1

Red-cockadedWoodpecker

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

2

The red-cockadedwoodpecker (RCW) is asmall bird measuringabout 7 inches in length.Identifiable by its whitecheek patch and blackand white barred back,the males have a few redfeathers, or “cockade”.These red feathersusually remain hiddenunderneath blackfeathers between theblack crown and whitecheek patch unless themale is disturbed orexcited.

3

DescriptionThe common name came into useduring the early 1800’s when‘cockade’ was regularly used to referto a ribbon or other ornament wornon a hat. Female RCWs lack the redcockade. Juvenile males have a red‘patch’ in the center of their blackcrown. This patch disappears duringthe fall of their first year at whichtime their ‘red-cockades’ appear.

The RCW shares the southeast withseven other species of woodpeckers.Hairy and downy woodpeckers couldbe mistaken for RCWs as they arealso small and have black and whitebarred wings, but not a barred back.Only the RCW has the white cheekpatch. Other woodpecker species,including the red-bellied, red-headed,pileated, northern flicker and yellow-bellied sapsucker, can bedistinguished from the RCW byeither having very noticeable red ontheir head or lacking the black andwhite bars on the back.

Southeastern Woodpeckers

Cover: male RCW atnest cavity entrance;Phillip Jordon

1 Red-cockaded

2 Hairy

3 Downy

4 Pileated

5 Red-bellied

6 Red-headed

7 Sapsucker

8 Flicker

9 Ivorybill(extinct)

Ric

hard

A. P

arks

Plate of southeastern woodpeckers; fromThomas M. Imhof ’s “Alabama Birds”

4

Historical Distribution and AbundanceRCWs were once considered commonthroughout the longleaf pineecosystem, which coveredapproximately 90 million acres beforeEuropean settlement. Historicalpopulation estimates are 1-1.6 million“groups”, the family unit of RCWs.The birds inhabited the open pineforests of the southeast from NewJersey, Maryland and Virginia toFlorida, west to Texas and north toportions of Oklahoma, Missouri,Tennessee and Kentucky. The longleafpine ecosystem initially disappearedfrom much of its original rangebecause of early (1700’s) Europeansettlement, widespread commercialtimber harvesting and the navalstores/turpentine industry (1800’s).Early to mid-1900 commercial treefarming, urbanization and agriculturecontributed to further declines. Muchof the current habitat is also verydifferent in quality from historical pineforests in which RCWs evolved. Today,many southern pine forests are youngand an absence of fire has created adense pine/hardwood forest.

Virgin longleaf pineforest in EscambiaCo. FL; photographerunknown

5

Top: Turn of the century (1900) logging of virgin longleaf pine forestin east Texas; courtesy of the East Texas Research Center, SteenLibrary, Forest History Collections, Stephen F. Austin State Univ,Nacogdoches, TX. Bottom: Turn of the century (1900) logging oflongleaf pine forest in east Texas; courtesy of the East Texas ResearchCenter, Steen Library, Forest History Collections, Thompson FamilyLumber Enterprises Collection, P90T:202, Stephen F. Austin StateUniv., Nacogdoches, TX

6

Decline of RCWsThe primary habitat of the RCW, thelongleaf pine ecosystem, has beenreduced to 3% of its original expanse.This reduction of suitable habitat hascaused the number of RCWs todecline by approximately 99% sincethe time of European settlement (seemap on pages 12-13). The RCW waslisted as endangered in 1970 andreceived the protection of theEndangered Species Act (ESA) withits passage in 1973. At the time oflisting, the species had declined tofewer than 10,000 individuals inwidely scattered, isolated anddeclining populations. Today thereremains about 5,600 groups or 14,000birds. Most populations werestabilized during the 1990’s due tomanagement based on newunderstanding of RCW biology andpopulation dynamics. However, thereare still populations in decline andsmall populations throughout thespecies’ current range are still indanger of extirpation.

