupied habitat and individuals, as well as to provide for management 

of forested habitats to aid in achieving recovery. 

Total Estimated Cost of Recovery

Year Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Action 4 Action 5 Action 6 Action 7 Action 8 Action 9 Total 

2006 1.95M* 1.032M 28K† 355K 446K 70K 0 90K 4.06M 7.977M 

2007 845K 806K 0 355K 340K 175K 65K 60K 3.055M 5.652M 

2008 810K 550K 0 240K 40K 140K 31.5K 60K 3.055M 4.877M 

2009 810K 500K 0 180K 0 90K 33K 60K 3.055M 4.679M 

2010 810K 500K 0 150K 0 40K 35K 60K 3.055M 4.600M 

Total 5.225M 3.388M 28K 1.28M 826K 515K 164.5K 330K 16.03M 27.785M 

*M = million dollars †K = thousand dollars 

Date of Recovery 

Delisting should be initiated in 2075, if recovery criteria are met. 
- a - 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Cover Page 

Title/Approval Page 

Disclaimer 

Acknowledgements 

Executive Summary 

Table of Contents 

List of Figures 

List of Tables 

I. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................... 1 

A. Overview ........................................................................................................................... 1 

B. Species Description and Taxonomy................................................................................ 1 

C. Status................................................................................................................................. 3 

D. Population Trend and Historic Distribution ................................................................. 4 

1. Alabama .......................................................................................................................... 7 

2. Arkansas.......................................................................................................................... 7 

3. Florida............................................................................................................................. 8 

4. Georgia............................................................................................................................ 9 

5. Kentucky....................................................................................................................... 10 

6. Louisiana....................................................................................................................... 12 

7. Mississippi .................................................................................................................... 14 

8. North Carolina .............................................................................................................. 14 

9. South Carolina .............................................................................................................. 15 

10. Tennessee.................................................................................................................... 15 

11. Texas........................................................................................................................... 16 

12. Summary..................................................................................................................... 17 

E. Life History and Ecology ............................................................................................... 17 

F. Habitat Characterization............................................................................................... 19 

1. General Observations on Historical Conditions ........................................................... 20 

2. James Tanner’s Observations on the Singer Tract........................................................ 21 

3. History of Habitat in the Area of Rediscovery in Arkansas ......................................... 21 

4. Current Conditions in the Area of Rediscovery in Arkansas........................................ 23 

5. Current Conditions Within the Historic Range............................................................. 24 

G. Management Considerations........................................................................................ 26 

1. Current Landscape Management in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley (LMAV) 26 

2. Bottomland Hardwood Forest Management................................................................. 27 

3. Favored Tree Species.................................................................................................... 27 

4. Impact of Changing Hydrologic regimes on tree species ............................................. 28 

5. The Role of Disturbance ............................................................................................... 28 

6. Dead Trees .................................................................................................................... 31 

7. Current Forest Management ......................................................................................... 32 

H. Reasons for Listing/Current Threats........................................................................... 34 

1. Habitat Loss and Degradation (Factor A)..................................................................... 34 
- b - 

2. Over Utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes 

(Factor B)........................................................................................................................... 34 

3. Disease or Predation (Factor C).................................................................................... 35 

4. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms (Factor D) ................................ 35 

5. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence (Factor E)...... 35 

I. Conservation Efforts....................................................................................................... 35 

1. Conservation Efforts in the Recent Past ....................................................................... 35 

2. Current Conservation Efforts........................................................................................ 36 

3. State Priority Search Areas ........................................................................................... 38 

4. Summary of Conservation Efforts ................................................................................ 40 

J. Biological Constraints and Needs.................................................................................. 41 

II. RECOVERY....................................................................................................................... 42 

A. Recovery Strategy .......................................................................................................... 42 

B. Recovery Goal................................................................................................................. 42 

C. Recovery Objectives....................................................................................................... 42 

D. Recovery Criteria........................................................................................................... 43 

E. Narrative Outline of Recovery Actions........................................................................ 43 

1.0 Population Surveys and Monitoring ........................................................................... 43 

2.0 Habitat Inventory and Monitoring .............................................................................. 44 

3.0 Population/Habitat Models ......................................................................................... 45 

4.0 Assumption-Driven Research ...................................................................................... 46 

5.0 Landscape Characterization and Assessment ............................................................. 47 

6.0 Conservation Design.................................................................................................... 48 

7.0 Education and Outreach.............................................................................................. 49 

8.0 Public Use and Access in Occupied Habitat................................................................ 49 

9.0 Management of Rediscovered Populations................................................................. 49 

III. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE............................................................................... 50 

IV. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 70 

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

affiliation................................................................................................................................... 75 

Appendix B. Extent of Decline............................................................................................... 82 

Appendix C. Narrative for Possible Post-1944 Ivory-billed Woodpecker Encounters. ... 88 

Appendix D Detailed Description of the Current and Historical Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

Sightings and Habitat for each of the states within the historic range. .............................. 93 

Appendix E. Ivory-billed Woodpecker Habitat Inventory and Assessment: Public 

Lands in the Big Woods of Arkansas................................................................................... 141 

Appendix F. Habitat Conditions across Historic Range .............................................. 150 

Appendix G. Species Names and Acronyms Used in the Recovery Plan......................... 169 
 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 20

th

 century (Tanner 1942). Little hope was held for its continued 

existence, until evidence of the species was documented in 2004 and 2005 (Fitzpatrick et 

al. 2005). Observers reported multiple sightings and recorded audio and video of at least 

one Ivory-billed Woodpecker within a section of Bayou de View, located in the Cache 

River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in east-central Arkansas. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service (We) recommend that the recovery strategy initially focus 

on completing surveys that help us learn more about the species’ status, distribution, 

ecology and that help us characterize its habitat. Results from these surveys will help us 

formulate specific conservation actions for the species throughout its range in the United 

States. Population goals are not identified, but are acknowledged as key to the recovery. 

Current efforts include development of models and additional research that will generate 

these spatially-explicit population goals. The recovery strategy contained in this recovery 

plan pertains to the population of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the southeastern United 

States. However, 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 (i.e., Cuba) (Thomas Barbour 1923 from Jackson 2004).

 

B. Species Description and Taxonomy

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker belongs to a group of 11 species of large woodpeckers that 

form the genus Campephilus, the majority of which inhabit Central and South America. 

Two groups of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are recognized (American Ornithologists’ Union 

1998): the Northern Ivory-billed Woodpecker (principalis group) with a historic range 

covering most of the southeastern and a small portion of south-central United States 

(Figure 1) and the Cuban Ivory-billed Woodpecker (bairdii group) which historically 

ranged throughout Cuba, though a recent publication provides evidence that the Cuban 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker may be a distinct species (Fleischer et al.2006). 

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker is noted for its striking black and white plumage; robust 

white, chisel-tipped bill; lemon-yellow eye; and pointed crest of feathers. 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 1). 
 2 

 

Figure 1 Male Ivory-billed Woodpecker, perched. Female, showing crest 

copyright David Allen Sibley 

The bases of the male’s red crest feathers are white, which may allow a spot of white to be 

displayed on the side of the crest when the feathers are fully erect. This 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 Ridgeway, who collected specimens (Ridgeway 1914 from 

Tanner 1942). The 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), based on values of “1 pound” 
 3 

 

and “20 ounces” given in the historical records. However, no clearly documented data is 

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. 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker vocalizations are comprised of a nasal “kent” call resembling the 

sound obtained by blowing on the mouthpiece of a saxophone or clarinet. John J. 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 far-carrying 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 quarter-mile away 

(Tanner 1942). Non-vocalized sounds made by the bird include a rapid, loud knocking 

characteristic of most members of the genus. This “rapping” is often described as a 

“double rap” since it consists of two rapid knocks. Raps may also occur singly. The Ivorybill is also known— at least in some circumstances— to have noisy wing-beats in flight 

and a more rapid wing-beat relative to the Pileated Woodpecker (Tanner 1942). 

C. Status

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker was listed as endangered throughout its entire 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 clearly 

known. On February 11, 2004, kayaker Gene Sparling caught a glimpse of a large 

woodpecker in the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge of Arkansas. The encounter 

spurred an extensive scientific search. Additional sightings, observations as well as audio 

and video recordings from the search have provided evidence that the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker still exists. 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 continues to be debate among ornithologists and birders regarding the 

evidence that at least one Ivory-billed Woodpecker was found in the Big Woods of eastern 

Arkansas (Fitzpatrick et al. 2005, Fitzpatrick et al.2006, Jackson 2006, Lammertink et al.

2006, Sibley et al. 2006). The Service recognizes and supports exchanges of views on 

alternative interpretations as a part of the scientific process. However, it is understood that 

the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is charged to promote conservation and recovery of this 

species. 

Some authorities (Kirkconnel 2005, pers. comm.) suspect the species might persist in a few 

locations in Cuba (Garrido and KirkConnell 2000). 

The Recovery Priority Number for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is 5 on a scale of 1 to 18, 

indicating a high degree of threat and a low recovery potential for this species. A Recovery 
 4 

 

Priority Number is assigned to every species listed according to the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1537 et seq.) and is based on the species’ 

recovery potential, degree of threat and its taxonomic designation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1983a, 1983b). No critical habitat has been designated for this species. 

D. Population Trend and Historic Distribution 

The extreme rarity of the species for nearly a hundred years has resulted in a lack of 

population data which could be used to establish a definitive current trend in population 

size or distribution. It is possible to sketch a distribution of the historic range in the U.S. 

based on museum records and the observations of early explorers and naturalists. The 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker appeared to be quite widespread throughout the southeastern 

United States prior to European settlement (Figure 1). 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 in 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 from Jackson 2004). Archaeological 

evidence indicates that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker may have occurred eastward to 

southern Ohio at least 300 years prior to European settlement (J. L. Murphy and J. Farrand, 

Jr. 1979 from Jackson 2004). 

Historic population numbers will never be known but based on the extensive habitat 

available prior to European settlement it is likely that thousands of birds once existed. 

Declines corresponded closely with European settlement and the clearing and alteration of 

forest habitats (Appendix B). The long term decline in habitats important to the Ivorybilled Woodpecker began in the early 1800s with essentially all of the historic range 

impacted in some way by the early 20th century. Through the early 1940s, there was a 

gradual decrease in the number of collection and sight records that ended with the 

documented sightings in the Tensas River region of northeastern Louisiana. These records 

are all that is available to sketch the historic range and decline of this species. 

The most recent density estimate we have for Ivory-billed Woodpecker populations are 

from Tanner’s study published in 1942. Based on his reports, Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

density ranged from 1 breeding pair per 6 square miles (about 4,000 acres of mixed 

upland pine and bottomland forest in Florida) to 1 breeding pair per 17 square miles 

(about 11,000 acres of bottomland forest in Louisiana). Based on these estimates, 50 

breeding pairs of Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the late 1930s would need 300 square miles 

(about 200,000 acres) of habitat in Florida or 850 square miles (about 550,000 acres) in 

Louisiana. 
 5 

 

Figure 2. The Historic Range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and Locations of Potential 

Sightings Reported from 1944 to 2005. 

Since the last confirmed sightings of the species in Louisiana in the 1940s, there have been 

numerous reports of possible sightings, photographs, and recordings of Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker vocalizations or drumming across the historic range of the species. The most 

significant of these are summarized in Figure 1 and Table 1 and discussed in more detail in 

Appendix C. Those observations, unfortunately, could not be verified. Convincing evidence 

of the species’ existence was obtained when the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was rediscovered in 

Arkansas as documented by Fitzpatrick et al. (2005). In 2004 and 2005, observers reported 

multiple sightings and, more importantly, recorded video of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Interpretation of the video has been challenged by others (Jackson 2006, Sibley et al. 2006). 

The opposing position is that the recorded bird may be a Pileated Woodpecker. Fitzpatrick et 

al. (2006) provided additional analysis of the Arkansas sightings to answer the opposing claims 

and to further support the video evidence of Ivory-billed Woodpecker existence.
 6 

 

Table 1. Summary of possible Ivory-billed Woodpecker encounters reported from 1944 to 

2005. Most of these are referenced in Jackson (2004). The source for some encounters is an 

unpublished FWS compilation of reports from the late 1980s. (Appendix C). 

STATE REGION COMMENTS 

South Carolina Pee Dee and Waccamaw Sightings from the Black River reported in 1970 

and 1981, no independent confirmation. 

South Carolina Santee River Congaree Swamp National Park to Cape Romain 

National Wildlife Refuge (FWS) 

South Carolina-Georgia Savannah River from Augusta to 

Savannah. 

No post-1944 reports. 

Georgia Ogeechee River, 25 miles west of 

Savannah 

1973 

Georgia Altamaha River 1958 

Georgia-Florida Okefenokee NWR-Pinhook SwampOsceola NF Reports during 1946-1948 

Georgia-Florida Red Hills Seen by Stoddard in 1958 and Reynard (1963) 

Florida Apalachicola Drainage Basin 1950’s (Stevenson and Anderson 1994) 

Florida Lower Suwannee River (including Big 

Bend and California Swamp) 

No post-1944 reports 

Florida Big Cypress-Fakahatchee 1950 

Florida Eglin Air Force Base 1966, not independently confirmed 

Florida Wekiva River 1987-1988, not independently confirmed 

Florida Homosassa Springs 1955, not independently confirmed 

Florida Green Swamp, Haines City area 1967, credible observer 

Florida Highlands Hammock 1968, not independently confirmed 

Florida Jonathan Dickinson State Park 1985, not independently confirmed 

Florida northwest of Lake Okeechobee 1967-1969 

Alabama-Mississippi Mobile River delta (includes Tensaw, 

Alabama and Tombigbee river 

systems) 

No post-1944 reports 

Mississippi Pascagoula River Reports from 1960, 1978, and 1982 

Mississippi Yazoo River Delta (from Mississippi 

River confluence to vicinity of 

Greenwood) 

Mississippi 30 miles north of Meridian 1953 

Louisiana-Mississippi Pearl River 1999 

Louisiana Atchafalaya Basin 1970s 1980s 

Louisiana Catahoula NWR east to Cat Island 

NWR 

No post-1944 reports 

Louisiana Tensas River Basin 1940s-1980s 

Louisiana-Arkansas Ouachita River (from Felsenthal NWR 

to Ouachita WMA) 

No post-1944 reports 

Arkansas White-Cache-Lower Arkansas rivers 2004, 2005 

Louisiana-ArkansasOklahoma-Texas Red River (including Little River 

NWR, OK, Caddo Lake NWR, TX, 

Pond Creek NWR, AR and points 

south into LA) 

1980s 

Louisiana-Texas Sabine River (Toledo Bend Reservoir) 1985 

Texas Big Thicket (Neches-Trinity rivers) 1958 to 1985 (FWS) 
 7 

 

The status of the species in each of the states within the historic range is summarized below. 

Detailed state descriptions are included in Appendix D. 

1. Alabama 

Data on the historical occurrence, and hence the original range, of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker in Alabama is meager. Based on published records and the historic range of the 

species in surrounding states, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker probably inhabited areas of suitable 

habitat in the eastern gulf coastal plain of Alabama south of the fall line (the area where 

continental bedrock meets coastal plain. When this area intersects a river, falls and rapids are 

usually present). The most suitable habitat appears to have been in forests along major 

riverine systems in the west and south and in extensive longleaf pine forests in the southeast. 

The vast forested wetlands along the Alabama, Tombigbee, Black Warrior, Chattahoochee, 

Conecuh, and Pea rivers were undoubtedly important. 

The relative rarity of the species throughout its range, absence of surveys, and lack of locality 

data documenting its distribution makes it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions concerning 

range changes. While the bird undoubtedly occurred in low numbers over large areas of 

Alabama, available data indicates that by 1850 its main center of distribution in Alabama was 

severely restricted. Six records for Alabama are from the once vast forested areas drained by 

the Tombigbee and Alabama Rivers in west Alabama. 

There have been at least six reported Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings from four counties in 

Alabama (Madison, Sumter, Jefferson, and Tallapoosa) since 1944. Of those encounters, only 

one sighting along the Noxubee River in 1973 is within the reported historical range of the 

species. 

2. Arkansas 

Historically, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker inhabited old-growth bottomland forests in eastern 

Arkansas (James and Neal 1986). John Audubon saw these woodpeckers regularly during his 

travels down the Mississippi River near Arkansas Post in 1820 (Audubon 1929). Tanner 

(1942) presents reports of the species in the 1800s from the northeastern part of the state near 

Newport along the White River, near Marked Tree (between the St. Francis River and the 

Mississippi River), Osceola (adjacent to the Mississippi River in far northeast Arkansas), and 

Helena in eastern Arkansas. Tanner (1942) also reports less specific accounts of sightings in 

the 1800s along the Canadian and Arkansas rivers and at the confluence of the Ouachita and 

Saline rivers in the south-central part of Arkansas. (This record is derived from the 1834 

record of G.W. Featherstonhaugh, 1935 which should read “Clark County, Caddo River, 2 

miles upstream of the junction of the Ouachita River” and is incorrect in Tanner, 1942) (Foti 

pers. com). 

According to Tanner (1942) logging increased rapidly in most of Arkansas between 1890 and 

1900. The last Ivory-billed Woodpecker population remaining in the state near the mouth of 

the Arkansas River disappeared between 1900 and 1915; the last historical report for the bird 

in Arkansas was about 1910. Tanner (1942) briefly visited what is now the White River NWR 
 8 

 

in 1938 and found no evidence of the bird and a lack of habitat to support the species. 

However, in 2005, published auditory, video and visual evidence in the Cache and White River 

NWRs indicated the presence of at least one bird in Arkansas. 

There have been at least 27 reported Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings or auditory encounters 

from 4 counties in Arkansas (Jackson, Little River, Monroe, and Phillips) since 1944. Most 

notably, the 2004 and 2005 encounters in Bayou de View documented by Fitzpatrick et al.

(2005) represent the most definitive evidence of the species existence since the 1940s. 

3. Florida 

The greatest number of historical reports and collected specimens of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

are from Florida, partly owing to Florida’s accessibility to the “northeastern establishment 

ornithologists” of the late 1800s and early 1900s (Jackson 1996:105). Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers are known to have existed throughout Florida from the panhandle to the 

Everglades (Jackson 1996), although records from extreme southern Florida are controversial. 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were probably most numerous in three regions: (1) riparian systems 

and associated pine woods in northern Florida; (2) the Big Cypress swamp in southwest 

Florida; and (3) swamp forests associated with several rivers in central Florida. The salient 

feature of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat in Florida appears to be old-growth forest, 

including, and perhaps favoring (Jackson 1996), the ecotone (transition zone between two 

ecological communities) between bottomlands and uplands. 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 used by Ivory-billed Woodpecker and unique to Florida was the extensive Big Cypress 

region that occurs on flat, poorly drained limestone topography in the southwestern part of the 

peninsula (Duever et al. 1986). 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker numbers, in decline since the arrival of Europeans in North America, 

suffered accelerated losses during the last decades of the 1800s and first decades of the 1900s 

(Jackson 1996). By 1900, they were gone from most parts of northern Florida (Robertson and 

Woolfenden 1992). Areas such as St. Marks in Wakulla County were thought to have had 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers around 1905 (Phillips 1926). By the late 1930s, when Tanner 

(1942) visited the Gulf Hammock, lower Suwannee River, and California swamp in northern 

Florida, he found no sign of the species and very little habitat that was not cut over. 

As the twentieth century progressed, only small groups persisted, mainly in southern and 

central Florida (Jackson 2004). By the 1920s, only dedicated field ornithologists could find 

pairs of birds in remote areas like Taylor Creek in central Florida— and these last pairs were 

quickly taken as specimens (Allen and Kellogg 1937). The last museum specimens with 

reliable collection data were a male and female pair taken during 1925 in Osceola County by 

B.J. Hancock (Florida Museum of Natural History collection; Hahn 1963). 
 9 

 

There have been many reports of various types of encounters with this species in Florida since 

1944 (Appendix D, Florida table). A series of credible sightings occurred in northern Florida 

during the 1950s along the Chipola River and in Taylor, Jefferson and Wakulla Counties 

(Crompton 1950, Eastman 1958, Dennis 1967, Stevenson and Anderson 1994, Jackson 2002). 

Recent sightings that appear to have the most reliability were reported from Polk/Highlands 

County during 1967-1969, the lower Apalachicola River in 1984, and Jonathan Dickinson 

State Park in 1985. Jackson (1996, p.104) referred to winter sightings during 1990-1991 from 

Fakahatchee Strand (southwest Florida) and from the lower Chipola/Apalachicola swamps 

(panhandle Florida), which “simply cannot be ruled out as having truly not been of an Ivorybilled Woodpecker.” However, no details regarding Jackson’s references were available. 

4. Georgia 

The original range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Georgia probably was the extent of the 

coastal plain up to the fall line, although it is likely that some 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 major river systems, including the Okefenokee Swamp in extreme southeast Georgia 

(Tanner 1942, Burleigh 1958, Jackson 2002). 

As the coastal plain gave way to agriculture, the species’ range was restricted more and more 

to floodplain forests associated with the above major river systems, plus those such as the 

Satilla, wholly contained in the coastal plain (Tanner 1942, Burleigh 1958, Jackson 2002). In 

addition, areas of mature pine surrounding large expanses of bottomland hardwoods were 

apparently used for foraging. However, it is unlikely that pine forests would be used in the 

absence of a core area of large bottomland forests. A possible exception is in the Red Hills 

region of southwest Georgia-northern Florida, which still retains large patches of mature 

longleaf forest, some of it virgin (Stoddard 1969). 

An area that apparently retained Ivory-billed Woodpeckers well into the twentieth century is 

the Okefenokee Swamp, an area greater than 150,000 hectares in southeast Georgia with 

limited drainage by the Suwannee River toward the Gulf and by the St. Mary’s River toward 

the Atlantic (Greene 1936, Burleigh 1958). 

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. 

Today the only locations that retain habitat features favorable to Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

over a large enough expanse to be considered possible habitat are sections of the lower 

Altamaha River floodplain and the Okefenokee Swamp, although there are a couple of other 

areas that are probably worth searching (see below). 

Habitat in the Okefenokee Swamp might be considered somewhat unique. It features large 

expanses of open shallow marshes or prairies of floating leaved plants and emergents, plus 

bogs of sphagnum or fern. These are intermixed with (1) wooded swamps or bays supporting 

stands of pond cypress, water tupelo, red bay, black bay and loblolly bay, (2) hammocks 
 10 

 

supporting mixed stands of water oak, loblolly pine, magnolia and sweet-gum, and (3) barrens 

of moist and dry pineland, mostly containing longleaf and slash pines (Burleigh 1958). 

Habitat in the Red Hills region is a mosaic of mature pine forest, agriculture, urban/suburban, 

and hardwood bottoms. What makes it unique are the relatively large patches of old-growth 

longleaf-wiregrass habitat that still exist. The overstory of these habitats is typically a wellspaced monoculture of old (>300 years) longleaf pine with an herbaceous ground cover that is 

very diverse. The system is maintained by frequent fire, which also serves to control the 

growth of a hardwood understory. Several of these areas border large patches of bottomland 

hardwoods, and together they might constitute suitable habitat for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. 

Only a handful of encounters have been reported since 1944. Probably the most credible of 

these were made by the noted ornithologist/naturalist/conservationist Herbert L. Stoddard. 

Interestingly, Stoddard did not report these immediately, apparently for fear of disturbance of 

the birds. Several observations were from the Okefenokee Swamp (Suwannee, St. Marys 

Rivers) including one unknown observer cited by Green 1936, as well as F.V Hebard cited by 

Burleigh 1958, and Loftin 1991. Stoddard’s reports include Thomas County 1952, 1958, and 

the Lower Altamaha River 1940-1950s. G. Reynard also reported a Thomas County sighting 

in 1963. Jackson (2004) reported a sighting 25 miles west of Savannah by C.D. Gerow on the 

Ogeechee River. 

5. Kentucky 

Modest documentation exists on the historical locations as well as actual population densities 

of this species in 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, oak-pine, chestnut oak-scarlet oak, white oak, and mixed mesophytic (not particularly dry 

or wet) forest. All are primarily determined by slope aspect and/or succession (Muller and 

McComb 1986). 

When viewing these records on a regional scale, it may be entirely plausible that pre-colonial 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker populations could have extended, not only up the Ohio River, but 

also into other tributaries of the Ohio River. If so, then another one plausible explanation for 

the presence of the species in Lincoln County site may be explained by the nearby riverine 

forests of the Dix River and the nearby source of the Green River, which lies in close 

proximity to the area mentioned. With major cultivation and land use changes not occurring 

until the early 1800’s, both of the mentioned river systems may have provided connectivity to 

the Ohio River floodplain forests to the north and west of the Lincoln County site. Since no 

documentation exists outside the Ohio record, the pre-colonial record from Lincoln County 

may suggest the species could have been present in many of Kentucky’s larger river bottoms. 
 11 

 

While the early Kentucky record continues to be rather dubious, the most precise 

documentation providing a definitive date and reference to the original range in the state 

appears to be in the 1831 notes of John James Audubon, when he recorded the species at the 

confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio River (present day Ballard County). In these notes, 

Audubon only made “oblique reference” to nesting in Kentucky and Indiana (in the Wabash 

River system) (Mengel 1965). This record would have placed the species near present day 

Union County, Kentucky. Audubon also made additional reference to nesting at Green River in 

present day Henderson County, however it appears that the greatest population densities of the 

species occurred in counties adjacent to the Mississippi River which include: Fulton, Hickman, 

Carlisle, and Ballard counties. 

Due to the lack of documentation of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Kentucky, it is 

impossible to determine any range changes over time. It does appear that by the early 1800’s 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker had all but disappeared from the majority of Kentucky’s 

landscape, with some residual numbers remaining until the early 1870’s in Fulton county, 

where the last known population of the bird remained (Mengel 1965). No substantive evidence 

of the species has been reported since the Fulton County report in the 1870s (Palmer-Ball 

2003). 

 

Current habitat conditions are thought to be poor due to the clearing of land along the 

Mississippi River in the early 1800’s and continual logging operations which occur on regular 

cycles, as well current conditions found in the Mississippi River floodplain. 
 12 

 

6. Louisiana 

Figure 2 James Tanner in the Singer Tract 

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. Specimen collections 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 

(Morehouse, West Carroll, East Carroll, Madison, Franklin, Tensas, and Concordia Parishes). 

South of that area, Ivory-billed Woodpecker specimens and sightings were reported from the 

bottomland forests along the Mississippi River and Atchafalaya River (West Feliciana, West 

Baton Rouge, Iberville, St. Martin, and Lafourche Parishes) south to the forested coastal area 

of Iberia Parish. McIlhenny (1941) recorded his earliest childhood memories of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers being resident in the forested areas of Avery Island and 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 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). 

According to Lowery (1974) until 1932, ornithologists had come to believe that the Ivory-
 13 

 

billed 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 Ivory-billed 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). 

There have been at least 10 reported possible sightings of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in 

Louisiana since August of 1941. 

1941 In August, three Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were seen in John’s Bayou area of the 

Singer Tract, LA, by George Bick and Jim Parker, including an apparent female hatchyear young (Bick 1942; J. Tanner pers. comm., Oct 1989, an update and annotation of 

Tanner 1942). 

1941 On 21 and 28 of December, Tanner found an adult and juvenile female in a highly 

cutover area of the Singer Tract. 

1942 Roger T. Peterson and Bayard Christy observed two females in the same area May 9 

(Christy 1943, Peterson 1948, J. Tanner update pers. comm.). 

1942 In November of 1942, John Baker found a single female in the Singer Tract (Peterson 

1948). 

1943–1944 Richard Pough of National Audubon Society found a single female in the Singer 

Tract between 4 Dec 1943 and 19 Jan 1944 (Pough 1944). 

1944 In April of 1944, Don Eckelberry saw and sketched a female in the Singer Tract 

(Eckelberry 1961; watercolor painting in collection of J. A. Jackson and reproduced in 

Jackson 2002). 

1946 A possible sighting occurred in December of 1946. A single Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

may have remained in the Singer Tract (Peterson 1988), although there is apparently 

neither identification of the observer nor further record of this report. 

1971 On 22 of May 1971, an unidentified dog trainer photographed a pair of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers on separate tree trunks in second-growth forest in the Atchafalaya Basin, 

Louisiana. The photos were given to George Lowery at Louisiana State University 

(LSU), who followed up with searches in the area. He found no conclusive evidence of 

Ivory-billeds. Jackson has examined the photos and concurred with Gauthreaux (1971: 

827) and Stewart (1971: 868) that they are clearly of one or two Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers. However, the photos were shown to ornithologists at the 1971 American 

Ornithological Union meeting at LSU and met with skepticism, the suggestion being 

that they might be of a mounted specimen. 
 14 

 

1974 November 11, 1974, Robert Bean reported seeing an Ivory-billed Woodpecker from a 

distance of about 5 m as it flew across Interstate 10 in the Atchafalaya Swamp about 32 

km west of Baton Rouge, LA (Dennis 1979). This is near where Robert Hamilton 

thought he had seen one 2 years earlier (Hamilton 1975). 

1999 David Kulivan reported seeing two Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the Pearl River 

Swamp of southeast Louisiana April 1 (Williams 2001, Jackson 2002). 

7. 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 D, Mississippi table). 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 D, Mississippi table). Areas with reported encounters 

since 1944 include the Pearl, Pascagoula, Leaf, Big Black, Noxubee, Yazoo and Mississippi 

rivers. 

8. North Carolina 

There have been no recent reliable or confirmed sightings of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in 

North Carolina. The one definitive record, from Alexander Wilson, was from the Wilmington 

area around 1831. 

