Historic, archived document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. White-headed Woodpecker monitoring for the Weiser – Little Salmon CFLRP, Payette National Forest, 2012 progress report Submitted February 2013 by: USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station Victoria Saab, Jonathan Dudley, and Quresh Latif To: Payette National Forest Anna Egnew Introduction The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) is a cooperative effort to restore ecological function to U.S. forests. Monitoring is a key component of the CFLR program and our work is designed to address how well CFLRPs are meeting their forest restoration and wildlife habitat conservation goals. The white-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus; WHWO) is a regional endemic species of the Inland Northwest and may be particularly vulnerable to environmental change because it occupies a limited distribution and has narrow habitat requirements in dry conifer forests. Monitoring in CFLRPs, such as the Weiser-Little Salmon Headwaters project on the Payette National Forest (PNF), also contributes to other ongoing, regional efforts to monitor effectiveness of silvicultural and prescribed-fire treatments for white-headed woodpeckers throughout their range in Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Vegetation and fuels data collection also support modeling of fire-climate impacts on future forest conditions and wildlife habitat suitability. To meet their various ecological needs, white-headed woodpeckers require heterogeneous landscapes characterized by a mosaic of open- and closed-canopied ponderosa pine forests (Wightman et al. 2010, Hollenbeck et al. 2011), which are expected to benefit vascular plant and vertebrate wildlife populations (e.g., Noss et al. 2006). Consequently, monitoring white-headed woodpecker populations and their habitat associations is central to biological monitoring for the Weiser-Little Salmon Headwaters project on the Payette National Forest, a dry mixed-conifer forest within the range of this species. Prescribed burning and thinning treatments planned under this CFLRP are intended to improve the landscape heterogeneity required by WHWOs. Thus, the principal goal of monitoring is to verify the effectiveness of these treatments for improving habitat and populations of WHWO. This report describes the monitoring protocol, the data obtained during the first year, and future plans for monitoring. Methods The current monitoring plan relies on measuring WHWO occupancy rates, occupancy dynamics, and nest survival in both treated and untreated forests. Four timber sale units (areas expected to be treated; Cottonwood, Rocky Bear, Weiser River Fuels, and Lick Creek) and two control units (areas not expected to be treated; Bear and Middle Fork Weiser River) were selected for monitoring. One hundred-fifty survey points spaced at least 300 m apart and arranged in 15 transects (i.e. clusters of points) were identified in the four timber sale units and another 50 points (5 transects) in the two control units (units not expected to be treated). We selected survey points from a grid of points spaced 300 m apart that extends across the CFLRP study area. Points sampling treatment units were selected within a 1-km buffer of those units, and points sampling control units were selected from landscapes of similar forest composition and structure as treatment units. By selecting points from this grid, models generated using data from surveyed points can be used to make predictions about WHWO distributions to non- surveyed points throughout the study area. Survey points sampling timber sale units were selected so that half of the points in each transect were located within unit boundaries and remaining points were outside unit boundaries but within 1 km of the units (i.e. areas adjacent to expected treatments). Transects are a series of adjacent points selected from the grid and do not necessarily form a straight line because the point arrangement is dependent on the size and shape of the treatment units (Figure 1). Control units are located 2 – 40 km from current timber-sale units and are not expected to be treated under the CFLR Weiser-Little Salmon Program in the near future. We assumed that management history was analogous between treatment and control units based on similarities in forest structure and composition. Observations recorded in 2012 suggest portions of at least one control unit (Transect B T; Figure 1) received treatment within the last 7 years. All survey points were located within PNF-designated mature or over-mature forest (strata 22–24) characterized as warm, dry Douglas-fir, moist ponderosa pine, or dry grand fir (PNF Potential Vegetation Group [PVG] GIS data; PVG 2 or 5). We visited each survey point three times during the 2012 nesting season (1st visits: 8 May – 5 June; 2nd visits: 6–18 June; 