RCW delivering foodto nestlings; DerrickHamrick

7

Life History and Reproductive BiologyThe red-cockaded is a territorial,non-migratory species. The RCWssocial system is more complex thanmost species of birds; individuals livein groups normally consisting of abreeding pair and zero to four male

(rarely female)offspring fromprevious years.These offspring,know as“helpers”assistin incubatingeggs andbrooding andfeeding nestlingsproduced by thebreeding pair.The RCW socialsystem isreferred to as acooperativebreeding system,that is, thebreeding pairreceivesassistance fromoffspring in theraising of young.In mid-April, thefemale RCWusually lays aclutch of three tofive white eggsin the breedingmale’s roostcavity. Eggshatch after 10-12days ofincubation(among theshortestincubation inbirds) andnestlings fledgefrom the nestcavity 24-27 daysafter hatching.RCW nestlings

are altricial, that is, they do not havefeathers when hatched and their eyes

Top: seven-day oldRCW nestling.Nestlings are bandedat 7-10 days old;Ralph Costa, USFWS;bottom: Helper malefeeding juvenile male;Derrick Hamrick

8

are not open. They require a lot ofcare from parents and helpers whowill feed the nestlings and clean thecavity of waste during the nestlingperiod. In contrast, quail areprecocial; they hatch fully featheredand are able to feed themselves whenled to food by the parent. Afterfledging, the nestlings continue to befed by adults for up to six months atwhich time the majority of fledglingsdisperse from the territory wherethey hatched. Mortality is high (68%)for female fledglings as they disperseto search for breeding vacancies.Male fledglings either disperse orremain on their natal territory tobecome helpers. Annual mortality isalso high (57%) for male fledglings.Although re-nesting may occur if aclutch or brood is lost, RCWstypically have only one successfulnesting attempt annually. Doublebrooding (two successful nests in onebreeding season) has beendocumented but is extremely rare.

Diet and Foraging BehaviorThe diet of RCWs consists mostly ofinsects in the egg, larvae and adultstages. These include beetles, ants,roaches, spiders and other insectsfound in or on pine trees. Fruits andseeds make up a small portion of theoverall diet. Methods of foraginginclude flaking away bark andprobing under the bark using theirspecialized forked tongue to extractinsects. Large, older trees arepreferred for foraging. In general,males forage on the limbs and uppertrunk while females forage on thetrunk below the crown. This divisionof foraging area is most noticeable inwinter when insect numbers are attheir lowest and their activity slowsdue to cold weather, making it harderfor RCWs to detect prey. Differencesin the foraging behavior of males andfemales may help to reducecompetition between them when foodis scarce.

9

Roosting andNesting CavitiesThe RCW is theonly NorthAmericanwoodpecker toexcavate roostand nest cavitiesin living pinetrees. Whilelongleaf pine isthe preferredspecies forexcavation, otherspecies such asloblolly, shortleaf,slash and pondpine are alsoused dependingon the localforest type andtree speciesavailability. Theuse of live pinesas roosting andnesting sitesmay haveevolved inresponse toliving in a firemaintainedecosystem wherefrequent fires,primarily in thegrowing season,eliminated moststanding deadpines (snags).Longleaf pine isthought to bepreferred by thewoodpeckersbecause it is the

most fire-adapted of the pines.Longleaf pine has a unique ‘grass’stage when young, producing anabundance of long green needles thatburn during ground fires, thusprotecting the growing stem.Longleaf also produces more resinwhen wounded than other pines,making them more resistant to insect

Top: Male RCWbringing food to nestcavity (note difficultyseeing red-cockade);Jim Hanula, USFS;bottom: RCW activecavity tree (notecandle-like appearanceand evidence of recentprescribed fire); RalphCosta, USFWS

10

outbreaks suchas the southernpine beetle.RCWs use thisincreased resinflow for cavitydefense bychipping holes,called ‘resinwells’, above andaround theentrance to thecavity as adefense againstpredators. Ratsnakes, skillful atclimbing trees,are the mainpredators ofRCW nests.Resin flowproduced by thewells creates aphysical andchemical barrierthat impedes thesnake’smovement up thetree. The birdsalso scale theouter bark off thetree above andbelow the cavityentrance,exposingsapwood aroundthe cavityentrance forminga ‘plate’ aroundthe cavity. Resinflowing from the

wells created by the RCWs mayeventually coat the trunk, thusmaking the cavity tree conspicuousfrom a distance, giving it a candle-likeappearance.

