Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): COSEWIC assessment and status report 2024

Official title: COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) in Canada

Committee on the status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)

Threatened

2024

COSEWIC assessment summary

Assessment summary –November 2024

Common name

Lewis’s Woodpecker

Scientific name

Melanerpes lewis

Status

Threatened

Reason for designation

In Canada, this medium-sized woodpecker breeds in scattered habitat patches in southern interior British Columbia, and it winters in the western United States. It uses scattered trees in open habitat as nest sites and foraging perches. It occupies open Ponderosa Pine and Douglas-fir forests, mature cottonwood floodplain forest habitat, and areas recently burned by wildfire. The single Canadian subpopulation holds about 2,600 mature individuals, with an inferred decline of 5-10% over the past ten years that is projected to continue. Key threats contributing to this ongoing decline include habitat loss due to timber harvest and removal of potential nest trees, competition for nest sites with European Starling, and increasing effects of extreme weather events during the nesting period. Habitat is also at risk from ongoing urban and agricultural expansion and effects of both wildfire and fire suppression.

Occurrence

British Columbia, Alberta

Status history

Designated Special Concern in April 1999. Status re-examined and confirmed in November 2001. Status re-examined and designated Threatened in April 2010. Status re-examined and confirmed in November 2024.

COSEWIC Executive summary

Lewis’s Woodpecker

Melanerpes lewis

Wildlife species description and significance

Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) is a colourful medium-sized woodpecker, 26 to 28 cm in length, with dark green upperparts, a silvery grey collar, maroon face, and pink breast and belly. Sexes are similar in appearance; juveniles are darker than adults. The species is genetically uniform across its range. It diverged from its closest relative, the Red-headed Woodpecker, about 7 to 8 million years ago. Lewis’s Woodpecker is sought after by recreational birders because of its rarity and limited range in Canada, and it has cultural significance among First Nations peoples.

Aboriginal (Indigenous) knowledge

All species are significant and are interconnected and interrelated. No publicly available Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge was identified for Lewis’s Woodpecker.

Distribution

Lewis’s Woodpecker occurs only in western North America, where its breeding distribution is similar to that of Ponderosa Pine. In Canada, it regularly breeds only in valleys and associated uplands of the southern interior of British Columbia north to Williams Lake. Its distribution is patchy, with pairs concentrated in small areas of suitable habitat.

Habitat

Lewis’s Woodpecker requires patches of scattered trees, which it uses as hawking perches and for nesting, within or adjacent to open habitat for foraging. Large-diameter trees, either living, partially decayed or dead, are used for nest sites. A diverse ground cover of low shrubs, grasses, and herbaceous plants that produce berries or provide habitat for insects is an important habitat component. Three distinct habitats are used in Canada: mature cottonwood floodplain (riparian) forests adjacent to open areas, open savannah-like Ponderosa Pine and Douglas-fir forests, which are often maintained by low-intensity burns, and areas recently burned by high-intensity stand-replacing fires.

Biology

Lewis’s Woodpeckers that breed in Canada overwinter in the western United States, returning to their nesting habitats in early May. This species raises a single brood each year, and shows strong nest site fidelity. Both adults tend the nest. The average number of fledged young/nest in British Columbia in riparian forests, upland forests, and burns is 2.05, 1.53, and 0.79, respectively, with about 1.5 fledglings/year required to maintain stable numbers. During the nesting period, the diet of Lewis’s Woodpecker is mainly insects captured in flight, with Saskatoon berries and cultivated cherries taken where available. After the breeding season, it more frequently consumes wild and cultivated fruits. Adults and juveniles form pre-migratory flocks in late August through early September, and typically leave British Columbia in late September.

Population sizes and trends

The Canadian population of Lewis’s Woodpecker is currently estimated to be about 2,586 mature individuals (95% confidence bounds: 2,030 to 3,140), based on quantitative estimates for 95% of the population and on data-based expert opinion for the remainder. Long-term trends from the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) and Christmas Bird Count (CBC) indicate that numbers declined by more than 50% from the 1940 to 1977 period to the 1978 to 2022 period. Lewis’s Woodpecker has been extirpated from Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland of British Columbia since the 1970s. Although new habitat is being created by wildfire, these burns are unlikely to be fully used, because there is a limited supply of the more productive mature cottonwood floodplain forests needed to produce excess young to colonize them. An inferred decline in the number of mature individuals of 5 to 10% over the past ten years is anticipated to continue into the future, principally due to ongoing net habitat loss.

Threats and limiting factors

The most important threats to Lewis’s Woodpecker are habitat loss due to timber harvest and removal of potential nest trees, and competition for nest sites with the non-native European Starling. Additional threats include habitat loss resulting from ongoing urban expansion, continuing conversion of open woodlands for agriculture, the effects of human-caused wildlife and fire suppression on habitat availability, and the impacts of extreme weather events (flooding and summer heat events) linked to climate change. Limiting factors include the species’ relatively low fecundity, and the limited availability of suitable high-quality cottonwood breeding habitat.

Protection, status, and recovery strategies

Lewis’s Woodpecker, and its eggs and active nests, are protected from direct persecution under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (Canada) and the British Columbia Wildlife Act. It was originally designated by COSEWIC as Special Concern in November 2001 and as Threatened in 2010, with the latter status confirmed in 2024, and it is listed under Schedule 1 of the federal Species at Risk Act. This species is considered Apparently Secure (G4) globally, but Vulnerable in Canada (N3) and in British Columbia (S3B). In the United States, it is ranked from Critically Imperilled (S1) to Apparently Secure (S4) in several states, depending on local abundance and trends. In Canada, about 5.2% of the species’ 1,436 km² index of area of occupancy occurs in parks, protected areas, or managed areas such as the Wildlife Habitat Areas established under the Forest and Range Practices Act of British Columbia.

Technical summary

Melanerpes lewis

Lewis’s Woodpecker

Pic de Lewis

Range of occurrence in Canada: British Columbia (regular breeder), Alberta (rare breeder)

Demographic information

Generation time (usually average age of parents in the population)

2.23 years

From Bird et al. (2020)

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in number of mature individuals?

Yes

Inferred, based on expert opinion, documented declines in Grand Forks and the south Okanagan, and High – Medium overall threat impact

[Observed, estimated, or projected] percent of continuing decline in total number of mature individuals within [3 years or 1 generation, whichever is longer; up to a maximum of 100 years]

About 1.5 to 3% decline over 3 years (2020 to 2022)

Estimated, based on a proportion of the 10-year estimate (see box 5)

[Observed, estimated, or projected] percent of continuing decline in total number of mature individuals within [5 years or 2 generations, whichever is longer; up to a maximum of 100 years]

About 2.5 to 5% decline over 5 years (2018 to 2022)

Estimated, based on a proportion of the 10-year estimate (see box 5)

[Observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over the last [10 years, or 3 generations, whichever is longer; up to a maximum of 100 years].

About 5 to 10% decline in the Canadian population over 10 years (2013 to 2022)

Estimated based on observed declines over 10 years at Grand Forks (of 1% of Canadian population), and in the south Okanagan (of 4.2%), which together suggest a minimum decline of 5% of the Canadian population over the past 10 years (see Fluctuations and trends) and continuing habitat loss (see box 18)

[Projected, inferred, or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over the next [10 years, or 3 generations, whichever is longer; up to a maximum of 100 years]

Projected reduction of 5 to 10% over next 10 years

Decline projected to continue at similar rates, as threats are not anticipated to change appreciably over 10 years, and the overall High – Medium threat impact corresponds to an anticipated decline of 3 to 70% (Appendix 1) over that period

[Observed, estimated, inferred, projected, or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over any period of [10 years or 3 generations; whichever is longer, up to a maximum of 100 years], including both the past and future (up to a maximum of 100 years in future)

Inferred and projected reduction of 5 to 10% over 10-year period, including both the past and future

Rate of decline over 10-year periods, including past and future, is projected to continue at similar levels, as threats are not anticipated to change appreciably over 10 years, and the overall High – Medium threat impact corresponds to an anticipated decline of 3 to 70% (Appendix 1) over that period.

Are the causes of the decline clearly reversible?

No

Most habitat loss is permanent, and competition for nest sites cannot be controlled.

Are the causes of the decline clearly understood?

Yes, major causes are understood.

Most causes related to habitat loss are clearly understood, although impacts of nest site competition and extreme heat events are less clear.

Are the causes of the decline clearly ceased?

No

Habitat decline and nest site competition are continuing. Killing as an agricultural pest has likely ceased.

Are there extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals?