The primary river systems in this southeastern corner of North Carolina, are the Waccamaw, 

and the Lumber Rivers. The Lumber River flows into the Little Pee Dee River in South 

Carolina approximately nine miles south the state line. In North Carolina, the Lumber River 

drainage contains about 85 square miles of potential habitat which includes the bottomland 

hardwood system and some associated uplands. The Waccamaw River system is about 30 

miles to the southeast of the Lumber River, and contains about 45 square miles of potential 
 15 

 

habitat. Lastly, the Cape Fear River system has some potential as well, and it includes the 

Northeast Cape Fear River and the Black River that join the Cape Fear near Wilmington. This 

group of rivers has about 60 square miles of potential habitat, and is about 20 miles northeast 

of the Waccamaw River. 

9. South Carolina 

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 long-leaf pine uplands 

intermixed with farms and plantations. Tanner (1942) reported suitable Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker range was decreasing due to logging operations in the Santee River swamp 

occurring around 1939.

Three major river drainages occur within South Carolina and make up the majority of 

bottomland hardwood habitat type found. The Congaree and Wateree Rivers converge into the 

Santee River in the center of the state and the Santee River flows south to the Atlantic Ocean. 

The Savannah River delineates the border between Georgia and South Carolina, and flows 

north-south emptying into the Atlantic Ocean at Savannah Georgia. Northeastern coastal South 

Carolina includes the major drainages and tributaries of the Waccamaw, Lynches, Black, Great 

Pee Dee, Little Pee Dee, and Lumber Rivers (here referred to as the Waccamaw Complex). 

Sprunt and Chamberlain (1949) suggest that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was formerly 

common over much of the eastern part of the state but its virtual extinction is due to the 

encroachment of civilization. Bottomland hardwood habitat is still present along the 

Congaree-Wateree-Upper Santee Rivers, Savannah River, and Waccamaw Complex. 

A number of Ivory-billed Woodpecker encounters in South Carolina have been recorded with 

the majority of historical sightings around the lower Santee River. A few sightings were also 

recorded along the Savannah, Pee Dee, and Coosawhatchie Rivers. 

There are a number of possible encounters that do not have independent confirmation; six of 

those have occurred since 1944. All encounters fall within one of the four major bottomland 

hardwood river systems within the state; however the majority is from the Upper 

Santee/Congaree/Wateree Rivers, specifically within Congaree National Park. 

10. Tennessee 

While Ivory-billed Woodpeckers almost certainly occurred in bottomland hardwood forests of 

Tennessee historically, no definitive records from the state are known. Ivory-bill remains have 

been found in a few archaeological sites in Tennessee (Jackson 2004). However, since Native 

Americans traded them widely, the birds may not have originated in Tennessee. Audubon 

(1929) reported Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, for example, from a flatboat while traveling the 

Mississippi River during the winter of 1820–1821. Although Audubon reported this species 

from a stretch of river bordering Tennessee, he did not specifically mention the presence of 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers on the Tennessee side of the Mississippi River. At least 2 records of 
 16 

 

the bird from the late 1800s occurred in counties bordering Tennessee— Fulton County, 

Kentucky and Mississippi County, Arkansas. 

Historically, the range of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers was very likely limited by the relatively 

few acres of bottomland hardwood forest in Tennessee when compared to other states within 

the rest of the species’ range. The majority of the state’s bottomland forests occur within the 

floodplain of the Mississippi River and its tributaries, which are relatively narrow in 

Tennessee. By the end of the 1940s, intensive logging practices further reduced existing 

possible Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat in the state. 

At least 4 Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings or auditory encounters have been reported in 

Tennessee since 1944, all from the same area in the Hatchie River watershed. Three reports 

came from the same individual, who reported seeing one bird on 3 different occasions between 

1996 and 2005, one of which was a female. The fourth report is a series of mostly auditory 

encounters, with one possible distant visual encounter, near the same location in the Hatchie 

River watershed during January 2006. 

11. Texas 

According to Oberholser (1974) the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was never common in Texas. In 

fact, records exist from only 16 counties in the state. Existing reports suggest that the species 

was restricted to areas east of the Brazos River. Tanner’s (1942) publication indicates breeding 

records along the Brazos and Neches rivers in the 1880s. Specimens have been collected as 

far north as Dallas County along the Trinity River and birds were observed farther north along 

the Red River in Cooke County (Shackelford 1998). Most accounts of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers in Texas 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. The amount of forests throughout eastern Texas was greatly 

reduced and fragmented before World War II. Man-made disturbances associated with 

agriculture, timber cuts and reservoir construction were the main causes. However, some large 

forested tracts, presumably with acceptable ivory-bill habitat, remained along the river bottoms 

of eastern Texas until the 1960s when some of the state’s largest reservoirs, the Sam Rayburn 

and Toledo Bend, were constructed. At the time, these areas contained some of the state’s best 

bottomland hardwood forests. 

Unconfirmed accounts by J. V. Dennis, G. Reynard, and others persisted from 1956 into the 

1970s, mostly along the Neches and Trinity rivers and Village Creek in the region known as 

the “big thicket.” This area should not be confused with the present-day Big Thicket National 

Preserve, which was established later. A total of 12 unverified Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

observations, 2 of which were audio recordings, occurred within the counties of Hardin, Jasper, 

Liberty and Tyler, located within extreme southeastern Texas. All such published accounts are 

outlined in Shackelford (1998). 
 17 

 

12. Cuba 

The status of the species in Cuba is also poorly known. The species was known to persist as 

recently as 1987 but there have been no recent sightings of the species despite efforts to locate 

them. Despite the lack of clear evidence of their continued existence it is still possible the 

species is present in Cuba (A. Kirkconnell, pers. comm.) though the extent of suitable habitat 

is unknown. 

12. Summary 

In summary, it is clear that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, once widespread throughout the 

southeastern forests, has declined dramatically to a small fraction of its historic range. Due to 

its extreme rarity, a definitive assessment of population size and distribution is not possible at 

this time. It is likely, however, that the population of remaining birds in Arkansas is extremely 

small. If the species persists in areas outside of Arkansas it is likely in small numbers as well. 

Potential remaining habitat for this species has been preliminarily identified and work is 

underway to refine methods which will aid in identifying 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 birds will increase in number. 

E. Life History and Ecology 

Our knowledge of the Ivory-billed 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 over 50% larger than the Pileated Woodpecker (see Section B) 

and, therefore, should require a greater amount of food to maintain its body mass than a 

Pileated Woodpecker. This greater food demand could explain why an Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker must range farther and is more sensitive to habitat alterations than the Pileated 

Woodpecker. The traits of having large home ranges and sensitivity to habitat alterations in 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker are shared with the 3 other very large woodpecker species that 

weigh over 400 g (Lammertink in prep.). Associated with maintaining large home ranges, the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker is known to fly distances of at least several kilometers each day 

between favored roost sites and feeding areas. Information on daily movements is very limited, 

however. 

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). Where 

these trees are available, they 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. 

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 
 18 

 

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). It is likely that Ivorybilled Woodpeckers would expand home range sizes in sub-optimal habitats, such as in the 

regenerating bottomland forests in the Cache and White National Wildlife Refuges in eastern 

Arkansas. If Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in eastern Arkansas expanded home ranges and 

densities five-fold as observed in the Bornean study of Great Slaty Woodpeckers, core home 

ranges there could be up to 20 square miles and home ranges may occur at densities of only 

one per 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. 

There is no evidence to suggest that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is migratory (Allen and 

Kellogg 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 of six collected birds. Large beetle larvae appear to be an important 

component of the diet. These are obtained by stripping bark from recently dead or dying tree 

trunks and branches and by excavating rotted wood. Members of the long-horned beetle 

family, Cerambycidae, were noted in the stomach of Ivory-billed Woodpecker several times, 

but many other species of wood-boring beetle larvae have also been documented. The diet 

may at times include various nuts, such as pecans and acorn, and fruits, including hackberry, 

persimmon, wild grape, poison ivy and possibly swamp tupelo. 

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 Ivorybilled Woodpeckers, Pileated Woodpeckers and other crested woodpeckers may be an 

adaptation to accommodate the bird’s crest (Jackson 2004). The inside dimensions of Ivorybilled Woodpecker nest cavities suggest that the diameter of the cavity ranges from 17.8 to 

26.7 cm with a possible depth from roof to floor of 44.4 to 63.5 cm. The outside diameter of 

the limb supporting the cavity can range 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 Ivory-billed Woodpecker individuals, but this 

may not always be the case. In other large woodpecker species like the Megallanic 
 19 

 

Woodpecker, members of a pair sometimes roost together (Ojeda 2004). Tanner (1942) and 

Allen and Kellogg (1937 found that paired birds 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 

Ivory-billed 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 is 

performed by both sexes and, based on the measured incubation period of the Magellanic 

Woodpecker and one estimate by Tanner (1942) for an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, takes about 

20 days. 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 most complete study we have suggests that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker produces very 

few young compared to other birds (Tanner 1942). By the late 1930s, Tanner had identified 

up to seven distinct territories under his observation in the approximately 80,000 acres 

making up the Singer Tract, but only three breeding pairs produced young at least once for 

the six years of data collected, and young were produced consistently in only two territories. 

No incidences of predation on Ivory-billed Woodpecker are known and it is likely that natural 

predators are few. However, nest predators may have had an impact on the species’ decline 

under certain conditions. Raccoon and rat snakes may prey on nestlings or eggs while Great 

Horned Owls, Barred Owls, and Red-shouldered Hawks may prey upon recently fledged 

birds. Birds may also be killed by sudden catastrophic damage to nest or roost trees (e.g., 

lightning strike, hurricane or tornado winds) and by disease. 

Humans have killed the bird for several 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, Ivorybilled 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 the work of James Tanner and observations from current sites where the bird has 

been seen in eastern Arkansas. These birds have survived under less than optimal conditions, 

given the general assumptions regarding its needs. Recovery planning will require a 

comparison and evaluation (against what is understood about habitat requirements) of current 
 20 

 

conditions in historically occupied and currently potential range, most notably in the Lower 

Mississippi Valley. Current forest management practices affecting Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

habitat should be examined to determine if those practices should be modified to improve those 

habitat conditions. In the long term, habitat protection, management, and enhancement will be 

of paramount importance to the recovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

1. General Observations on Historical Conditions 

Literature on habitat characteristics favored by the Ivory-billed Woodpecker creates the 

impression that this species was associated with expansive patches of "virgin" or uncut forests 

with a relatively high proportion of very large and old trees that supported a high proportion of 

dead and dying trees. However, the importance of uncut forests may be only part of the habitat 

requirements of this species. This species may have sought older forests that had been subject 

to recent catastrophic events i.e. drought, fire, hurricanes, tornadoes, ice storms, and flooding, 

leading to the death of large patches of trees. In more modern times, Tanner did document that 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker occasionally used forests that had undergone some degree of 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. However, these observations do not 

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, plantation 

forests) likely led to this species overall decline and extirpation throughout much of the historic 

range (Tanner 1942, Jackson 2004). 

Although most reports (both confirmed prior to the 1940s and unconfirmed after the 1940s) 

have been from bottomland forests, there are suggestions in the literature 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). In many cases, occurrences in pines 

were especially associated with fire-killed trees, often adjacent to bottomland forests, but 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 that led to the availability of many recently dead and dying trees that 

support the beetle larvae that could be considered essential in successful fledging of young 

woodpeckers. 

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 relatively “virgin” or characterized by older-growth conditions 

(e.g., Congaree National Monument 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 optimal Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat requirements as trees age and the 

forests are being managed to encourage retention of older forest characteristics. 
 21 

 

2. James Tanner’s Observations on the Singer Tract 

James Tanner’s 1942 report is based on his observations in the Singer Tract of northeastern 

Louisiana (now Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge), 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 time 

of writing. It is the best available source of historical information. Tanner reported that the 

sweet-gum-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 (the type in which birds have been seen recently in Arkansas) 

was a rarely used habitat in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. In Georgia and Florida Ivorybilled 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 are required 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 sizes of trees represented about 18% of forest composition. 35% of the 

feeding took place on trees that were between 24-36 in dbh. Trees this size made up about 5% 

of the forest. Based on Tanner’s observations on the Singer tract 87% of foraging observations 

occurred on the largest trees, comprising 25% of the total trees available for foraging. 

Elsewhere, some observers noted Ivory-billed Woodpecker foraging on “very small” to 

medium diameter pines, recently killed by fire (from Florida and Cuba; Allen and Kellogg 

1937, Dennis 1948, Lamb 1957). 

Tanner also found that sweet-gum was the number one 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 used tree by Ivory-bills at 27% of observations 

compared with about 11% availability in the forest. 

Tanner strongly emphasized the need to preserve all "virgin" forests for the benefit of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker, a sensible conclusion from his findings. At the time of his study 

over 80% of the Singer Tract was “virgin” forest, with no history of logging or clearing. 

However, 20% (close to 16,000 acres) was not. 

Regardless of the various ages of forest stands making up the Singer Tract, it is clear that this 

forest was within an area containing some of the larges acreage of old growth forest in the 

Mississippi alluvial valley; 577,600 acres out of 2.68 million acres of forest cover in the North 

Louisiana Delta were classified as “uncut old growth” (USDA Misc. Pub. No. 309, 1938). 

Almost everything else in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, if not within the entire historical 

range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, had been cut-over by the 1930’s. 

3. History of Habitat in the Area of Rediscovery in Arkansas 

The recent observations of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker on Cache River NWR have occurred 

in the extensive tupelo/baldcypress swamps of Bayou de View. There is also evidence of 

potential foraging along the hardwood perimeters of the swamps and in other hardwood stands 
 22 

 

in the southern parts of the refuge. Almost all of the sightings since 2004 come from a 

relatively narrow (about one mile wide) forest along Bayou de View in the Cache River NWR, 

Benson Creek Natural Area, and Dagmar WMA. 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 de View 

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 modern day residual stands. 

These forests located above the normal floodplain were mostly hardwood containing mature 

sweet-gum, willow oak, water oak, Nuttall oak, sugar-berry, American elm, post oak, white 

oak, and other common hardwood species, with scattered pockets of saline soils harboring 

native loblolly pine. As the demand for agricultural land increased more of the surrounding 

forests were cleared. From approximately 1960 to 1970 the swamps of Bayou de View were 

extensively logged again; this time removing more tupelo than baldcypress. 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 Ivory-billed 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 (Endangered Species Technical Bulletin 10, no.5). 
 23 

 

Figure 3 Example of Current Habitat Condition 

4. Current Conditions in the Area of Rediscovery in Arkansas 

Currently the Bayou de View 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 Wildlife Management Area (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 occasional large relic baldcypress and tupelo that are several centuries 

old, with some cypress over 1000 years old. The interconnected channels of Bayou de View, 

create a broad floodplain or swamp that presents an increased mortality and decline 
 24 

 

(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 sweet-gum, green ash, overcup oak, Nuttall oak, water oak, willow oak, red 

maple, American elm and locust. The perimeter hardwood forests also exhibit elevated levels 

of decline and senescence. In proximity to the Bayou de View forest block, but outside of the 

Bayou corridor, are larger forest blocks of diverse hardwood forests mostly under the 

ownership of the Cache River NWR or Dagmar WMA. The forest types represented in these 

outlying blocks are primarily sweet-gum-willow oak, willow oak-water oak-diamond leaf oak, 

sugar-berry-ash-elm, and overcup oak-bitter pecan. However, caution must be taken in 

consideration of conditions where the bird has been seen. All observations have been of flying 

birds; there have been no observations of foraging, roosting, or nesting in the Bayou de View 

area. There is no certainty that habitat conditions where birds have been observed are 

preferred or optimal. 

In order to document forest habitat conditions in proximity to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, an 

extensive habitat survey was undertaken in the fall of 2005 on the Cache River NWR, White 

River NWR, and state Wildlife Management Areas within a 20-kilometer radius of the 

concentrated 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 E). Field work was initially completed 

on 73,182 acres of White River NWR, 7,547 acres of Cache River NWR, 3,499 acres of 

Dagmar WMA, 2,091 acres of Henry Gray/Hurricane Lake WMA, 389 acres of Rex 

Hancock/Black Swamp WMA, 2,540 acres of Bayou Meto WMA, 843 acres of Wattensaw 

WMA, and 512 acres of Trusten Holder WMA. A total of approximately 90,603 acres was 

inventoried during September and October, 2005. Subsequently, White River NWR 

inventoried another 10,000 acres of areas where forest management was either in progress, 

approved for implementation, or planned. 

The habitat survey information was compiled by the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture 

(LMVJV) Office and utilized for the following: (1) to reveal stands with highest habitat values 

via GIS related tables to prioritize search efforts in the Cache/Lower White River basin; (2) to 

calibrate photogrammetry from USGS, NASA, and other partners to prioritize search efforts in 

the Cache/Lower White River basin and other areas; and (3) to assess habitat conditions of 

various previous forest management efforts to better ascertain probable effects for 

enhancement of habitat for Ivory-billed Woodpecker and other wildlife. 

5. Current Conditions Within the Historic Range 

Thirty sites in 8 states have been identified as areas of possible post-1944 encounters with 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Figures 1, Table 1, Appendix C). 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 (FIA) data for counties listed in Appendix F, 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 Ivory-billed 
 25 

 

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 (Appendix F, 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 Appendix F, Table 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 F, Table 5). 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. 

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 F, Table 5). However, 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 large-diameter-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-diameter class 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 F, 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, 

although much more so for hardwoods, and for both hardwood and pine types on public lands. 
 26 

 

G. Management Considerations 

If density estimates reported by Tanner range from 1 pair per 6 square miles (about 4,000 acres 

of mixed upland pine and bottomland forest in Florida) to 1 pair per 17 square miles (about 

11,000 acres of bottomland forest in Louisiana), it is likely that a patch of contiguous forest 

must be very large in order to support even small populations. For 50 pairs the former density 

estimate would translate to needing 300 square miles (about 200,000 acres), while the latter 

density estimate would translate to needing 850 square miles (about 550,000 acres). Regarding 

the density estimates based on the Singer Tract, this nearly 80,000 acre contiguous patch of 

mature forest was apparently not enough habitat to sustain even a small population, so an 

actual minimal area estimate to support a sustainable population then and possibly now in 

habitats dominated by only forested wetlands should be substantially higher. That threshold of 

size is unknown. Accordingly, the extent of a forested area, for Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

habitat needs, will affect the quality of habitat for the bird and must be considered in any 

determination of sustainable habitat. 

As described in the Life History and Ecology section, when faced with habitat fragmentation 

or habitat degradation, large woodpeckers have been found to adapt by expanding their home 

range sizes. It is likely that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers similarly would expand home range 

sizes in sub-optimal habitats, such as in the regenerating bottomland forests in the Cache River 

and White River National Wildlife Refuges in eastern Arkansas. If Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

in eastern Arkansas expanded home ranges and densities five-fold as observed in the Bornean 

study of Great Slaty Woodpeckers, core home ranges there could be up to 20 square miles and 

home ranges may occur at densities of only one per 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. Therefore, study of habitat preferences directly from 

observations will be difficult. 

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 (Bonney 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). 

Briefly, 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 landbird 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 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 
 27 

 

also developed the template for large-scale management of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

What is needed are some guidelines on the sorts of land management within those forest 

patches that are compatible with the objectives of the plan (i.e., to maintain viable populations 

of priority landbird species). These appear below. Although the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is 

the focus of this document, the larger plan is ecosystem based, and if followed should provide 

progress toward developing adequate habitat for all species of wildlife endemic to that system. 

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. There is broad recognition that "monocultures" of anything should be 

avoided, whether large expanses of willow or past afforestation efforts that have led today to 

20-30 year old "sterile" oak plantations. Many recent forest plans have emphasized the need 

for greater structural complexity, "balanced" composition of shade tolerant 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 that in most ways sound very similar to what is being done now, but there is 

still a need for consideration as to whether the existence of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker may 

require some different approaches. 

3. Favored Tree Species 

Sweet-gum and Nuttall oak were the two species clearly favored by Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

in Tanner’s study. The role of sweet-gum in future forests should probably be reconsidered. 

Both of these tree species need openings of several acres (such as from tornadoes, etc.) in size 

in which to successfully regenerate and produce large diameter trees in the future stand. The 

general belief has been that this species was less desirable during regeneration than hard mast 

red oak for promotion of wildlife values. This is understandable from the perspective that 

sweet-gum is prolific in today's forests. Today’s sweet-gum are mostly young and of small 

diameter that have grown since larger individuals were harvested. Stimulating the growth of 

large sweet-gum trees such as those that formerly occurred at the Singer Tract (Tensas River 

NWR) may require freeing up sweet-gum in current forests to foster the growth of emergents, 

depending on site conditions. This will be a challenge in what is now an overall young (mostly 

<100 years) forest throughout the Southeast. Even on public land, most of these forests were 

high-graded before they became public, and frequently afterwards when the previous owner 

retained timber rights. 

There are several significant caveats to the assumption that sweet-gum and Nuttall oak should 

be management objectives for Ivory-bills. The apparent preference for these trees in Tanner’s 

work 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. 

Complicating the situation are a photograph of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker on a pine tree in 
 28 

 

Florida and the reliance by the species on pine in Cuba, (Jackson 2004) as well as the use of 

wetter sites with baldcypress in Bayou de View. 

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 sweet-gum 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 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 Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers remains unclear despite the presence of this species along the Bayou de View 

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 die-offs underway in some areas that are forcing a shift from Nuttall’s 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 increasing 

foraging substrate. 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 Ivory-bills respond positively to disturbances from storms, fire and 

other disturbances as long as many standing recently dead, stressed, and dying trees remained 

after the disturbance, with woodpecker activity greatest usually two to three years after 

disturbance. This response indicates that these disturbances produce the kinds and amounts of 

boring insect larvae favored by Ivory-billed 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 Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

territories soon expanded to include the area through which a 1931 cyclone had passed where 

substantial dead and dying wood remained after salvage logging, and to the edge of a 1930-31 

timber harvest area where substantial numbers of dead and dying trees occurred also. In both 

cases, Ivory-bills had been absent according to Kuhn prior to these disturbances, but adults 

were observed frequently foraging within them during 1933 and 1934. 
 29 

 

By the late 1930's, Tanner had identified up to seven distinct territories under his observation 

in the 80,000 or so acres making up the Singer Tract, but only three pairs produced young at 

least once for the six years of data collected, and only two territories produced young 

consistently. Tanner commented that as the amount of dead wood ages or otherwise becomes 

unavailable that Ivory-billed Woodpecker numbers also decline. This suggests that over 80,000 

acres of relatively old forest may not have been enough to support a small but relatively 

healthy population. Specifically, Tanner (1942) concluded "Decline in the number of Ivorybills in the Singer Tract within recent years was probably caused by a decrease in the amount 

of timber death over the entire tract." 

It is questionable within today’s predominately fragmented forest conditions whether 

dependence on natural forces to provide these disturbances will be sufficient. Certainly, prior 

to human influence 20,000 or more years ago, these forces played important roles in shaping 

forest structure across what is today the Southeast U.S. It can be argued that tornadoes and 

hurricanes and other natural disturbances are important factors that would (and do) lead to 

desired conditions, especially in older-growth. Where these natural forces occur, they can be 

allowed to create the favorable habitat needed for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. However, the 

amount of bottomland hardwood forest in the Southeast U.S. has been greatly reduced from its 

former expanse. The amount of forest in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley has been reduced from 

some 24 million acres to less than 5 million, and much of this occurs in very small isolated 

forest fragments. This is problematic in that it reduces the probability that stochastic (random) 

forces can maintain a sufficient quantity of forest in a desired post-disturbance condition, and 

that areas where disturbances do occur may not be connected to larger expanses of habitat. 

Past 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 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. This 

strongly suggests that we cannot depend at this time only upon storm events to produce enough 

openings to develop future desired forest conditions (based on current understanding) for 

supporting more sustainable populations of Ivory-billed Woodpecker. At the other extreme, 

those rare storm events that do cause catastrophic damage do provide abundant recently dead 

and dying wood, but only temporarily and likely at the expense of losing many suitable nesting 

and roosting trees in blow-downs. Food resources under these very severe conditions likely 

will decline rapidly for Ivory-billed Woodpecker after 3 years and the entire area would no 

longer be optimal for supporting healthy Ivory-billed Woodpecker populations. 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. 

Although managers have no direct influence over storms, forests can be managed in ways that 

allow for storm damage, when it occurs, to more closely mimic likely pre-European settlement 

effect patterns. The challenge is how to promote a simulation of large-scale disturbances where 

needed within these smaller isolated forests while also promoting older-growth conditions 

emphasizing a high frequency of senescent large limbs and trees. In addition, the size of an 

appropriately large disturbance patch is unknown. 
 30 

 

As for the potential of managed disturbances, the role of managers in using prescribed fire in 

bottomland forests is at best unclear. Tanner’s data strongly suggests that fire was a huge 

influence on which stands were most productive (in terms of young produced) for Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker within bottomland hardwood habitat. However, today the policy of many land 

mangers is to suppress fires in bottoms as much as possible. Perhaps aggressive suppression of 

all fires in the bottoms should be replaced by allowing natural fires to continue through the 

bottoms to purposefully stress or kill trees. 

Another controversial topic 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 (see Jackson 2004, pp. 147-148) that he himself had observed a similar 

response from Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s in taking advantage of the flush of wood-borers in 

freshly killed slash, but again along the edges of the cutover area. It must be emphasized, 

however, that these examples likely were exceptions where Ivory-billed Woodpeckers used 

cutover areas for only brief periods of time, and only where directly adjacent to extensive older 

forests at the Singer Tract. In general, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers avoided foraging in 

extensively cutover areas and did not use the slash and waste on the forest floor in such areas. 

Tanner (1942, pp. 96-97) suggested that cutover areas did not support wood-boring insects in 

the same abundance as found in storm-damaged stands. Regardless of the potential for shortterm use of slash after harvesting, eventually Ivory-billed Woodpeckers disappeared entirely 

from areas that had been subjected to extensive timber harvesting. 

Tanner did suggest that by “logging slowly and allowing time for the insect population to 

increase” some harvesting might be more compatible with supporting this species. He 

recommended the possibility of purposely girdling trees and forest management practices that 

favored the selective removal of smaller diameter and healthy trees, while leaving the larger 

diameter trees, especially if showing signs of decline. Today, many more options are used by 

forest managers than were used in Tanner’s day, and some of these, especially on public lands, 

are similar to his recommendations. At minimum, there is a need to investigate the occurrence 

and abundance of wood-boring insects after different girdling and harvesting techniques and 

compare to wood-boring insect occurrence and abundance in unharvested stands. 

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 many public lands and private lands in this area as altered 

hydrology has often led to a disproportionate amount of mature forest loss, given the more 

fragmented condition of remaining forest patches when compared with historic forest 

conditions (currently less than six million acres compared to greater than 24 million acres). 

Nevertheless, beavers could be managed to provide the sort of disturbance suggested above. 

However, patches of tree mortality created by beavers in the fragmented forest systems today 

are difficult to predict and are likely to be too large, making it difficult to create a source of 

newly dead timber that is sustainable. 
 31 

 

6. Dead Trees 

Strategies should be considered as to how to increase the amount of recently dead and dying 

wood on a sustainable basis. Promotion of older and larger trees along with 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 (1942, 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 large disturbance patches will be particularly challenging on smaller 

forest patches (i.e., <15,000 acres). This illustrates the potential necessity of conserving large 

tracts of forested land for management of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, so that individuals have 

the possibility to find sites with temporary optimal conditions within contiguous habitat. 

In many areas there are increasing numbers of dead and dying trees under changing 

hydrological conditions as well as from factors such as storm damage. However, once it is 

determined that trees of a particular species are dying and conditions are not conducive to 

ensuring successful regeneration, the impulse of most managers is to conduct a salvage cut. 

The general approach in the past was to promote salvage logging operations to stimulate 

regeneration of more flood-tolerant or drought-tolerant species, without much consideration for 

the importance of dead and dying trees for many species of wildlife. 

The total number of dead and dying trees in bottomland forests today is perhaps less relevant 

than the size and ages of those trees. Those that are of rather small diameter and that may stand 

for a decade or more are not what seems to be needed to support Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. 

Rather, a flow of enough dead and dying wood from large enough stems (including entire trees 

as well as large branches on still living trees) from one 3-year period to the next is needed to 

sufficiently support wood-boring beetle larvae. 

The peak foraging window is a narrow one compared to other woodpeckers, as they seek beetle 

larvae associated with "freshly" dead sapwood that is exposed when bark is removed. The 

beetle larvae found in dead and dying wood become most available when death of the wood is 

recent (1-3 years) and this is important given the woodpecker’s preferred foraging method of 

pulling off bark that is still well connected to the sapwood. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker is the 

only one of our woodpeckers that habitually used its bill as a wedge to remove bark from the 

freshly dead sapwood. So not only is the amount of deadwood available important, the size and 

time since death of the wood available is also important. 