Each member of the group roosts in aseparate cavity. Cavities areexcavated in mature pines, generallyover 80 years old. Cavity excavationtakes one to six years. The birds

Top: female RCWworking on resinwell; DerrickHamrick; bottom:black rat snakeclimbing RCW cavitytree; Richard N.Conner, USFS

11

slowly excavatethrough theresinous sapwoodbefore reachingthe relatively sap-free heartwood.RCWs chooseolder trees forcavity excavation.They need treesmature enough tohave sufficientheartwood for acavity free of sapand because manymature trees areinfected with redheart fungus.This fungussoftens theheartwood andallows for easierexcavation of theroosting chamber.Individualcavities areknown that havebeen used byRCWs for oversix generations,or approximately30 years. Theaggregate ofcavity trees usedby a group isreferred to as a‘cluster’. Thecluster consists ofone to numerouscavity trees; treesmay contain newcavity ‘starts’ andcompletedcavities. Cavitytrees within acluster may be‘active’, currentlybeing used by aRCW, or‘inactive’, notbeing used by aRCW.

Top: active RCW cavity with many resinwells, heavy resin flow and cavity “plate”;Ralph Costa, USFWS; middle:juvenile male RCW, just prior to fledging;Derrick Hamrick; bottom:advanced cavity start, almost to heartwood;Bob Hooper, USFS

12

Ecological NicheBesides beingunique amongNorth Americanwoodpeckers,red-cockadedwoodpeckers are‘primary’ cavitynesters, meaningthey areresponsible for theconstruction ofcavities. In thesouthern pineecosystem thereare many‘secondary’ cavityusers that benefitfrom the RCWswork. RCWs areconsidered a‘keystone’ speciesbecause use oftheir cavities bythese animalscontributes to thespecies richness ofthe pine forest. Atleast 27 species ofvertebrates havebeen documentedusing RCWcavities, either forroosting ornesting. Speciesinclude birds,snakes, lizards,squirrels andfrogs. Many ofthese species, forexample woodducks, only use thecavities that havebeen abandonedby RCWs;abandonmentusually occursbecause theentrance tunnelwas enlarged bypileatedwoodpeckers.

Top: completed, very active cavity (note the largeresin wells, thick resin flow and plate formation,indicating a cavity that has been in use foryears); Bob Hooper, USFS; middle: RCW clusterin longleaf pine forest; Bob Hooper, USFS;bottom: RCW cluster in shortleaf pine/loblollypine forest; Phillip Jordon

13

However,southern flyingsquirrels, red-belliedwoodpeckers, red-headedwoodpeckers,eastern bluebirds,brown-headednuthatches, tuftedtitmice and greatcrested flycatchersare the speciesmost commonlyseen in RCWcavities, and canuse normal,unenlargedcavities thatRCWs could alsouse. RCW cavitiesare a valuedresource for manyspecies andcompetition occursfor their use.

Red-cockadedWoodpeckers andFireA healthy,productive RCWpopulation is alsoan indicator of ahealthy southernpine ecosystem.RCWs andsouthern pinesboth evolved in afire-dominatedsystem. Manyother specieswithin this systemshow adaptationsto fire. The most

prominent adaptation of RCWs is theiruse of living pines for cavity excavation.The history of fire in the southeast hasa natural and human component.Research has suggested the ecosystemevolved in response to slow-movingground fires started by lightning

Top: southern flyingsquirrel using RCWcavity; D. CraigRudolph, USFS;bottom: great-crestedflycatcher usinginactive RCW cavityfor nest; DerrickHamrick