No

Overall population levels do not change markedly from year to year.

Extent and occupancy information

Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO)

118,050 km²

Calculated based on minimum convex polygon around confirmed breeding occurrences in 2013 to 2022

Index of area of occupancy (IAO), reported as 2x2 km grid value.

1,436 to 1,664 km²

Based on 2 x 2 km square grid overlaid on confirmed or probable breeding occurrences in 2013 to 2022 and 2003 to 2022

Is the population “severely fragmented”, that is, is >50% of individuals or >50% of the total area “occupied” (as a proxy for number of individuals) in habitat patches that are both (a) smaller than required to support a viable subpopulation, and (b) separated from other habitat patches by a distance larger than the species can be expected to disperse?

1. No
2. No

Lewis’s Woodpecker is able to colonize new habitat, such as burns, that may be quite widely separated from previously occupied sites.

Number of “locations” (use plausible range to reflect uncertainty if appropriate)

At least 50

Based on threats posed by harvesting of potential nest trees and competition with European Starling

Is there an observed, inferred, or projected continuing decline in extent of occurrence?

No

No observed decline from 2010 (COSEWIC 2010) to 2022

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in index of area of occupancy?

No

No observed decline from 2010 (COSEWIC 2010) to 2022, although IAO was estimated with much wider confidence intervals in 2010 than in 2022

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in number of subpopulations?

not applicable

No subpopulations

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in number of “locations”?

No

There is no indication of decline in the number of threat-based locations.

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in [area, extent and/or quality] of habitat?

Yes, observed and projected decline in area and quality of breeding habitat

Based on continuing harvest of nest trees, competition with European Starling, urban and agricultural expansion into nesting areas, and diking and erosive flooding that impacts riverbank cottonwood habitat

Are there extreme fluctuations in number of subpopulations?

No

No subpopulations

Are there extreme fluctuations in number of “locations”?

No

Are there extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence?

No

Are there extreme fluctuations in index of area of occupancy?

No

Number of mature individuals (by region or subregion)

Quantitative analysis

Is the probability of extinction in the wild at least 20% within 20 years [or 5 generations], or 10% within 100 years?

Unknown

Analysis not conducted

Threats and limiting factors

Was a threats calculator completed for this species?

Yes, on 15 January 2024 (Appendix 1)

Overall threat impact: High – Medium

Key threats were identified as:

1. IUCN 5. Biological Resource Use (High – Medium threat impact)
2. IUCN 8. Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes (High – Medium threat impact)
3. IUCN 1. Residential and Commercial Development (Medium threat impact)
4. IUCN 7. Natural System Modifications (Medium threat impact)
5. IUCN 11. Climate Change and Severe Weather (Medium threat impact)
6. IUCN 2. Agriculture and Aquaculture (Low threat impact)
7. IUCN 3. Energy Production and Mining (Low threat impact)
8. IUCN 4. Transportation and Service Corridors (Low threat impact)
9. IUCN 6. Human Intrusions and Disturbance (Low threat impact)
10. IUCN 9. Pollution (Unknown threat impact)

What limiting factors are relevant?

Availability of suitable habitat may be limiting, especially the availability of dead or dying nest trees in mature cottonwood floodplain forests. Relatively low fecundity may limit ability to rebuild population numbers.

Rescue effect (natural immigration from outside Canada)

Status of outside population(s) most likely to provide immigrants to Canada.

Adjacent U.S. states are experiencing long-term declines, but small short-term increases based on BBS trends, which have low reliability.

Washington State (S2S3), Idaho (S3B), and Montana (S2B)

Is immigration known or possible?

Yes

Lewis’s Woodpecker is quite mobile, wandering widely in fall and spring and colonizing new burn habitats, so immigration is likely possible.

Would immigrants be adapted to survive in Canada?

Yes

Adjacent U.S. population is ecologically and genetically similar to Canadian population.

Is there sufficient habitat for immigrants in Canada?

No

High-quality, long-term habitat already appears to be limiting in Canada.

Are conditions deteriorating in Canada?

Yes

Declines in habitat quality and quantity are continuing.

Are conditions for the source (that is, outside) population deteriorating?

Likely

It is assumed that similar habitat limitations apply in the adjacent United States.

Is the Canadian population considered to be a sink?

No

Fecundity is above replacement level in British Columbia’s mature riparian cottonwood stands and upland pine stands.

Is rescue from outside Canada likely, such that it could lead to a change in status?

No, unlikely

The Canadian population appears to be limited by available habitat, and potential U.S. source populations are likely subject to similar limitations.

Occurrence data sensitivity

Could release of certain occurrence data result in increased harm to the Wildlife Species or its habitat?

No

Specific occurrence details are not revealed in this report, and sites are only mapped at very broad scales.

Status history

COSEWIC

Designated Special Concern in April 1999. Status re-examined and confirmed in November 2001. Status re-examined and designated Threatened in April 2010. Status re-examined and confirmed in November 2024.

Status and reasons for designation

Status

Threatened

Alpha-numeric codes

C2a(ii)

Reason for change of status

not applicable

Reasons for designation (2024)

In Canada, this medium-sized woodpecker breeds in scattered habitat patches in southern interior British Columbia, and it winters in the western United States. It uses scattered trees in open habitat as nest sites and foraging perches. It occupies open Ponderosa Pine and Douglas-fir forests, mature cottonwood floodplain forest habitat, and areas recently burned by wildfire. The single Canadian subpopulation holds about 2,600 mature individuals, with an inferred decline of 5-10% over the past ten years that is projected to continue. Key threats contributing to this ongoing decline include habitat loss due to timber harvest and removal of potential nest trees, competition for nest sites with European Starling, and increasing effects of extreme weather events during the nesting period. Habitat is also at risk from ongoing urban and agricultural expansion and effects of both wildfire and fire suppression.

Applicability of criteria

A: Decline in total number of mature individuals

not applicable

The inferred rate of population decline (~ 5 to 10% over 10 years) is well below threshold for Threatened.

B: Small Range and Decline or Fluctuation

not applicable

Although the index of area of occupancy of 1,436 to 1,664 km² is below the Threatened threshold of 2,000 km², and there is an observed and projected decline in the area and quality of breeding habitat and the number of mature individuals, the number of locations (> 50) exceeds the Threatened threshold of 10 and the species does not experience extreme fluctuations.

C: Small and declining number of mature individuals

Meets Threatened C2a(ii)

The number of mature individuals (2,586; range 2,030 to 3,140) is below the Threatened threshold of 10,000, there is an inferred and projected continuing decline in the number of mature individuals, and one subpopulation consists of 100% mature individuals.

D: Very small or restricted population

not applicable

The number of mature individuals (2,586; range 2,030 to 3,140) and the number of locations (> 50) exceed the thresholds for Threatened.

E: Quantitative analysis

not applicable

Analysis not conducted

Preface

A management plan for Lewis’s Woodpecker was published in 2014 (Environment Canada 2014) to address the designation of Special Concern, followed by a recovery strategy in 2017 (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2017) to address the 2010 change of designation to Threatened. The latter included the spatial definition of areas of critical habitat.

Since 2010, Environment and Climate Change Canada – Canadian Wildlife Service has maintained a spatial database of historical and current Lewis’s Woodpecker observations (ECCC–CWS 2023), which has simplified the mapping, tracking, and monitoring of the species’ distribution and status at regional and local scales in Canada. The database includes results of extensive Lewis’s Woodpecker point-count records (n = 1,412) obtained between 2006 and 2009, as well as the coordinates of bird and nest records from quantitative abundance estimates from 2011 to 2023, other exploratory surveys in regions not covered by quantitative abundance estimates, and annual roadside point count monitoring since 2014. Quantitative abundance estimates of most regions occupied in British Columbia began in 2011, and have continued until 2023. An MSc study of nest success and productivity in different habitats in British Columbia was completed in 2016 (Macfarland 2016). As of December 2021, eBird contained 7,454 checklists from Canada with observations of Lewis’s Woodpeckers, including 5,415 checklists from 2010 to 2021, 954 from 2000 to 2009, and 1,085 historical records as far back as 1920 (eBird Basic Dataset 2021). The results reported here are based on data available up to February 2023, with the exception of significant new data collected in the 2023 and 2024 breeding seasons, including the updated breeding number estimates for the Spences Bridge and Boundary regions in British Columbia, the breeding record in Waterton Lakes National Park in Alberta in 2023, and observations east of Alberta (eBird 2024).

The Birds of the World species account for Lewis’s Woodpecker was updated in 2013 (Vierling et al. 2020), and the amount and quality of new data and the digitization of older data now allow a more reliable quantitative assessment of numbers and trends than in the past.