Tanner recognized the importance of providing dead and dying trees. He suggested that for 

areas to be managed using selection cuts, dead, dying, damaged, and otherwise stressed trees 

should be retained, with harvests focused on healthy, growing trees. This would maintain and 

potentially improve the food sources for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

The concept of retaining dead and dying wood is not viewed as negatively as it was in the past, 

and some public land managers are experimenting with ways to artificially provide more dead 
 32 

 

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. This change in management paradigm is already occurring in 

bottomland forest management circles as evidenced in forestry prescriptions involving state 

and federal wildlife lands, and groups such as the LMVJVs Forest Resource Conservation 

Working Group (FRCWG). Additional adaptive change may be required as more is learned 

about the habitat preferences of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

7. Current Forest Management 

The LMVJV’s FRCWG in 2003 specifically started to address issues related to the 

management of the forest resources within the MAV. Management issues of concern included 

management of existing bottomland hardwood forest resources within the MAV as well as 

reforestation of agricultural lands within the MAV and inventory and monitoring of all these 

resources. Instead of placing restrictions on individual silvicultural practices, FRCWG 

recommendations target defining certain habitat characteristics or forest variables that are 

necessary to meet the annual requirements of the multitude of wildlife species dependent on 

these forest resources for sustaining life. How the forest managers obtain and maintain these 

forest variables is left up to the individual situation with greater controls over practices at the 

landscape level. This methodology allows the manager to modify the silvicultural practices at 

the stand level to meet the overriding habitat needs in each situation. This work is ongoing and 

will be incorporated into planning for habitat protection and enhancement. 
 33 

 

BLANK
 34 

 

H. Reasons for Listing/Current Threats 

` 

The final rule (32 FR 4001 and 35 FR 8495) did not contain an assessment of the primary threats to the 

Ivory-billed 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 primary reason for the decrease in Ivory-billed Woodpecker numbers throughout its range appears 

to be a reduction in suitable habitat (and indirect destruction of their food source) due to large scale 

conversion of forest habitats. 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 their [Ivory-billed Woodpeckers] 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.” Noel Snyder (in prep) 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 logged over forests. In addition, 

specific to the Singer Tract, before large scale 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. 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 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 (bills and the plumage) were collected and 

used for various purposes by native and colonial Americans. Collection of ivory-bills 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, over 

utilization 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. It is possible that 

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 Suwanee River region of Florida. In addition, Tanner (1942) indicated that 

many Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were killed merely to satisfy curiosity. The direct utilization of Ivory-
 35 

 

billed Woodpeckers for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes is currently not a 

significant threat. 

3. Disease or Predation (Factor C) 

Little is known regarding the past or current roles of disease and predation in the decline of the Ivorybilled Woodpecker and as a current threat. 

4. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms (Factor D) 

The lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms may have contributed to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker's 

decline. Currently, existing regulatory mechanisms appear to be adequate as the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker is protected under the ESA and state laws. 

5. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence (Factor E) 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker populations appear to have been in a state of continuous fragmentation and 

decline since the early 1800’s (Jackson 2002, Tanner 1942). Early accounts gave no accurate or definite 

estimates of abundance, but populations were probably never large and were limited to habitats subject 

to high tree mortality, e.g., areas that were regularly flooded or burned (Jackson 2002). As habitat loss 

and fragmentation progressed coupled with collection, population numbers dwindled and became 

isolated; thus contributing to their decline. The small population size and limited distribution of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker continue to place this species (previously thought to be extinct) at risk from 

naturally occurring events and environmental factors. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker is currently known 

to occur in only one area in southeastern Arkansas. While a substantial amount of habitat is protected in 

the area in which the species was rediscovered, threats exist from normal environmental changes. For 

example, sporadic natural events such as tornados or ice storms could destroy the only remaining nest or 

roost trees or severe weather conditions could result in nesting or fledging failures. Additionally, the 

exact number and genetic health of remaining birds is unknown. Ivory-bills in small populations are at 

risk from genetic and demographic stochastic events (such as normal variations in survival and 

mortality, genetic drift, inbreeding, etc.). 

I. Conservation Efforts 

1. Conservation Efforts in the Recent Past 

Wherever the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is suspected to still exist it stirs both excitement and action. In 

the early 1970’s Sam Houston National Forest in east Texas proposed to modify timber harvests based 

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 forest 

management changes to promote the welfare of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Similar stories of 

unconfirmed sightings have generated no change in land management throughout the southeast. 

A well known, but unconfirmed, 1999 sighting in the Pearl River Wildlife Management Area (WMA) in 

southeast Louisiana did prompt the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) to modify 
 36 

 

a prescribed harvest in an attempt to improve Ivory-billed 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 percent), 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 sensitive sites 

and directing visitors to appropriate areas; protection of land through acquisition of easements or fee 

interest; forest management, reforestation; and public education. The Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology 

in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Arkansas, the Arkansas Field Office of 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and other partners conducted extensive surveys in the winter of 2004-

05 in an attempt to reconfirm the presence of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the White River and Cache 

River basins. These surveys have proven to be extremely arduous and have resulted in a meager number 

of sightings. Enhanced and refined survey efforts continued in the 2005-06 winter survey season, with 

additional sound recordings and a few observations. 

Habitat improvement and restoration are essential to the eventual recovery of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker. We are at the very early stages of planning what habitat actions are needed. A 

quantitative delineation of existing potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat throughout the southeast 

is being developed. In related actions, various quantitative models are under development to identify the 

amount and quality of habitat needed to support recovery. Before these models are ready for use and 

while we are learning more about local Ivory-billed Woodpecker life history, National Wildlife Refuge 

forest management activity is being 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 a national wildlife 

refuge, state natural areas, or state wildlife management area. 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 in the vicinity of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

rediscovery. 

Active forest management (thinning and other timber cutting) on Cache River and White River National 

Wildlife Refuges was temporarily suspended while the existing forest management plans were reviewed 

to ensure that they created habitat that best meets the requirements of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Managers of the adjacent state lands at Dagmar and Rex Hancock/Black Swamp WMAs also established 

a temporary moratorium on timber harvests. This short term passive management was implemented 

under the assumption that some birds are present throughout the contiguous block of forested habitat in 

the lower White River basin. As we learn more about the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s distribution and 
 37 

 

revise forest management plans, timber management prescriptions can be modified to provide for the 

long term habitat needs of the species. 

In 2005 limited morticulture (stressing/killing live trees) management was implemented along Bayou de 

View 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 Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

feeding habitat and 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 to better understand the dynamics associated with insect 

colonization of stressed trees in bottomland hardwood forests; essentially the development of Ivorybilled Woodpecker foraging habitat. 

An active land acquisition program is underway at Cache River NWR in cooperation with TNC. This 

refuge has long been a regional priority for land protection primarily driven by North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan objectives for wintering habitat 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 (74 percent) using revenue from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, 

also known as the Duck Stamp Fund. The remainder of the lands were purchased with appropriations 

under the Land and Water Conservation Fund. All lands were acquired from willing sellers. 

After the rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, TNC focused land acquisition in the Bayou de 

View area. In 2004 and 2005 they acquired title, options, or easements on approximately 18,500 acres. 

Reforestation efforts are underway on much of this land. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service has been a leader in restoring potential Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker habitat in the lower White River basin. Since the 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 that will be signed up in 2006. They are also working 

with partners to establish a new, but not yet approved, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program in 

the Ivory-billed Woodpecker area. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has committed $1 million in 

support of Ivory-billed Woodpecker 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 will be planted in the same area. 

Educational efforts are underway to inform the general public, hunters, anglers, and birders of the 

potential presence of Ivory-billed Woodpecker in eastern Arkansas and how to report possible sightings. 

Other potential areas outside of these major bottomland hardwood drainages within the state include the 

lower Sabine River Basin in the south-western part of the state as well as the Mississippi and Red River 

convergence areas in the east-central part of the state. 
 38 

 

A central database has been established where all Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings can be reported 

(http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/identifying/). Sightings in Arkansas can also be reported to 1-800-

440-1477. In May 2005 three “Town Hall” meetings were held in the communities of Brinkley, 

Stuttgart, and Augusta to provide information on the 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. Similar meetings will continue, and 

the Corridor of Hope component of the recovery team will serve as another 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. Survey efforts will also begin in other portions of the historic range in east 

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. 

3. State Priority Search Areas

Alabama

The following seven areas are generally considered to contain the best and most extensive remaining 

potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat: (1) Mobile-Tensaw River Delta from the confluence of 

the Alabama and Tombigbee rivers downstream to the forested wetland/marsh interface; (2) 

Tombigbee River from Coffeville Lock and Dam downstream to its confluence with the Alabama 

River; (3) Alabama River from Claiborne Lock and Dam downstream to its confluence with the 

Tombigbee River; (4) Tombigbee River from Braggs Bluff downstream to Coffeeville Lock and 

Dam; (5) Tombigbee River from the Sipsey River downstream to Braggs Bluff; (6) Sipsey River 

from U.S. Highway 82 to its confluence with the Tombigbee River; and (7) Buttahatchie River from 

Henson Springs downstream to its confluence with the Tombigbee River. While these areas should 

receive priority consideration during the development of any search strategy, identification of any 

additional potential areas of habitat through the use of aerial photography and satellite imagery 

should be undertaken 

Arkansas

Current searches are focused on the White-Cache-Lower Arkansas river complex. This area 

encompasses private lands, National Wildlife Refuges, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 

Wildlife Management Areas, and land managed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) of Arkansas and 

the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC). The search area includes: (1) White River 

NWR; (2) Cache River NWR; (3) Bayou Meto WMA; (4) Dagmar WMA; (5) Benson Creek Natural 

Area; (6) Rex Hancock/Black Swamp WMA; (7) Wattensaw WMA; (8) Steve Wilson/Raft Creek 

Bottoms WMA; (9) Henry Gray/Hurricane Lake WMA; and (10) Bald Knob NWR. Other potential 

areas outside of these major bottomland hardwood drainages within the state include the Ouachita 

and Saline river complex in the south-central part of the state and also the Red River in far 

southwestern Arkansas. 

Florida
 39 

 

Jackson (1996, 2004) mentioned the following areas as potential sites for conducting Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker searches, some of which he searched during the 1980s and 1990s: Apalachicola and 

Chipola River swamps, Aucilla and Wacissa Rivers, the lower Suwannee River watershed, Wekiva 

River, Fort Drum Swamp, Fakahatchee Strand, and Big Cypress National Preserve. The Okefenokee 

/ Pinhook Swamp has been identified as another potential area of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat 

(C. Hunter, USFWS, personal communication); although primarily in the state of Georgia, the 

southern extent of this swamp stretches into Columbia and Baker counties of northern Florida. 

Recent discussions amongst members of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Team have focused 

on the Apalachicola and Chipola swamps, the Aucilla and Wacissa Rivers, and the lower Suwannee 

River watershed as the three most significant areas of potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat in 

Florida, based primarily on the extensive tracts of bottomland forest that remain there. 

Georgia

Potential areas to search that are consistent with the believed habitat requirements of the species. 

Based on the relatively recent sightings and known areas of large expanses of forested wetlands still 

in existence, the following are potential areas to search in Georgia: (1) the Ogeechee-Savannah 

River Basin, (2) the Altamaha River Basin, (3) the Okefenokee Swamp, and (4) the Red Hills 

Region. 

Kentucky

It appears that no areas remain in Kentucky that would be suitable for extensive searches. 

Louisiana

The Atchafalaya River Basin with primary emphasis on Attakapas Island WMA and state property 

owned by the Office of State Lands in the central and southern portions of the Atchafalaya River 

basin and private land holdings near Bayou Sorrel. The Pearl River Basin with emphasis on the Pearl 

River WMA and the Tensas River Basin with emphasis on Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

and Big Lake WMA. Other potential areas outside of these major bottomland hardwood drainages 

within the state include the lower Sabine River Basin in the south-western part of the state as well as 

the Mississippi and Red River convergence areas in the east-central part of the state. 

Mississippi

Potential areas to search include the larger forested areas within the lower Mississippi River Alluvial 

Valley such as Delta National Forest, Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, and forested lands 

along the Mississippi River. Floodplain forests along the Pascagoula and lower Pearl Rivers should 

also be included as potential search areas

North Carolina

In North Carolina, the Lumber River drainage contains about 85 square miles of potential habitat 

which includes the bottomland hardwood system and some associated uplands. The Waccamaw 
 40 

 

River system is about 30 miles to the southeast of the Lumber River, and contains about 45 square 

miles of potential habitat. Lastly, the Cape Fear River system has some potential as well, and it 

includes the Northeast Cape Fear River and the Black River that join the Cape Fear near 

Wilmington. This group of rivers has about 60 square miles of potential habitat, and is about 20 

miles northeast of the Waccamaw River. 

South Carolina

Search efforts in South Carolina should be focused in the following areas: Congaree-Wateree-Upper 

Santee River region, lower Santee River, Savannah River, and the Waccamaw Complex (a region in 

northeastern coastal South Carolina that includes the major drainages and tributaries of the 

Waccamaw, Lynches, Black, Great Pee Dee, Little Pee Dee, and Lumber Rivers) 

Tennessee

There are four areas in Tennessee with forests that have the greatest potential for containing Ivorybilled Woodpeckers: (1) Hatchie River between state highway 51 and the Mississippi River (Tipton 

and Lauderdale County); (2) Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, especially in the southern half of 

the refuge; (3) Meeman Shelby State Park (Shelby County); and (4) Reelfoot Lake (Lake and Obion 

County) 

Texas

The primary areas to search for Ivory-billed Woodpecker today should include the large forest tracts 

along the lower stretches of the Neches, Sabine, and Trinity rivers and their tributaries. These 

“lower stretches” are defined as the bottomland areas downstream of the Steinhagen, Toledo Bend, 

and Livingston dams. Of the rivers, the Neches River drainage contains the largest amount of 

habitat with the greatest potential to have Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Texas. Other sizeable forest 

tracts occur farther north along the Neches, Sabine, and Trinity River drainages but most are 

privately held and are rather isolated. 

4. Summary of Conservation Efforts 

Conservation efforts to date have been directed towards confirming the existence of the species and 

taking initial habitat improvement and restoration actions. 

The principal conservation actions to be taken include improving and expanding the survey effort in 

Arkansas, as well as in other formerly occupied locations, and describing the habitat of the species 

sufficiently, so that the most likely locations for other possible existing populations may be identified 

and surveyed. Additional efforts include evaluating current management practices and their effects on 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker, as well as, conducting public outreach and education. 

Conservation efforts for this species are just beginning in earnest as a result of the rediscovery and the 

formation of the recovery team. The rediscovery has ignited significant interest on the part of the public 

and national and international conservation organizations. There is strong support for taking the 
 41 

 

necessary steps to assess population status, delineate habitat, and determine the proper management 

actions needed for recovery.

Numerous research, modeling, and habitat inventory projects have been undertaken to better understand 

the distribution and status of the species and enhance the methods used to detect Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers. In addition, models focused on foraging energetics, habitat characterization and 

assessment, and population viability are being developed. The Implementation schedule included in 

this plan identifies the projects currently underway. 

J. Biological Constraints and Needs 

The most significant biological constraint to recovery of the species is the apparently very small and 

difficult to detect population. The species is so rarely encountered that learning more about the species 

and its habitat requirements and basic aspects of its ecology is a primary conservation action. The rarity 

of the species and our lack of biological information are therefore the greatest constraints facing 

recovery. 

Although not clearly known, the capacity of such a small population to recover and multiply is limited. 

Clutch sizes in the Ivory-billed Woodpecker ranges 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, the relatively 

low reproductive capacity of the species will require many years for significant population growth, 

based on our current knowledge of the species. 

Knowledge and capabilities for captive breeding, should this become a viable option, are also poorly 

understood for this species. Significant work with surrogate species (the Magellanic Woodpecker, 

Campephilus magellanicus) has been suggested. This effort would take some time since there is 

currently no person or institution engaged in the captive breeding of large woodpeckers. 

The availability of suitable forest habitat is in all likelihood constraining. 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 historic range 

forests are in suitable or close to 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 have insufficient large, dead 

and stressed trees. Despite improving conditions, the provision of forested habitat attractive to Ivorybilled Woodpeckers in public forests will require increased attention. In addition, recovering this species 

will not happen on public forests alone. In the southern U.S. 89% of forests in the southern U.S. are 

privately owned. (Appendix F), Engaging both industrial and non-industrial private landowners in the 

improvement of conditions for Ivory-billed Woodpecker must be emphasized if recovery of the species 

is to be realized.
 42 

 

II. RECOVERY 

A. Recovery Strategy

Our understanding of all aspects of the ecology and biology of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is limited. 

It has proven extremely difficult to even briefly encounter the species despite extensive survey efforts. 

Due to its rarity, and the belief of its extinction for such a long period of time, the literature and previous 

research for the species is likewise meager. Much of what is known is derived from the studies of James 

Tanner. The findings of Tanner, which have been extrapolated using knowledge of other Campephilus 

species, knowledge of woodpeckers in general and interpretations of photographs, and anecdotes 

gathered by observers (Gallagher 2005, Jackson 2004), comprises the state of our understanding of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Clearly, any strategy aimed at recovery of this species must focus on 

intensive surveys to document the presence of the species. Following delineation of currently used 

habitat, much more could be learned about the ecology and biology of the species. 

Our poor understanding of the species has largely directed the recovery strategy to one of learning more 

about the species status and ecology as opposed to developing specific, immediate habitat management 

actions to be taken. This is not to say that habitat management and land protection efforts are not 

important but, the strategy for conservation of this species, at this early stage of recovery, is focused on 

learning more about where birds persist and then to examine those habitats to reveal ways in which 

specific conservation actions could be developed. 

Spatially explicit population goals have not been identified here but are recognized as a key part of any 

recovery plan. Recognizing this, modeling of habitats and populations is currently underway. The end 

result of these efforts will help inform the development of spatially explicit population and habitat goals. 

When these analyses are completed the plan will be revised to reflect the findings of modeling and 

research activities. 

B. Recovery Goal 

The goal of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker recovery program is to 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 when the protections provided by the Endangered Species Act are no 

longer necessary. Due to the current status of the species, its low reproductive potential, potential 

dependence on old growth forest stands and lack of knowledge about what will optimize habitat 

abundance and appropriate distribution recovery is anticipated to take a long time. 

C. Recovery Objectives 

This recovery plan identifies 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) Management to reduce risks to the existing population; 
 43 

 

2) Protection and enhancement of suitable habitat, and; 

3) Actions to reduce or eliminate threats sufficient to allow successful restoration of additional wild 

populations. 

The emphasis in this recovery plan on the distribution of additional 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 do 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 1997). 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. 

D. Recovery Criteria

At present, the limited knowledge on the population abundance, distribution, habitat requirements, and 

biology of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker prevents us from developing more specific recovery criteria. 

The following are interim criteria that would lead us to first obtain data for the development of more 

specific, quantifiable criteria that should be met before considering the delisting of this species: 

1. Determine current habitat use and needs of existing populations. 

2. Survey potential habitats for new occurrences. 

3. Conserve and enhance habitat on public land. Add additional acreage to public habitat inventory 

via land acquisition from willing sellers. 

4. Conserve and enhance habitat on private lands through the use of agreements, conservation 

easements, habitat conservation plans, and public outreach to facilitate appropriate management 

actions. 

5. Determine viability of existing populations (numbers, breeding success, population genetics, and 

ecology). 

6. Determine the number and geographic distribution of subpopulations needed for a self-sustaining 

metapopulation and evaluate suitable habitat for species reintroduction. 

E. Narrative Outline of Recovery Actions 

1.0 Population Surveys and Monitoring 

Additional Ivory-billed survey work focused primarily in the Cache and White River Basins is 

considered the highest priority short term action in order to protect what birds are still in existence and 

to prevent the species from continued decline. Additional survey work is needed in other parts of the 
 44 

 

historical range where habitat and sighting information indicates potential for presence of the species. 

Accordingly, there exists a need for survey protocol development, training of surveyors and a repository 

or data base for all sightings received by the Recovery Team accompanied by a management plan 

(validation methods, prioritization of validity of reports etc.) for that information. These tasks will 

coordinate the design and implementation of a multi-scale survey and monitoring program that explicitly 

addresses biological planning and programmatic decision-making processes. 

1.1 Develop protocols to process sightings. 

Reports of ivory-bill sightings vary in both their reliability and detectability. Standardization is 

necessary to assess reliability of data. 

1.1.1 Complete and implement protocols and procedures for recording, classifying, and 

responding to reported Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings. 

1.1.2 Develop teams to rapidly assess the veracity of sightings in other areas. 

1.1.3 Develop a repository for all previous sightings. 

1.2 Develop survey designs for search efforts throughout the range. The survey design should be 

adaptive, use ancillary data (e.g., previous sightings, output from biological models, spatial 

data on distribution of stressed or dying trees) and result in a consistent survey methodology 

to allow for the comparison of data. 

1.3 Determine the probability of species detection based on survey effort, search area and 

population size. 

1.4 Conduct searches throughout the historic range. 

 1.4.1 Implement searches in the Cache and White River basins. 

1.4.2 Implement range-wide searches based on priority areas defined in the habitat tasks 

(see tasks 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3). 

1.4.3 Develop state-based implementation groups. 

1.5 Enhance existing and develop new Ivory-billed Woodpecker survey and monitoring 

technologies. 

1.6 Develop monitoring protocols to assess population size and trend. 

2.0 Habitat Inventory and Monitoring 

Additional Ivory-billed habitat inventory work focused primarily in the Cache and White River Basins is 

considered a high priority. Additional habitat inventory and monitoring work is needed in other parts of 

the historical range where habitat and sighting information indicates potential for presence of the 
 45 

 

species. Accordingly, there exists a need for inventory protocol development and a habitat database. The 

purpose of these tasks is to coordinate and implement a multi-scale habitat inventory and monitoring 

program. 

2.1 Develop protocols and techniques for habitat inventory and monitoring program. 

2.1.1 Develop ground-based forest inventory protocols which will identify characteristics 

important to Ivory-billed Woodpecker, including disturbance history. 

2.1.2 Conduct remote sense-based (e.g., LiDAR, ASTER) forest inventories to augment 

ground-based habitat inventories. 

2.2 Identify priority search areas. 

2.2.1 Prioritize search areas in the Cache and White River basins. 

2.2.2. Prioritize search areas throughout the historic range using information from expert 

opinion and tasks 1.1.3 and 5.4. 

2.3 Conduct habitat inventory and monitoring using both ground-based techniques and remote 

technologies. 

 

2.3.1 Conduct forest inventories in the Cache and White River basins. 

2.3.2 Conduct forest inventories in priority areas throughout the range. 

2.3.3 Characterize and assess the adequacy of foraging habitat in the Cache and White 

River basins. 

2.4 Develop a web-based, forest inventory geodatabase to consolidate and archive data. This 

task would allow web-based connection with other bird monitoring databases. 

2.5 Assess the efficiency and effectiveness of forest management prescriptions intended to 

increase foraging habitat. 

3.0 Population/Habitat Models 

To facilitate survey efforts identified above in Sections 1.0 and 2.0 and to inform potential management 

actions in the future, there is a need to delineate quantitatively the relationship between Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker populations and habitat. These tasks are designed to develop population/habitat 

relationship models that guide and inform conservation planning, assessment, and management at 

multiple spatial scales (site-scale, Cache/Lower White River basin; Mississippi Alluvial Valley ecoregion; historic range across the southeastern United States). 
 46 

 

Models will address landscape quality and site quality factors presumed to limit Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker populations. Model assumptions and risks of uncertainty will be documented as testable 

hypotheses. Habitat specific parameters will be based on currently available data at the appropriate scale 

as well as data expected to be available in the near-future. 

3.1 Express Tanner’s Ivory-billed Woodpecker study conclusions for the Singer Tract 

population as an energetic foraging model. 

3.2 Develop an adaptive population and habitat model for Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the Cache 

and White River basins. 

3.2.1 Develop a Cache-White River Basin Ivory-billed Woodpecker population-habitat 

model to guide forest inventory and monitoring programs and to facilitate landscape 

characterizations and assessments. 

3.3 Refine the Cache and White River basin Ivory-billed Woodpecker population-habitat model 

for application at larger spatial scales (e.g., MAV, range-wide). The outputs from this 

model would be used to: (1) develop a Mississippi Alluvial Valley Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker population/habitat model; (2) guide the development of forest 

inventory/monitoring programs; (3) facilitate landscape characterizations and assessments; 

and (4) determine forest management needed to reach Desired Future Condition (LMVJV’s 

FRCWG is developing these guidelines). 

3.4 Develop a range-wide potential occupancy model to facilitate search efforts across the 

southeastern portion of the United States. 

3.5 Develop estimates of the possible existing population using Life Table methodology and 

information on available habitat and territory size. 

3.6 Develop a Population Viability Model. 

4.0 Assumption-Driven Research 

Given the scarcity of existing research and Ivory-billed Woodpeckers to study, 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 the 

assumptions implicit in biological goals and objectives, as well as, the biological response presumed to 

occur from on-the-ground management actions. 

4.1 Summarize and compile the existing literature into a database. 

4.2 Assess causative agents of tree mortality, decay rates, and stand replacement processes. The 

assumption is that both cavities and forage may be limiting factors for Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

and that this can be evaluated by gathering information on tree mortality. 
 47 

 

4.2.1 Gather information on naturally-occurring tree mortality, snag formation, and decay rates 

across elevation gradients, hydrologic regimes, and soil classes. 

4.2.2 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. 

4.3 Assess methods for “artificially” increasing forage-base. 

 

4.3.1 Gather information on wood-boring insect populations, life history, natural densities and on 

factors which contribute to their density, richness and abundance (e.g., tree mortality, 

decay rates). 

4.3.2 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. 

4.4 Expand and re-examine research priorities when active nest trees are discovered. 

4.5 Investigate the ecology of Ivory-billed Woodpecker through detailed investigations of 

appropriate surrogate species. 

5.0 Landscape Characterization and Assessment 

The ability of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and specifically the Cache and White River Basins to 

support recovery populations is unknown. The capacity of other habitats within the historic 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. 

5.1 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 (to be acquired in 2006). 

5.2 Develop forest type maps of the Cache and Lower White River basins using a Hydro 

Geomorphic (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. 

5.3 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 
 48 

 

data, Saucier geomorphology data) and any other available data. Compare it with 1940 

Lower White River basin aerial photography. 

5.4 Assess “suitable” habitat across the MAV and the historic range based on the application of 

biological models to currently available data sets (e.g., FIA, NLCD, aerial photography, 

LIDAR). 

5.5 Use remote-sensed data (e.g., ASTER, LIDAR) to characterize forested habitat conditions to 

attract and support Ivory-billed Woodpecker based on population-habitat models and to 

compare with ground-based methods. 

5.6 Conduct a hydro-geomorphic assessment of existing and potential wetland and upland 

habitats of the MAV. 

6.0 Conservation Design 

Spatially explicit population and habitat objectives are not known for Ivory-billed Woodpecker but are 

needed to support decision making 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. 

6.1 Establish population goals, objectives, and timelines. 

6.1.1 Establish population goals, objectives and timelines for the Cache and White 

River Basins. 

6.1.2 Establish population goals, objectives and timelines for the MAV. 

6.1.3 Establish population goals, objectives and timelines for the species' historic range. 

6.2 Establish habitat goals, objectives, and timelines to support population goals, objectives, and 

timelines. Habitat goals at all spatial scales would consider management, protection, and 

restoration of extant (bottomland) forests. 

6.3 Develop forest restoration and management guidelines (Desired Forest Conditions) designed 

to support population goals. 

6.4 Refine habitat management guidance for Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

6.5 Produce maps and technical documents (e.g., management guidelines) that land managers 

and planners can utilize to implement conservation programs across multiple spatial scales. 

6.6 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. 
 49 

 

7.0 Education and Outreach 

The rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker has generated a substantial amount of interest among 

the public. There is a need to provide information to the general public and numerous stakeholders 

involved or concerned with the recovery of the species. There is also a need to develop community 

based programs and plans to enhance opportunities to learn about and promote the conservation of the 

species and its habitat. The purpose of these tasks is to convey a consistent message regarding recovery 

efforts and to facilitate those efforts through public awareness and education. 

7.1 Develop a communications plan and strategy. 

7.1.1 Develop an outreach plan and strategy which addresses community-based programs 

that promote conservation of the species and its habitat. 

7.1.2 Ensure that the communication plan and strategy addresses the need for information 

at various levels and for various stakeholders (e.g., birders, local citizens, 

government agencies, industry). 

 

7.2 Develop outreach tools to help private landowners and land managers. 

7.3 Develop and distribute species identification brochures. 

7.4. Coordinate and cooperate with the government of Cuba regarding the status and recovery of 

the Cuban population of Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

8.0 Public Use and Access in Occupied Habitat 

Due to the rarity of this species and the potential for adverse impacts resulting from intense public 

interest, guidelines and policies need to be developed to manage public use. 

8.1 Develop guidelines for public use and other activities in Ivory-billed Woodpeckers habitat. 

8.1.1 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. 

8.2 Develop public access and viewing points such as boardwalks, towers, blinds and platforms. 

9.0 Management of Rediscovered Populations 

Increased interest on the part of researchers will require the development of research and monitoring 

protocols to assure that adverse impacts are minimized. Additionally, there is a need to develop 

management guidelines for forested habitats to avoid adverse impacts and, where applicable, aid in 

achieving recovery. 
 50 

 

9.1 Protect occupied habitat. 

9.2 Develop guidelines for monitoring Ivory-billed Woodpecker nesting, roosting and feeding 

behavior (e.g., permitting procedures, procedures for researchers). 

9.3 Assess the need for intervention to enhance reproductive success, productivity and survival. 

9.4 Determine the genetic health and viability of the population. 

9.5 Implement reforestation activities and forest management practices which will benefit Ivorybilled Woodpecker and its habitat (see task 5.4). 

9.6 Use decision-support models and other biological planning tools to determine the need and 

location of additional land protection measures. 