14

strikes, which occur more frequentlyin the southeast than anywhere else inNorth America. Most fires started bylightning strikes occur in the springand summer growing season, whenthunderstorms are more prevalent.Native Americans and later Europeansettlers used fire to clear land andimprove hunting grounds. Howevermuch of this burning wasaccomplished during the winter, thenon-growing season. Frequent firescreated an open forest, with largepines, little to no mid-story, and adiverse herbaceous groundcover;described by many 19th centurynaturalists as ‘park-like’ because theycould easily ride horses and wagonsacross the land. Many of thegroundcover plant species show

Top: lightening-ignited wildfire inlongleaf pine forest;Ralph Costa,USFWS; bottom:slow moving groundfire in longleaf pineforest likely typicalof ‘historic’ naturaland human ignitedfires; D. CraigRudolph, USFS

15

Top: white birds-in-a-nest (Macbrideaalba), federally listedas threatened,endemic to longleafpine forests inFlorida; one of manylisted, rare, endemic,herbaceous plantsunique tosoutheastern pineecosystems; JoanWalker, USFS;bottom: longleaf pine- wiregrass habitat; aresult of frequentgrowing seasonprescribed fires; JoanWalker, USFS

16

Historic and current (1995); updated 2002,distribution map of RCW; courtesy of OurLiving Resources: A Report to the Nation onthe Distribution, Abundance, and Health ofU.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems,National Biological Service, USDI. Red-cockaded Woodpecker; Costa and Walker, 1995

Historic Distribution of Red-cockadedWoodpecker (Jackson 1971, Hooper et al.1980).

Current Red-cockaded WoodpeckerDistribution (Federal, State, and PrivateSector Biologists 1993, 1994; updated 2002)

★

16

17

Distribution of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers

?

17

18

adaptations tofire and aretermed‘pyrophytic’ or‘fire-loving’. Forexample,wiregrass is ahighly flammablebunchgrass,typicallyproducing seedonly after asummer growingseason burn.Because of itsunique fire-lovingproperties, thebiodiversity ofherbaceousgroundcover inlongleaf pineforests is amongthe world’shighest.

HabitatManagementDegradation andloss of habitat ledto the rapiddecline of RCWs.Conservation andmanagement ofadequate habitatis central torecovery goals.Quality habitatincludes forestswith trees oldenough forroosting,generally at least80-120 years old,depending onspecies of pine.Hardwoodmidstory resultsin clusterabandonment;therefore, it iscritical thathardwood

Top: longleaf pine forest with turkey oakmidstory; Ralph Costa, USFWS;middle: high quality, longleaf pine RCWforaging habitat; Felica Sanders,USFWS/Clemson University/ SCDNR; bottom:longleaf pine forest with young trees andwiregrass understory; Joan Walker, USFS

19

midstory be controlled. Prescribedburning is the most efficient andecologically beneficial method toaccomplish hardwood midstorycontrol. Either mechanical and/orchemical treatment may also berequired for initial control of themidstory. Foraging habitat must alsoconsist of a forest of older pines withlittle or no midstory. Each RCWgroup uses from 75-200 acres offoraging habitat. The acres useddepend upon habitat quality andpopulation density. For example, apark-like forest of older, larger pinesand open understory is of higherquality than a dense forest with manysmall, young pines. The area requiredfor RCW foraging on high qualitysites is less than sites of lower quality.However, habitat management forforage and cavity trees must includethe development of a young age classof pines to insure the necessary oldertrees for future generations of RCWs.The application of controlled burns isessential in keeping the structure ofthe forest beneficial to RCWs.

Prescribed burningin longleaf pineforest; D. CraigRudolph, USFS

20

Cavity Management andPopulation AugmentationToday’s RCW populations, especiallysmall ones, will not increase to viablesizes without human intervention.Several management techniques,introduced in the early 1990’s, havebeen responsible for increasing RCWpopulations. One of the mostsuccessful has been the installation ofartificial cavities. Cavities are criticalto RCWs nesting and roosting andtheir presence for each groupmember increases the chances forsurvival and persistence of the group.There are two main techniques forproviding artificial cavities forRCWs. These include drilling holesthat mimic natural cavities andinstalling boxes called ‘inserts’ withina suitable tree.