COSEWIC history

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) was created in 1977 as a result of a recommendation at the Federal-Provincial Wildlife Conference held in 1976. It arose from the need for a single, official, scientifically sound, national listing of wildlife species at risk. In 1978, COSEWIC designated its first species and produced its first list of Canadian species at risk. Species designated at meetings of the full committee are added to the list. On June 5, 2003, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) was proclaimed. SARA establishes COSEWIC as an advisory body ensuring that species will continue to be assessed under a rigorous and independent scientific process.

COSEWIC mandate

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses the national status of wild species, subspecies, varieties, or other designatable units that are considered to be at risk in Canada. Designations are made on native species for the following taxonomic groups: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, arthropods, molluscs, vascular plants, mosses, and lichens.

COSEWIC membership

COSEWIC comprises members from each provincial and territorial government wildlife agency, four federal entities (Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks Canada Agency, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Federal Biodiversity Information Partnership, chaired by the Canadian Museum of Nature), three non-government science members and the co-chairs of the species specialist subcommittees and the Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge subcommittee. The Committee meets to consider status reports on candidate species.

Definitions (2024)

Wildlife Species

A species, subspecies, variety, or geographically or genetically distinct population of animal, plant or other organism, other than a bacterium or virus, that is wild by nature and is either native to Canada or has extended its range into Canada without human intervention and has been present in Canada for at least 50 years.

Extinct (X)

A wildlife species that no longer exists.

Extirpated (XT)

A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere.

Endangered (E)

A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction.

Threatened (T)

A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed.

Special Concern (SC)^*

A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.

Not at Risk (NAR)^**

A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.

Data Deficient (DD)^***

A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a species’ eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the species’ risk of extinction.

^* Formerly described as “Vulnerable” from 1990 to 1999, or “Rare” prior to 1990.
^** Formerly described as “Not In Any Category”, or “No Designation Required.”
^*** Formerly described as “Indeterminate” from 1994 to 1999 or “ISIBD” (insufficient scientific information on which to base a designation) prior to 1994. Definition of the (DD) category revised in 2006.

The Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada, provides full administrative and financial support to the COSEWIC Secretariat.

Wildlife species description and significance

Name and classification

Current classification:

Class: Aves

Order: Piciformes

Family: Picidae

Genus: Melanerpes

Species: Melanerpes lewis

Common names:

English: Lewis’s Woodpecker

French: Pic de Lewis

Synonyms and notes:

Lewis’s Woodpecker is one of 24 species in the genus Melanerpes, all of which occur in the Americas. Its eastern ecological counterpart is the Red-headed Woodpecker (M. erythrocephalus; Bock et al. 1971; Cannings et al. 1987), which occurs in southern Canada from Saskatchewan to Quebec (Frei et al. 2020). It is estimated that their genetic lines split about 7 to 8 million years ago (Navarro-Siguenza et al. 2017). There is no evidence of hybridization of Lewis’s Woodpecker with other species (Vierling et al. 2020).

Description of wildlife species

Lewis’s Woodpecker is a medium-sized (26 to 28 cm) woodpecker with dark green upperparts (back of head, back, wings, and tail), a silvery grey collar, a maroon face, and a pink breast and belly. The sexes are similar in colour and size and are not readily distinguishable in the field, even by experienced observers. Juveniles are darker than adults and either lack, or have subdued, grey, maroon, and pink in their plumage (Vierling et al. 2020).

In flight, Lewis’s Woodpecker resembles the American Crow (Corvus americanus) or Clark’s Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) more than it does other woodpeckers. Its flight is direct and even, rather than undulating, with deep wing beats. It also soars and glides in elaborate patterns when fly-catching (Vierling et al. 2020).

Designatable units

There are no subspecies recognized for Lewis’s Woodpecker (Vierling et al. 2020), and there is no evidence that differences among breeding assemblages in Canada are sufficiently discrete or evolutionarily significant to warrant consideration as separate designatable units. As in COSEWIC (2010), Lewis’s Woodpecker is considered here as a single designatable unit in Canada.

Special significance

Lewis’s Woodpecker is a weak primary cavity nester that may excavate nests that other cavity-nesting species use in subsequent years. It may also use cavities previously excavated by other birds, such as the Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus). Lewis’s Woodpecker is of interest to birders because of its relative rarity in Canada, demonstrated by the multiple eBird records often submitted for single birds in places such as Vancouver or Calgary (see Canadian range).

Aboriginal (Indigenous) knowledge

Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK) is relationship-based. It involves information on ecological relationships between humans and their environment, including characteristics of species, habitats, and locations. Laws and protocols for human relationships with the environment are passed on through teachings and stories, and Indigenous languages, and can be based on long-term observations. Place names provide information about harvesting areas, ecological processes, spiritual significance, or the products of harvest. ATK can identify life history characteristics of a species or distinct differences between similar species.

Cultural significance to Indigenous peoples

There is no species-specific ATK in the report. However, Lewis’s Woodpecker is important to Indigenous Peoples who recognize the interrelationships between all species within the ecosystem.

Distribution

Global range

Lewis’s Woodpecker occurs exclusively in western North America, where its breeding distribution approximates that of Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa; Saab and Vierling 2001). It currently breeds from the interior of southern British Columbia, south through central Washington, Oregon, and California, and east to eastern Colorado, central Arizona, and southern New Mexico (Vierling et al. 2020; Figure 1). Throughout the species’ range, its distribution is patchy, with local concentrations in areas of suitable habitat (Cooper et al. 1998; Vierling et al. 2020).

Figure 1. Global distribution of Lewis’s Woodpecker, showing breeding, migration, non-breeding, and year-round distribution (from Vierling et al. 2020).

The breeding distribution of Lewis’s Woodpecker formerly included the Georgia Depression of southwestern British Columbia (Cooper et al. 1998; Beauchesne and Cooper 2002), the San Juan Islands, Puget Sound, other coastal areas of western Washington, the Willamette and Rogue river valleys of western Oregon (Galen 2003), and western California (Small 1994). Lewis’s Woodpecker was extirpated as a breeding bird from those areas west of the Cascade Mountains and north of California between the 1940s and 1980s (Altman 2011).

Lewis’s Woodpecker winters in the southern part of its breeding range, from southwestern Oregon, central Utah, and central Colorado in the north to northern Mexico in the south (Figure 1; Vierling et al. 2020). Some individuals may remain at northern latitudes when weather conditions and food supply are favourable. Prior to 2009, a few birds were regularly recorded wintering in the Okanagan Valley and Boundary areas of British Columbia (for example, Cooper et al. 1998; National Audubon Society 2023), but it no longer overwinters regularly in Canada.

Canadian range

In Canada, Lewis’s Woodpecker occurs as a regular breeder only in southern British Columbia (Figures 2 and 3). It currently breeds in the Fraser River valley north to Soda Creek; along the North Thompson River valley north to Chu Chua; along the South Thompson River valley east to near Chase; along the Nicola River valley to Douglas Lake; in the Okanagan, Similkameen, and Boundary areas; at several sites in the West Kootenays; and in the East Kootenay Trench as far north as Radium Hot Springs (Luszcz and Sawicz 2007; Beauchesne and Cooper 2008; ECCC–CWS 2023; eBird 2024). Distribution is patchy within this range, with birds concentrated in areas of suitable habitat within the main valleys and adjacent side valleys, and on slopes.

The historical distribution of Lewis’s Woodpecker included southern Vancouver Island and the lower Fraser River valley, where single birds still occasionally occur, mainly during the post-breeding season. The last breeding records for Vancouver Island and the lower Fraser River valley were in 1962 and 1964, respectively (Campbell et al. 1990; Beauchesne and Cooper 2002). From 1964 to 2023, 179 unique eBird checklists were submitted reporting Lewis’s Woodpeckers in that area. However, only three of these were in June and none in July, and none of these reported breeding evidence (eBird 2024).

In British Columbia outside of the extent of occurrence (EOO), there are records from the B.C. Breeding Bird Atlas (Fraser and Ramsay 2015; Figure 2) 150 km west of the current EOO (Figure 3). However, breeding has not been confirmed at these locations, despite annual searches in recent years (Sims pers. comm. 2023). Lewis’s Woodpeckers were observed in the same area in the autumn of 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2019 (eBird 2024) during daily surveys conducted at the Tatlayoko Lake Bird Observatory, but observatory personnel are unaware of breeding records in that area (Bartels pers. comm. 2023).