9.7 Protect priority lands identified in task 9.6. 

III. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

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 actions and estimated costs for 

the recovery program for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus prinicipalis). 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, nor imply a requirement, 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 Several tasks address the monitoring component of the recovery plan 

to ensure that data will be collected and evaluated in order to estimate the delisting date. The cost 

estimates provided are based on the Implementation Schedule and identify foreseeable expenditures that 

could be made to implement the specific recovery tasks during a 5-year period. Actual expenditures by 

identified agencies/partners will be contingent upon appropriations and other budgetary constraints. 
 51 

Recovery Action Priorities Priorities in column 1 of the following Implementation Schedule are assigned as follows: 

Priority 1- An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from declining irrever

foreseeable future. 

Priority 2 - An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in species population/habitat quality 

significant negative impact short of extinction. 

Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species. 

ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND WORD DEFINITIONS USED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION SCHED

A Factor A of reasons for listing (see Section H) ACOE U. S. Army Corps of EngineersAGFC Arkansas Game and Fish Commission AHC 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, Commonwealth 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 
 52 

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 historic 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 
 53 

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

1 

Complete and implement protocols and procedures for recording, classifying, and responding to reported Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings. 

1.1.1 E Ongoing R4, R2, ES CLO*, States 75K 25K 10K 10K 

2 

Develop teams to rapidly assess the veracity of sightings in other areas.

1.1.2 E Ongoing R4, R2, ES, RF CLO, States* 0 0 0 0 

3 Develop a repository for all previous sightings. 1.1.3 E Ongoing R4, ES CLO* § § § § 1 

Develop survey designs for search efforts throughout the range.

1.2 E 2 years R4, ES 

UGA, 

USGS-UGA 

Coop. 

20K 20K 

1 

Determine the probability of species detection based on survey effort, search area and population size.

1.3 E 1 year R4, ES USGS-UID Coop., CLO 5K 
 54 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

1 

Implement searches in the Cache and White River basins. 

1.4.1 E Ongoing R4, ES, RF See notes 1M 250K 250K 250K 

1 

Implement range-wide searches based on priority areas defined in the habitat tasks. 

1.4.2 E Ongoing R4, R2, ES, RF States, CLO, NGOs 450K 450K 450K 450K 

2 Develop state-based implementation groups. 1.4.3 E 1 year R4, ES, R2 States, CLO 0 1 

Enhance existing and develop new Ivorybilled Woodpecker survey and monitoring technologies.

1.5 E 5 years R4, ES CLO, USGS 400K 100K 100K 100K 

2 

Develop monitoring protocols to assess population size and trend.

1.6 E 1 year R4, ES CLO, USGS, UNI 0 
 55 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

1 

Develop ground-based forest inventory protocols which will identify characteristics important to Ivorybilled Woodpecker, including disturbance history. 

2.1.1 A 1 year R4, R2, ES, RF, MB* States, NGOs 0 

2 

Conduct remote sensebased (e.g., LiDAR, ASTER) forest inventories to augment ground-based habitat inventories. 

2.1.2 A 3 years R4, R2, ES, MB*, RF 

USGS, 

UMD, 

NASA, 

States, 

NGOs 

292K 46K 50K 

1 

Prioritize search areas in the Cache and White River basins. 

2.2.1 A, E 2 years R4, ES, RF, MB* State of Arkansas, CLO, TNC 20K 40K 

 2 

Prioritize search areas throughout the historic range using information from expert opinion and tasks 1.1.3 and 5.4. 

2.2.2 A, E 2 years R4, R2, ES, RF, MB* States, CSU, USGS-CSU Coop. 0 0 
 56 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

1 

Conduct forest inventories in the Cache and White River basins. 

2.3.1 A 2 years R4, ES, RF*, MB* State of Arkansas 90K 90K 

2 

Conduct forest inventories in priority areas throughout the range. 

2.3.2 A, E 5 years 

R4, R2, 

ES*, MB, 

RF 

States, 

NGOs, PVT 500K 500K 500K 500K 

1 

Characterize and assess the adequacy of foraging habitat in the Cache and White River Basins. 

2.3.3 A 2 years R4, ES, MB*RF AGFC, TNC, CLO 50K 50K 

3 

Develop a web-based, forest inventory geodatabase to consolidate and archive data. 

2.4 A 2 years R4, R2, ES, RF, MB* USGS, States 80K 80K 

2 

Assess the efficiency and effectiveness of forest management prescriptions intended to increase foraging habitat. 

2.5 A 5 years R4, ES, MB*, RF 

USGS, 

USFS, AHC, 

LDWF, 

AGFC 

† † † † 
 57 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

2 

Express Tanner’s Ivory-billed Woodpecker study conclusions for the Singer Tract population as an energetic foraging model. 

3.1 E 1 year R4, ES, MB* 

UGA, 

USGS-UGA 

Coop., 

USFS, 

NWRC 

19K 

1 

Develop a Cache-White River basin Ivory-billed Woodpecker population-habitat model to guide forest inventory and monitoring programs and to facilitate landscape characterizations and assessments. 

3.2.1 E 2 years R4, ES, MB* RT 0 

2 

Refine the Cache and White River basin Ivory-billed Woodpecker population-habitat model for application at larger spatial scales (e.g., MAV, rangewide). 

3.3 E 1 year R4, ES, MB* RT, CSU, USFS, CSU- Coop. 0 
 58 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

2 

Develop a range-wide potential occupancy model to facilitate search efforts across the southeastern portion of the United States. 

3.4 E 2 years R4, R2, ES, RF, MB* States, CSU, USGS-CSU Coop. 

2 

Develop estimates of the possible existing population using Life Table methodology and information on available habitat and territory size. 

3.5 E 1 year R4, ES UAR 0 Unk. 

2 Develop a Population Viability Model. 3.6 E 1 year R4, ES, MB UGA*, USGS-UGA Coop. 9K 3 

Summarize and compile the existing literature into a database. 

4.1 A, E 1 year R4, ES, MB Smith. 0 
 59 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

2 

Gather information on naturally-occurring tree mortality, snag formation, and decay rates across elevation gradients, hydrologic regimes, and soil classes. 

4.2.1 A 5 years R4, ES, MB*, RF 

USGS, 

USFS, AHC, 

LDWF, 

AGFC 

155K 155K 140K 80K 

2 

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. 

4.2.2 A 5 years R4, ES, MB*, RF 

USGS, 

USFS, AHC, 

LDWF, 

AGFC 

† † † † 

2 

Gather information on wood-boring insect populations, life history, natural densities and on factors which contribute to their density, richness and abundance (e.g., tree mortality, decay rates). 

4.3.1 A 5 years R4, ES, MB*, RF 

USGS, 

USFS, AHC, 

LDWF, 

AGFC 

† † † † 
 60 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

2 

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. 

4.3.2 A 5 years R4, ES, MB*, RF 

USGS, 

USFS, AHC, 

LDWF, 

AGFC 

† † † † 

3 

Expand and re-examine research priorities when active nest trees are discovered. 

4.4 E Ongoing R4, ES, MB, RF RT CLO 0 0 0 0 

2 

Investigate the ecology of Ivory-billed Woodpecker through detailed investigations of appropriate surrogate species. 

4.5 E Ongoing R4, ES 

States, UNI, 

The Walt 

Disney Co. 

200K 200K 100K 100K 
 61 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

1 

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. 

5.1 A 2 years 

R4, ES, 

MB, RF, 

AGFC, 

AHC 

NWRC* 29K 85K 

2 

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, multispectral satellite data and any other available data. 

5.2 A 2 years R4, ES, MB 

AHC*, 

USGS, 

ACOE, 

AMWPT 

100K 50K 
 62 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

2 

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. 

5.3 A 1 year R4, ES, MB, RF NWRC*, LDWF 114K 40K 

1 

Assess “suitable” habitat across the MAV and the historic range based on the application of biological models to currently available data sets. 

5.4 A 2 years R4, R2, ES, MB* CSU*, USFS, RT, ACOE, AHC 45K 45K 
 63 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

3 

Use remote-sensed data (e.g., ASTER, LiDAR) to characterize forested habitat conditions to attract and support Ivory-billed Woodpecker based on population-habitat models and to compare with ground-based methods. 

5.5 A 2 years R4, ES, MB*, RF NWRC*, NASA, UMD 58K 60K 

3 

Conduct a hydrogeomorphic assessment of existing and potential wetland and upland habitats of the MAV. 

5.6 A 2 years R4, ES, MB, RF AHC*, USGS, ACOE 100K 100K 

1 

Establish population goals, objectives and timelines for the Cache and White River Basins. 

6.1.1 E 1 year 

R4, R2, 

ES*, MB, 

RF 

RT, AGFC 25K 
 64 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

1 

Establish population goals, objectives and timelines for the MAV. 

6.1.2 E 1 year 

R4, R2, 

ES*, MB, 

RF 

RT, 

Lower MAV 

States 

 25K 

1 

Establish population goals, objectives and timelines for the species' historic range. 

6.1.3 E 1 year 

R4, R2, 

ES*, MB, 

RF 

RT, 

Other States 

 25K 

1 

Establish habitat goals, objectives, and timelines to support population goals, objectives, and timelines. 

6.2 A, E 3 years 

R4, R2, 

ES*, MB, 

RF 

RT, 

States 

 25K 25K 25K 

1 

Develop forest restoration and management guidelines (Desired Forest Conditions) designed to support population goals. 

6.3 A 2 years R4, R2, ES, MB*, RF 

States, 

USFS, AHC, 

TNC, USGS, 

PVT, NRCS 

30K 35K 
 65 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

2 

Refine habitat management guidance for Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

6.4 A 2 years R4, R2, ES, MB*, RF 

States, 

USFS, AHC, 

TNC, USGS, 

PVT, NRCS 

 50K 50K 

2 

Produce maps and technical documents (e.g., management guidelines) that land managers and planners can use to implement conservation programs across multiple spatial scales. 

6.5 A Ongoing R4, ES, MB* USGS, USFS 20K 20K 20K 20K 

2 

Develop decisionsupport tools based on biological models that facilitate the delivery of conservation programs by maximizing the biological and cost efficiency of management actions. 

6.6 A Ongoing R4, ES, EA, MB* USGS 20K 20K 20K 20K 
 66 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

2 

Develop an outreach plan and strategy which addresses communitybased programs that promote conservation of the species and its habitat. 

7.1.1 A Ongoing 

EA*,R4, 

R2, ES, 

MB, RF, 

AFGC 

RT-Outreach 

Team 7K 7.5K 8K 

2 

Ensure that the communication plan and strategy addresses the need for information at various levels and for various stakeholders (e.g., birders, local citizens, government agencies, industry). 

7.1.2 A, E 4 years R4, ES, EA RT-Outreach Team 3K 4K 5K 

2 

Develop outreach tools to help private landowners and land managers. 

7.2 A 4 years R4, ES, EA RT-Outreach Team 30K 10K 10K 

1 

Develop and distribute species identification brochures. 

7.3 E Ongoing 

R4, R2, ES, 

RF, MB, 

EA 

RT-Outreach 

Team, 

NGOs, 

States 

 25K 10K 10K 
 67 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

3 

Coordinate and cooperate with the government of Cuba regarding the status and recovery of the Cuban population of Ivorybilled Woodpecker. 

7.4 E Ongoing CLO* 

1 

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. 

8.1.1 E Ongoing R4, R2, ES, RF, MB CLO, USGS, UNI, States 15K 10K 10K 10K 

1 

Develop public access and viewing points such as boardwalks, towers, blinds and platforms. 

8.2 E Ongoing R4, R2, ES, MB, RF NGOs, States 75K 50K 50K 50K 

1 Protect occupied habitat. 9.1 A Ongoing R4, R2, ES, RF States, NGOs, PVT 30K 30K 30K 30K 
 68 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

1 

Develop guidelines for monitoring Ivory-billed Woodpecker nesting, roosting and feeding behavior. 

9.2 E Ongoing R4, R2, ES, RF, MB States, CLO 10K 5K 5K 5K 

2 

Assess the need for intervention to enhance reproductive success, productivity and survival. 

9.3 E Ongoing R4, ES*, MB CLO, NGOs Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. 

2 

Determine the genetic health and viability of the population. 

9.4 E 1 year R4, ES UNI 

1 

Implement reforestation activities and forest management practices which will benefit Ivory-billed Woodpecker and its habitat. 

9.5 A Ongoing R4, R2, RF 

States, 

NGOs, 

NRCS, PVT 

1M 1M 1M 1M 
 69 

Cost Estimates 

Task 

Priority Task Description Task Number Threat Task Duration Responsible Organization (*denotes lead agency) FWS Other FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

2 

Use decision-support models and other biological planning tools to determine the need and location of additional land protection measures. 

9.6 A, E Ongoing 

R4, ES, 

MB, RF, 

RE 

States, 

NGOs 20K 20K 20K 20K 

2 Protect priority lands identified in task 9.6. 9.7 A, E Ongoing R4, R2, RF, RE States, USDA, NGOs, PVT 3M 2M 2M 2M 
 70 

 

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 1998. Checklist of North American birds. Seventh edition. American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D. C. 

Audubon, J. J. 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. 

Bonney, R., D. N. Pashley, R. J. Cooper, and L. Niles, eds. 1999. Pages 1-22 in Strategies for Bird 

Conservation: The Partners in Flight Planning Process. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. 

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

Burleigh, T. D. 1958. Georgia birds. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. 

Crompton, D. H. 1950. My search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Florida. Massachusetts 

Audubon Society Bulletin 34:235-237. 

Dennis, J. V. 1948. A last remnant of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in Cuba. Auk 65:497-507. 

Dennis, J. V. 1967. The ivory-bill flies still. Audubon 69(6):38-44. 

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. 

Eastman, W. 1958. Ten year search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Atlantic Naturalist 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, 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 
 71 

 

North American Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. Biol. Lett. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2006.0490. (Online 

pub.) 

Gallagher, T. 2005. The grail bird: hot on the trail of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Houghton Mifflin 

Company. Boston. 272 pp + ill. 

Garrido, O. H. and A. Kirkconnell. 2000. Field guide to the birds of Cuba. Cornell University Press, 

Ithaca, NY. 272 pp. 

Greene, E. R. 1936. A natural wild life refuge, the Okefenokee Swamp. Oriole 1:13-14. 

Grumbine, E. R. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8(1):27–38. 

Hahn, P. 1963. 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. 

Hasbrouck, E. M. 1891. The present status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). 

Auk 8:174-186. 

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, GA. 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, FL. 

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, PA. 28 pp. + 

ill. 

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

294pp. + ill. 

Jackson, J. A. 2006. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis): hope, and the interfaces of 

science, conservation, and politics. Auk 123(1):1-15. 

James, D. A., and J. C. Neal. 1986. Arkansas Birds: their distribution and abundance. University of 

Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, AR. 

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. 
 72 

 

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 18:746-757. 

Lammertink, M. In preparation. Ecology of the four largest woodpeckers: similarities in requirements 

and threats. Proceedings of the symposium ‘Ecology and conservation of large woodpeckers’ 

(M. Lammertink, D. Zollner and J. A. Jackson, eds.). Brinkley, AR, 31 Oct. - 4 Nov. 2005. 

Mangel, M., and C. Tier. 1994. Four facts every conservation biologist should know about persistence. 

Ecology 75:607-614. 

Meffe, G. K., and C. R. Carroll. 1997. Principles of conservation biology. Second edition. Sinauer 

Associates, Sunderland, MA. 729 pp. 

Mengel, R. M. 1965. The Birds of Kentucky. Ornithological Monographs No. 3. American 

Ornithologists' Union. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. 

Muller, R. N., and W. C. McComb. 1986. Upland forests of the Knobs region of Kentucky. Torrey 

Botanical Club Bulletin 113(3):268-280. 

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. 1974. The birdlife of Texas. University of Texas, Austin, TX. 

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. 

Palmer-Ball, B. 2003. Annotated checklist of the birds of Kentucky. Kentucky Ornithological Society, 

Louisville, KY. 

Phillips, J. C. 1926. An attempt to list the extinct and vanishing birds of the Western Hemisphere. 

Pages 512-513 in Verhandlungen VI Internationalen Ornithologen-Kongresses Kopenhagen. 

Reynard G. B. 1963. The cadence of bird song. Living Bird 2:139–147.

Robertson, W. B., and Woolfenden, G. E. 1992. Florida bird species: an annotated list. Florida 

Ornithological Society, Gainesville, FL. 
 73 

 

Ruediger, B. 1971. Management plan for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. Unpublished report for 

Compartment 20, Sam Houston National Forest. 6 pp. 

Shackelford, C. E. 1998. A compilation of published records of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Texas: 

voucher specimens versus sight records. Bulletin of the Texas Ornithological Society 31(2):34-

41. 

Sibley, D. A., L. R. Bevier, M. A. Patten, C. S. Elphick. 2006. Comment on “Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

(Campephilus principalis) persists in continental North America” (technical comment). Science 

311:1555a. 

Snyder, N. F. R. In preparation. The role of human depradations in the decline of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Proceedings of the symposium ‘Ecology and 

conservation of large woodpeckers’ (M. Lammertink, D. Zollner and J. A. Jackson, eds.). 

Brinkley, AR, 31 Oct. - 4 Nov. 2005. 

Sprunt, A., and E. B. Chamberlain. 1949. South Carolina bird life. University of South Carolina Press, 

Columbia, SC. 585 pp. 

Stevenson, H. M., and Anderson, B. H. 1994. The birdlife of Florida. University Press of Florida, 

Gainesville, FL. pages 407-410 

Stoddard, H. L. 1969. Memoirs of a naturalist. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

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 9:182-195. 

Turcotte, W. H., and D. L. Watts. 1999. Birds of Mississippi. University of Mississippi Press, Jackson, 

MS. 

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.). University of Missouri-Columbia. Gaylord Memorial Laboratory 

Special Publication No. 10, Puxico. 

Twedt, D. J., W. B. Uihlein III, and A. B. Elliott. 2006. A spatially explicit decision support model for 

restoration of forest bird habitat. Conservation Biology 20:100-110. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1938. Miscellaneous Publication Number 309. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983a. Endangered and threatened species listing and recovery priority 

guidance. Federal Register 48:43098-43105. 
 74 

 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983b. Endangered and threatened species listing and recovery priority 

guidelines correction. Federal Register 48:51985. 

Wharton, M. E. 1945. Floristics and vegetation of the Devonian-Mississippian black shale region of 

Kentucky. Ph.D. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 

Wilson, A. 1811. American ornithology 4:20-26. Bradford and Inskeep, Philadelphia, PA. 

Personal Communications 

Foti, Thomas. 2006. E-mail message detailing correction of Tanner (1942) record for Arkansas. 

August 28, 2006. 

Kirkconnell, A. 2005. 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, NY, 

on September 20-21, 2005. 
 75 

 

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

and their affiliation. 

Executive Committee of the Recovery Team 

 

John Bridgeland 

Civic Enterpises 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, Southeast Region 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Scott Henderson, Director 

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 

Robert Nixon, Chairman 

Earth Conservation Corps 

Pete Roussopolous 

Director Southern Research Station 

Forest Service 

Jim Tate 

Science Advisor to the Secretary 

Department of the Interior 

Larry Wiseman 

American Forest Foundation 
 76 

 

Steering Committee of the Recovery Team 

Jon Andrew, Recovery Team Leader 

Regional Chief, NWRS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region 

Robert Cooper, Warnell School of Forest Resources 

University of Georgia 

Co-Chair 

Tom Foti, 

Research Chief 

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission 

Co-Chair 

 David Goad, Deputy Director 

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 

Kenny Ribbeck, 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Co-Chair 

Ken Rosenberg 

Director, Conservation Science Program/ Partners In Flight 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology 

Co-Chair 
 77 

 

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 Director 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

Wylie Barrow, US 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 Demorest, Migratory Bird Management 

Southeast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Richard Fischer, Environmental Laboratory 

U.S. Army Engineer R & D Center 

Robert P. Ford, Supervisory Wildlife Biologist 

Memphis Migratory Bird Office 

Deborah Fuller, Ecological Services Lafayette Field Office 

Southeast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Gary Graves, Research Scientist and Curator 

Smithsonian Institute, Dept. of Vertebrate Zoology 

Museum of Natural History 

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 
 78 

 

Eduardo Inigo-Elias, Cornell Lab of Ornithology 

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, Director 

Conservation Science Program/ Partners In Flight, Northeast Regional Coordinator, Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology 

Co-Chair 

Dan Scheiman, Bird Conservation Director 

Audubon 

Cliff Shackelford, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

Dan Twedt, Wildlife Biologist 

US Geological Survey -- Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 

Michael Warriner, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission 

Randy Wilson, Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture 
 79 

 

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 Natrional Estuarine 

Research Reserve 
 80 

 

Habitat Working Group of the Recovery Team 

James Baker, State Wildlife Biologist 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Charles Baxter 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture 

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 

Tom Darden, Director, Cooperative Forestry 

USDA Forest Service, Southern Region 

Jeff Denman, Forester 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region 

White River National Wildlife Refuge 

Todd Engstrom, Florida State University 

Tom Foti, Research Chief 

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission 

Leigh Fredrickson, Gaylord Memorial Laboratory, 

University of Missouri 

Larry Handley, National Wetlands Research Center 

US Geological Survey 

John D. Hodges, Mississippi State University 
 81 

 

Chuck Hunter, Regional Refuge Biologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region 

Eric Johnson, Forester 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region 

Cache River National Wildlife Refuge 

David Kulivan, National Rifle Association 

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 Society-Mississippi State Office 

George Rheinhardt, Assistant State Forester 

Arkansas Forestry Commission 

Kenny Ribbeck, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Ron Rohrbaugh, Director, Ivory-billed Woodpecker Research Project 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology 

Mike Scott, US 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 

Anderson-Tully Company 

Mike Thomas, Assistant Management Chief 

Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Office of Forestry 
 82 

 

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 

Appendix B. Extent of Decline 

History of Ivory-billed Woodpecker Status in the Southeastern U.S. 

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s decline since the 1800’s is well documented in several resources (Allen 

and Kellogg 1937, Tanner 1942, Jackson 2002, Jackson 2004, Hoose 2004, Gallagher 2005). Ivorybilled 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 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 1900’s. However, associations between forested wetland 

systems and this species may be only part of story leading to the Ivory-billed Woodpeckers demise in 

the Southeast. 

Evidence exists that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, while primarily associated with expansive forested 

wetland systems, may have also used the expansive longleaf pine forests with embedded forested 

wetlands that before European Settlement covered about 90 million acres of the southeastern landscape 

(see Jackson 2004). If this was so, the relationship with expansive longleaf pine forests would be 

consistent with habitat used by the Imperial Woodpecker (Campephilus imperialis, a very close relative 

of Ivory-billed Woodpecker and feared extinct) within the pine dominated mountains in the Sierra 

Madre Occidental of northwestern Mexico and similarly within the pine dominated mountain habitat 

used by some, but not all, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in Cuba. If these conclusions are correct, when the 

longleaf forests were cut over, Ivory-billed Woodpecker populations may have become increasingly 
 83 

 

isolated and individual populations restricted to the remaining larger forested wetland systems. The 

primary Longleaf pine forest was harvested from the 1700’s through the early 1900’s from east to west 

in the Southeast. Before European Settlement there was likely frequent interchange between Ivorybilled Woodpecker populations from Texas to Florida and northward to North Carolina. These 

connections were permanently severed with the loss of intact longleaf pine forests by the early 1900’s. 

In addition to habitat loss, by the late 1800’s the species was already targeted as a valuable commodity 

for collectors and trophy hunters as something very rare and unusual. This already rare species became 

even rarer, especially in remaining suitable habitat. By the early 1900’s, it was generally thought extinct 

in continental North America, until 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 1900’s, most remaining populations already were doomed to extirpation from 

habitat fragmentation, demographic isolation, and collecting. 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 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. 

Based on his study of this small remnant population and a search of other areas likely to support the 

bird, Tanner was the last to thoroughly document the range of this species. He also documented the 

reduction of their numbers, by the mid-1940’s, to about 20 birds scattered in Louisiana (Singer Tract), 

the Gulf coast of Florida (from Apalachicola River basin to the Lower Suwannee River basin and 

adjacent swamps), the Big Cypress region of southwest 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 the last individual of the small population studied by researchers from the Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology and National Audubon Society at Singer Tract, Louisiana, was last seen. However, 

reputable sightings of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers continued in and near Singer Tract at least until 1946, 

and possible encounters continued into the 1980’s, but nothing 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 occurred well 

after the 1940’s, including from the Piney Woods of eastern Texas, the Atchafalaya Basin of southern 

Louisiana, the Delta in Mississippi, the coastal plain of South Carolina, and across Florida. Most of 

these reports occurred before the 1970’s with some having been shown to be more credible than others, 

but none representing firm documentation that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers still occur in the Southeastern 

United States today (there is also evidence that some Ivory-billed Woodpeckers may persist in Cuba). 

Without any additional tangible evidence this essentially remains true today outside of Arkansas. 
 84 

 

Post-1944 Potential Encounters 

Since the 1940’s, 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 or Redheaded woodpeckers. The tin-horn sounding “toot” calls possibly could be assigned to Blue Jays 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, 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 lacking detail to constitute firm evidence that the species 

persists. This 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, where many authorities believe is 

the most likely place a population of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers could escape notice. Among the most 

interesting reports, Dr. George Lowry from Louisiana State University in 1971 came into possession of 

two color photographs of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker perched half-way up the side of two very large 

trees. These photographs would seem to have provided good evidence that the species persisted at least 

into the early 1970’s. However, critics pointed out that it was not clear that the bird involved was 

actually alive and not a mounted specimen that had been secured to the tree. 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 photographer was recently revealed to be taken by Mr. Fielding Lewis of Franklin, 

Louisiana (Gallagher 2005). Both Lowry (now deceased) 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 1970’s. 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. However, intriguing very recent sightings are discussed below. 

After 1950 and the demise of Louisiana’s Singer Tract, Florida became considered by many searchers 

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 cutover 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 1970’s). The most consistent area of observations and credible sightings come from the 

Apalachicola and Chipola rivers in the Florida Panhandle, at least through the 1950’s. 

The most intriguing reports after the 1950’s are from 1967-1969. 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 
 85 

 

spring of 1968 the tree in question blew over and a feather was found. The feather was subsequently 

identified by the Smithsonian Institution as that of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker and considered relatively 

fresh and not worn (see pages 407-410 in Stevenson and Anderson 1994, The Birdlife of Florida, 

University of Florida Press). 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 was determined to be in line with bill marks from known Ivorybilled Woodpecker cavities (P. Sykes, USGS, pers. comm.). 

In South Carolina, credible reports continued into the 1930’s 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 Ivory-billed Woodpeckers emerged from the Piney Woods of eastern Texas, in the vicinity of 

what is now Big Thicket National Preserve, between the Trinity and Neches rivers. One of the sightings 

was by Mr. John Dennis (who was principally involved in the rediscovery of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

in Cuba during the late 1940’s) and 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 or possibly a 

Blue Jay. Recent analysis of this tape by the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology determined that the calls 

were indeterminate between known Ivory-billed Woodpecker, White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta 

carolinensis), and 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. 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. So despite the credentials of these two ornithologists making observations in Texas, 

credible evidence Ivory-billed Woodpeckers at any time during the mid-1900’s occurred in the vicinity 

of Big Thicket remains a hotly debated issue to this day. As of this writing, all reports since the late 

1960’s have been discredited, or at best, are considered highly questionable, with the possible exception 

of Dennis’ 1968 recording. 

In part due the Big Thicket reports, the Southwest Region of the Service during the late 1980’s initiated 

a rangewide 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 unfortunately 

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 from 1973 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, but no further 

evidence has emerged since the 1970’s in Alabama. For the Yazoo River account, Jackson along with 

his graduate student, Mr. Malcolm Hodges (who now works for The Nature Conservancy in Georgia), 
 86 

 

reported hearing a bird in 1987 that in their view matched closely with 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. 

The Most Recent Sighting, Prior to Arkansas 

In sum, there have been numerous reports of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers since the 1940’s, 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 easily were dismissed 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 

1980’s. 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 1940’s. 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 late 

1990’s, this time along the Pearl River on the Louisiana side. 

Mr. David Kulivan, a wildlife graduate 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 Wildlife 

Management Area, 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. Remsen is now one of the very few leading authorities on the status of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the United States and chief critic of all reports regarding this species. 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. 

Once announced to the general public nearly a year later, numerous expeditions were organized to 

search for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers at Pearl River Wildlife Management Area. Many folks believed 

they glimpsed Ivory-billed Woodpeckers or heard their calls in the far 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 has been 

discovered to date to document persistence of this most endangered (if not extinct) bird in the United 

States. Maybe there is in fact a small population of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers persisting on the Pearl 

River in Louisiana. Even some of those who have raised doubts that Mr. Kulivan’s report was “too 

detailed” admit it is possible, 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 
 87 

 

habitat here has improved or decreased for Ivory-billed Woodpecker after Katrina, but continued 

monitoring of the region is justified. 

Conclusion 

If we only accept the report from eastern Arkansas as confirmed, then this species has been lost from 

over 99 percent of its former range. However, if all these potential post-1944 encounters are considered 

in the realm of what is possible, then the present-day range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker largely fills 

out the former known range. Thus, it is possible that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker persists from east 

Texas, north to central-eastern Arkansas, and east along the coastal plain to include at least South 

Carolina (and potentially extreme southeastern North Carolina) and south to at least the Florida 

panhandle. The one exception, until recently, where there has been no hint that this species persisted 

after the 1800’s would be the area often referred to as the New Madrid region, which includes the lower 

Ohio River and its confluence with the Mississippi mainstem south through Missouri, Kentucky, and 

Tennessee, north of the confluence with the Arkansas River. However, several recent reports have 

surfaced from southern Illinois and western Tennessee (additional details should be forthcoming). 
 88 

 

Appendix C. Narrative for Possible Post-1944 Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

Encounters. 

