White-headed woodpecker monitoring for the Weiser Little Salmon CFLRP, Payette National Forest : 2012 progress report

2013·1.6 MB·English

by  Saab, Victoria A

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.