Figure 2. Lewis’s Woodpecker breeding distribution in British Columbia in 2008 to 2012, from the British Columbia Breeding Bird Atlas (from Fraser and Ramsay 2015). Coloured 10 x 10 km squares indicate where Lewis’s Woodpecker was recorded in 2008 to 2012.

Figure 3. Lewis’s Woodpecker extent of occurrence in 2010 and 2022 and index of area of occupancy shown as 2 x 2 km cells. Both are based on observations in the database maintained by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC–CWS 2023) and in eBird (2023).

The species formerly bred in the Columbia Basin as far north as Golden and Revelstoke, and near Wells Gray Park (B.C. provincial park) in the North Thompson River valley (Campbell et al. 1990). While Lewis’s Woodpeckers are still occasionally reported in those areas, no recent breeding records have been obtained (ECCC–CWS 2023; eBird 2024). An extensive search of the Columbia Basin region in 2007 produced no records north of Fairmont (Beauchesne and Cooper 2008). However, from 2011 to 2021, 24 unique eBird records of separate birds were obtained north of Fairmont, including one nest record near Radium Hot Springs, about 25 km north of Fairmont.

Lewis’s Woodpecker occasionally occurs in the foothills and lower mountain slopes of western Alberta, although the most recent breeding record in Alberta prior to 2023 was from 1946 (Cooper et al. 1998). As of 2022, there were no eBird records in Alberta of paired birds, confirmed breeding, or site occupation for more than a few days (eBird 2024). However, in 2023, a pair nested and was confirmed to have fledged two young in a recent burn in Waterton Lakes National Park in extreme southwestern Alberta (eBird 2024; Gutsell pers. comm. 2024), with more than 120 eBird checklists submitted for this site in 2023. The origin of these birds is unknown, but is assumed to have been British Columbia (Court pers. comm. 2024). In contrast, only one eBird record was submitted for Lewis’s Woodpecker (13 May) in Waterton Lakes National Park in 2024 (as of 22 July; eBird 2024), and it is assumed that the species did not breed there in 2024. Lewis’s Woodpecker was considered to be a vagrant species and very rare breeder in Alberta in the province’s two breeding bird atlases (Semenchuk 1992; Federation of Alberta Naturalists 2007). Recently, eBird records of the species have become more frequent in Alberta: 2 occurrences in 2018, 1 occurrence in 2019, 7 occurrences in 2020, 5 occurrences in 2021, and 4 occurrences in 2022. It is now considered to be a rare breeder in Alberta (Court pers. comm. 2024).

Vagrant Lewis’s Woodpeckers have been reported as far east as Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador (McLaren 2012), with occasional sightings in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec (Hatch and L’Arrivée 1981; eBird 2024). In 2023, individuals were reported in eastern Saskatchewan (22 May), Manitoulin Island, Ontario (17 January–21 May), and the North Shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence in Quebec (26 June; eBird 2024).

Population structure

No geographic or genetic structure or variation has been described for Lewis’s Woodpecker (Vierling et al. 2020), and there is no evidence from banding or other studies of more than one subpopulation (distinct groups within the population among which there is little demographic or genetic exchange) in Canada. This species is quite mobile, and individuals readily move appreciable differences to colonize new habitats such as burns and areas infested by pine beetles (Dendroctonus spp.) soon after they are created (see Breeding habitat). Lewis’s Woodpeckers gather in flocks during fall migration, providing opportunities for movement and exchange of birds between breeding areas and for pairing between individuals from different regions.

Extent of occurrence and area of occupancy

Current extent of occurrence

The current extent of occurrence (EOO) is approximately 118,050 km² within Canada, based on a minimum convex polygon drawn around the distribution of known breeding sites confirmed during the 2013 to 2022 period (Figure 3).

Current index of area of occupancy

Extensive and intensive surveys conducted to obtain regional nest abundance estimates have enabled the calculation of a relatively reliable estimate of the current index of area of occupancy (IAO). It is estimated to be 1,436 km², based on a grid of 2 km x 2 km cells containing confirmed and probable breeding records from ECCC–CWS (2023), together with additional eBird breeding records, over the 2013 to 2022 period (Figure 3). However, considering only those records may underestimate IAO, as the more extensive and intensive nest searches in 2006 to 2008 were not repeated during the 2013 to 2022 period, when inventories concentrated on obtaining data along the same routes each year to calculate relative abundance, or on subsampling to produce breeding population estimates. If all breeding records from 2003 to 2022 are considered, the estimate of IAO would be 1,664 km², so a range of 1,436 to 1,664 km² is used here.

Fluctuations and trends in distribution

The distribution of Lewis’s Woodpecker in Canada is not known to exhibit extreme fluctuations. Changes in distribution occur slowly and are usually of relatively low magnitude, in line with gradual habitat changes. Distribution can change markedly at local levels within British Columbia (for example, when birds occupy newly burned areas), but such changes tend to occur over a number of years, and only at a local scale.

COSEWIC (2010) estimated the EOO to be 86,000 km², but did so excluding discontinuous mountainous areas of non-habitat, which are included using the current methodology. Recalculating COSEWIC’s 2010 estimate using the current methods yielded 110,391 km² for 2010. Comparing this to the current EOO (see above) shows an apparent increase of 6.9%, which reflects the inclusion of nest records from the following areas: 24 km farther west along the Chilcotin River (Hobbs and Mailloux 2021), 10 km farther west at Lillooet, 13 km farther north near Williams Lake, and 25 km farther north in the Columbia Mountain trench (ECCC–CWS 2023; Figure 3). In part, this difference reflects improved knowledge and access to records of breeding distribution, and the EOO is considered to be relatively unchanged overall.

The estimated IAO from COSEWIC (2010) was “between 500 and 2000 km².” Because the calculation of IAO includes search effort, which is difficult to quantify, and since many areas surveyed in 2006 to 2012 were not re-surveyed in 2013 to 2022, the upper limit in the current range of 1,436 to 1,664 km² for the IAO may be a very slight underestimate. Overall, the IAO is considered to be relatively unchanged from 2010.

Biology and habitat use

Life cycle and reproduction

Probable age at first breeding in Lewis’s Woodpecker is one year of age (Abele et al. 2004; Bird et al. 2020). In British Columbia, almost all adult birds likely attempt to breed. For example, in surveys conducted in 1998 and 2007 in the East Kootenay Trench, 94% of adults detected were associated with active nests (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000; Beauchesne and Cooper 2008). Generation time of Lewis’s Woodpecker is given by Bird et al. (2020) as 2.23 years. Life span has been estimated to be as much as 10 years, based on nest cavity re-use over time by un-banded birds, although some may have been different individuals (Beauchesne and Cooper 2008). Maximum longevity is given by Bird et al. (2020) as 9.1 years, and other Melanerpes species have life spans of up to 12 years (Abele et al. 2004; Bird et al. 2020). No estimate of annual adult survivorship is available (Vierling et al. 2020). Estimates of annual adult survivorship in other Melanerpes species range from 59 to 75% (Abele et al. 2004), and 30 to 63% (Bird et al. 2020). Bird et al. (2020) modelled annual survival for Lewis’s Woodpecker as 42%. There are no data on lifetime reproductive success (Vierling et al. 2020).

Lewis’s Woodpeckers often nest in close proximity in a semi-colonial manner, with instances in British Columbia of two or three pairs nesting in the same tree (Currier 1928; Bock 1970; Cooper and Beauchesne 2000; Beauchesne and Cooper 2008; ECCC–CWS 2023, Gyug unpubl. data). There is evidence of cooperation in nest defence among near-neighbours and, in rare instances, more than two adults have been observed tending the same nest (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000; Vierling et al. 2020; Gyug unpubl. data).

Lewis’s Woodpeckers usually select large-diameter trees in intermediate decay classes for nesting (Zhu 2006a). Nest tree diameters at breast height (in cm) in British Columbia averaged 74 ± 30 SD for Black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa; n = 101), 77 ± 36 SD for Ponderosa Pine (n = 107), and 57 ± 26 SD for Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii; n = 35) (Gyug 2013a). The species frequently reuses nest trees, and often the same nest cavity, from year to year. In Wyoming, 37% of pairs returned to their previous year’s nest (Linder 1994); in the East Kootenay region of British Columbia, 60% of nests were re-occupied from 1997 to 1998 (Cooper and Gillies 2000), and 53% of nests were re-occupied in the Thompson region of British Columbia (Ferguson and Iredale 2007).