These techniques were put to thetest after Hurricane Hugo destroyed87% of the active cavity trees on theFrancis Marion National Forest in1989, the second largest RCWpopulation at the time. Installationof artificial cavities, both inserts and

drilled, helpedto stabilize thepopulation afterthis devastatingloss.

Translocation ofjuvenile RCWs isanothermanagementtechnique used inRCW recovery.Translocationinvolves movingone or morejuvenile RCWsbetween orwithinpopulations toachievemanagementgoals. Thesegoals include

Top: HurricaneHugo, September1989, eye centeredover the FrancisMarion NationalForest; NASA;bottom: FrancisMarion NationalForest post-Hurricane Hugo;Ralph Costa, USFWS

21

saving criticallysmallpopulations indanger of‘extirpation’ ordisappearing;developing abetter spatialarrangement ofgroups to reduceisolation;introducing birdsto suitablehabitat; andincreasinggenetic diversityin critically smallpopulations.Typically, twotypes oftranslocationsare conducted: afemale juvenileis moved to asolitary malegroup; and anunrelated maleand femalejuvenile aremoved to a‘recruitment’cluster in hopesof establishing anew group.Recruitmentclusters areestablished byinstallingartificial cavitiesin unoccupiedbut suitable

habitat. Refining translocationtechniques has made this aninvaluable tool for recovery. The mostimportant component, qualityhabitat, consisting of open park-likepine forests, suitable nesting androosting cavities, and adequateforaging habitat, must be in placebefore translocations are conducted.

Top: subadult femaleand male inpreparation fortranslocation to arecruitment cluster;Mike Lennartz,USFS; bottom:wildlife biologistinstalling artificialcavity insert; USFS

22

Conservation EffortsRecovery efforts for the RCWbegan with the listing of the bird in1970 and passage of the

EndangeredSpecies Act of1973. The U. S.Fish andWildlife Serviceoutlined goalsand guidelinesfor recovery ofthe RCW in theRecovery Planwritten in 1979and revised in1985 and 2003.Recovery willbe achievedwhen we havenumerous self-sustainingpopulations ofwoodpeckers.OnceEndangeredSpecies Act de-listing criteriaare met, thesize, number,and distributionof populationswill besufficient tocounteractthreatsassociated with

small population size, environmentalfactors, such as annual fluctuationsin weather and prey abundance,genetic viability, and catastrophicevents, thereby maintaining long-term viability for the species asdefined by current understanding ofthese processes. Regions andhabitat types currently occupied bythe species will be represented asadequately as possible, givenhabitat limitations. The RecoveryPlan identifies eleven recovery unitsbased on ecoregions. Populationsrequired for recovery are

Top: artificial cavityinsert with metalrestrictor plate toprevent damage bypileated woodpeckers(note artificiallycreated resin wellsand non-toxic whitepaint to imitateresin flow);USFS;below: wildlifebiologist bandingeight-day-old RCWnestling; Jody Bock,Clemson University

23

distributed among the recovery unitsto ensure the representation of broadgeographic and genetic variationwithin the species historic range.The recovery strategy includes theparticipation of federal agencies,state agencies and privatelandowners. Approximately 66% ofRCWs occur on federal lands,

including numerousnational forests,national wildliferefuges, and militaryinstallations, onenational park and oneDepartment ofEnergy facility.Eleven percent ofRCWs occur on statelands and privatelands harborapproximately 23% ofknown RCWs.

Knowledge of RCWbiology and lifehistory increasedsignificantly duringthe 1990s. Researchfindings have led tosignificantconservationinitiatives. Many

property managers and biologistsband their RCWs (both adults andnestlings), survey and map cavitytrees and annually monitor nestingactivities to assess population health.Research findings on the bird’snatural history and ecology haveenabled landowners and managers toimplement habitat improvementprograms. The positive populationtrends (early 1990’s to present) onmany public and private lands are adirect result of successfulimplementation of a well-coordinatedregional translocation program andhabitat improvements, such ascontrolling midstory, prescribedburning, and installing artificialcavities.