Description of post-1944 possible encounters with Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (most are referenced in 

Jackson 2004, some additional encounters are referred to in FWS compilations of reports from the late 

1980’s). 

South Carolina 

Pee Dee and Waccamaw potential search area. Sightings from the Black River reported in 1970 and 

1981, no independent confirmation. 

Santee River potential search area from Congaree Swamp National Park to Cape Romain National 

Wildlife Refuge. Last confirmed area outside of Singer Tract supporting Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in 

the mid-1930’s. Reports continue from the late 1950’s to the present, both upstream and downstream 

from Lake Marion. Upstream of Lake Marion, sightings and recording by Manns in 1971 received 

national attention though most authorities can tell nothing from the very poor quality of the recording 

(Jackson suggests the call could be from a Wood Duck). Also, a report from 1984 near confluence of 

Congaree, Wateree, and Santee rivers. Downstream of Lake Marion, reports relayed to Sprunt and/or 

Dennis (and then reported to FWS) from 1959, 1960 (3 reports), 1962, 1963, and 1967, again no 

independent confirmation. 

South Carolina-Georgia 

Savannah River potential search area from Augusta to Savannah. No post-1944 reports, but a number of 

searchers suspect habitat has good potential. 

Georgia

One sight report from the Ogeechee River, 25 miles west of Savannah in 1973, from someone familiar 

with other Campephilus in South America and considered intriguing by Jackson. 

Altamaha River potential search area. Stoddard in 1958 reported seeing a bird at distance of 50 meters 

during an overflight of the river, considered highly credible.

Georgia-Florida

Okefenokee-Pinhook Swamp-Osceola potential search area. Reports during 1946-1948 are not 

independently confirmed from the Okefenokee Swamp NWR proper. An additional 1965 report from 

Stephen C. Foster State Park supposedly with photograph (missing?). 

Red Hills potential search area (possibly should be combined with Apalachicola in Florida). Two 

reports from the Red Hills between Thomasville and Florida border by Stoddard (1958) and Reynard 

(1963). Both records would seem to be considered highly credible based on reputations of observers, 
 89 

 

but neither report is mentioned in the Georgia Annotated Checklist (though a 1952 report is mentioned 

from Thomas County). 

Florida

Apalachicola Drainage Basin potential search area. Highly credible sight reports from the 1950’s come 

from around the Apalachicola National Forest including between Wakulla Station and St. Marks (1952 

by Grimes) and many sites along the Chipola River (1950-1951 by Whitney, Eastmann, Dennis, and 

others). Rumors persist that Stevenson knew of an occupied cavity into the 1970’s along the Chipola, 

but kept the specific location secret. Recent searches (2003) in this same area have produced some 

possible auditory contacts. 

Aucilla River. Highly credible report of a lone female in 1959 1 mile east of the river proper by Rhein 

as reported to Tanner (also follow up interview by Lammertink in 1997). 

Lower Suwannee River (including Big Bend and California Swamp) potential search area. No post1944 reports, but likely supported the species prior to 1930. 

Big Cypress-Fakahatchee potential search area. A report from 1950 by highly credible observer 

(Cruickshank) relayed to another highly respected ornithologist (Robertson). Other more recent (late 

1980’s to late 1990’s) but unconfirmed reports. 

Additional reports of some interest from Florida include: 

Eglin Air Force Base 1966, not independently confirmed 

Wekiva River 1987-1988, not independently confirmed but thought intriguing by Jackson 

Homosassa Springs 1955, not independently confirmed 

Green Swamp, Haines City area, 1967, credible observer (Lee), foraging sign also present 

Highlands Hammock 1968, not independently confirmed 

Jonathan Dickinson State Park, 1985, not independently confirmed but thought intriguing by Jackson 

One additional intriguing report comes from private land somewhere northwest of Lake Okeechobee 

from 1967-1969 where 11 separate sightings were reported between 1967-1969. A fallen roost tree from 

the site that was said to contain a secondary feather, independently identified as that from an ivory-bill 

and thought to be fresh (not from a museum specimen), now are housed at the Florida Museum of 

Natural History, Gainesville. Some doubt on the entire set of reports comes from a tape purported to be 

of the birds under observation identified by Cornell Lab as definitely Pileated Woodpecker. 

Alabama-Upper Coastal Plain of Mississippi

Mobile River delta (includes Tensaw, Alabama and Tombigbee river systems) potential search area. No 

post-1944 reports for the delta proper, however Jackson may have seen a bird in 1973 along the 

Noxubee River just across state line into Alabama. 

Mississippi
 90 

 

Pascagoula River potential search area. Reports from 1960, 1978, and 1982 considered intriguing by 

Jackson. 

Yazoo River Delta (from Mississippi River confluence to vicinity of Greenwood) potential search area. 

One bird heard by Jackson and Hodges in 1987 (and then another auditory encounter in 1988 by Davis 

and Sibley) near confluence with Mississippi River considered probable if it weren’t for potential of 

Blue Jay sounding very similar. Another report from the headwaters of the Yazoo (Tallahatchie and 

Yalobusha rivers) in 1988 considered at best an individual moving through. In the lower Basin, Panther 

Swamp NWR and Delta National Forest appears worthy of a search. 

An additional report from Mississippi comes from about 30 miles north of Meridian in 1953, tantalizing 

but incomplete details according to Jackson. 

Louisiana-Mississippi

Pearl River potential search area. A very detailed report of a pair of birds seen for 10 minutes at close 

range in 1999 on Pearl River Wildlife Management Area, LA, sparked a four-year search, resulting in no 

independent confirmation. Still the area, and adjacent Bogue Chitto NWR Stennis Space Center, may be 

worth an additional search effort (especially after extensive defoliation and tree mortality following 

Hurricane Katrina). 

Louisiana

Atchafalaya Basin potential search area. Most reports (of which there are many) come mostly from the 

southern portion of the basin to include some areas south of US Highway 90. A pair of photographs 

surfaced in 1971 of what is undoubtedly a male Ivory-billed Woodpecker perched on two different trees. 

The photographs were presented to the American Ornithologists’ Union by Lowery, but subjected to 

strong criticism that these photos could have been faked (i.e., unclear given the position of the bird in 

both photos was whether or not the bird in the photograph was actually alive). The identity of the 

photographer was not known beyond a small group of Louisiana ornithologists for over 30 years until 

the 2005 publication of The Grail Bird by Tim Gallagher. The photographer, Fielding Lewis, is a life 

long resident, hunter, and angler from Franklin, LA, where he has been keeping reports of this species 

from his fellow outdoorsmen in the southern Atchafalaya Basin for over 30 years (last reports he is 

aware of are from the mid-1980’s). In addition to these reports from the local community, other fleeting 

glimpses from trained ornithologists were in 1973, 1974, 1981, 1982, and 1986. The 1981 report from 

Michot and Hankla, included another fuzzy photo, in this case of only the top of the bird’s head which 

indicates either a male Ivory-billed Woodpecker or a female Pileated Woodpecker, but accompanied 

written details supports the former (though there was confusion over calls the bird[s] were giving). 

Central Louisiana Delta (from Catahoula NWR east to Cat Island NWR) potential search area. No post1944 reports, but habitat potentially exists. 

Tensas River Basin potential search area. Last absolutely confirmed reports of the species into at least 

1944, some say 1948, on what is popularly known as the Singer Tract. Additional auditory encounters 
 91 

 

by credentialed ornithologists in 1962 (Binford, Monroe, Berrett, Arnold) and then again 1981-1982 

(Heinrich and Welch). 

Louisiana-Arkansas

Ouachita River (from Felsenthal NWR to Ouachita WMA) potential search area. No post-1944 

reports, but habitat potentially exists. 

Arkansas

White-Cache-Lower Arkansas rivers actual search area. In addition to the visual, auditory, and video 

evidence mounting from the White and Cache Rivers since 2004, there is at least one additional recent 

report from eastern Arkansas from farther north in Jackson County in 1986. However, there was no 

independent confirmation. 

Louisiana-Arkansas-Oklahoma-Texas 

Red River (including Little River NWR, OK, Caddo Lake NWR, TX, Pond Creek NWR, AR and points 

south into LA) potential search area. Report of a pair of birds in the mid-1980’s near Grassy Lake in sw 

Arkansas, but no independent confirmation. 

Louisiana-Texas 

Sabine River potential search area. Apparently a family group (4-5 birds, including young) seen in 1985 

along Toledo Bend Reservoir shoreline several miles north of Pendelton Bridge in compartment 101 of 

Sabine National Forest. Observer interviewed by Conner, extensive scaling evident in area, otherwise 

no independent confirmation. 

Texas

The Big Thicket (Neches-Trinity rivers) potential search area. The official Texas Ornithological 

Society’s position is that all the Big Thicket reports since the 1930s are unsubstantiated. Please see 

Shackelford (1998) for a more detailed list of published accounts of the species in Texas. This includes 

all the sightings, auditory contacts, two recordings, and a purported photograph that came out of the Big 

Thicket area between the Trinity and Neches rivers from 1958 to 1985. Although many of the reports 

involved Dennis, Eastman and Reynard, all who had good Ivory-billed Woodpecker credentials 

(especially Dennis who was principle in rediscovering the species in Cuba in 1948), there were general 

doubts widely expressed by Tanner, Sutton, Sykes, and others about the reports. Statements in the 

literature that Dennis was “overly optimistic,” were regularly mentioned in critiques of the Big Thicket 

reports. However, Dennis was able to record audio of an unseen bird in 1968 that has been subject to 

thorough review by Hardy. Hardy concluded that the recording was either an Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

or a Blue Jay, but “throwing caution to the wind,” leaned towards Ivory-billed Woodpecker. In addition, 

Reynard recorded what was described as a “double rap” in 1969 from the Big Thicket which had been 

spliced into another recording for his record “Birds Songs in Cuba.” Tanner did not agree that this was 

in fact an Ivory-bill. Finally, Reynard purportedly looked at a fuzzy photograph taken by a local 

woodsman in 1967 and concluded it was a Campephilus woodpecker, but the photo has apparently not 
 92 

 

been shared with anyone else. The most recent report from the Big Thicket was in 1985 that came from 

one individual who saw birds in three different areas, including one breeding pair with 2 young. None 

of the sightings have been independently confirmed, but the Dennis audio recording resurfaced most 

recently as part of Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology’s analysis of recordings from eastern Arkansas 

since 2004. Currently, the Dennis recording is considered indeterminate and may be an Ivory-bill, Blue 

Jay, or White-breasted Nuthatch. It should be noted that all indeterminate recordings thought to be 

possible Ivory-billed Woodpecker from the White and Cache rivers are of poor quality compared with 

recordings that ordinate clearly with known Ivory-billed Woodpecker notes from the Singer Tract study. 

Undocumented reports of ivory-bills still come in from the Big Thicket and other parts of eastern Texas. 

Unfortunately, there have been no confirmed Ivory-billed Woodpecker records in Texas since 1904.
 93 

 

Appendix D Detailed Description of the Current and Historical Ivorybilled Woodpecker Sightings and Habitat for each of the states within the 

historic range. 

These narratives are provided by the States or their representatives and are reproduced in total in this appendix. 
 94 

 

ALABAMA 

Original Range in Alabama 

Data on the historical occurrence, and hence the original range, of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in 

Alabama is meager. The first account of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Alabama may well have been 

that of Audubon (1838) who mentions encountering them during an overland trip from Mobile to 

Charleston in 1837. Writing from Dallas Co., Gosse (1859) did not consider the species rare in 1838 

and mentions taking a paired male and female, probably sometime between June 1-10, though no 

collection data are given. The specimen Hasbrouck (1891) reported as taken in Marengo Co., west of 

the Tombigbee River in 1865 is problematic because the Tombigbee River forms the western boundary 

of Marengo Co. Therefore, any specimen taken west of the river would have been in either Sumter or 

Choctaw Co. Avery (1890) collected a specimen near the Black Warrior River, 10 mi. west of 

Greensboro, Hale Co., in 1866. G.V. Young observed a nest in a dead pine at Crump Springs on the 

Buttahatchie River, Lamar Co., in the spring of 1886 and a bird in Wilcox Co., in 1889 (Hasbrouck 

1891). The last record reported by Howell (1928), who considered the species “undoubtedly extinct in 

Alabama”, was of one killed by C.W. Howe “about 1907” along the Conecuh River north of Troy, Pike 

Co. 

Based on published records and the known or surmised range of the species in surrounding states, the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker probably inhabited areas of suitable habitat in the eastern gulf coastal plain of 

Alabama south of the fall line. The most suitable habitat appears to have been in forests along major 

riverine systems in the west and south and in extensive longleaf pine forests in the southeast. The vast 

forested wetlands along the Alabama, Tombigbee, Black Warrior, Chattahoochee, Conecuh, and Pea 

Rivers were undoubtedly important. 

Range Changes over Time 

The presence of the species in Alabama was linked to the presence of extensive areas of virgin and old 

growth forests. Its disappearance appears to have resulted from changes in forest composition 

subsequent to the arrival of European settlers in the early 1800’s. The rise of a strong agricultural 

economy and need for timber products to support development in the early 18th century reduced the 

state’s forests significantly (Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 2005). Expansion 

of the railway system in the 1850’s required vast quantities of wood and opened areas for settlement. 

The Civil War and depletion of forest resources throughout the 1800’s in many areas of the U.S. placed 

additional pressure on the state’s forest resources. As a result, Alabama’s old growth forests were gone 

by 1920 and millions of acres of former forested habitat had been cleared, degraded, or converted to 

another habitat type. 

The relative rarity of the species throughout its range, absence of surveys, and lack of locality data 

documenting its distribution makes it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions concerning range 

changes. While it undoubtedly occurred in low population densities over large areas of Alabama, 

available data indicates that by 1850 its main center of distribution in Alabama was severely restricted. 

Of the seven records for Alabama, all but one are from the once vast forested areas drained by the 

Tombigee and Alabama Rivers in west Alabama. 
 95 

 

Locations of Possible Encounters Since 1944 

There have been at least six Ivory-billed Woodpecker encounters reported in Alabama since 1944. Of 

the encounters reported below, only the sighting along the Noxubee River in 1973 is within the reported 

historical range of the species. 

1958 One seen in a thick, wooded swamp on Redstone Arsenal, near Huntsville, Madison Co., 

adjacent to Wheeler NWR. The sighting was not reported at the time and it is not known if 

attempts were made to follow-up on the sighting. It has only come to light subsequent to the 

April, 2005 announcement of the rediscovery of the species in Arkansas. Location of this 

reported encounter is not within the reported historical range of the species. 

1973 One seen along the Noxubee River, Sumter Co. Jerry Jackson saw what may have been an 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker just east of the Alabama-Mississippi state line. No additional sightings 

were subsequently reported. 

[NOTE: We should make sure all these recent sightings are in the sightings database and that they 

are “ranked” accordingly – not sure if we should list some of the the very doubtful records below, 

given that there were hundreds of such reports subsequent to April 2005 – KVR] 

2005 One seen along a wooded trail on Wheeler NWR, Morgan Co. The sighting occurred two weeks 

before the April, 2005 announcement of the rediscovery of the species in Arkansas but was 

reported subsequent to the April, 2005 announcement of the rediscovery. Repeated attempts by 

refuge personnel to relocate the bird were unsuccessful. Location of this reported encounter is 

not within the reported historical range of the species. 

2005 One reported seen from a secondary road in a wooded area near Wheeler NWR, Morgan Co., 

subsequent to the April, 2005 announcement of the rediscovery of the species in Arkansas. 

Location of this reported encounter is not within the reported historical range of the species. 

2005 One reported seen in a suburban yard in Center Point, Jefferson Co., subsequent to the April, 

2005 announcement of the rediscovery of the species in Arkansas. Location of this reported 

encounter is not within the reported historical range of the species. 

2005 Several encounters reported north and west of Dadeville, Tallapoosa Co., near Lake Martin, 

subsequent to the April, 2005 announcement of the rediscovery of the species in Arkansas. 

Geoff Hill of Auburn University spent parts of several days investigating the reported encounters 

and habitats associated with the encounters and was unable to relocate the bird or other evidence 

of it occurrence. Locations of these reported encounters are not within the reported historical 

range of the species. 

Potential Search Areas Consistent with Believed Habitat Requirements 

The following potential search areas in Alabama are ones that are generally considered to contain the 

best and most extensive remaining Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat. While these areas should receive 

priority consideration during the development of any search strategy, identification of any additional 
 96 

 

potential areas of habitat through the use of aerial photography and satellite imagery should be 

undertaken. 

1. Mobile-Tensaw River Delta from the confluence of Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers downstream to 

the forested wetland/marsh interface. The Mobile-Tensaw Delta, roughly 300 mi2 in size, contains 

the largest area of potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat in Alabama. Recent acquisition of 

significant areas within the delta as part of the Mobile-Tensaw WMA and W.L. Holland WMA by 

the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries and Forever Wild Program lands by the 

Alabama State Lands Division, have provided a strong measure of protection to a significant portion 

of the delta. Extensive forested wetlands containing significant areas of cypress and tupelo habitat 

occur within the area. 

2. Tombigbee River from Coffeville Lock and Dam downstream to its confluence with the Alabama 

River. The Tombigbee River floodplain downstream of the Coffeville Lock and Dam contains 

significant potential habitat. The lower portion of the floodplain from Jackson, Clarke Co., 

downstream appears to contain the most suitable habitat. 

3. Alabama River from Claiborne Lock and Dam downstream to its confluence with the Tombigbee 

River. The Alabama River floodplain downstream of the Claiborne Lock and Dam in Clarke, 

Monroe, and Baldwin Cos., contains significant potential habitat. 

4. Tombigbee River from Braggs Bluff downstream to Coffeeville Lock and Dam. The Tombigbee 

River floodplain downstream of Braggs Bluff appears to contain suitable habitat in Choctaw, 

Marengo, and Clarke Cos. Demopolis WMA is located within the area in Hale and Sumter Cos., and 

Choctaw NWR is within the area in Choctaw Co. 

5. Tombigbee River from the Sipsey River downstream to Braggs Bluff. The Tombigbee River 

floodplain downstream of the Sipsey River appears to contain suitable habitat in Greene and Sumter 

Cos. 

6. Sipsey River from U.S. 82 to its confluence with the Tombigbee River. The Sipsey River floodplain 

downstream of U.S. 82 in Tuscaloosa and Pickens Counties appears to contain potential suitable 

habitat. 

7, Buttahatchie River from Henson Springs downstream to its confluence with the Tombigbee River. 

The Buttahatchie River floodplain from Henson Springs downstream appears to contain suitable 

habitat. The last accepted record for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Alabama in 1907 is from this 

area. 

Literature Cited

Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. 2005. Draft Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy. Montgomery. 

Avery, W.C. 1890. Birds observed in Alabama. Amer. Field 34: 607-608. 
 97 

 

Audubon, J.J. 1838. Ornithological biography, or an account of the habits of birds of the United States 

of America, with descriptions of the American birds and delineations of American scenery and 

manners. 5 Vols. Edinburgh. 

Gosse, P.H. 1859. Letters from Alabama (U.S.) chiefly relating to natural history. London. 

Hasbrouck, E.M. 1891. The present status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). 

Auk 8: 174-186. 

Howell, A.H. 1928. Birds of Alabama. Dept. of Game and Fisheries of Alabama. Montgomery. 
 98 

 

ARKANSAS 

Catherine Rideout, AGFC

1/30/06 

Original range in the state 

Historically, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker inhabited old-growth bottomland forests in eastern Arkansas 

(James and Neal 1986). Audubon saw Ivory-billed Woodpeckers with regularity during his travels 

down the Mississippi River near Arkansas post in 1820 (Audubon 1929). Tanner (1942) presents 

reports in the 1800s from the northeastern part of the state near Newport along the White River, near 

Marked Tree, which lies between the St. Francis River and the Mississippi River, Osceola adjacent to 

the Mississippi River in far northeast Arkansas, and near Helena in eastern Arkansas. Tanner (1942) 

reports less specific accounts of the bird along the Canadian River in 1820, the Arkansas River in 1850, 

and in northeastern Arkansas in 1888. Additionally, Tanner (1942) reports a record at the confluence of 

the Ouachita and Saline Rivers in the southern central part of Arkansas. 

Range changes over time 

Tanner suggests that logging increased rapidly in most of Arkansas between 1890 and 1900 and 

suggests the period during which Ivory-billed Woodpeckers disappeared from the state was 1885-1900. 

Tanner (1942) suggests that the last Ivory-billed Woodpecker population remaining in the state near the 

mouth of the Arkansas River disappeared between 1900 and 1915, with the last historical report for the 

bird in Arkansas in about 1910. However published auditory, video and visual evidence in the Cache 

and White River NWRs indicate at least one bird in Arkansas. Tanner (1942) visited what is now the 

White River NWR in 1938 and found no evidence of the bird, nor a great deal of habitat to support the 

species 

Locations of possible encounters 

This report includes records of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Arkansas including published sight 

records, auditory encounters by people, and recordings made by Autonomous Recording Units. It also 

contains some records which remain unpublished and unverified and are reported as ‘possible 

encounters’. Inclusion in this report is not intended to suggest validity. There are five specimens labeled 

for Arkansas, but none have specific dates or locality information associated with them (Jackson 2002a), 

so these have not been included in the below table. 

Date County Location Observer Citation Notes 

14 Dec 

1820 

Arkansas Near 

Arkansas 

Post, one 

mile below 

mouth of 

Arkansas 

River, 

J.J. Audubon Audubon 1929 Audubon states that 

he saw five Ivorybilled 

Woodpeckers 
 99 

 

1834 Ashley Junction of 

Ouachita 

and Saline 

Rivers 

G.W. 

Featherstonaugh

Featherstonaugh 

1835 

[This record is 

derived from the 

1834 record of 

G.W. 

Featherstonhaugh 

(1935) which 

should read “Clark 

County, Caddo 

River, 2 miles 

upstream of the 

junction of the 

Ouachita River” 

and is incorrect in 

Tanner (1942).] 

1885 Jackson Newport, 

AR 

Yell Yell 1885 Yell states that 

Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers are 

not rare but are 

rarely met with 

near Newport in 

Jackson County 

1888-

1889 

Poinsett Valley of 

the St. 

Francis 

River near 

Marked 

Tree 

Pindar Pindar 1924 2 single birds seen 

in the area during 

the same period of 

time; one male and 

one female 

1887 Mississippi Osceola 

area 

Howell Howell 1911 

 Phillips Helena Howell Howell 1911 Secondhand reports 

as late as 1910 

1912 Phillips Helena Stephenson 

Biol. Survey 

notes (in Tanner 

1942) 

October 

1985 

Jackson Near Diaz 

in the 

Village 

Creek 

floodplain 

H. Hagar J. Neal in litt Possible visual 

encounter 

Between 

1989-

1991, 

specific 

date not 

Little 

River 

Porter Tract 

near 

Millwood 

Lake and 

Grassy 

R. Weaver Unpublished Possible visual 

encounter with pair 

of birds; reported to 

Arkansas Game 

and Fish and The 
 100 

 

known Lake Nature 

Conservancy of 

Arkansas 

10 March 

2003 

 White River 

NWR 

M. Scott Gallagher 2005 Possible visual 

encounter with a 

female Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker 

11 Feb 

2004 

Monroe Bayou de 

View, 

Cache River 

NWR 

G. Sparling K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005 

Sight report of 

single bird 

27 Feb 

2004 

Monroe Bayou de 

View, 

Cache River 

NWR 

B. Harrison and 

T. Gallagher 

K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005; 

Fitzpatrick et al. 

2005 

Sight report of 

single bird 

5 April 

2004 

Monroe Bayou de 

View at 

Pawpaw 

Lake, Cache 

River NWR 

Jim Fitzpatrick K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005 

Sight report of 

single bird 

6 April 

2004 

Monroe Bayou de 

View at 

Pawpaw 

Lake, Cache 

River NWR 

R. Rohrbaugh 

and D. Brown 

K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005 

Report of very 

good candidate for 

Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker 

10 April 

2004 

Monroe Bayou de 

View at 

Pawpaw 

Lake, Cache 

River NWR 

M. LaBranche K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005 

Sight report of 

single bird 

11 April 

2004 

Monroe Bayou de 

View at 

powerline 

cut north of 

Pawpaw 

Lake 

M. Driscoll K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005 

Sight report of 

single bird 

25 April 

2004 

Monroe Bayou de 

View, 

Cache River 

NWR 

D. Luneau and 

R. Henderson 

K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005 

Sight report and 

video 

4 Sept 

2004 

Monroe Bayou de 

View, 

Cache River 

NWR 

B. Harrison K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005 

Possible visual 

encounter with 

single bird 

7 Sept 

2004 

Monroe Bayou de 

View, 

T. Barksdale K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005 

Possible auditory 

encounter; heard 
 101 

 

Cache River 

NWR 

and reported 2 

double-raps in 

response to 

playbacks of 

Ivorybill kent calls 

9 Nov 

2004 

Monroe Blue Hole, 

Bayou de 

View, 

Cache River 

NWR 

M. Iliff K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005 

Possible auditory 

encounter; over 12 

min. period heard 

20 double-raps 

consistent with 

Campephilus

woodpeckers 

Evening 

24 and 26 

and 

morning 

of 25 Dec 

2004 

Monroe Blue Hole, 

Bayou de 

View, 

Cache River 

NWR 

Autonomous 

Recording Unit 

K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005 

Acoustic signatures 

of sounds closely 

matching 

Campephilus

double-rap 

8 Jan 

2005 

Phillips Prairie 

Lakes, 

White River 

NWR 

Autonomous 

Recording Unit 

 Double rap 

recorded 

24 Jan 

2005 

Phillips Prairie 

Lakes, 

White River 

NWR 

Autonomous 

Recording Unit 

Three double raps 

recorded 

25 Jan 

2005 

Phillips Prairie 

Lakes, 

White River 

NWR 

Autonomous 

Recording Unit 

Single double rap 

recorded 

5 Feb 

2005 

Phillips Prairie 

Lakes, 

White River 

NWR 

Autonomous 

Recording Unit 

Three double raps 

recorded 

17, 21, 

29, 31 

Jan 2005 

Phillips Prairie 

Lakes, 

White River 

NWR 

Autonomous 

Recording Unit 

Kent-like calls 

recorded on four 

different dates 

14 Feb 

2005 

Monroe Bayou de 

View at 

powerline 

cut north of 

Pawpaw 

Lake 

C. Taylor K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005 

Heard 9 doubleraps and reports 

sighting a single 

bird 

15 Feb 

2005 

Monroe Bayou de 

View at 

D. Luneau and 

T. Spahr 

K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005 

Possible auditory 

encounter; heard 
 102 

 

powerline 

cut north of 

Pawpaw 

Lake 

and recorded kentlike calls 

15 Feb 

2005 

Monroe Bayou de 

View at 

powerline 

cut north of 

Pawpaw 

Lake 

E. Swarthout 

and D. Sarver 

K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005 

Possible auditory 

encounter; heard 

kent-like calls 

7 March 

2005 

Monroe West of 

Robe Bayou

C. Taylor and 

M. Sarver 

K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005 

Possible auditory 

encounter; heard 

three double-raps 

17 March 

2005 

Monroe Blue Hole, 

Bayou de 

View, 

Cache River 

NWR 

T. Barksdale K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005 

Possible auditory 

encounter; heard a 

double-rap 

response to 

playbacks of kent 

calls 

Evening 

17 March 

2005 

Monroe Blue Hole, 

Bayou de 

View, 

Cache River 

NWR 

Autonomous 

Recording Unit 

K. Rosenberg et 

al. 2005 

Records three bird 

calls consistent 

with kent call 

May 

2005? 

Monroe Hwy 17 

Bridge, 

Bayou de 

View, 

Cache River 

NWR 

Vic Kauffman Unpublished Possible encounter 

with single bird 

28 Dec 

2005 

Monroe Bayou de 

View, 

Cache River 

NWR 

E. Hendrickson Unpublished Possible visual 

encounter with 

single bird 

 White River 

NWR 

S. Sietler Unpublished Possible encounter 

with single bird 

Habitat descriptions if somehow different from the general description in the life history. 

Habitat not believed to be different from general description, which is summarized by Jackson 

(2002b). 

Potential areas to search that are consistent with the believed habitat requirements. 
 103 

 

Currently, The Cornell Lab of Ornithology is focusing the search effort on the White-CacheLower Arkansas Rivers complex. This area encompasses private lands, National Wildlife Refuges 

(NWRs), Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), and land 

managed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) of Arkansas and the Arkansas Natural Heritage 

Commission (ANHC). This larger region consists of the following areas, which may be visited 

during the search: 

White River National Wildlife Refuge 

Cache River National Wildlife Refuge

Bayou Meto Wildlife Management Area 

Dagmar Wildlife Management Area 

Benson Creek Natural Area 

Rex Hancock/Black Swamp Wildlife Management Area 

Wattensaw Wildlife Management Area 

Steve Wilson/Raft Creek Bottoms Wildlife Management Area 

Henry Gray/Hurricane Lake Wildlife Management Area 

Bald Knob National Wildlife Refuge

Other potential areas outside of these major bottomland hardwood drainages within the state include the 

Ouachita and Saline River complex in the south-central part of the state and also the Red River in far 

southwestern Arkansas. There have been discussions about the potential of searching the Ouachita and 

Saline Rivers habitat, though there have been no possible encounters reported since 1944. There was 

one unverified report of a pair of birds near Millwood Lake/Grassy Lake in the late 1980s, but a great 

deal of habitat loss has occurred in this area since that time. 

Literature Cited 

Audubon, J.J. 1929. Journal of John James Audubon made during his trip to New Orleans in 1820-1821. 