Lewis’s Woodpeckers return to their breeding sites in May. Pair formation likely occurs near the nest site, and many pairs are thought to have long-term pair bonds (Vierling et al. 2020). Eggs are laid in most nests in British Columbia by late May and early June (Campbell et al. 1990). The incubation period is 13 to 16 days (Vierling et al. 2020). The nestling period is 4 to 5 weeks (Vierling et al. 2020). One brood is raised annually.

In British Columbia, clutch size ranged from 2 to 8 eggs in three different studies, averaging 4.8+  1.6 SD (n = 30, Campbell et al. 1990), 5.0+  0.14 SD (n = 57, Zhu 2006a), and 5.85+  1.6 SD (n = 55, Macfarland 2016). In British Columbia, the number of fledged young/successful nest ranged from 1 to 5, with an average of 2.9+  1.0 SD (n = 28, Campbell et al. 1990), and 2.62+  0.22 (n = 20; Zhu 2006a). In the southern interior of the province, Lewis’s Woodpeckers produced more fledglings/nesting attempt in cottonwood habitat (2.05+  0.45 95% CI) than in live pine habitat (1.53+  0.35 95% CI) or burned habitat (0.79+  0.49 95% CI; Macfarland et al. 2019). However, nest success and productivity estimates did not vary consistently in these habitat types across regions (Macfarland et al. 2019), and lower calculated annual survival estimates from Bird et al. (2020) suggest that productivity should exceed 1.5 fledged young/nest to support a stable population (see Breeding habitat).

Macfarland et al. (2019) found that fledging success was correlated with cavity density and/or the number of surplus cavities, rather than with habitat or the density of potential nest competitors, including the European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Northern Flicker, and American Kestrel (Falco sparverius). Macfarland et al. (2019) observed that 33% of nest failures were due to predation, but could not determine what other factors influenced nest success. In a two-year study, Zhu et al. (2012) noted that 50% of Lewis’s Woodpecker nest cavities from the first year were used by starlings in the second year, and several Lewis’s Woodpecker nests were aggressively usurped by starlings during the breeding season. Nest density may be a more appropriate metric than nest productivity to examine nest site competition with starlings, if there are large areas no longer occupied by Lewis’s Woodpeckers due to nest site competition. For example, Lewis’s Woodpeckers have disappeared from downtown Penticton (Cannings pers. comm. 2023), and this may have been due to competition with starlings.

Habitat requirements

Breeding habitat

Lewis’s Woodpecker is a bird of open woodlands, usually riparian forest or grassland, with scattered trees, which are used as perches and for nesting. Large-diameter trees, either living and partially decayed or dead with more advanced decay, are especially valuable for nest sites (Fraser et al. 1999; Cooper and Beauchesne 2000; Galen 2003; Fenger et al. 2006). Large open areas near nest sites are necessary for foraging. A diverse ground cover of low shrubs, grasses, and herbaceous plants that produce berries or provide habitat for insects is an important habitat component (Sousa 1983; Campbell et al. 1990; Beauchesne and Cooper 2008).

Three distinct habitats are used by Lewis’s Woodpecker: open forest or grassland with scattered trees, riparian forests adjacent to open areas, and recently burned areas (Bock 1970; Campbell et al. 1990; Vierling 1997; Cooper and Beauchesne 2000; Cooper and Gillies 2000; Saab and Vierling 2001; Abele et al. 2004; Gentry and Vierling 2007). Each of these habitats is discussed separately below.

Open forest or grassland habitats used by Lewis’s Woodpecker have a low or very low tree stem density (Schwab et al. 2006), abundant veteran Ponderosa Pines or Douglas-firs with decay making them suitable for nest excavation, and rich herb and shrub layers. Crown closure may be up to 30% (Sousa 1983; Zhu 2006a), although Lewis’s Woodpeckers often nest in or adjacent to foraging habitats if even a single suitable nest tree is present and crown closure is less than 1% (Gyug 2013a). A utility pole may sometimes serve as a substitute for a tree in very open habitats (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000; ECCC–CWS 2023). In the past, the habitat features of upland open forests have been maintained by frequent low-intensity fires, which retain large-diameter mature trees (although their lower limbs are lost), but eliminate most saplings. Ponderosa Pine is the dominant species used for nest sites in open forest habitats in interior British Columbia, although Douglas-fir, Western Larch (Larix occidentalis), Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides), and Paper Birch (Betula papyrifera) may also be used for nest sites (Luszcz and Sawicz 2007; Beauchesne and Cooper 2008; ECCC–CWS 2023). Open Garry Oak (Quercus garryana) forest in the Georgia Depression was formerly used by Lewis’s Woodpecker, as were similar oak savannah habitats in western Washington and western Oregon (Altman 2011). Regular, low-intensity fires were important in maintaining open coastal oak and interior Ponderosa Pine savannahs (Beauchesne and Cooper 2002).

The riparian forest used by Lewis’s Woodpecker typically consists of stands of mature Black Cottonwood in floodplains adjacent to open foraging areas, with the cottonwoods providing nest sites and the open land or water, foraging areas. The importance of riparian habitat varies by region (for example, Galen 2003) and, in British Columbia, cottonwood use is most prevalent where it is still available. In the Okanagan and East Kootenay regions, where many cottonwood stands have been eliminated by the channelling, diking, or damming of rivers, most habitat used is in upland areas (ECCC–CWS 2023; see also Threats). In the Boundary region, riparian cottonwood stands have been largely reduced to a single row of old and mature trees along the Kettle River, which are adjacent to hayfields or urban or rural development, but remain the major habitat type used by Lewis’s Woodpecker (see Threats).

Stand-destroying wildfires create habitats usually referred to as “burns,” where burned snags of sufficient diameter (> 25 cm) provide potential nest sites and the habitat is otherwise completely open, with crown closure close to zero. There is usually a lag time before dispersing Lewis’s Woodpeckers locate and colonize a newly burned area. The lag time between habitat creation and occupation by Lewis’s Woodpecker may also be partly due to the latter’s partial dependence on other species (primarily Northern Flicker) to create potential nest cavities. Although Lewis’s Woodpecker is a primary cavity excavator, it is a relatively weak excavator and will often use cavities initially excavated by Northern Flickers. Burns are colonized more rapidly when trees with pre-existing cavities remain after the burn (for example, the 2003 Plumbob burn; Antifeau pers. comm. 2009). Burns are temporary habitats, with peak suitability for Lewis’s Woodpecker between 10 and 30 years after the fire (Cooper and Gillies 2000). As burns age, they decline in quality due to suitable nest trees falling, new forest regenerating, and the canopy re-forming (Saab and Vierling 2001). Forest succession leads to infilling, which reduces and eventually eliminates the suitability of a site (Krannitz 2007). Most of the burned area resulting from a 2007 fire in the Pend d’Oreille Valley in the West Kootenay region was quickly colonized by Lewis’s Woodpeckers, with a peak of 12 nests in one year (Dulisse and Harrison 2013). However, by 2022, only 2 to 3 nests were present, as most fire-killed trees had fallen, appreciably reducing nesting opportunities (Dulisse pers. comm. 2023). In the Boundary region, none of the burns from 1973 to 1986 were occupied in 2024, although some had been occupied in 2012 (Gyug 2012a). Only the more recent burns of 2015 and 2016 were occupied in 2024 (Gyug unpubl. data).

Not all seemingly suitable wildfire burns in British Columbia are occupied by breeding pairs of Lewis’s Woodpeckers (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000; Cooper and Gillies 2000). To be suitable, burned Ponderosa Pine or Douglas-fir must be of sufficient diameter to support nesting, and other more subtle differences in microhabitat may be a factor in determining which burns are occupied. However, the very high number of large burns in the past few decades may have exceeded the area that could be occupied, given potential rates of population increase. An assessment in the East Kootenay region found that only four of nine apparently suitable burns were used by nesting Lewis’s Woodpeckers (Cooper and Gillies 2000).

Macfarland et al. (2019) found that cottonwood habitat in British Columbia had higher Lewis’s Woodpecker nest productivity than upland pine or burn habitat (see Life cycle and reproduction). Although Saab and Vierling (2001) found cottonwood habitats to have lower nest productivity than burns, they compared burns in Idaho to intensively grazed cottonwood habitats in Colorado, and were unable to find enough nests in pine habitat to study, despite extensive searching. Of five studies on habitat-related productivity, only Macfarland et al. (2019) looked at all three habitats in the same geographical region. Blake et al. (2022) found nest success was relatively high in both riparian and burn habitats, but significantly higher in burns, although overall productivity was three times higher in floodplains than in burns when differences in densities between habitats were taken into account.