3rd visits: 19 June – 4 July; Figure 2). During each visit, the surveyor broadcast a series of WHWO vocalizations and silent periods for 4.5 minutes (2.5 min broadcast and 2 min listening) at each point to elicit responses by territorial breeding pairs (Appendix 1). Surveyors recorded the distance to WHWO detections during this period and noted the distance as < 50 m, 50–150 m, or > 150 m. Surveyors also recorded whether WHWO were detected aurally or visually. Concurrent with call-broadcast surveys at points, we searched for nests within 1 km of surveyed points (Appendix 2, Dudley and Saab 2003). We conducted nest searching daily from May – July. During this period, we searched in the vicinity of all survey points but focused especially in areas where WHWO had been observed. Once located, we monitored nests every 2-4 days on average until the nest fate (success or failure) was determined. Finally, following the conclusion of nest and call-broadcast surveys, we measured habitat features at survey points and nest locations following the protocol established for the Region 6 WHWO monitoring program (Appendix 3, Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). In addition to nest vegetation measurements, we sampled vegetation associated with 50 survey points in proposed treatment units. We focused measurements in 2012 on treatment units to ensure pre- treatment vegetation data collection. Vegetation in control and post-treatment units will be measured in future years. Results Of the 20 transects surveyed in 2012, we detected WHWO during 6 surveys at 5 points along 4 transects. Two transects (B T and B U, Figure 1) with detections were located in control units and two (CW A and LC R, Figure 1) in treatment units. WHWO were typically detected during only one of three visits at a given point (4 points), although they were detected twice at one point. Detections were made aurally 4 times and twice visually. During 3 detections, individuals were identified as males; gender was not identified for the remaining 3 detections. Outside of formal surveys, WHWO were detected on four occasions before or after surveys (transects CW D, B U, and LC R, Figure 1). Non-target woodpeckers (Williamson’s sapsucker [Sphyrapicus thyroideus], red-naped sapsucker [Sphyrapicus nuchalis], Hairy woodpecker [Picoides villosus], black-backed woodpecker [P. arcticus], northern flicker [Colaptes auratus], and pileated woodpecker [Dryocopus pileatus]) were commonly detected during call-broadcast surveys. We located and monitored the survival of 14 nests (Figure 1). Six nests were associated with 5 transects established in 3 treatment and 3 control units. The remaining nests were located in association with PNF MIS monitoring transects (Calf Pen, Summit Gulch, Shingle Flat, West Mill, Cuprum, and Crooked River; each transect with one nest, except Crooked River with two), or discovered opportunistically (Bear Work Center, one nest). Eleven of 14 nests survived to fledge at least 2 young ( ̅ = 2.55 young/successful nest). Nests (n = 13) were associated with fewer trees than the 50 survey points measured in 2012 (Table 1). All nests were located in ponderosa pine trees in areas with lower tree and snag densities compared to survey points (Table 1). Survey point plots contained higher percentages of Douglas-fir and grand fir than nest plots. Discussion Call-broadcast survey data collected in 2012 were sparse, raising concerns about our ability to make strong inferences regarding treatment effectiveness. Call-broadcast data were not adequate for quantitative analysis of relevant population parameters (i.e. occupancy rates corrected for detection). WHWO were detected at relatively few sites, and where detected, they were usually detected once, suggesting both low occupancy rates and low detectability. Sparse data in general, and low detectability and occupancy rates in particular, lead to imprecise and biased parameter estimation, interfering with our ability to detect changes in parameters over time. Sparse call-broadcast data during the initial year of effectiveness monitoring is not surprising because transects were located in habitat targeted for restoration, which is currently of low suitability and where managers intend treatments to improve suitability. If suitability is improved and WHWO respond strongly and positively to silvicultural treatments, abundant call- broadcast data in subsequent years may make up for sparse call-broadcast data during initial years. Given a weak or non-existent response, however, we would be uncertain whether treatments were indeed ineffective, or if broader-scale population processes were at play. Specifically, WHWO may be absent in neighboring areas, leaving little potential for a response within a few years to treatments regardless of how much habitat suitability is improved. Nest placement based on our 2012 data, however, was