H. Corning, editor. The Club of Odd Volumes, Boston, P. 40-83. 

Gallagher, T. 2005. The Grail Bird: hot on the trail of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Houghton Mifflin, 

Boston, Massachusetts. 

Featherstonaugh, G.W. 1835. Geological report of an examination made in 1834 of the elevated 

country between the Missouri and Red Rivers. Washington. P. 72. 

Fitzpatrick, J.W. et al. 2005. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) persists in continental 

North America. Science 308: 1460-1462. 
 104 

 

Howell, A.H. 1911. Bird of Arkansas, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Biological Survey Bulletin no. 38, 

100 p. 

Jackson, J.A. 2002a. In search of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C. 

Jackson, J.A. 2002b. 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. 

James, D.A., and J.C. Neal. 1986. Arkansas Birds: Their distribution and abundance. University of 

Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, AR. 

Pindar, L.O. 1924. Winter birds in eastern Arkansas. Wilson Bulletin 36: 201-207. 

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 

Birding 59:198-206. 

Tanner, J.T. 1942. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker: Research Report No. 1 of the National Audubon 

Society. New York, National Audubon Society. 

“Yell”. 1885. The big woodpecker. Forest & Stream 24: 407. 
 105 

 

FLORIDA 

Original range in the state 

 The greatest number of historical reports and collected specimens of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers 

are from Florida, partly owing to Florida’s accessibility to the “northeastern establishment 

ornithologists” of the late 1800s and early 1900s (Jackson 1996:105). Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are 

known to have existed throughout Florida from the panhandle to the Everglades (Jackson 1996). 

Records from extreme southern Florida are controversial. A park warden in Everglades National Park 

reported seeing a nest at Royal Palm Hammock in 1917 (Safford 1919, Howell 1921), although this 

report was later discounted by Bailey (1927) and Tanner (1942) as that of a pileated woodpecker. One 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker specimen reportedly collected from the Florida Keys on November 29, 1896 

(Cornell Museum of Vertebrates collection; Hahn 1963) lacks critical locality and collection data 

(Charles Dardia, personal communication). 

 Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were probably most numerous in three regions: 1) riparian systems 

and associated pine woods in northern Florida; 2) the Big Cypress swamp in southwest Florida; and 3) 

swamp forests associated with several rivers in central Florida. Riparian systems in northern Florida 

historically had the most Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Robertson and Woolfenden 1992), particularly the 

Chipola and Apalachicola river swamps in the panhandle (Phillips 1926, Crompton 1950, Eastman 1958, 

Dennis 1967, Dennis 1979, Stevenson and Anderson 1994), the Wacissa and Aucilla river swamps in the 

Big Bend region (Wayne 1895, Phillips 1926, Tanner 1942), and the lower Suwannee River and 

adjacent California swamp (Laurent 1887, Brewster and Chapman 1891, Tanner 1942, Austin 1967). 

Although relative abundance is difficult to discern from historical reports, some reports opine that Ivorybilled Woodpeckers were more abundant in the lower Suwannee River watershed than in any other 

region in the state. For example, Maynard (1881) considered them “quite numerous” in Gulf Hammock 

and rare elsewhere. Alternatively, Tanner (1942) used historical data to estimate that Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker density was higher in the Wacissa swamp (one pair per 6.25 square miles) than in the 

California swamp along the lower Suwannee River (one pair per 10 square miles). Prominent areas of 

swamp forest in central Florida include Osceola (Nicholson 1929) and Okeechobee (Allen and Kellogg 

1937) counties and swamp forests associated with the Ocklawaha, Wekiva, Withlacoochee, St. Johns, 

Indian, and Crystal Rivers (Jackson 1996). 

 Most of the museum specimens collected from Florida (Hahn 1963) were taken between 1875 

and 1905, with 50% collected between 1883 and 1903. Jefferson, Lee, Levy, Hillsborough, and Volusia 

were the five counties with the most specimens collected. 

 

Range changes over time 

 Ivory-billed Woodpeckers declined continuously since the arrival of Europeans, with accelerated 

declines during the last decades of the 1800s and first decades of the 1900s (Jackson 1996). By 1900, 

ivory-bills were gone from most parts of northern Florida (Robertson and Woolfenden 1992). To wit, 

areas such as St. Marks in Wakulla County were thought to have had ivory-bills until about 1905 

(Phillips 1926). Collecting was undoubtedly an important factor in the decline of the species in Florida. 

For example, A. T. Wayne collected 19 Ivory-billed Woodpeckers along the Wacissa and Aucilla rivers 
 106 

 

alone during spring 1894. Timber cutting and habitat loss also were important factors in the continued 

decline of the species in Florida. By the late 1930s, when Tanner (1942) visited the Gulf Hammock, 

lower Suwannee River, and California swamp in northern Florida, he found no sign of the species and 

very little habitat that was not cut over. 

 As the twentieth century progressed, only small groups persisted mainly in southern and central 

Florida (Jackson 2004). By the 1920s only dedicated field ornithologists could find pairs of birds in 

remote areas like Taylor Creek in central Florida and these last pairs were quickly taken as specimens 

(Allen and Kellogg 1937). The last museum specimens with reliable collection data were a male and 

female pair taken during 1925 in Osceola County by B.J. Hancock (Florida Museum of Natural History 

collection; Hahn 1963). 

 

 A series of credible sightings occurred in northern Florida during the 1950s along the Chipola 

River and in Taylor, Jefferson and Wakulla Counties (Crompton 1950, Eastman 1958, Dennis 1967, 

Stevenson and Anderson 1994, Jackson 2002). Recent sightings that appear to have the most reliability 

were reported from Polk/Highlands County during 1967-1969, the lower Apalachicola River in 1984, 

and Jonathan Dickinson State Park in 1985. 

Locations of possible encounters 

 This report includes evidence of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Florida including published 

records of birds seen or heard and a small number of published records of second-hand accounts. It also 

contains some unpublished records which remain unverified and are reported as “potentially reliable” 

sightings. Inclusion in this report is not intended to determine validity. 

 Jackson (1996:104) referred to winter sightings during 1990-1991 from Fakahatchee Strand 

(southwest Florida) and from the lower Chipola /Apalachicola swamps (panhandle Florida), which 

“simply cannot be ruled out as having truly not been of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.” However, no 

details regarding these reports were available. 

Date County Location Observer Citation Notes 

Ca. 1859 Volusia Enterprise 

(now Benson 

Springs) 

H. Bryant Bryant 1859 

March 5, 

1869 

Volusia Enterprise J.A. Allen Allen 1871 

1870 Brevard Merritt Island S.C. Clarke Clarke 1885 

1872 Volusia Turnbull 

Swamp or 

Hummock 

S.C. Clarke Tanner 1942 

1873 Unknown St. John’s and 

Ocklawaha 

Rivers 

C.H. 

Merriam 

Merriam 1874 

(also see 

Tanner 1942) 

Late 

1870s 

Levy Gulf 

Hammock 

C. J. 

Maynard 

Maynard 

1881 

Described species as “quite 

numerous” in this region; 
 107 

 

Date County Location Observer Citation Notes 

region few details given. 

Spring 

1876 

Sumter Lake 

Panasofkee 

W.E.D. 

Scott 

Scott 1881 

1879 Levy/Citrus Mouth of the 

Withlacooche

e River 

W.E.D. 

Scott 

Scott 1903 

(also see 

Tanner 1942) 

1880 Pinellas Clearwater W.E.D. 

Scott 

Scott 1881 

Ca. 1885 Unknown Wekiva River G.A. 

Boardman 

Boardman 

1885 

Ca. 1885 Seminole Sanford C.D. Barrett Anonymous 

1885 (also see 

Tanner 1942) 

1886 or 

1887 

Alachua Gainesville T.G. 

Pearson 

Letter from 

Pearson 1940 

(also see 

Jackson 2004) 

March 

16, 1886 

and 1887 

Levy Gulf 

Hammock 

P. Laurent 

and 

Williams 

Laurent 1887, 

1917 

5 birds collected. 

March 

1886 

Marion Juniper Creek E.M. 

Hasbrouck 

Hasbrouck 

1891 

April 8, 

1886 

Wakulla St. Marks, 

several miles 

upstream 

H.A. Kline Kline 1887 Male and female collected; 

additional female also 

collected by a local 

fisherman. 

March 

17, 1887 

Pinellas Swamp near 

Tarpon 

Springs 

W.E.D Scott Scott 1888 

(also see 

Allen and 

Kellogg 1937)

Nest in cypress tree, 41 

feet above ground. Adults 

and nestling collected. 

1889 Lee Punta Rassa Mr. Atkins Scott 1889 

Decembe

r 1889 

Liberty Bristol E.M. 

Hasbrouck 

Tanner 1942 

March 24 

and 29, 

1890 

Levy/Dixie Suwannee 

River 20 

miles inland 

from the Gulf 

of Mexico 

F.M. 

Chapman, 

W. Brewster

Brewster and 

Chapman 

1891, Austin 

1967 

Adult male collected Mar 

24, one bird heard Mar 29 

near entrance to Vista 

Creek. 

1891 Unknown Caloosahatchi

e region 

W.E.D. 

Scott 

Scott 1892 

April 15, 

1893 

Unknown Unknown A. T. 

Wayne 

Bendire 1895 Nestling collected, along 

with 12 other specimens 

and 10 additional sight 

records that month. 
 108 

 

Date County Location Observer Citation Notes 

Location unclear. 

April 19, 

1893 

Lafayette Unknown Unknown Bendire 1895 Nest in dead bay tree, 30 

feet above ground. Adult 

female and 3 eggs 

collected. Location 

unclear. 

February 

15, 1898 

Collier? Big Cypress R. Ridgway Ridgway 

1898 

May 

1899 

Okeechobee Fort Drum Hoxie Unpubl. 

“Biol. Survey 

Notes” cited 

in Tanner 

1942 

Ca. 1900 Osceola Kissimmee W.B. 

Hinton 

Howe and 

King 1902 

Ca. 1900 Leon Unknown R.W. 

Williams 

Williams 

1904 

January 

1900 

Taylor and 

Wakulla 

Unknown C.J. 

Pennock 

Pennock 1901 

March 

1904 

Taylor Unknown R.D. Hoyt Hoyt 1905 

March 

1904 

Lake South 

Clermont and 

vicinity 

R.D. Hoyt Hoyt 1905 Eggs collected. 

Ca. 1905 Levy Otter Creek, 

Gulf 

Hammock 

T. Gordon Gordon 1909 

1905 Wakulla Oreilla 

Swamp 

J.C. Phillips Phillips 1926 

(also see 

Jackson 2002) 

1907, 

1911 

Volusia Turnbull 

Swamp or 

Hummock 

Mrs. Sams Butler 1931 

Novembe

r 1908 

Osceola Kissimmee 

River, 50 

miles below 

Kissimmee 

T. Murray Butler 1931, 

Tanner 1942 

Specimen collected. 

1909 Alachua Micanopy O.E. 

Baynard 

Unpubl. 

“Biol. Survey 

Notes” cited 

in Tanner 

1942 

Ca. 1910 Alachua Unknown O.E. 

Baynard 

Baynard 

1913, Tanner 

1942 

Nest with young. 
 109 

 

Date County Location Observer Citation Notes 

March 

1911 

Lee Big Cypress 

Swamp 

O.E. 

Baynard 

Baynard 1914 

(also see 

Tanner 1942) 

Published and personal 

communication to Tanner. 

Spring 

1913 

Lee Big Cypress 

Swamp 

F.M. Phelps Phelps 1914 Seen and heard “Far down 

in the Big Cypress.” 

October 

1913 

Orange Bear Bay Unknown Unpubl. 

“Biol. Survey 

Notes” cited 

in Tanner 

1942 

February 

1914 

Collier Big Cypress 

near Deep 

Lake 

F.H. 

Kennard 

Kennard 

1915, (also 

see Tanner 

1942) 

Female collected. 

About 

1916 

Osceola Taylor Creek Nicholson 

and J. Black 

Sighting 

report to 

Tanner 1942 

Sighting report. 

1916 Putnam Between 

Welaka and 

Rodman 

O.E. 

Baynard 

Unpubl. 

“Biol. Survey 

Notes” cited 

in Tanner 

1942 

May 

1917- 

February 

1919 

Dade Royal Palm 

Hammock 

C.A. Mosier 

(park 

warden) 

Safford 1919, 

Howell 1921 

(but see 

Bailey 1927, 

Tanner 1942) 

Mosier observed possible 

nest in 1917 in royal palm, 

35 feet above ground, with 

3 nestlings peering out. 

Birds seen 1918-1919, but 

with no sign of further 

breeding. 

1917 Unknown Near 

Everglades 

J.B. Ellis Ellis 1918 

1917 Levy Suwannee 

Hammock 

C.J. 

Pennock 

Letter from 

Pennock (also 

see Tanner 

1942) 

May 

1917 

Wakulla St. Marks J. Williams Williams 

1917 

Sighting report of a male. 

1920s Osceola Deer Park D.J 

Nicholson 

and W.H. 

Nicholson 

Nicholson 

1929 

Pair of birds sighted. 

1920 Unknown Apalachicola 

River swamp 

A.H. 

Howell 

Howell 1932 

1923 Unknown Oklawaha 

River swamp 

B.M. Kinser Howell 1932 
 110 

 

Date County Location Observer Citation Notes 

1923 Jefferson Wacissa River 

swamp 

A.H. 

Howell 

Howell 1932 

April 13, 

1924 

Okeechobee Taylor Creek Mr. and 

Mrs. A.A. 

Allen and 

P.P. Kellogg

Allen 1924, 

Allen and 

Kellogg 1937, 

Tanner 1942 

Pair roosting in a cypress 

swamp and feeding in the 

“great pine woods.” 

Nesting behavior observed 

in live cypress tree, 30 feet 

above ground. Photos of 

birds and habitat in 1937 

citation. 

Ca. 1925 Levy Suwannee 

Hammock 

Dr. Turner Personal 

communicatio

n cited in 

Tanner 1942 

Ca. 1926 Osceola Wolf Creek D.J. 

Nicholson 

Nicholson 

1926 (also see 

Tanner 1942) 

1926 Jefferson 

and 

Liberty/Gulf 

Near the 

mouth of the 

Aucilla River; 

also along the 

Apalachicola 

River 

J.C. Phillips Phillips 1926 

(also see 

Jackson 2002) 

Ca. 1930 Polk NW of Polk 

City 

O.E. 

Baynard 

Tanner 1942 

Ca. 1930 Polk/Osceol

a 

Reedy Creek J. Goodman Tanner 1942 

1932-34 Levy Sim’s Ridge, 

Gulf 

Hammock 

T. R. Young Tanner 1942 Letter from Young. 

Decembe

r 15, 

1932 

Jefferson Wacissa River C.R. 

Aschmeier 

Tanner 1942 Letter from A.H. Howell. 

Ca. 1935 Monroe Shark River 

and 

Lostman’s 

River 

J.M. 

Roberts and 

others 

Tanner 1942 

1935 Unknown Apalachicola 

River swamp 

Stensal and 

others 

Tanner 1942 

1936, 

1945 

Escambia/ 

Santa Rosa 

Escambia 

River and 

Perdido River 

Unknown Weston 1965 Discussed second-hand 

report, few details. 

Decembe

r 1936 

Orange Jim Creek G.E. 

McCullock 

Tanner 1942 

Prior to Jefferson Wacissa River J.B. Royalls Tanner 1942 
 111 

 

Date County Location Observer Citation Notes 

1937 in cypress 

swamp 

1937 Collier Big Cypress, 

East Crossing 

Sheriff J. 

Thorpe 

Tanner 1942 Verbal report of ivorybilled sightings. 

Late 1937 Highlands Small swamp 

adjacent to 

Highlands 

Hammock 

State Park 

O.E. 

Baynard 

Baynard 

1937, Tanner 

1942 

1938 Collier Big Cypress 

near East 

Henson 

C. Billie Tanner 1942 One bird sighted. 

1950s Liberty Florida River, 

SE end of 

Apalachicola 

National 

Forest 

Caretaker 

for Judge 

Callaway 

Eastman 1958 Sighting report of a pair. 

1950s Alachua Gainesville Mr. 

Edwards 

(ranch 

manager) 

Eastman 1958 Sighting report. 

April 25-

29 1950; 

February 

21, 1951 

Gulf/Liberty Chipola/Apala

chicola River 

swamps 

B. Read and 

Mr. and 

Mrs. F.E. 

Stearns 

Eastman 1958 Read heard calls of 1 or 2 

pairs in 1950; Stearns 

sighted a pair in 1951. 

March 2, 

3 and 4, 

1950 

Calhoun Chipola River 

swamp 

W. 

Eastman, E. 

Rowe, F. 

Dye, G. 

Coppedge, 

M. Kelso 

Sighting 

report by 

Eastman to 

USFWS (also 

see Eastman 

1958, Dennis 

1979) 

Bird heard on Mar 2, 

sightings on Mar 3 and 4. 

April 3, 

1950 

Calhoun Chipola River H.M. 

Stevenson 

and R. West 

Stevenson and 

Anderson 

1994 

Sighting of one bird. 

April 10 

and 13, 

1950 

Calhoun Chipola River 

swamp? 

Mr. and 

Mrs. M. 

Farrar and 

D.H. 

Crompton 

Crompton 

1950 

Sighting on 4-10 by 

Farrars; sighting on 4-13 

by Crompton. The search 

occurred in response to 

Eastman’s sighting, but 

specific location not given 

in citation. 

Ca. 1950 Collier State 

Highway 29 

in Big 

A. 

Cruickshank

Jackson 2004 Sighting of a single bird 

flying across road; reported 

in a letter from Robertson 
 112 

 

Date County Location Observer Citation Notes 

Cypress to Jackson 

1951 Calhoun Chipola River M. Kelso Stevenson and 

Anderson 

1994 

Kelso reported to 

Stevenson that a pair 

nested just downstream 

from Scott’s Ferry. 

March 4, 

1951 

Marion Near Silver 

Springs 

G. 

Coppedge 

and several 

Native 

Americans 

Eastman 1958 Sighting report of a pair. 

April 5, 

1951 

Calhoun or 

Gulf 

Chipola River J.V. Dennis Dennis 

1967,1979 

Bird heard. 

October 

1952; 

October 

1953 

Alachua Gainesville Mrs. H. 

Bennett and 

caretaker 

Eastman 1958 Pair observed at their home 

(Tung Acres). Caretaker 

shot and ate one during 

summer 1953. 

July 10, 

1952 

Wakulla Near Wakulla 

Springs, 

between 

Wakulla 

Station and 

St. Marks 

S. Grimes 

and R. 

Hallman 

Eastman 1958 

(also see 

Stevenson and 

Anderson 

1994, Jackson 

1996) 

Sighting by Grimes 

reported by Tanner 

(personal communication) 

and cited in Eastman 1958. 

1953 Alachua Gainesville V. 

Gouldsby 

(interview 

with filling 

station 

attendant) 

Eastman 1958 Pair observed at close 

range during hunting 

season. 

March 4, 

1954 

Polk/ 

Hillsboroug

h county 

line 

4 miles from 

Plant City 

K. and W. 

Eastman 

Eastman 1958 Sighting record of a male 

flying over road between 

Lakeland and Plant City. 

April 11, 

1955 

Unknown North of 

Chiefland? 

Mr. and 

Mrs. J.K. 

Terres 

Terres 1986, 

1987 (also see 

Jackson 1989, 

1996; 

Stevenson and 

Anderson 

1994) 

Confusing, inaccurate 

geographical information; 

subsequent citations 

contradictory. 

June 

1957 

Volusia Deland Dr. H.R. 

Wilbur 

Eastman 1958 Sighting report at 30 yards. 

1959 Taylor 1 mile east of 

the Aucilla 

River, west of 

Perry 

W. L. Rhein Jackson 1996 Sighting of a female by 

Rhein reported to Tanner 

(personal communication) 

and cited in Jackson 1996. 
 113 

 

Date County Location Observer Citation Notes 

April 29, 

1962 

Brevard Highway 

A1A, 3 miles 

north of 

Indialantic 

N. Ranck Letter from 

Ranck 1962 

Potentially reliable sighting 

report to U.S.F.W.S. 

Late 

Decembe

r 1963 

Gulf 10 miles west 

of 

Apalachicola 

J.H. Merritt Letter from 

Merritt 1963 

Potentially reliable sighting 

report to U.S.F.W.S.; flew 

from cut-over slash pine 

near Indian Pass north 

towards Lake Wimico. 

August 

28, 1966 

Okaloosa Swamp near 

Yellow River 

(Boiling 

Creek) at 

Eglin Air 

Force Base 

B.P. Brown 

and J.P. 

Sanders 

Sighting 

report from 

Brown and 

Sanders 1966 

(also see 

Dennis 1979) 

Sighting of 2 birds on 

pines, but habitat and 

human disturbance makes 

observation questionable. 

Reported by Dennis as a 

valid sighting. 

Summer 

1967 

Polk Green Swamp 

north of 

Haines City 

D. Lee Jackson 2004 Sighting of a female flying 

across the road at close 

range; reported in a letter 

from Lee to Jackson 

1967-

1969 

Polk/ 

Highlands 

Undisclosed 

location in 

south central 

Florida 

H.N. Agey 

and G.M. 

Heinzmann 

and 

colleagues 

Agey and 

Heinzmann 

1971a, 1971b 

(also see 

Dennis 1979, 

Stevenson and 

Anderson 

1994, Jackson 

2004) 

At least 11 different 

sightings or calls reported 

over a 2-year period. 

Controversial woodpecker 

cavity collected from 

broken tree (now in Florida 

Museum of Natural 

History); cavity contained 

a secondary feather later 

identified by Wetmore as 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker. 

Fall 1968 Highlands Highlands 

Hammock 

State Park 

F. C. Davis Letter from 

Davis 1968 

Potentially reliable sighting 

report to U.S.F.W.S. 

May 

1984 

Liberty/ 

Gulf 

Lower 

Apalachicola 

River on Pig 

Island near 

Everett 

Slough 

J. Stevenson Letter from 

Stevenson 

1984 

Potentially reliable sighting 

reported in a letter to D. 

Pashley. 

April 30, 

1985 

Martin Loxahatchee 

River bank at 

Jonathan 

Dickinson 

State Park 

D.G. Garratt Letter from 

Garratt 1985 

(also see 

Jackson 1996) 

Sighting report of male in 

remnant cypress swamp. 

May Gilchrist Suwannee M. Rupp Sighting Sighting 4 times during 
 114 

 

Date County Location Observer Citation Notes 

1995 River, 

adjacent to 

Wannee boat 

ramp 

and E. Rupp report from 

Rupps to 

Florida 

Museum of 

Natural 

History 

Memorial Day weekend; 

potentially reliable. 

4. Habitat descriptions if somehow different from the general description in the life history. 

 Tanner (1942) suggested 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 appears to be old-growth forest, including, and perhaps 

favoring (Jackson 1996), the ecotone between bottomlands and uplands. 

 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 that occurs on flat, poorly 

drained limestone topography in the southwestern part of the peninsula (Duever et al. 1986). 

Potential areas to search that are consistent with the believed habitat requirements of the species. 

Jackson (1996, 2004) mentioned the following areas as potential sites for Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

searches, some of which he searched during the 1980s and 1990s: Apalachicola and Chipola River 

swamps, Aucilla and Wacissa Rivers, the lower Suwannee River watershed, Wekiva River, Fort Drum 

Swamp, Fakahatchee Strand, and Big Cypress National Preserve. The Okefenokee / Pinhook Swamp 

has been identified as another potential area of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat (C. Hunter, USFWS, 

personal communication); although primarily in the state of Georgia, the southern extent of this swamp 

stretches into Columbia and Baker counties of northern Florida. Recent discussions amongst members 

of the Recovery Team have focused on the Apalachicola and Chipola swamps, the Aucilla and Wacissa 

Rivers, and the lower Suwannee River watershed as the three most significant areas of potential Ivorybilled Woodpecker habitat in Florida, based primarily on the extensive tracts of bottomland forest that 

remain there. 

Literature Cited 

Agey, H.N., and Heinzmann, G.M. 1971a. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker found in central Florida. 

Florida Naturalist 44(3): 46-47, 64. 

Agey, H.N., and Heinzmann, G.M. 1971b. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in Florida. Birding 3:43. 

Allen, A.A. 1924. Vacationing with birds. Bird-Lore 26:208-213. 
 115 

 

Allen, A.A., and Kellogg, P.P. 1937. Recent observations on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Auk 54:164-

184. 

 

Allen, J.A. 1871. On the mammals and winter birds of east Florida with an examination of certain 

assumed specific characters in birds, and a sketch of the bird fauna of eastern North America. 

Harvard College Museum of Comparative Zoology Bulletin 2:450. 

Anonymous. 1885. Forest and Stream 24: 508. 

Austin, E.S., ed. 1967. Frank M. Chapman in Florida: his journals and letters. University of Florida 

Press, Gainesville. 

Bailey, H.H. 1927. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Florida. Oologist 44:18-20. 

Baynard, O.E. 1913. Breeding birds of Alachua County, Florida. Auk 30:240-247. 

Baynard, O.E. 1914. Two months in the Everglades. Oologist 31:32-40. 

Baynard, O.E. 1937. A check-list of the birds of Highlands Hammock State Park. Unpublished 

manuscript. 

Bendire, C. 1895. Life histories of North American birds, from the parrots to the grackles with special 

reference to their breeding habits and eggs. United States National Museum Special Bulletin 3:1-

518. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Brewster, W., and Chapman, F.M. 1891. Notes on the birds of the lower Suwanee River. Auk 8: 125-

138. 

Boardman, G.A. 1885. The big woodpeckers. Forest and Stream 24:388. 

Bryant, H. 1859. Birds observed in eastern Florida south of St. Augustine. Proceedings of the Boston 

Society of Natural History 7:11. 

Butler, A.W. 1931. Some bird records from Florida. Auk 48:436-439. 

Clarke, S.C. 1885. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Florida. Forest and Stream 24:367. 

Crompton, D.H. 1950. My search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Florida. Massachusetts Audubon 

Society Bulletin 34:235-237. 

Dennis, J.V. 1967. The ivory-bill flies still. Audubon 69 (6):38-44. 

Dennis, J.V. 1979. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Avicultural Magazine

85:75-84. 
 116 

 

Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, J.F. Meeder, L.C. Duever, L.H. Gunderson, L.A. Riopelle, T.R. Alexander, 

R.L. Myers, D.P. Spangler. 1986. The Big Cypress National Preserve. Research Report No. 8, 

National Audubon Society, New York. 

Eastman, W. 1958. Ten year search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Atlantic Naturalist 13:216-228. 

Ellis, J.B. 1918. Ivory-billed Woodpecker not yet extinct. Oologist 35:11-12. 

Garratt, D.G. 1985. Possible sighting of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Jonathan Dickinson State Park, 

south-central Florida, addressed to American Birds. Unpublished report, U.S.F.W.S. Region 

Two. 

Gordon, T. 1909. Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Forest and Stream 72:972. 

Hahn, P. 1963. Where is that vanished bird? An index to the known specimens of the extinct and near 

extinct North American species. University of Toronto Press. Toronto. 

Hasbrouck, E.M. 1891. The present status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). 

Auk 8:174-186. 

Howe, R.H., and King, L. 1902. Notes on various Florida birds. Contributions to North American 

Ornithology 1:30. 

Howell, A.H. 1921. A list of birds of Royal Palm Hammock, Florida. Auk 38: 250-263. 

Howell, A.H. 1932. Florida Bird Life. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee. 

Hoyt, R.D. 1905. Nesting of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Florida (Campephilus principalis). Warbler

1 (1): 52-55. 

Jackson, J.A. 1989. Past history, habitats, and present status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

(Campephilus principalis) in North America. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Final Report, Vol. 

199. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Jackson, J.A. 1996. Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Pp. 103-112 In J.A. Rodgers, H.W. Kale II, and H.T. 

Smith (eds.), Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 

 

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, 

Pennsylvania. 

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

Kennard, F.H. 1915. On the trail of the ivory-bill. Auk 32:1-14. 

Kline, H.A. 1887. Florida bird notes. Forest and Stream 28 (19):412-413. 
 117 

 

Laurent, P. 1887. Notes on birds of Levy County, Florida. Ornithologist and Oologist 12:157-189. 

Laurent, P. 1917. My Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Oologist 34:65-67. 

Maynard, C.J. 1881. The Birds of Eastern North America. C.J. Maynard and Co., Newtonville, 

Massachusetts. 

Merriam, C.H. 1874. Ornithological notes from the South. American Naturalist 8 (1):6-9. 

Nicholson, D.J. 1926. My first Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Oologist 43:156-158. 

Nicholson, W.H. 1929. Notes from Florida. Oologist 46:56-57. 

Pennock, C.J. 1901. Recent capture of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Campephilus principalis) in Florida. 

Delaware Valley Ornithological Club Abstract of the Proceedings 4: 2, 8. 

Phelps, F.M. 1914. The resident bird life of the Big Cypress Swamp region. Wilson Bulletin 26: 86-101. 

Phillips, J.C. 1926. An attempt to list the extinct and vanishing birds of the Western Hemisphere. 

Verhandlungen VI Internationalen Ornithologen-Kongresses Kopenhagen: 512-513. 

Ridgway, R. 1898. The home of the ivory-bill. Osprey 3:35-36. 

Robertson, W.B., and Woolfenden, G.E. 1992. Florida bird species: an annotated list. Florida 

Ornithological Society, Gainesville. 

Safford, W.E. 1919. Natural history of Paradise Key and the near-by Everglades of Florida. Smithsonian 

Institution Annual Report 1917: 377-434. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Scott, W.E.D. 1881. On birds observed in Sumpter, Levy, and Hillsboro Counties, Florida. Bulletin of 

the Nuttall Ornithological Club 6 (1): 14-21. 