Lewis’s Woodpecker nesting densities are higher in cottonwood habitats in British Columbia than in other habitats (Gyug 2013a), which is also the case in Montana (Blake et al. 2022). Maximum observed nest density in cottonwood habitats in British Columbia was 9.1 nests/km² in Grand Forks (Gyug et al. 2023), versus 6 nests/km² in burns in the East Kootenay (Gyug 2013a) and 0.7 nests/km² in Ponderosa Pine habitats in the Okanagan (Gyug 2013a). Mean nest densities in the few areas where estimates are available were 3.1 nests/km² in cottonwood habitats along the length of the Kettle River, 1.8 nests/km² in burns, and 0.5 nests/km² in Ponderosa Pine habitats. Densities in the Bitterroot Valley of Montana were 13.2 adults/km² in riparian habitats, and 4.1 adults/km² in burns (Blake et al. 2022).

Lewis’s Woodpecker pairs may nest at higher nest densities in cottonwood habitats, where they have reliable access to Saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia) and Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) berries to feed nestlings. Saskatoon is the only widely available fruiting shrub or tree (other than cultivated cherries and Chokecherry) that produces berries that ripen in late June and early July and can be used to feed nestlings. Although Saskatoon and Chokecherry shrubs are widespread at low to mid elevations throughout the southern interior of British Columbia, they only reliably produce fruit annually in riparian areas; on mesic or dry sites, they only bear fruit in years with a wet spring, since, in other years, the fruit often dries and shrivels before ripening (Gyug unpubl. data). Any potential differences in densities of insect prey among occupied habitats are unknown.

In British Columbia, cottonwood floodplains appear to be the primary habitat that anchors regional populations and acts as a source of birds for other habitats. Habitat modelling showed that Ponderosa Pine hillsides are likely to be occupied only when they are in the same part of a valley as intact mature riverside cottonwood stands (Gyug 2013a). Similarly, overall productivity, as indicated by density and fledging rates, is higher in cottonwood stands than elsewhere (see Life cycle and reproduction).

Migration habitat

No information is available on the migration habitat used by Lewis’s Woodpeckers in British Columbia or elsewhere (Vierling et al. 2020), nor has any specific migration habitat been identified.

Winter habitat

Oak woodlands and commercial orchards are typical habitat used in the western United States during the winter, with an important characteristic being the availability of storage sites for acorns, mast, and grain in the bark of mature cottonwood trees or in cracks in power poles (Vierling et al. 2020).

Movement, migration, and dispersal

Lewis’s Woodpecker is migratory, with only a few individuals overwintering in Canada in recent years. The maximum total number of individuals counted on British Columbia Christmas Bird Counts was 27 in 1975, but an average of only 0.46/year were counted from 2009 to 2021.

No key migration routes or stopover sites are known. Once migration begins, most birds probably leave Canada within 1 to 2 days, as the entire Canadian population nests within 375 km of the United States border, and the average distance between the border and the 1,460 known nest sites is 74 km. However, the many scattered post-breeding observations outside the EOO but in British Columbia (see Canadian range) indicate that some birds likely wander, either after breeding or during migration.

Nothing is known about site fidelity in Lewis’s Woodpeckers in Canada, with no studies using marked birds to estimate annual return rates. However, birds often use the same habitats, nest trees, and even nest holes from year to year (Zhu 2006a; Macfarland 2016), although it cannot be assumed that these are the same birds from one year to the next.

Interspecific interactions

Diet

The diet of Lewis’s Woodpecker varies seasonally, and this species is predominantly insectivorous during the breeding season. Unlike other woodpeckers, Lewis’s Woodpecker feeds mainly on free-living insects, rather than wood-boring beetle larvae. Insects are captured in the air, either by flycatching from perches or on the wing in the manner of swallows. It also takes insects from tree bark and foliage, from shrubs, and on the ground (Vierling et al. 2020). Insects eaten include various adult beetles, ants, other Hymenoptera, larger bugs, and grasshoppers (Beal 1911).

In summer, and frequently late in the breeding season, Lewis’s Woodpecker also forages on berries and fruits, in the wild and in commercial orchards, wherever those resources are near nests. Late in the nestling phase, Lewis’s Woodpeckers nesting near orchards can be observed foraging on ripening cherries to feed the brood (L. Gyug unpubl. data). Nesting pairs frequently forage on Saskatoon fruit in late summer, and in fall, Lewis’s Woodpecker feeds on apples, either on or off the tree (Beal 1911).

When present in winter in British Columbia, Lewis’s Woodpecker was restricted to urban areas and orchards, where it foraged on leftover fruit (especially apples) and the nuts of ornamental trees (Cannings et al. 1987). In the United States, it relies heavily on oak nuts, corn, and other mast sources in winter (Vierling et al. 2020).

Predators and competitors

Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) is the only reported predator of adult Lewis’s Woodpeckers (Vierling et al. 2020), although other large raptors are potential predators. American Kestrel is reported to prey on recently fledged young (Vierling et al. 2020). Periodically, nest cavities are torn open, suggesting that Black Bear (Ursus americanus) occasionally preys on nestlings (COSEWIC 2010). Long-tailed Weasel (Mustela frenata) has been observed predating a nest (Newlon 2005). Other potential predators of eggs and nestlings include snakes, voles, and squirrels (Saab and Vierling 2001). Active nests have been usurped by Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus), House Wren (Troglodytes aedon; Newlon 2005), and European Starling (Zhu et al. 2012).

Within its Canadian range, Lewis’s Woodpecker competes for cavities with Northern Flicker, European Starling, and American Kestrel. The latter two species may occupy old cavities, as only Lewis’s Woodpecker and Northern Flicker excavate new ones. There are several documented instances of each of the three species occupying former Lewis’s Woodpecker cavities (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000; Beauchesne and Cooper 2008; Zhu et al. 2012), and all three species have been recorded nesting in the same trees at the same time as Lewis’s Woodpecker (Campbell et al. 1990). Zhu et al. (2012) found that 50% of the nest cavities used by Lewis’s Woodpecker in the first year of his study were occupied by starlings in the second year. Lewis’s Woodpecker also nests in cavities originally excavated by Northern Flicker or Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus; Cooper and Beauchesne 2000; Beauchesne and Cooper 2008). One Lewis’s Woodpecker was observed usurping a flicker’s nest, with a flicker egg found at the base of the tree, while a Lewis’s Woodpecker was enlarging the nest cavity (Vierling et al. 2020).

Physiology, behavioural, and other adaptations

No information is available on nutrition, energetics, metabolism, or temperature regulation (Vierling et al. 2020) in Lewis’s Woodpecker. The species’ flight speeds are slower than those of most other North American woodpeckers, and the morphological traits and glycolytic capacity of its pectoral muscles are similar to those in species with a gliding flight (Tobalske 2001).

Lewis’s Woodpecker may sometimes co-exist closely with humans (Linder and Anderson 1998), with nests reported in backyards, golf courses, and farmyards and beside busy roads and a city parking lot (Cannings et al. 1987; Cooper and Beauchesne 2000; ECCC–CWS 2023). However, most Lewis’s Woodpeckers in Canada nest in more remote situations (ECCC–CWS 2023), and are likely to be more susceptible to disturbance (Bock 1970). Bock (1970) found that birds subjected to continued disturbance occasionally deserted their nest. Lewis’s Woodpeckers that nest almost every year in Bear Creek Park (B.C. provincial park) in the Okanagan Valley did not nest there in the year that a campground addition was being constructed within 50 m of the nest trees (Nuszdorfer pers. comm. 2018).

Lewis’s Woodpecker has very specific nest site requirements, notably nest trees that have more advanced decay than those used by other woodpecker species, because it is a relatively weak excavator (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000; Galen 2003; Fenger et al. 2006; Beauchesne and Cooper 2008). Because dead and decayed trees are usually less abundant than live trees in most landscapes in British Columbia (except for recent burns), nest sites are limited in the most suitable breeding habitat (riparian cottonwood forests). Lewis’s Woodpeckers occasionally nest in cavities in power poles, indicating some level of adaptability (Campbell et al. 1990; Cooper and Beauchesne 2000; Beauchesne and Cooper 2008; ECCC–CWS 2023). Although the species sometimes uses nest boxes (Kook and Moodie 2009), none of the nest boxes erected for them in British Columbia have ever been used (see Recovery Activities).