Wildlife biologistclimbing RCW nestcavity tree, with tenfoot sectionalSwedish climbingladders, to captureand band nestlings;Nancy Jordan,Clemson University

24

Private LandConservation PartnershipsAlthough public lands, both federaland state, are central to recoveryefforts, approximately 23% of RCWs(1296 groups in 10 states) reside onprivate lands. In the early 1990’s, theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,realizing that population declines onprivate lands were hinderingrecovery efforts, developed andimplemented strategies for RCWconservation on private land.

The benefits ofconserving RCWson private landsare numerous.They includereducing habitatfragmentationrates, maintainingor enhancingoccupied habitat,restoringpopulations tounoccupiedhabitat,maintaining orincreasingpopulationnumbers,establishingbuffers foradjacent public

land populations, reducing effects ofcatastrophic events, such as hurricanesor southern pine beetle outbreaks,providing corridors to otherpopulations, serving as reservoirs ofgenetic diversity, providing birds forother populations, and contributingto research on life history andecology, management techniques andconservation strategies.

Many private landowners areconcerned with restrictions on the useof their land should an endangeredspecies, such as RCWs, be found on ormove to their property. One of thefoundations of the private land

Protected, activered-cockadedwoodpecker clusteron industrial forestland. Severalindustrial forestlandowners havetaken leadershiproles, via habitatconservation plans,in red-cockadedwoodpeckerconservation andmanagement ontheir property;Jeremy Poirier,International Paper

25

conservation strategy of the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service has been toalleviate landowner’s fears ofendangered species restrictions whilealso minimizing the economic impactof conservation.

Strategies include Memorandums ofAgreement (MOA), HabitatConservation Plans (HCP) and SafeHarbor agreements. MOAs aregenerally between the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service and corporations.

They outline actions by which acorporation can manage for RCWsand/or their habitat whilesimultaneously meeting their corporateobjectives for land management.HCPs, once approved by the Service,provide landowners with “incidentaltake” (defined by the ESA as takingthat “is incidental to, and not thepurpose of, the carrying out of anotherwise lawful activity”) of selectedRCW groups in exchange for ‘creation’of new groups, management ofoccupied habitat and/or restoration ofsuitable habitat. Via an HCP, privatelandowners typically ‘create’ a newwoodpecker group to mitigate andminimize for loss of a group they mightwant to eliminate from their land.

By far the most successful of theprivate lands conservation strategies

Active red-cockadedwoodpecker cavity treein urban setting onprivate land enrolledin safe harbor.Approximately 5% (70groups) of the 1296red-cockaded groupsliving on private landare in urban settings,such as horse farms,golf courses andsubdivisions. Theremaining 95% areon quail plantationsand industrialforest lands;J.H. Carter III.

26

is Safe Harbor. Originally developedfor RCW conservation, the SafeHarbor approach is now being appliedto many other listed species thatoccur on private lands. Under a SafeHarbor agreement, a landownervoluntarily agrees to protect andmanage habitat for the ‘baseline’

population; that is thenumber of groups onthe property at thetime the agreement issigned. The landowneralso implementsspecific habitatimprovements (suchas prescribed burning,midstory hardwoodremoval, installationof cavities) to further

enhance occupied and/or unoccupied,but potentially suitable, habitat. If thehabitat improvements encourage thecreation of RCW groups above the‘baseline’, the landowners are underno obligation to provide habitat forthe new groups. Safe Harboragreements ensure that baselineRCW populations are managedproperly and remove regulatoryconcerns of landowners by eliminatingtheir legal responsibilities for groupsabove the baseline.

As of 2002, 146 landowners hadenrolled 338,697 acres in Safe Harboragreements, harboring 351 RCWgroups in 5 states. While landownersare under no obligation to encouragethe creation of new RCW groups,many have done so by establishingrecruitment clusters. Overall, theprivate lands conservation strategyfor RCWs, including MOAs, HCPsand Safe Harbor, has resulted in theprotection of approximately 561groups of woodpeckers in 10 states,43% of groups known on private land.This significant contribution ishelping to reverse the loss of habitatand RCWs on private land.