Scott, W.E.D. 1888. Supplementary notes from the Gulf Coast of Florida. Auk 5:183-188. 

Scott, W.E.D. 1889. A summary of observations on the birds of the Gulf coast of Florida. Auk 6: 251. 

Scott, W.E.D. 1892. Notes on the birds of the Caloosahatchie region of Florida. Auk 9:209-218. 

Scott, W.E.D. 1903. The Story of a Bird Lover. Outlook Co., New York. 

Stevenson, H.M., and Anderson, B.H. 1994. Birdlife of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 

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

Terres, J.K. 1986. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. Linnaean Society of New York Newsletter 40 (6):1-2. 
 118 

 

Terres, J.K. 1987. Correction of locality for Ivory-billed Woodpecker sighting described in December 

1986 article. Unpublished letter addressed to Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, New York. 

Wayne, A.T. 1895. Notes on the birds of the Wacissa and Aucilla River regions of Florida. Auk 12:362-

367. 

Weston, F.M. 1965. A Survey of the Birdlife of Northwestern Florida. Tall Timbers Research Station, 

Tallahassee, Florida. 

Williams, R.W. 1904. A preliminary list of the birds of Leon County, Florida. Auk 21:449-462. 

Williams, J. 1917. Some notes from St. Marks, Florida. Wilson Bulletin 29:165-166. 
 119 

 

GEORGIA 

1. Original range in state 

The original range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Georgia probably was the extent of the coastal 

plain up to the fall line, although it is likely that some 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 major river systems, including 

the Okefenokee Swamp in extreme southeast Georgia (Tanner 1942, Burleigh 1958, Jackson 2002). 

2. Range changes over time 

As the coastal plain gave way to agriculture, the species’ range was restricted more and more to 

floodplain forests associated with the above major river systems, plus those such as the Satilla wholly 

contained in the coastal plain (Tanner 1942, Burleigh 1958, Jackson 2002). In addition, areas of mature 

pine surrounding large expanses of bottomland hardwoods were apparently used for foraging. However, 

it is unlikely that pine forests would be used in the absence of a core area of large bottomland forests. A 

possible exception is in the Red Hills region of southwest Georgia-northern Florida, which still retains 

large patches of mature longleaf forest, some of it virgin (Stoddard 1969). 

An area that apparently retained Ivory-billed Woodpeckers well into the twentieth century is the 

Okefenokee Swamp, an area greater than 150,000 hectares in southeast Georgia with limited drainage by 

the Suwannee River toward the Gulf and by the St. Mary’s River toward the Atlantic (Greene 1936, 

Burleigh 1958). 

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. Today the only 

locations that retain habitat features favorable to Ivory-billed Woodpeckers over a large enough expanse 

to be considered possible habitat are sections of the lower Altamaha River floodplain and the 

Okefenokee Swamp, although there are a couple of other areas that are probably worth searching (see 

below). 

3. Habitat descriptions if somewhat different from life history account 

Habitat in the Okefenokee Swamp might be considered somewhat unique. It features large expanses of 

open shallow marshes or prairies of floating leaved plants and emergents, plus bogs of sphagnum or 

fern. These are intermixed with (1) wooded swamps or bays supporting stands of pond cypress, water 

tupelo, red bay, black bay and loblolly bay, (2) hammocks supporting mixed stands of water oak, 

loblolly pine, magnolia and sweet-gum, and (3) barrens of moist and dry pineland, mostly containing 

longleaf and slash pines (Burleigh 1958). 

Habitat in the Red Hills region is a mosaic of mature pine forest, agriculture, urban/suburban, and 

hardwood bottoms. What makes it unique are the relatively large patches of old-growth longleafwiregrass habitat that still exist. The overstory of these habitats is typically a well-spaced monoculture 

of old (>300 years) longleaf pine with an herbaceous ground cover that is very diverse. The system is 
 120 

 

maintained by frequent fire, which also serves to control the growth of a hardwood understory. Several 

of these areas border large patches of bottomland hardwoods, and together they might constitute suitable 

habitat for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. 

4. Locations of possible encounters (since 1944) 

Only a handful of encounters have been reported since 1944. Probably the most credible of these were 

made by the noted ornithologist/naturalist/conservationist Herbert L. Stoddard. Interestingly, Stoddard 

did not report these immediately, apparently for fear of disturbance of the birds. 

Observer Location River Date Citation Comments 

Unknown Okefenokee 

Swamp 

Suwannee, St. 

Mary’s 

Unknown Greene 1936 Reports that locals 

believed Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers still 

existed in the swamp 

F. V. 

Hebard 

Okefeenokee 

Swamp 

Suwanee, St. 

Mary’s 

1941-42, 

1948 

Burleigh 1958, 

Loftin 1991 

Numerous reports not 

made public until later 

H. L. 

Stoddard 

S. Thomas 

County 

None 1952 Crawford 1998 Two female Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers were seen 

together. Follow-up 

investigations found 

nothing. 

H. L. 

Stoddard 

Not 

mentioned 

Not mentioned 1940s1950s Stoddard 1969 Claims to have seen 3 

Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers in the 

southeast over the last 

15 years 

H. L. 

Stoddard 

Lower 

Altamaha 

River 

Altamaha Unknown Dennis 1979 Claims that Stoddard 

saw 1 Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker clearly 

from small plane 

H. L. 

Stoddard 

Thomas 

County 

None 1958 Dennis 1979 Observed in beetlekilled spruce pine area 

G. Reynard Thomas 

County 

None 1963 None 

C. D. 

Gerow 

Approx. 25 

miles W of 

Savannah 

Ogeechee 1973 Jackson 2004 Jackson believed Gerow 

to be a competent 

observer 

 

5. Potential areas to search that are consistent with the believed habitat requirements of the species.

Based on the relatively recent sightings listed above and known areas of large expanses of forested 

wetlands still in existence, the following are potential areas to search in Georgia: (1) the OgeecheeSavannah River Basin, (2) the Altamaha River Basin, (3) the Okefenokee Swamp, and (4) the Red 

Hills Region. 
 121 

 

Literature Cited 

Burleigh, T. D. 1958. Georgia birds. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 

Crawford, R. L. 1998. The birds of Thomas County, Georgia, revised through 1997. Oriole 63:1-

28. 

Dennis, J. V. 1979. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Avicultural 

Magazine 85:75-84. 

Greene, E. R. 1936. A natural wild life refuge, the Okefenokee Swamp. Oriole 1:13-14. 

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. 

Jackson, J. A. 2004. In search of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Smithsonian Books, New York, 

NY. 

Loftin, R. W. 1991. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers reported in Okefenokee Swamp in 1941-42. Oriole 

56:74-76. 

Stoddard, H. L. 1969. Memoirs of a naturalist. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 

Tanner, J. T. 1942. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Dover Press Inc., Mineola, NY. 
 122 

 

KENTUCKY 

Historical Status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Kentucky 

Modest documentation exists on the historical locations as well as actual population densities of the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Kentucky. The earliest record for the species is provided by Col. William 

Fleming in his journal, which was printed by Newton Mereness (Travels in the America Colonies, 

Macmillan, N.Y. 1916:632). In the journal Col. Fleming describes collecting one of two individuals 

observed in 1780, approximately 1 mile west of Logan’s Fort, which is the present day city of Stanford 

in Lincoln County (Schorger 1949). Kentucky authors have accepted this 1780 record even though its 

authenticity cannot be documented (Brainard Palmer-Ball personal communication). The primary case 

for questioning this record is the forest habitat; which in this region of Kentucky is drastically different 

from most Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat documented to date. The location would have placed the 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker on the foothills of the Knobs Physiographic Region; a distinctive geologic 

region with higher elevations reaching 1,000 feet (above msl). This formation supported pre-settlement 

vegetation such as: Acer saccharum, Tilia, Aeculus octandra, and Lirodendron tulipifera, Quercus spp,

and Castanea dentata. (Muller and McComb 1986). Wharton (1945) further described five upland 

forest types: pine, oak-pine, chestnut oak-scarlet oak, white oak, and mixed mesophytic forest; all of 

which are primarily determined by slope aspect and/or succession (From Muller and McComb 1986). 

With current documentation and the affinity of the species to inhabit bottomland forests, the Lincoln 

County record may appear improbable, particularly because the only additional records for Kentucky 

place the species within the Mississippi Embayment Region of the state. McKinley (1958) thought the 

Lincoln County record indicated a great deal of wandering by the species, which he further supported 

with Wetmore (1943) in which evidence from an archeological site in Scioto County, Ohio presumed to 

be from the 15th or 16th centuries, further made early sightings in southeastern Indiana (near the Ohio 

River) more plausible. 

When viewing these records on a regional scale, it may be entirely plausible that pre-colonial 

populations could have extended, not only up the Ohio River, but also into other tributaries of the Ohio 

River. If this was in fact the case, another plausible explanation for the presence of the species at the 

Lincoln County site may be explained by the nearby riverine forests of the Dix River and the nearby 

source of the Green River, which lies in close proximity to the area mentioned. With major cultivation 

and land use changes not occurring until the early 1800’s, both of the mentioned river systems may have 

provided connectivity to the Ohio River floodplain forests to the north and west of the Lincoln County 

site. Since no documentation exists outside the Ohio record, the pre-colonial record from Lincoln 

County may suggest the species could have been present in many of Kentucky’s larger river bottoms. 

While the early Kentucky record continues to be rather dubious, the most precise documentation 

providing a definitive date and reference to the original range in the state appears to be in the 1831 notes 

of John James Audubon, when he recorded the species at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio 

River (present day Ballard County). In these notes, Audubon only made “oblique reference” to nesting 

in Kentucky and Indiana (in the Wabash River system) (Mengel 1965). This record would have placed 

the species near present day Union County, Kentucky. Audubon also made additional reference to 

nesting at Green River in present day Henderson County, however it appears that the greatest population 
 123 

 

densities of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker were found in counties adjacent to the Mississippi River which 

include: Fulton, Hickman, Carlisle, and Ballard counties. 

Range changes over time 

Due to the lack of documentation of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Kentucky, it is impossible to 

determine any range changes over time. It does appear that by the early 1800’s the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker had all but disappeared from the majority of Kentucky’s landscape, with some residual 

numbers remaining until the early 1870’s in Fulton county, where the last known population of the bird 

remained (Mengel 1965). 

Potential areas to search that are consistent with the believed habitat requirements 

Due to the clearing of land along the Mississippi River in the early 1800’s and continual logging 

operations which occur on regular cycles, as well as the current habitat conditions along the Mississippi 

River floodplain, it appears that no areas remain in Kentucky that would be suitable for extensive 

searches. Unfortunately, it appears that no substantive evidence of the species occurrence has been 

reported since the Fulton County report in the 1870s (Palmer-Ball 2003). 

Literature Cited 

McKinley, Daniel 1958. Early Record for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Kentucky. 

 The Wilson Bulletin. Dec. Vol. 70. No. 4 pp 380-381. 

Mengel, Robert M. 1965. The Birds of Kentucky Ornithological Monographs No. 3. pp. 

308. 

Muller, Robert N. and William C. McComb. 1986. Upland Forests of the Knobs Region 

 of Kentucky. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. Vol. 113, No. 3, pp. 268-280. 

Palmer-Ball, B. 2003. Annotated Checklist of the Bird of Kentucky. 

 Kentucky Ornithological Society. Louisville, Kentucky 

Schorger, A.W. 1949. An Early record and description of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

 in Kentucky. Wilson Bulletin 61 (4) pp. 235 

Wharton M. E. 1945. Floristics and vegetation of the Devonian-Mississippian Black 

 Shale Region of Kentucky. Doctoral Thesis. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 

 (from Muller and McComb 1986) 

Wetmore, Alexander 1943. Evidence for the former occurrence of the Ivory-billed 

 Woodpecker in Ohio. Wilson Bull., 55 (1): 55 March. 
 124 

 

LOUISIANA 

Original Range in 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. 

Specimen collections 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 (Morehouse, West Carroll, East Carroll, Madison, 

Franklin, Tensas, and Concordia Parishes). South of that area, Ivory-billed Woodpecker specimens and 

sightings were reported from the bottomland forests along the Mississippi River and Atchafalaya River 

(West Feliciana, West Baton Rouge, Iberville, St. Martin, and Lafourche Parishes) 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 the "great forest" extending 

east to the Atchafalaya River. 

Range Changes Over Time 

Tanner (1942) noted that logging in the southern part of Louisiana began around 1905 gradually moving 

north. The last 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). According to Lowery (1974) until 1932, 

ornithologists had come to believe that the Ivory-billed 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 did return and with an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. As has 

been mentioned elsewhere in the plan, the Ivory-billed Woodpeckers of the Singer Tract in northern 

Louisiana were the last known United States population to be studied [Allen and Kellogg (1937) and 

Tanner (1942)]. 

Locations of Possible Encounters Since 1941: 

There have been at least 10 reported possible sightings of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Louisiana 

since August of 1941. 

1941 In August, three Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were seen in John’s Bayou area of the Singer Tract, 

LA, by George Bick and Jim Parker, including an apparent female hatch-year young (Bick 1942; 

J. Tanner pers. comm., Oct 1989, an update and annotation of Tanner 1942). 

1941 On 21 and 28 of December, Tanner found an adult and juvenile female in a highly cutover area 

of the Singer Tract. 
 125 

 

1942 Roger T. Peterson and Bayard Christy observed two females in the same area May 9 (Christy 

1943, Peterson 1948, J. Tanner update pers. comm.). 

1942 In November of 1942, John Baker found a single female in the Singer Tract (Peterson 1948). 

1943–1944 Richard Pough of National Audubon Society found a single female in the Singer Tract 

between 4 Dec 1943 and 19 Jan 1944 (Pough 1944). 

1944 In April of 1944, Don Eckelberry saw and sketched a female in the Singer Tract (Eckelberry 

1961; watercolor painting in collection of J. A. Jackson and reproduced in Jackson 2002). 

1946 A possible sighting occurred in December of 1946. A single Ivory-billed Woodpecker may have 

remained in the Singer Tract (Peterson 1988), although there is apparently neither identification 

of the observer nor further record of this report. 

1971 On 22 of May 1971, an unidentified dog trainer photographed a pair of Ivory-billed 

Woodpeckers on separate tree trunks in second-growth forest in the Atchafalaya Basin, 

Louisiana. The photos were given to George Lowery at Louisiana State University (LSU), who 

followed up with searches in the area. He found no conclusive evidence of Ivory-bills. Jackson 

has examined the photos and concurred with Gauthreaux (1971: 827) and Stewart (1971: 868) 

that they are clearly of one or two Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. However, the photos were shown 

to ornithologists at the 1971 American Ornithological Union meeting at LSU and met with 

skepticism, the suggestion being that they might be of a mounted specimen. 

1974 November 11, 1974, Robert Bean reported seeing an Ivory-billed Woodpecker from a distance of 

about 5 m as it flew across Interstate 10 in the Atchafalaya Swamp about 32 km west of Baton 

Rouge, LA (Dennis 1979). This is near where Robert Hamilton thought he had seen one 2 years 

earlier (Hamilton 1975). 

1999 David Kulivan reported seeing two Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the Pearl River Swamp of 

southeast Louisiana April 1 (Williams 2001, Jackson 2002). 

Potential areas to search that are consistent with the believed habitat requirements 

Search efforts in Louisiana should be focused in the following areas (Figure 1). 

The Atchafalaya River Basin with primary emphasis on Attakapas Island WMA and state property 

owned by the Office of State Lands in the central and southern portions of the Atchafalaya River basin 

and private land holdings near Bayou Sorrel. The Pearl River Basin with emphasis on the Pearl River 

WMA and the Tensas River Basin with emphasis on Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge and Big 

Lake WMA. 
 126 

 

Figure 2. Suggested Ivory-billed Woodpecker search areas in Louisiana based upon historical 

observations. 

Other potential areas outside of these major bottomland hardwood drainages within the state include the 

lower Sabine River Basin in the south-western part of the state as well as the Mississippi and Red River 

convergence areas in the east-central part of the state. 

Reference: 

Bick, G. H. 1942. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers and Wild Turkeys in Louisiana. Auk 59: 431–432. 

Christy, B. 1943. The vanishing Ivory-bill. Audubon Mag. 45 (2): 99–102. 

Dennis, J. V. 1979. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Avicultural Mag. 85: 75–

84. 

Eckelberry, D. 1961. Search for the rare Ivorybill. Pp. 195–207 in Discovery. Great moments in the lives 

of outstanding naturalists (J. K. Terres, ed.). J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, PA. 

Gauthreaux, S. A., Jr. 1971. The changing seasons. Am. Birds 25: 821–829.
 127 

 

Hamilton, R. B. 1975. Central southern region. Am. Birds 29: 700–705. 

Jackson, J. A. 2002. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved from The Birds of North 

American Online database: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/account/Ivory-billed_Woodpecker/ 

Lowery, G.H. 1974. Louisiana birds. Louisiana State University press. 651 pp. 

McIlhenny, E.A. 1941. The passing of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Auk 58:582-584. 

Oberholser, H.C. 1938. The bird life of Louisiana. Bulletin of the Louisiana department of 

Conservation, No. 28. pp. 380-382. 

Peterson, R. T. 1948. Birds over America. Dodd, Mead & Co., New York.

Peterson, R. T. 1988. My greatest birding moment. Audubon (Suppl.) 90 (2): 64.

Pough, R. H.. 1944. Report to the Executive Director National Audubon Society on the present 

condition of the Tensas River forests of Madison Parish, Louisiana and the status of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker in this area as of January, 1944. Unpubl. rep. given to JAJ by J. Tanner.

Stewart, J. R., Jr. 1971. Central southern region. Am. Birds 25: 865–869.

Tanner, J. T. 1942. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Res. Rep. no. 1, Natl. Audubon Soc., New York. 

Williams, J. J. 2001. Ivory-billed dreams, Ivory-billed reality. Birding 33: 514–522. 
 128 

 

MISSISSIPPI

Table 1. Reports of Ivory-billed Woodpecker encounters in Mississippi as reported by various sources. 

Observer Location River Date Citation Comments 

G. V. 

Young 

Monroe 

County 

Tombigbee 1885 Hasbrouck 1891 Also frequently seen in 

“flat woods beyond 

Houston.” 

M. 

Thompson 

Bay St. 

Louis 

Unknown 1885 Thompson 1889 Thompson “killed a fine 

male specimen...but 

was prevented, by an 

accident, from 

preserving it...” 

F. G. 

Dabhey 

Unknown Sunflower ca. 

1888 

Coahoma [F. G. Dabhey] 

1888 

R. Young Unknown Yazoo 1890 Hasbrouck 1891 R. Young of Corinth 

stated Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker could still 

be found in the Yazoo 

basin. 

R. Young Unknown Mississippi 1890 Hasbrouck 1891 

 

G. V. 

Young 

Unknown Mississippi ca. 

1890 

Hasbrouck 1891 Has seen “quite a 

number recently in the 

Mississippi bottom.” 

G. V. 

Young 

Clay 

County 

Tibbee/ 

Tombigbee 

ca. 

1890 

Hasbrouck 1891 Formerly common, but 

rare as of 1890. 

C. Scott 

(collector)? 

Bolivar 

County 

Unknown 1893 Hahn 1963, Jackson 1988 Male specimen, 

Academy of Natural 

Sciences of 

Philadelphia, PA. 

C. Scott 

(collector)? 

Bolivar 

County 

Unknown 1893 Hahn 1963, Jackson 1988 Female specimen, 

catalogue # 6104, Los 

Angeles County 

Museum, Los Angeles, 

CA. 

Unknown Unknown Unknown 1893 Hahn 1963, Jackson 1988 Male specimen, 

catalogue # F349, Royal 

Ontario Museum, 

Toronto. 

H. W. 

Davis 

(collector)? 

Unknown Unknown 1893 Hahn 1963, Jackson 1988 Male specimen, 

catalogue # 4883, Los 

Angeles County 

Museum, Los Angeles, 

CA. 
 129 

 

Observer Location River Date Citation Comments 

C. K. 

Worthen 

Near 

Mississippi 

City, 

Harrison 

County 

Unknown 1893 Hahn 1963, Jackson 1988 Female specimen, 

American Museum of 

Natural History, New 

York, NY. 

Unknown Near 

Mississippi 

City, 

Harrison 

County 

Unknown 1893 Hahn 1963, Jackson 1988 Male specimen, 

catalogue # 8528, 

Peabody Museum of 

Natural History, Yale 

University, New Haven, 

CT. 

M. G. 

Vaiden 

Unknown Big Black 1908 Jackson 2004 Vaiden reported in a 

letter to James Bond, 

curator of the Academy 

of Natural Sciences of 

Philadelphia, one pair in 

the Big Black River 

swamps. 

J. D. 

Corrington 

Near 

Vancleave 

Pascagoula 1921 Corrington 1922 Two sightings. Calls of 

a distant bird were 

believed to be an Ivorybilled Woodpecker. 

M. G. 

Vaiden 

Nine miles 

south of 

Rosedale, 

Allan Grey 

Estate 

(Woods), 

Bolivar Co. 

Mississippi, 

in the Delta 

on the dry 

side of the 

levees 

1939 Jackson 1988, M. Bonta, 

pers. comm. 

Vaiden reported in a 

letter to James Bond, 

curator of the Academy 

of Natural Sciences of 

Philadelphia, six pairs 

present until World War 

II when the area was 

logged for the war 

effort. 

B. 

Chauncey 

About 30 

miles north 

of 

Meridian 

Unknown 1953 Moore 1954 “in a very isolated 

region” 

J. H. 

Merritt 

East side of 

Pearl 

River, near 

Picayune 

Pearl 1955 USFWS Files Saw male Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker foraging 

on sweet-gum. Flew off 

with “loud tinny tootle.” 

 

J. H. 

Merritt and 

E. Ivey 

Perry 

County, 

one mile 

Leaf 1960 USFWS Files Heard report of Ivorybilled Woodpeckers 

there; went and saw 
 130 

 

Observer Location River Date Citation Comments 

north of 

US Hwy. 

98 

two. “Loud toots heard 

for some time after birds 

out of sight.” 

J. W. 

Robinson 

Hwy. 12 

between 

McCool 

and Ethel 

Big Black 

River 

1974 USFWS Files Flew from Big Black 

River bottoms headed 

toward Yockanookany 

River swamp. 

J. W. 

Robinson 

West 

Holmes 

County, 

near 

Coxburg 

 1976 USFWS Files 

R. Sauey 

and C. 

Luthin 

 Near where 

Black 

Creek joins 

Pascagoula 

River 

1978 Jackson 1988, Jackson 

2004 

While floating down 

Black Creek, they heard 

a bird that “sounded 

every bit like the 

historic Ivory-bill 

recording of Allen and 

Kellogg.” 

M. Morris West side 

of 

Pascagoula 

River, 

south of 

WadeVancleave 

Road and 

east of Old 

River 

Road. 

North of 

Vancleave 

Pascagoula 1982 Jackson 1988, Jackson 

2004 

Heard and saw two birds 

in a pine. Sounded like 

geese “honking” and 

saw crests pointing 

forward, white edge on 

back of perched birds 

and white trailing edge 

of wings as they flew 

away. 

J. A. 

Jackson 

and M. 

Hodges 

North of 

Vicksburg 

Near where 

Yazoo 

River joins 

Mississippi 

River 

1987 Jackson 1988, Jackson 

2004 

Heard a bird that 

possibly responded to a 

taped Ivory-billed call. 

W. E. 

Davis and 

F. Sibley 

North of 

Vicksburg 

Near where 

Yazoo 

River joins 

Mississippi 

River 

1988 Jackson 2004 Briefly heard a bird near 

where Jackson and 

Hodges heard one the 

previous year. 

C. T. 

Bryson 

Northeast 

of 

Greenwood 

Headwaters 

of Yazoo 

River near 

1988 Jackson 2004 Saw a large black and 

white woodpecker that 

did not sound like a 
 131 

 

Observer Location River Date Citation Comments 

bottomlands 

of 

Yalobusha 

River 

Pileated. Heard a 

“rhythmic toot, toot, 

toot.” 

M. Collins Near 

Stennis 

Space 

Center 

Pearl 2000, 

2005, 

2006 

http://www.fishcrow.com/ 

winter06.html 

Website includes 

extensive text, video, 

and some photos 

purporting to be Ivorybilled Woodpecker 

Literature Cited 

Bonta, M. Personal communication. 

Coahoma. 1888. The pileated woodpecker. Forest and Stream 31:122. 

Corrington, J. D. 1922. The winter birds of the Biloxi, Mississippi, region. Auk 39:530-556. 

Hahn, P. 1963. Where is that Vanished Bird? Royal Ontario Museum, University of Toronto Press, 

Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 

Hasbrouck, E. M. 1891. The present status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). 

Auk 8:174-186. 

Jackson, J. A. 1988. The history of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in Mississippi. Mississippi Kite 18(1):3-

10. 

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

Moore, G. E. 1954. Ivory-bills again. Bluebird 21(5):2. 

Thompson, M. 1889. A red-headed family. Oologist 6:23-29. 

USFWS Files. 
 132 

 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Original range in state 

There have been no recent reliable or confirmed sightings of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in North 

Carolina. The one definitive record, from Alexander Wilson, was from the Wilmington area around 

1831. 

Potential areas to search that are consistent with the believed habitat requirements 

The primary river systems in this southeastern corner of North Carolina, which might eventually support 

Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, are the Waccamaw, and the Lumber Rivers. The Lumber River flows into 

the Little Pee Dee River in South Carolina approximately nine miles south the state line. In North 

Carolina, the Lumber River drainage contains about 85 square miles of potential habitat. This includes 

the bottomland hardwood system and some associated uplands. The Waccamaw River system is about 

30 miles to the southeast of the Lumber River, and contains about 45 square miles of potential habitat. 

Lastly, the Cape Fear River system has some potential as well, and it includes the Northeast Cape Fear 

River and the Black River that join the Cape Fear near Wilmington. This group of rivers has about 60 

square miles of potential habitat, and is about 20 miles northeast of the Waccamaw River. 

Although logging continues, it has subsided so that much of the river bottom systems in this area have 

grown into the 60-80 year age classes. Probably because of the relative difficulty in harvesting water 

tupelo and bald cypress stands, some of these have grown to even older ages, and individual cypress 

trees that can be found with several hundred years of age. 
 133 

 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Original range in state 

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 long-leaf 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, Chicago fire and World 

War II. Tanner (1942) reported Ivory-billed Woodpecker suitable range was decreasing due to logging 

operations in the Santee River swamp occurring around 1939.

Three major river drainages occur within South Carolina and make up the majority of bottomland 

hardwood habitat type found. The Congaree and Wateree Rivers converge into the Santee River in the 

center of the state and the Santee River flows south to the Atlantic Ocean. The Savannah River 

delineates the border between Georgia and South Carolina, and flows north-south emptying into the 

Atlantic Ocean at Savannah Georgia. Northeastern coastal South Carolina includes the major drainages 

and tributaries of the Waccamaw, Lynches, Black, Great Pee Dee, Little Pee Dee, and Lumber Rivers 

(here referred to as the Waccamaw Complex). 

Range changes over time 

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 is due to the encroachment of civilization. 

Bottomland hardwood habitat is still present along the Congaree-Wateree-Upper Santee Rivers, 

Savannah River, and Waccamaw Complex. 

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 due to 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 (1942) recorded sightings were located in the area that is now 

flooded. 

The Savannah River and Waccamaw Complex are predominately in private ownership and some of the 

only remaining mature bottomlands occur on easements and public lands; the exception being large 

plantations along the Savannah River. 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 
 134 

 

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-ac Savannah River swamp on the DOE’s Savannah River 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 National Wildlife Refuge, and some private 

tracts) but some harvest has continued. 

Locations of possible encounters (since 1944) 

A number of Ivory-billed Woodpecker encounters in South Carolina have been recorded (Table 1). The 

majority of historical sightings were around the lower Santee River, but a few sightings were also 

recorded along the Savannah, Pee Dee, and Coosawhatchie Rivers (Figure 1). 

The SCIvory-billed Woodpecker Working Group has compiled a number of possible encounters that do 

not have independent confirmation. All encounters fall within one of the four major bottomland 

hardwood river systems within the state; however the majority is from the Upper 

Santee/Congaree/Wateree Rivers, specifically within Congaree National Park. A number of these 

encounters have been submitted to the Cornell database. A number of reports have not been published 

as individuals were contacted and do not wish to submit a formal sighting report for a variety of reasons. 

A number of these sightings were made prior to the rediscovery in April 2005. 

Table 1. Reports of Ivory-billed Woodpecker encounters in South Carolina as reported by various 

sources. 

Observer Location River Date Citation Comments 

A. Wilson Between 

Augusta and 

Savannah 

Savannah River About 

1800 

Tanner 1942 Frequently observed 

Burnett Near St. 

Stephens 

Santee River 1854 Tanner 1942 Pine barrens 

W. Hoxie Hunting 

Island, 

Beaufort 

County 

Coosawhatchie 

River system 

1870 Tanner 1942 

R. C. 

Murphy 

Cheraw Pee Dee River 1876 Tanner 1942 

W. Hoxie Johnson’s, 

Pritchard's, 

Eddings 

Islands 

Coosawhatchie 

River system 

1880 and 

before 

Tanner 1942 Near Hunting Island 

Dr. C. 