Limiting factors

Availability of habitat is likely the key limiting factor that has contributed to the long-term decline of Lewis’s Woodpecker in Canada and, along with nest site competition with European Starlings, is likely to continue to limit population recovery. Mature cottonwood floodplain forests in otherwise relatively dry and hot valleys have never been very abundant in British Columbia, only occurring in narrow ribbons along major rivers and in floodplains, but support the highest Lewis’s Woodpecker density and fecundity. In the Okanagan and Lower Similkameen valleys, Lea (2008) estimated the pre-European contact extent of cottonwood forests to be 2.4% of the 322,000 ha of the area under consideration. By 2003, that area only totalled 1.0%, representing a habitat loss of about 58%. The loss was not spread equally, with the highest loss in cities such as Kelowna, where 86% of the cottonwood habitat has been lost.

Lewis’s Woodpecker has low fecundity, averaging only about two or fewer fledged young/nest, and experiences nest predation rates of 20 to 33%. Therefore, it may have a limited ability to increase numbers quickly to fill suitable habitat in burns as this habitat becomes available, especially since the habitat with the highest breeding density, mature cottonwood floodplain forests, has been greatly reduced in two of the seven major regions occupied by the species in British Columbia. The large, well-decayed trees required by this weak excavator have probably always been in fairly short supply, except in mature riparian cottonwood forests, with their availability further limited by competition with starlings and the loss of many mature riparian forests.

Population sizes and trends

Data sources, methods, and uncertainties

The North American Breeding Bird Survey

The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is a continent-wide citizen science program initiated in 1966 to monitor trends in bird populations (Hudson et al. 2017; Sauer et al. 2017). Along the 39.2-km survey routes spanning the continent, an experienced observer conducts a three-minute point count at each of 50 stops, which are spaced at 800-m intervals, in early morning during the peak of the breeding season (Hudson et al. 2017). Standardized BBS population trend estimates for Canada are calculated using Bayesian hierarchical generalized additive models (Smith and Edwards 2020; Smith et al. 2020).

Long-term and 10-year rolling trends are available from the BBS. Long-term BBS trends (1970 to 2021) for Lewis’s Woodpecker are of medium reliability in Canada, and high reliability continent-wide, but of low reliability over the short term (2009 to 2021), both in Canada and continent-wide (Table 1). This survey method is of limited value in estimating trends in Lewis’s Woodpecker populations in Canada, because the species occurs on very few survey routes. In addition, it has a low frequency of occurrence (as well as relatively small numbers detected) on the routes where it is present since, unlike most woodpeckers, this species neither drums nor calls loudly and is usually detected visually. From 1973 to 2021, an average of only 2.75 ± 2.39 SD Lewis’s Woodpeckers/year were detected in the BBS in British Columbia, and none were detected in Alberta. It has only been detected on 21 BBS routes in Canada, with an average annual frequency of detection of 0.13. In addition, relatively few of these 21 BBS routes are still surveyed annually. Although an average of 13.3 routes were surveyed annually from 1980 to 2010 (range: 10 to 19 routes), since then, this has declined steadily to only four routes in 2021. On average, only one BBS route detected Lewis’s Woodpecker each year from 2017 to 2021. Medium- and short-term BBS trends in Canada must therefore be interpreted with considerable caution.

The BBS has also been used to estimate population numbers of many species, including Lewis’s Woodpecker (Blancher et al. 2007; Stanton et al. 2019; Partners in Flight 2020; Will et al. 2020). However, for the reasons given above, such estimates are of limited reliability for Lewis’s Woodpecker, especially in Canada where the 95% confidence bounds are very wide, that is, 700 to 9,900 around the estimate of 4,000 mature individuals (Table 2; Partners in Flight 2020).

*The methods are presented in detail in Will et al. 2020 and Stanton et al. 2019.

Christmas Bird Count

The Christmas Bird Count (CBC) is the oldest systematic bird survey in North America, dating back to 1900 (National Audubon Society 2023). There are over 2,400 CBC survey circles in North America (each with a fixed centre and a 12-km radius), which are surveyed by volunteer observers on a single day each year between 14 December and 5 January (National Audubon Society 2014). Data are corrected for effort to account for increases in participation over time, using a non-linear function to generate an estimate of the number of birds per observer party-hour. In British Columbia, the CBC began in 1974. Almost all of the wintering habitat of Lewis’s Woodpecker is in the United States, where the CBC has proven useful in determining population trends. In the United States, a mean of 682 Lewis’s Woodpeckers have been tallied annually on an average of 58 counts per year from 1977 to 2021. In Canada, the CBC is less useful for determining short-term trends because almost no Lewis’s Woodpeckers currently overwinter in Canada (average total of 0.46/year recorded from 2009 to 2021). Longer-term trends from the CBC in Canada may be more useful, as the maximum of 27 birds was obtained in 1975, but this only serves to highlight that the species no longer overwinters in Canada to any appreciable extent.

Ebird trends

As of 2020, eBird began publishing population trend estimates for some bird species online, using the methodology outlined in Fink et al. (2020). Trends for Lewis’s Woodpecker were provided for the breeding season during the 2012 to 2022 period (from 31 May to 2 August), using relative abundance data from eBird checklists at a 27 km x 27 km scale (Fink et al. 2023). This trend mapping methodology is relatively recent and its reliability difficult to gauge, given the complexity of the data analyses required to produce the trends from massive data sets and the lack of independent studies confirming the results. This may be of particular concern for Lewis’s Woodpecker, because many birdwatchers tend to travel specifically to areas where it has been seen to record it on an eBird checklist in as short a time as possible, thus leading to an overestimate of its relative abundance.

Species-specific programs

Surveys were conducted to obtain quantitative estimates of regional (Figure 4) or subregional nesting numbers in British Columbia (Table 3) by ECCC–CWS from 2010 to 2018 (Gyug 2013b, 2016, 2019; McDonald 2019; ECCC–CWS unpubl. data), by Gyug (unpubl. data) and the Okanagan Nation Alliance (unpubl. data) in 2022, and by Gyug and Surgenor (unpubl. data) in 2023. These were originally intended as a set of rolling surveys repeated every five years to determine population trends, but this proved too costly to implement. A period of twelve years was needed to complete the first survey round, so the results were used for producing population estimates rather than for trend monitoring. In regions where quantitative estimates could not be made, expert opinion was used instead to estimate numbers, using the available data in the ECCC–CWS database (2023), eBird data, data from other sources, or anecdotal information.

Figure 4. Regions in British Columbia used to determine detailed population estimates for Lewis’s Woodpecker (from Gyug 2013a). The environmental envelope shown was the area within which habitat modelling was undertaken (Gyug 2013a), excepting regions CC, FR, NS, and WK.

The quantitative nest abundance estimates used a dual-frame design (Haines and Pollock 1998). The two frames consisted of a list frame of previously known nests, and an independent area frame covering the remainder of the area, which was stratified by habitat suitability modelling. A preliminary habitat model was used to stratify area frame sampling in 2011 to 2012 (Gyug 2012a). In 2013, a revised habitat model was adopted, based on 400 m x 400 m cells for the entire biogeoclimatic envelope in the southern interior of British Columbia potentially occupied by Lewis’s Woodpecker (Gyug 2013a), which later became the spatial basis for critical habitat defined in the federal recovery strategy (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2017).

The Boundary region population estimate was updated from 2011 to 2012 to 2023 to 2024, using a census of Grand Forks in 2023 (Gyug et al. 2023) combined with a dual-frame design for the remainder of the region (Gyug and Coleshill, unpubl. data). The 2013 habitat mapping was revised before sampling because two recent burns (2015 and 2016) created new habitat in the region, and revised after sampling because old burns (1973 to 1986) had aged beyond suitability and were found to no longer contain Lewis’s Woodpeckers. Owing to the creation of new suitable habitat by wildfire, the overall habitat levels remained similar from 2012 to 2024 and population numbers did not change appreciably (Table 3).

From 2011 to 2018, variable-radius point counts were used to sample the area frame (Gyug 2012a, 2013b, 2016, 2019). A nest search was initiated for every Lewis’s Woodpecker detected on a 20-minute point count, with the distance to the nest used to estimate abundance using distance sampling methods (Thomas et al. 2009). The method was found to accurately estimate nest abundance when checked against a complete count of nests in the Grand Forks area (Gyug et al. 2023). In 2022 and 2023, area frame sampling was done using 400 m x 400 m cells as the sample unit for 20-minute (minimum) nest searches.

Annual roadside point counts were established in 2015 on eight routes in British Columbia, to replace the regional population estimates that were not used in trend monitoring. A 15-minute unlimited-radius point count is conducted at the 20 stops on each route (Gyug 2020). However, the ability of this method to detect annual trends is limited, with a power of 0.8 to detect a net trend of 49% over a 10-year period, or an annual trend of about 5% per year (Gyug 2020).