A tract of virginlongleaf pine foreston private land insouth Georgia; oldesttrees are 400-500years old. Onlyabout 3000 acres ofthe southeast’soriginal 90,000,000acres of virginlongleaf pine forestremains; GrantHilderbrand, USFS

27

Historic Time Line for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers

1807 Red-cockaded woodpecker “discovered” anddescribed as new species by Louis Jean PierreVieillot; given scientific name of Picus borealis,the northern woodpecker.

1810 Alexander Wilson describes the red-cockadedwoodpecker as a new species and names it Picusquerulus. Because Viellot’s scientific name camefirst, today the bird is known as Picoidesborealis, the red-cockaded woodpecker, thecommon name provided by Wilson.

1821 John James Audubon captures a red-cockadedwoodpecker near Bayou Sara, Louisiana andpaints its portrait from a living specimen; hereleases it two days later.

1880’s Red-cockaded woodpecker populations begin aprecipitous decline that continues through the1930’s as land is cleared for agriculture, timberand the war effort (World War I).

1911 F. E. L. Beal publishes first account of the red-cockaded woodpecker’s diet.

1928 L.A. Hausman describes the red-cockadedwoodpecker as a “very causal visitant into thesouthern portion of New Jersey”, suggesting ithas been extirpated by this date (assuming itnested in the state - likely in the south/centralJersey pine barrens).

1939 James Gut finds red-cockaded woodpecker fossilwingbone in a Rock Spring, Florida streambed,indicating presence of red-cockadedwoodpeckers in Florida during the Pleistocene.

1946 Red-cockaded woodpecker extirpated in Missouri.

1958 Red-cockaded woodpecker likely extirpated inMaryland; occasional sightings in 1974 and 1976are considered “transients”.

1968 Department of Interior identifies the red-cockadedwoodpecker as a rare and endangered species.

1970 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially lists thered-cockaded woodpecker as an endangeredspecies.

1970 J.D. Ligon publishes first account on behavior andbreeding biology of red-cockaded woodpecker.

1970 First red-cockaded woodpecker symposium heldat Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, Georgia.

28

1970 “Symposium on the Red-cockaded Woodpecker”,proceedings of the first symposium, is published.

1973 Red-cockaded woodpecker receives Federalprotection with the passage of the EndangeredSpecies Act.

1979 “Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan”approved by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

1983 Second red-cockaded woodpecker symposiumheld in Panama City, Florida.

1983 “Red-cockaded Woodpecker Symposium IIProceedings”, proceedings of the secondsymposium is published.

1985 First revision of the “Red-cockaded WoodpeckerRecovery Plan” is approved.

1986 “Report of the American Ornithologists’ UnionCommittee for the Conservation of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker” is published.

1986 First successful translocations of red-cockadedwoodpeckers are conducted.

1987 First in-depth study into the sociobiology of thered-cockaded woodpecker is published.

1988 First estimate of viable population size ispublished.

1989 Hurricane Hugo devastates Francis MarionNational Forest, home of the second largest red-cockaded woodpecker population.

1990 Scientific Summit on the red-cockadedwoodpecker is held in Live Oak, Florida;Summary Report is published.

1990 Drilled cavities are invented.

1990 First investigation into the genetic health of red-cockaded woodpeckers is published.

1991 Cavity inserts are invented.

1992 R.W. McFarlane publishes “A Stillness in the Pines”,the first book about red-cockaded woodpeckers.

1993 Third red-cockaded woodpecker symposium heldin North Charleston, SC.

1993 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Georgia PacificCorporation establish first private land partnership,a memorandum of agreement, for conservation andmanagement of red-cockaded woodpeckers.

29

1994 Red-cockaded woodpecker extirpated inTennessee because of demographic isolation.

1995 U.S. Forest Service issues “Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement for the Management of theRed-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat onNational Forests in the Southern Region”.

1995 “Red-cockaded Woodpecker: Recovery, Ecologyand Management”, the proceedings of red-cockaded woodpecker Symposium III, is published.