consistent with that reported in Oregon (Wightman et al. 2010, Hollenbeck et al. 2011), whereby WHWOs placed their nests in habitat with relatively low canopy cover of ponderosa pine. Future Direction To maximize our ability to make relevant inferences about WHWO responses to restoration treatments, we propose adjusting the current monitoring protocol. We plan to replace 4 CFLRP transects (Rocky Bear transects H, I, J; and Cottonwood transect F, Figure 1) with 5 PNF MIS transects (Shingle Flat, Bear, Cuprum, Crooked River, and Deer/Lick Creek; Figure 1). No WHWO were detected in 2012 at the CFLRP transects proposed for replacement or at neighboring MIS transects. The MIS replacement transects have been consistently occupied by WHWO in recent years and transects are located within 10 km of the CFLRP transects. By implementing this adjustment to our monitoring, we will be poised to observe movements by individuals, or lack thereof, to treated units. In addition to replacement of certain transects, we will extend survey time by two minutes (from 4.5 minutes to 6.5 minutes), and examine the efficacy of increased time on WHWO detectability. To further improve our ability to track individual movements, we plan to color-band adult and nestling WHWOs. We will concentrate efforts to locate nests within CFLRP treatment units and along neighboring MIS transects with a history of nesting WHWOs. During follow-up visits to treatment units and neighboring MIS transects, we will search for banded individuals. By documenting observations of banded birds, we will be able to determine if WHWOs use treated units. Such habitat use would suggest that forest restoration treatments were successful. These adjustments to the monitoring protocol should maximize our ability to make relevant inferences from monitoring call-broadcast data even if those data remain sparse throughout the monitoring period. Figure 1. Weiser-Little Salmon CFLRP study area, nest locations, and transects for monitoring populations and habitat of white-headed woodpeckers on the Payette National Forest, ID. Figure 2. Typical CFLRP field map showing topographic features, CFLRP grid, roads, and transects (i.e. point clusters) established for nest searching and call-broadcast surveys of white- headed woodpeckers on the Payette National Forest, ID. Table 1. Summary statistics (mean, SE) for vegetation measurements at call-broadcast survey stations and nest locations of white-headed woodpeckers in the Weiser-Little Salmon CFLRP, Payette National Forest, Idaho, 2012. Single-tree statistics (diameter breast height [dbh] and tree spp.) for survey station locations are from one tree selected at random within vegetation plots Nest (n=13) Survey Station (n=50) Live trees (#/ac) 3.94–9.83 in 15.6, 5.4 65.2, 7.3 9.84–19.68 in 8.0, 1.7 46.7, 3.1 ≥ 19.69 in 4.3, 1.0 18.2, 1.4 Snags (#/ac) 3.94–9.83 in 2.7, 1.3 6.2, 0.9 9.84–19.68 in 2.5, 1.1 3.8, 0.5 ≥ 19.69 in 0.7, 0.3 1.4, 0.3 Dbh (in) 19.0, 3.1 (n=12) 17.3, 1.1 3.94–9.83 in 9.84–19.68 in ≥ 19.69 in 3.94–9.83 in 9.84–19.68 in ≥ 19.69 in Tree spp. (%)a ABGR 0 0 0 0 8 8 PIPO 17 50 33 2 24 20 PSME 0 0 0 8 18 12 Plot tree spp. (%)a ABGR 0, 0.0 0, 0.0 0, 0.0 5, 1.1 6, 1.0 5, 1.4 LAOC 0, 0.0 0, 0.0 0, 0.0 0.1, 0.1 0.3, 0.1 0.1, 0.1 PIPO 16, 3.4 34, 6.6 42, 8.2 10, 1.7 16, 2.2 21, 2.4 Populus spp 0, 0.0 0, 0.0 0, 0.0 0.4, 0.2 0.2, 0.1 0, 0.0 PSME 2, 1.8 1, 0.6 1, 0.5 7, 1.2 13, 1.6 13, 1.4 OTHERb 4, 2.6 0, 0.0 0, 0.0 2, 0.5 0.4, 0.1 0, 0.0 a Includes both live and dead trees, ABGR = Abies grandis, LAOC = Larix occidentalis, PIPO = Pinus ponderosa, and PSME = Pseudotsuga menziesii. b OTHER includes Prunus emarginata and Salix scouleriana for nest locations, and Acer glabrum, Crataegus douglasii, Prunus spp., Salix scouleriana, and Unknown spp (snags) for survey stations. Literature Cited Dudley, J., and V. Saab. 2003. A field protocol to monitor cavity-nesting birds. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RMRS-RP-44. Hollenbeck, J.P., V.A. Saab, and R. Frenzel. 2011. Habitat suitability and survival of nesting white-headed woodpeckers in unburned forests of central Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 75(5):1061–1071. Mellen-McLean, K., V. Saab, B. Bresson, B. Wales, A. Markus, and K. VanNorman. 2012. White-headed woodpecker monitoring strategy and protocols. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. Unpublished document. 18 p. Noss, R.F., P. Beier, W.W. Covington, R.E. Grumbine, D.B. Lindenmayer, J.W. Prather, F. Schmiegelow, T.D. Sisk, and D.J. Vosick. 2006. Recommendations for integrating restoration ecology and conservation biology in ponderosa pine forests of the southwestern United States. Restoration Ecology 14(1):4-10. Wightman, C., V. Saab, C. Forristal, K. Mellen-McLean, and A. Markus. 2010. White-headed woodpecker nesting ecology after wildfire. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(5):1098-1106.