Kollock 

Cheraw 

(near) 

Pee Dee River 1889 Tanner 1942 
 135 

 

Observer Location River Date Citation Comments 

T.M. Ashe Barnwell 

County 

Savannah River 1898 Tanner 1942 

Unknown North of 

Charleston 

Unknown Tanner 1942 Cypress swamp 

G.N. Bailie Allendale 

County 

Savannah River 1907 Tanner 1942 

S. Platt Georgetown 

County 

Santee River 1925 

(about) 

Tanner 1942 Near St. Stephens 

W.M. 

Ridgill 

Clarendon 

County, 

Black Oak 

Island 

Santee River 1930 Tanner 1942 Near St. Stephens 

G. 

Melamphy 

Berkley 

County 

Santee River 1930 Tanner 1942 Near Georgetown sites, 

also cited in Jackson 

2004 

L. Walsh 

and A. 

Sprunt 

Georgetown 

County 

Santee River 1935 Tanner 1942 Verified Melamphy 

report; Wadmacaun 

Island 

H. Shokes Georgetown 

County 

Santee River 1935-37 Tanner 1942 

Unknown Santee River 1959-

1967 

USFWS Files Downstream of Lake 

Marion 

J. Dennis Congaree NP Congaree River 1964 Dennis 1966 Reported to Dennis, pair 

of birds, near mouth of 

Cedar Creek 

J. Dennis Congaree NP Congaree River 1965 Dennis 1966 Reported to Dennis, one 

bird flying, two miles 

upstream from mouth of 

Cedar Creek 

J. Dennis Congaree NP Congaree River 1966 Dennis 1966 Possible fly over 

T. Dabbs Sumter 

County 

Black River 1969-

1970 

Jackson 2004 Eastern portion of the 

county, heard call and 

observed one bird. 

R. Manns Congaree NP Congaree River 1971 Jackson 2004 Published in Time 

Magazine, 1971, “Signal 

for Wild” 

Unknown Unknown Black River 1981 Jackson 2004 

Short and 

Doyle 

Unknown Waccamaw 

River 

Unknown Jackson 2004 Lower portion of the 

river 

Unknown Congaree River 1984 USFWS Files 

Habitat descriptions if somehow different from the general description in the life history account. 
 136 

 

Habitat not believed to be different from general description. 

Potential areas to search that are consistent with the believed habitat requirements 

Search efforts in South Carolina should be focused in the following areas: Congaree-Wateree-Upper 

Santee River region, lower Santee River, Savannah River, and the Waccamaw Complex (a region in 

northeastern coastal South Carolina that includes the major drainages and tributaries of the Waccamaw, 

Lynches, Black, Great Pee Dee, Little Pee Dee, and Lumber Rivers) (Figure 1). 

• The Congaree-Wateree-Upper Santee region encompasses private, public and NGO ownerships 

including Congaree National Park and SC DNR Heritage Preserves (Congaree Creek and 

Congaree Bluff). The upper portion of this river complex is in the Congaree-Wateree-Upper 

Santee River Focus Area of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture. 

• The lower Santee River encompasses the Francis Marion National Forest, Santee Coastal 

Reserve, Santee-Cooper company lands, Santee National Wildlife Refuge, and Wee Tee State 

Forest. This area is in the Santee Cooper Lakes and Santee River Focus Area. 

• The Savannah River area encompasses the following ownerships: Savannah River Site (U. S. 

Department of Energy), The Webb Wildlife Center (S.C. DNR), Paluahucola Wildlife 

Management Area (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), Savannah National Wildlife Refuge, and 

numerous private plantations. These areas are located in the South Lowcountry Focus Area. 

• The Waccamaw River complex encompasses the Great Pee Dee –Lynches River, Little Pee DeeLumber River, Upper Waccamaw River, Winyah Bay Focus Areas and Black River. Ownership 

includes numerous SC DNR Heritage Preserves (Waccamaw River, Lewis Ocean Bay, Little Pee 

Dee River, Cartwheel Bay), Lee State Natural Area, and numerous forest industry and nonindustrial forest landowners. 

• Other potential areas outside of these major bottomland hardwood drainages within the state 

include: Coosawhatchie River and the Francis Beidler Forest (Four Holes Swamp region). 

Areas to be searched were determined from historical observations of Ivory-billed Woodpecker in South 

Carolina as reported by Tanner (1942), Jackson (2004), and the South Carolina Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker Working Group (2005a, 2005b). These areas are generally the same and coincide with 

areas identified by Hunter and Holzman (2005). 
 137 

 

Figure 1. Suggested Ivory-billed Woodpecker search areas in South Carolina based upon historical and 

current observations (Tanner 1942, Dennis 1966, Jackson 2004, and South Carolina Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker Working Group 2005). (Tanner 1942 black; Jackson 2004 red; Dennis 1966 purple; 

SCIvory-billed Woodpecker 2005 yellow). 

Literature Cited 

Steve Holtzman and Chuck Hunter. 2005. MAP 

Dennis, J. 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, SC. 25 

pp. 

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

294pp. 

Sprunt, Alexander and E. B. Chamberlain. 1949. South Carolina Bird Life. University of South 

Carolina Press, Columbia. 585pp. 
 138 

 

Tanner, James T. 1942. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Research Report No. 1 of the National 

Audubon Society. Publ. by the National Audubon Society, New York, New York, October 1942, 

111pp. 

South Carolina Ivory-billed Woodpecker Working Group. 2005a. Minutes of the Inaugural Meeting of 

the South Carolina Ivory-billed Woodpecker Working Group, August 30, 2005, Charleston, South 

Carolina. 

South Carolina Ivory-billed Woodpecker Working Group. 2005b. Minutes of the South Carolina Ivorybilled Woodpecker Working Group, December 13, 2005, Hopkins, South Carolina. 

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. 
 139 

 

TENNESSEE 

Original range in state 

There are no reliable reports of wild birds ever being observed in Tennessee. Audubon reported 

observing ivory-bills from a flatboat while traveling down the Mississippi during the winter of 1820-

1821. He reported ivory-bills from the stretch of the river bordering TN, but does not state which side 

of the river they were on. Remains of ivory-bills have also been found in a few archaeological sites in 

TN; as native Americans traded them widely, we can't assume they originated in TN. 

Potential areas to search that are consistent with the believed habitat requirements 

No areas of potential habitat have been designated to date....[but should incorporate recent encounters 

and insights from Bob Ford – KVR] 
 140 

 

TEXAS 

See Shackelford (1998) for a compilation and locations of all published accounts of the Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker in Texas. 

Literature Cited

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):34-4.
 141 

 

Appendix E. Ivory-billed Woodpecker Habitat Inventory and 

Assessment: Public Lands in the Big Woods of Arkansas 

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 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Ivory-billed Woodpecker) throughout its historic range and the only in-depth, 

ecological investigation conducted on a population of Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Tanner’s observations 

of the Singer Tract population of Ivory-billed Woodpecker 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 “resightings” 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 land mangers 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 where able to lead a multi-agency team representing staff from several National 

Wildlife Refuges 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 to 

likely harbor Ivory-billed Woodpecker, based on 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 remotely-sensed 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 de View area of 

Cache River National Wildlife Refuge, Jacks Bay and Prairie Lake area of White River National 

Wildlife Refuge and portions of Dagmar Wildlife Management Area. In addition to these primary 

locations, additional areas perceived to be “suitable” Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat were inventoried 

based on local land manager’s knowledge of the existing forest conditions. These locations included: 
 142 

 

other areas on White River National Wildlife Refuge and Cache River National Wildlife Refuge, Bayou 

Meto Wildlife Management Area, Wattensaw Wildlife Management Area, Rex Hancock/Black Swamp 

Wildlife Management Area, and Henry Gray/Hurricane Wildlife Management Area. 

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 

Wildlife Management Areas and National Wildlife Refuges 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 de View 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 to reduce the amount of 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. 

Figure 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. 

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. Whereas, 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 
 143 

 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sample Size

Coefficient of Variation

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 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 (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 clusters were similar in the amount 

of variation expressed in the replicates and also produced acceptable levels of precision (i.e., none 

exceeded 15%). 

Figure 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. 

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 consistently produce a high level of precision. Where as, 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 
 144 

 

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. 

Figure 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. 

PARAMETERS COLLECTED: Based on data provided in Tanner (1942) and discussions with 

Martjan Lammertink, (Cornell Lab of Ornithology Post-Doctorate Student) whom is leading the Cornell 

search efforts in Arkansas, it is currently assumed 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. It is believed that these metrics would provide both a quantitative estimate of 

parameters of interest, as well as, additional qualitative estimates that would facilitate the 

characterization of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat, based on our limited knowledge. Furthermore, 

these data were 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, 2005, foresters and 

biologists spent greater than 1,200 man-hours inventorying over 100,000 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 and cross-walked with a Geographic Information System to produce spatially-explicit maps 

depicting stand conditions. Additionally, these forest stand maps were used in over-lay 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 forests stands during the 

summer of 2006. Specifically, 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. 
 145 

 

Table 1. Location, number of forest stands and acreage inventoried in the Big Woods of Arkansas, 

September-October 2005. 

Location 

Number 

of 

Stands 

Total 

Acreage* 

Cache River NWR – Bayou de View 14 7,547

White River NWR – Jacks Bay/Prairie Lakes 113 83,182

Dagmar WMA 8 3,499

Rex Hancock/Black Swamp WMA 1 389

Henry Gray/Hurricane Lake WMA 4 2,091

Trusten Holder WMA 1 512

Wattensaw WMA 3 843

Bayou Meto WMA 5 2,540

Total 149 100,603

* Represents total acreage within forest stands including bodies of water that were not inventoried. 
 146 

 

Appendix 1. 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 
 147 

 

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 Ivorybilled 

Woodpecker 

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 Ivorybilled 

Woodpecker 

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). 

Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker 

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 

 
 148 

 

Appendix 2. 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 
 149 

 

Appendix 3. 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 
 150 

 

Appendix F. Habitat Conditions across Historic Range 

The Forest Products Industry 

The forest products industry consists of companies and individuals that operate primary woodusing facilities and/or manage forests they own or control primarily for wood products (Helms 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) meaning 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 in Mississippi 

where 10% of all jobs in the state are forestry-related and, during 2002, forestry contributed $11.4 

billion dollars to the Mississippi economy (http://www.msforestry.net/pdf/Forest_Facts.pdf). 

The considerable complexity of the industry is due to the variable size, character, and objectives 

of its constituent companies, including ownership (individuals/families vs. 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 even-aged 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 (<15 

years in the southern U.S.). Because of variability in management approaches and resulting forest 

structure, site-specific 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 type 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 proportion of the industry 

no longer owns forest lands. Rather they purchase wood from non-industrial 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 forest industry, comprising about 9% of total forest ownership (Smith et al. 2004). 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. 2004). In 2001, the South supplied 58.0% of America’s total roundwood 

production (Smith et al. 2004). That year, industrial forests provided 29% of the Nation's timber harvest 

and private forests in total provided 92% (Smith et al. 2004). Therefore, the current trend is for 

increasing wood production from private lands in the southern U.S. (Wear and Greis 2002). 
 151 

 

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 Ivory-billed 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, 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. 

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 smalldiameter (16.4%) size classes. Public timberland area is predominantly in large-diameter-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 largediameter class (50.0% of all pine stems) and less abundant in the medium- (29.1%) and small-diameter 

(20.9%) classes. On public timberland, number of live stems is similar in the medium-diameter 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 versus 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 
 152 

 

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 medium-diameter 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), although much more so for hardwoods. For hardwoods on private timberland, 71.9% of 

total volume growth was in the large-diameter class, 19.9% was in the medium-diameter class, and only 

8.1% was in the small-diameter class. For pines, however, 46.8% of total volume growth was in the 

large-diameter 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 large-diameter 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 large-diameter 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 medium-diameter 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 small-diameter 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. 

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 
 153 

 

landowner assistance programs and other avenues. Personnel that work for forest products companies 

also 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 also has 

the capability of altering stand structures through active 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 

Helms, J. A., ed. 1998. The dictionary of forestry. Society of American Foresters. Bethesda, MD. 

210pp. 

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, CT. 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. 

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. 
 154 

 

Table 1. 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 
 155 

 

Table 2. 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 Baldcypress/water tupelo 

701 Black ash/American elm/red maple 

702 River birch/sycamore 

703 Cottonwood 

704 Willow 

705 Sycamore/pecan/American elm 

706 Sugar-berry/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 
 156 

 

Table 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. 

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 yearround 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 
 157 

 

Table 4. 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. 
 158 

Table 5. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Loui

South Carolina, and Texas. 

Public Ownerships Private Own

Variable Size Class Pine Hardwood Total Pine HardwoAcres Forestland Small 132,829 70,390 203,219 3,941,352 1,107,1

Medium 193,337 206,826 400,163 3,581,273 1,571,2Large 528,677 1,170,874 1,699,551 3,614,348 4,051,9Total 854,843 1,448,090 2,302,933 11,136,973 6,730,3

Acres Timberland Small 130,683 43,155 173,838 3,941,352 1,101,8

Medium 164,085 188,226 352,311 3,575,509 1,571,2Large 456,024 1,023,795 1,479,819 3,607,623 4,043,1Total 750,792 1,255,176 2,005,968 11,124,484 6,716,2

No. Live Trees Small 134,813,748 26,288,801 161,102,549 2,370,055,051 793,248,8

Medium 98,408,012 124,450,893 222,858,905 3,037,017,159 1,107,150,7Large 198,534,365 440,419,011 638,953,376 2,190,384,501 1,902,966,5

 Total 431,756,125 591,158,705 1,022,914,830 7,597,456,711 3,803,366,1Vol. Live Trees (ft3) Small 52,075,981 12,638,815 64,714,796 770,413,505 427,383,7

Medium 229,375,572 223,401,122 452,776,694 4,508,677,562 2,262,286,8Large 1,123,160,136 3,240,317,084 4,363,477,220 8,306,398,524 11,090,209Total 1,404,611,689 3,476,357,021 4,880,968,710 13,585,489,591 13,779,880
 159 

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

Public Ownerships Private Own

Variable Size Class Pine Hardwood Total Pine HardwoNet growth (ft3) Small 1,963,233 72,173 2,035,406 102,899,014 22,330,07

Medium 8,142,626 7,156,669 15,299,295 244,978,464 54,765,33Large 33,309,907 51,236,605 84,546,512 305,428,197 197,582,34

 Total 43,415,766 58,465,447 101,881,213 653,305,675 274,677,75Mortality (ft3) Small 610,865 171,852 782,717 7,478,633 5,897,6

Medium 1,305,897 1,067,327 2,373,224 9,100,347 28,134,70Large 6,341,342 29,306,732 35,648,074 42,311,763 99,299,40Total 8,258,104 30,545,911 38,804,015 58,890,743 133,331,73

Removals (ft3) Small 4,017,463 0 4,017,463 380,795,078 94,456,64

Medium 3,414,295 190,993 3,605,288 54,945,206 35,934,74Large 14,987,420 34,050,244 49,037,664 143,624,047 83,417,88Total 22,419,178 34,241,237 56,660,415 579,364,331 213,809,27
 160 

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

Public Ownerships Private Own

Variable Size Class Pine Hardwood Total Pine HardwoAcres Forestland Small 0 2,593 2,593 124,536 82,00

Medium 11,101 0 11,101 137,157 94,22Large 10,319 30,756 41,075 202,774 173,23Total 21,420 33,349 54,769 464,467 349,47

Acres Timberland Small 0 2,593 2,593 124,536 82,00

Medium 11,101 0 11,101 137,157 94,22Large 0 30,756 30,756 202,774 173,23Total 11,101 33,349 44,450 464,467 349,47

No. Live Trees Small 0 2,458,165 2,458,165 89,342,203 23,881,78

Medium 200,419 0 200,419 89,438,713 64,635,93Large 0 17,985,123 17,985,123 121,227,442 71,756,47Total 200,419 20,443,288 20,643,707 300,008,358 160,274,19

Vol. Live Trees (ft3) Small 0 190,576 190,576 34,220,929 44,199,33

Medium 334,810 0 334,810 137,929,872 231,325,50Large 0 120,446,448 120,446,448 470,911,429 634,729,19Total 334,810 120,637,024 120,971,834 643,062,230 910,254,03
 161 

Table 8. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in ArSurvey). 

All Ownerships Private Own

Variable Size Class Pine Hardwood Total Pine HardwoAcres Forestland Small 0 19,241 19,241 732,619 192,5 Medium 16,421 39,146 55,567 629,942 389,4

Large 26,721 363,877 390,598 1,079,064 1,112,3Total 43,142 422,264 465,406 2,441,625 1,694,3

Acres Timberland Small 0 11,235 11,235 732,619 192,5 Medium 8,372 39,146 47,518 629,942 389,4

Large 26,721 335,399 362,120 1,079,064 1,112,3Total 35,093 385,780 420,873 2,441,625 1,694,3

No. Live Trees Small 0 8,046,600 8,046,600 476,018,032 92,527,1

Medium 7,678,895 24,788,980 32,467,875 636,571,797 231,171,8Large 14,616,778 119,670,875 134,287,653 741,864,893 446,278,8Total 22,295,673 152,506,455 174,802,128 1,854,454,722 769,977,8

Vol. Live Trees (ft3) Small 0 2,654,730 2,654,730 200,509,772 39,734,5

Medium 15,087,245 48,750,697 63,837,942 785,722,124 484,346,4

 Large 53,289,436 1,204,991,531 1,258,280,967 2,331,886,730 2,892,340,9 Total 68,376,681 1,256,396,958 1,324,773,639 3,318,118,626 3,416,421,9Net growth (ft3) Small 0 86,959 86,959 29,895,911 4,762,8

Medium 695,335 3,266,168 3,961,503 65,215,557 17,825,5Large 2,626,962 19,546,012 22,172,974 106,001,203 62,181,8Total 3,322,297 22,899,139 26,221,436 201,112,671 84,770,2

Mortality (ft3) Small 0 0 0 351,882 1,527,3 Medium 0 0 0 2,934,382 3,666,6

Large 450,022 8,124,791 8,574,813 12,123,265 27,120,7Total 450,022 8,124,791 8,574,813 15,409,529 32,314,7

Removals (ft3) Small 0 0 0 107,062,707 15,146,5

Medium 921,442 0 921,442 19,057,146 14,705,9Large 2,171,207 11,269,939 13,441,146 72,992,097 29,455,2Total 3,092,649 11,269,939 14,362,588 199,111,950 59,307,7
 162 

Table 9. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Georgia (2003 Annual Survey). 

Public Ownerships Private Own

Variable Size Class Pine Hardwood Total Pine HardwoAcres Forestland Small 33,977 14,069 48,046 1,025,410 162,6 Medium 47,567 24,195 71,762 1,110,180 151,0

Large 127,845 27,178 155,023 476,892 260,5Total 209,389 65,442 274,831 2,612,482 574,2

Acres Timberland Small 33,977 0 33,977 1,025,410 162,6

Medium 40,232 7,767 47,999 1,110,180 151,0Large 102,446 27,178 129,624 475,313 260,5Total 176,655 34,945 211,600 2,610,903 574,2

No. Live Trees Small 16,338,329 0 16,338,329 510,953,466 146,873,1 Medium 28,313,098 11,672,196 39,985,294 749,859,890 154,915,3 Large 41,254,395 10,083,360 51,337,755 251,885,758 134,727,1 Total 85,905,822 21,755,556 107,661,378 1,512,699,114 436,515,6Vol. Live Trees (ft3) Small 5,141,872 0 5,141,872 149,468,857 45,573,3 Medium 79,491,513 24,860,300 104,351,813 1,469,177,133 241,315,6 Large 278,327,670 89,436,004 367,763,674 1,155,108,662 978,595,8

Total 362,961,055 114,296,304 477,257,359 2,773,754,652 1,265,484,8
 163 

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

Survey). 

Public Ownerships Private Own

Variable Size Class Pine Hardwood Total Pine HardwoAcres Forestland Small 5,038 24,325 29,363 539,045 271,6

Medium 25,424 89,667 115,091 473,621 518,4Large 82,627 590,426 673,053 627,583 1,624,2Total 113,089 704,418 817,507 1,640,249 2,414,3

Acres Timberland Small 5,038 24,325 29,363 539,045 266,4

Medium 25,424 89,667 115,091 473,621 518,4Large 82,627 541,893 624,520 627,583 1,624,2Total 113,089 655,885 768,974 1,640,249 2,409,1

No. Live Trees Small 3,385,222 12,502,325 15,887,547 261,162,164 147,619,6 Medium 10,061,234 50,529,840 60,591,074 404,244,553 298,555,3

Large 33,191,041 237,511,525 270,702,566 308,367,936 740,517,3Total 46,637,497 300,543,690 347,181,187 973,774,653 1,186,692,2

Vol. Live Trees (ft3) Small 1,811,628 6,479,326 8,290,954 23,620,772 61,651,8 Medium 24,482,340 53,322,420 77,804,760 459,042,277 647,187,0 Large 200,693,797 1,499,395,941 1,700,089,738 1,431,910,521 3,936,554,1 Total 226,987,765 1,559,197,687 1,786,185,452 1,914,573,570 4,645,393,0Net growth (ft3) Small 0 -58,516 -58,516 19,354,479 5,184,9

Medium 2,259,333 2,065,145 4,324,478 26,330,562 16,179,2

 Large 8,000,553 24,488,940 32,489,493 63,345,629 79,974,5 Total 10,259,886 26,495,569 36,755,455 109,030,670 101,338,7Mortality (ft3) Small 0 171,852 171,852 2,413,284 610,7

Medium 0 555,578 555,578 1,725,218 16,448,9Large 1,267,526 16,580,581 17,848,107 9,297,470 49,639,6

 Total 1,267,526 17,308,011 18,575,537 13,435,972 66,699,2Removals (ft3) Small 0 0 0 75,940,948 28,008,3

Medium 384,995 190,993 575,988 15,352,341 13,749,0

 Large 1,096,239 13,491,464 14,587,703 28,176,218 31,835,3 Total 1,481,234 13,682,457 15,163,691 119,469,507 73,592,7
 164 

Table 11. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in N

Periodic Survey). 

Public Ownerships Private Own

Variable Size Class Pine Hardwood Total Pine HardwoAcres Forestland Small 0 0 0 269,026 56,3 Medium 0 0 0 103,908 17,5

Large 6,963 3,924 10,887 165,764 50,1Total 6,963 3,924 10,887 538,698 124,0

Acres Timberland Small 0 0 0 269,026 56,3 Medium 0 0 0 103,908 17,5

Large 5,191 0 5,191 165,764 50,1Total 5,191 0 5,191 538,698 124,0

No. Live Trees Small 0 0 0 189,312,013 93,994,0

Medium 0 0 0 75,103,043 19,510,9Large 2,562,006 0 2,562,006 86,418,045 38,472,9Total 2,562,006 0 2,562,006 350,833,101 151,977,9

Vol. Live Trees (ft3) Small 0 0 0 101,667,967 70,790,9 Medium 0 0 0 142,536,262 27,785,9 Large 13,139,059 0 13,139,059 473,216,571 202,033,0 Total 13,139,059 0 13,139,059 717,420,800 300,609,9Net growth (ft3) Small 0 0 0 15,093,147 1,592,1 Medium 0 0 0 10,851,922 391,0

Large 319,011 0 319,011 23,703,452 4,614,1Total 319,011 0 319,011 49,648,521 6,597,3

Mortality (ft3) Small 0 0 0 722,619 500,2 Medium 0 0 0 625,695 

Large 77,401 0 77,401 2,912,322 1,060,3Total 77,401 0 77,401 4,260,636 1,560,5

Removals (ft3) Small 0 0 0 47,166,239 3,923,9 Medium 0 0 0 2,151,275  Large 0 0 0 4,613,716 2,923,4 Total 0 0 0 53,931,230 6,847,3
 165 

Table 12. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in S

Annual Survey). 

Public Ownerships Private Own

Variable Size Class Pine Hardwood Total Pine HardwoAcres Forestland Small 93,814 5,002 98,816 808,575 247,4

Medium 68,872 35,221 104,093 780,932 313,4Large 205,088 106,477 311,565 612,400 446,1Total 367,774 146,700 514,474 2,201,907 1,007,0

Acres Timberland Small 91,668 5,002 96,670 808,575 247,4

Medium 67,376 33,049 100,425 780,932 313,4Large 188,083 75,880 263,963 612,400 446,1Total 347,127 113,931 461,058 2,201,907 1,007,0

No. Live Trees Small 115,090,197 3,281,711 118,371,908 564,598,954 196,645,5 Medium 36,292,790 22,559,833 58,852,623 732,854,138 279,267,0 Large 81,106,640 49,710,655 130,817,295 347,369,707 278,423,5 Total 232,489,627 75,552,199 308,041,826 1,644,822,799 754,336,1Vol. Live Trees (ft3) Small 45,122,481 3,314,183 48,436,664 205,018,866 140,258,5 Medium 99,519,137 76,567,684 176,086,821 1,149,032,060 529,298,0

Large 395,950,357 301,729,220 697,679,577 1,482,909,746 1,574,308,2Total 540,591,975 381,611,087 922,203,062 2,836,960,672 2,243,864,8

Net growth (ft3) Small 1,963,233 43,730 2,006,963 24,155,671 8,662,1

Medium 4,436,631 1,902,121 6,338,752 117,157,850 16,768,0

 Large 15,725,846 5,252,048 20,977,894 78,156,571 28,649,9 Total 22,125,710 7,197,899 29,323,609 219,470,092 54,080,1Mortality (ft3) Small 610,865 0 610,865 2,868,789 2,792,4

Medium 823,549 223,776 1,047,325 3,574,344 7,029,2Large 3,364,828 4,122,259 7,487,087 12,114,688 12,286,6Total 4,799,242 4,346,035 9,145,277 18,557,821 22,108,3

Removals (ft3) Small 4,017,463 0 4,017,463 86,984,223 39,582,8

Medium 966,370 0 966,370 12,589,312 3,752,5Large 5,627,617 0 5,627,617 26,475,370 11,459,5

 Total 10,611,450 0 10,611,450 126,048,905 54,794,9
 166 

Table 13. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in TSurvey). 

Public Ownerships Private Own

Variable Size Class Pine Hardwood Total Pine HardwoAcres Forestland Small 0 5,160 5,160 442,141 94,3 Medium 23,952 18,597 42,549 345,533 87,1

Large 69,114 48,236 117,350 449,871 385,2Total 93,066 71,993 165,059 1,237,545 566,8

Acres Timberland Small 0 0 0 442,141 94,3 Medium 11,580 18,597 30,177 339,769 87,1

Large 50,956 12,689 63,645 444,725 376,4Total 62,536 31,286 93,822 1,226,635 557,9

No. Live Trees Small 0 0 0 278,668,219 91,707,6

Medium 15,861,576 14,900,044 30,761,620 348,945,025 59,094,1

 Large 25,803,505 5,457,473 31,260,978 333,250,720 192,790,2

Total 41,665,081 20,357,517 62,022,598 960,863,964 343,592,0

Vol. Live Trees (ft3) Small 0 0 0 55,906,342 25,175,1

Medium 10,460,527 19,900,021 30,360,548 365,237,834 101,028,2

 Large 181,759,817 24,317,940 206,077,757 960,454,865 871,648,2 Total 192,220,344 44,217,961 236,438,305 1,381,599,041 997,851,6Net growth (ft3) Small 0 0 0 14,399,806 2,127,9

Medium 751,327 -76,765 674,562 25,422,573 3,601,4Large 6,637,535 1,949,605 8,587,140 34,221,342 22,161,7Total 7,388,862 1,872,840 9,261,702 74,043,721 27,891,2

Mortality (ft3) Small 0 0 0 1,122,059 466,8

Medium 482,348 287,973 770,321 240,708 989,8Large 1,181,565 479,101 1,660,666 5,864,018 9,192,0Total 1,663,913 767,074 2,430,987 7,226,785 10,648,7

Removals (ft3) Small 0 0 0 63,640,961 7,794,9

Medium 1,141,488 0 1,141,488 5,795,132 3,727,2Large 6,092,357 9,288,841 15,381,198 11,366,646 7,744,3Total 7,233,845 9,288,841 16,522,686 80,802,739 19,266,4
 167 

 

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 growingstock 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 utilization by statute or administrative regulation. 

(Note: Areas qualifying as timberland are capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet 
 168 

 

per acre per year of industrial wood in natural stands. Currently inaccessible and 

inoperable areas are included.) 
 169 

 

 

Appendix G. Species Names and Acronyms Used in the 

Recovery Plan. 

Plants 

American Elm (Ulmus americana) Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) 

Ash (Fraxinus spp.) Post Oak (Quercus stellata) 

Bald cypress (Taxodium spp.) Red Maple (Acer rubrum) 

Bitter Pecan (Carya aquatica) Red Oak (Quercus rubra) 

Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) Scarlet Oak (Quercus coccinea) 

Cotton (Gossypium spp.) Sugar-berry (Celtis laevigata) 

Diamond Leaf Oak (Quercus laurifolia) Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa biflora) 

Elm (Ulmus spp.) Swamp-privet (Forestiera spp.) 

Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanicus) Sweet-gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) 

Hackberry (Celtis spp.), Tupelo (Nyssa spp.) 

Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) Tupelo Gum (Nyssa aquatica) 

Locust (Gleditsia spp.) Water Elm (Planera aquatica) 

Long-leaf Pine (Pinus palustris) Water Hickory (Carya myristiciformis) 

Nuttall Oak (Quercus nuttalli) Water Oak (Quercus nigra) 

Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) White Oak (Quercus alba) 

Pecan (Carya illinoinensis) Wild Grape (Vitis spp.), 

Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 

Pine (Pinus spp.)

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 linneatus) 
 170 

 

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 

Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker 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 

USGS U. S. Geological Survey 

WMA Wildlife Management Area