1995 Safe harbor policy is created and first red-cockadedwoodpecker safe harbor permit is issued for theNorth Carolina Sandhills region; similar permitsare issued for Texas (1998), South Carolina (1998),Virginia (2000) and Georgia (2000).

1995 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues “A CurrentBibliographic Resource for the Red-cockadedWoodpecker”; updated annually.

1996 U.S. Army issues “Management Guidelines for theRed-cockaded Woodpecker on Army Installations”.

1998 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues “Strategyand Guidelines for the Recovery andManagement of the Red-cockaded Woodpeckerand its Habitats on National Wildlife Refuges”.

1999 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service institutes the“Annual Red-cockaded Woodpecker PopulationData Report”, a system to track population sizeand trend and habitat accomplishments on allpublic lands and private lands, in partnershipswith the Service, harboring red-cockadedwoodpeckers.

2000 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launchesred-cockaded woodpecker website<http://rcwrecovery.fws.gov>.

2001 Red-cockaded woodpecker extirpated in Kentuckydue to catastrophic loss of pine forest caused bysouthern pine beetle epidemic.

2001 R.N. Conner, et al. publishes “The Red-cockadedWoodpecker: Surviving in a Fire-maintainedEcosystem”, the second book on red-cockadedwoodpeckers.

2003 Second revision of the “Red-cockadedWoodpecker Recovery Plan” is approved.

2003 Fourth red-cockaded woodpecker symposiumheld in Savannah, Georgia.

30

The following federal and state agencies and privateorganizations manage lands that are directly involved inthe recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker.Additionally, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, various otherstate agencies (see below), and many individual andcorporate private landowners are assisting significantlyin supporting conservation and recovery programs forthe red-cockaded woodpecker. The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService appreciates and is thankful for the numerousprivate and public sector partners that are helping savethe red-cockaded woodpecker.

FederalDepartment of AgricultureU.S. Forest Service

Department of DefenseU.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S.Navy, National Guard

Department of Energy

Department of InteriorNational Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

StateFlorida Division of Forestry, Florida Fish and WildlifeConservation Commission, Florida Park Service, NorthCarolina Department of Agriculture, North CarolinaDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources,North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, SouthCarolina Forestry Commission, South Florida WaterManagement District, Saint John’s River WaterManagement District

PrivateThe Conservation Fund

The Nature ConservancyNorth Carolina Chapter, Virginia Chapter

Other state agencies harboring, managing andconserving red-cockaded woodpeckers on lands undertheir administration:Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry,Oklahoma Department of Conservation, South CarolinaDepartment of Natural Resources, South CarolinaDepartment of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, SouthCarolina Department of Transportation in cooperationwith the South Carolina Chapter of The NatureConservancy, Texas Forest Service, Texas Parks andWildlife Department

31

Contributors and AcknowledgementsProject Coordinator: Ralph Costa

Brochure text by:This pamphlet was originally drafted by Ms. FeliciaSanders, a Master’s degree graduate student (1998 -2000) at Clemson University studying red-cockadedwoodpeckers and enrolled in the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService’s Student Career Experience Program (SCEP)at the Service’s Clemson Field Office.

Ms. Nancy Jordan, also a Master’s degree graduatestudent (2000 - 2002) at Clemson University studyingred-cockaded woodpeckers and enrolled in the SCEP atthe Clemson Field Office, completed the final draft.

The Clemson Field Office and the Service’s RegionalOffice in Atlanta appreciate the significant contributionsof Felicia’s and Nancy’s graduate programs and SCEPtoward the conservation and recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker.

Layout and design: Ellen Marcus, USFWS

32

Ralph CostaRed-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery CoordinatorClemson Field OfficeU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceDepartment of Forest Resources261 Lehotsky HallClemson UniversityClemson, SC 29634Phone: 864/656 2432Fax: 864/656 1350E-mail: ralph_costa@fws.gov

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service1 800/344 WILDhttp://www.fws.gov

October 2002

© K

elly

Dav

is

U.S.�FISH & WILDLIFE�

SERVICE

DE

PA

RTM

ENT OF THE INTER

IOR