Abundance

The global population of Lewis’s Woodpecker was recently estimated to be about 82,000 mature individuals for the 2006 to 2015 period (with 95% confidence bounds of 53,000 to 120,000; Partners in Flight 2020; Table 2), based primarily on numbers detected in the BBS. In 2020, the Canadian population was estimated to be about 4,000 mature individuals, all in British Columbia, with 95% confidence bounds of 770 to 9,900 (Partners in Flight 2020) (Table 2). The PIF population estimate for British Columbia was based on a relatively low annual count with a relatively high standard deviation, and consequently had wide confidence limits (91%–150% of the estimate). For 1990 to 1999, the PIF population estimate for British Columbia was 6,000 mature individuals (Blancher et al. 2007), using a pair adjustment of 2.0 birds/pair, whereas in 2020, a pair adjustment of 1.5 birds/pair was used (Will et al. 2020). Consequently, most of the differences between these estimates are the result of the assumptions applied, rather than representing a real population decrease.

On the basis of quantitative regional nest estimates and expert opinion for regions or areas without those data, the breeding population in Canada is estimated to be 2,586 mature individuals for this report, with 95% confidence bounds of 2,030 to 3,140 (Table 3). Nest abundance estimates were multiplied by two, assuming two mature adults per nest in almost all circumstances, to yield the estimated number of mature individuals. Regions with quantitative estimates accounted for 95% of the total estimated population (Table 3). This final estimate is considerably more reliable than the BBS-based PIF estimate, with a 95% confidence limit that is 27% of the estimate, compared to 81% (lower) and 148% (upper) for the PIF estimate.

This estimate is higher than those obtained in previous COSEWIC status reports—a minimum of 1,200 individuals in 1999 and 2001 (Velland and Connolly 1999; COSEWIC 2001), and 630 to 920 mature individuals in 2010 (COSEWIC 2010). The COSEWIC (2001, 2010) estimates were based almost entirely on the numbers obtained by Siddle and Davidson (1991), who summed 24 regional estimates based largely on expert opinion. In the East Kootenay, where 12 to 24 nests had been estimated by Siddle and Davidson (1991), intensive surveys in 1998 found 87 active nests (Cooper and Beauchesne 2000)—three to four times the maximum number expected. Neither COSEWIC status report considered that this underestimation of population size by experts may have applied to other regions as well. The results of extensive non-random point counts (n = 1,412) and follow-up nest searches from 2006 to 2009 were stored in a variety of files and formats and not compiled in a readily accessible GIS format until early 2010. As a result, these data were not considered in the preparation of COSEWIC (2010), although it became apparent in early 2010 that the population estimates in COSEWIC (2001 and 2010) were minimum values and should have been at least doubled (Gyug pers. comm. 2024). This weakness led to the implementation of the better-designed survey approaches described above, whose results are captured in the more complete, accurate, and precise population estimates provided in this report.

Fluctuations and trends

Continuing decline^{Footnote 1} in number of mature individuals

Estimates of population trends in Canada cannot be made based on a direct comparison of abundance estimates from previous status assessments, due to appreciable differences in the techniques used and in the likely accuracy of resulting estimates (see Abundance above).

Quantitative estimates of recent declines in the number of mature individuals have only been made in two regions in Canada (see Evidence for decline over past 10 years below). These include a local decline of about 25% from 2011 to 2023 in Grand Forks (Gyug et al. 2023), and a regional decline of about 50% over 20 years (2003 to 2022) in the south Okanagan region (see Table 4, and Evidence for decline over past 10 years). The probable drivers of these declines, principally habitat loss from urban and agricultural development and nest site competition with starlings (see description in Threats and Appendix 1), are continuing and likely not confined to these two regions. None of the 10 experts contacted during the preparation of this report indicated that they thought that Lewis’s Woodpecker numbers were increasing in any region of British Columbia, and most indicated they were declining. However, the quantitative data on this small population are insufficient to reliably estimate a rate of decline in other regions, or for Canada overall, over the past decade (see Evidence for decline over the past 10 years).

The estimated local declines of 25% in Grand Forks and 35% in the south Okanagan over 10 years represent a loss in the total Canadian population of about 5.2%, including 1% in the Grand Forks area and 4.2% in the south Okanagan (see Evidence for decline over the past 10 years). Even with no declines in other regions, summing the values for these two localities represents an inferred decline in the total Canadian population of about 5% over the past 10 years. Considered together with the overall High – Medium threat impact score, which corresponds to an anticipated decline of 3 to 70% over the next 10 years (see Current and Future Threats), a continuing decline in the number of mature individuals in Canada is inferred.

Evidence for continuing decline over 3 years

Because there is insufficient information to directly estimate the rate of continuing decline in the Lewis’s Woodpecker population in Canada over the past 3 years, the approximate rate during that period is based on the inferred rate of decline of about 5 to 10% over the past 10 years (see below), and inferred to be about 1.5 to 3.0%.

Evidence for continuing decline over 5 years

Because there is insufficient information to directly estimate the rate of continuing decline in the Lewis’s Woodpecker population in Canada over the past 5 years, the approximate rate during that period is based on the inferred rate of decline of about 5 to 10% over the past 10 years (see below), and inferred to be about 2.5 to 5.0%.

Evidence for decline over past 10 years (that has ceased or is continuing)

The BBS trend for the past 10-year period in Canada (2011 to 2021) was slightly positive (3.6%), but had low reliability and very wide credible intervals, and was not significantly different from no trend (Table 1). The continent-wide BBS trend for the same period was also slightly positive, but also had low reliability and wide credible intervals. The latter trend is largely driven by population trends in the United States, as U.S. birds make up about 95% of the global population. Cumulative changes over the same period have extremely wide credible intervals that are not significantly different from no detected change. Short-term rates of change are similar in the U.S. states bordering British Columbia.

Because all Lewis’s Woodpeckers that breed in Canada now normally overwinter in the United States, no useful trends can be derived from the CBC in Canada. Short-term CBC trends for the United States (2010 to 2021), where about 5% of birds counted are likely from the Canadian population, indicate no significant trend (linear regression, r² = 0.02, p = 0.66, Figure 5).

Figure 5. Mean abundance of Lewis’s Woodpecker per party-hour as recorded on the Christmas Bird Count (National Audubon Society 2023) in Canada (top) between 1974 and 2021, showing cubic regression line fit, and the United States (bottom) between 1938 and 2021, showing averages as horizontal lines separately for 1938 to 1977 and 1978 to 2021. The line on the secondary axis in the bottom graph shows the number of party-hours upon which the annual estimates were based, resulting in much higher precision after 1977. There were no Christmas Bird Counts in the interior of British Columbia before 1970, and there was almost no coverage in the western United States until 1938.

eBird trend data indicate an increasing range-wide median trend of 23.1% during the 2012 to 2022 period, with relatively wide 80% confidence intervals (14.3%–37%; Figure 6; Fink et al. 2023). For Canada alone, a declining median trend of 6.1% was detected for the 2012 to 2022 period, with wide 80% confidence intervals of -20.7% to 11.7% that spanned zero, indicating relatively little confidence in the resulting trend (Fink et al. 2023). These results do not mirror BBS trends, which also have low reliability, and it is difficult to draw useful conclusions from the eBird data (see Data Sources, Methods and Uncertainties).

Figure 6. eBird trend map for Lewis’s Woodpecker during the breeding season (31 May–2 August) in North America from 2012 to 2022, with an 80% confidence interval for the median 10-year trend (Fink et al. 2023).

No significant linear trend was observed in the data from annual roadside point count monitoring (which is separate from BBS roadside monitoring) in British Columbia during the 2015 to 2022 period (r² = 0.41, p = 0.38). However, a trend of +1.1% was noted, with wide 95% confidence bounds of ‑12.7% to 14.9%. The statistical power to detect an actual 1% annual trend with 80% probability (1-beta = 0.8) would be very low, at about 8% (Gyug unpubl. data).

In British Columbia, repeated regional estimates of the number of active nests have only been obtained in the East Kootenay region. COSEWIC (2010) reported a 22% decrease in the number of nests over the 10-year period from 1998 (85 nests) to 2007 (66 nests), based on an attempted count of all nests in this region. However, the 2007 surveys likely underestimated regional abundance because surveyors were unaware of some newly occupied burn habitats (ECCC–CWS 2023). In 2013, nest abundance in the East Kootenay region was estimated to be 103 nests (Gyug 2013b, Table 3). Because of the habitat missed during the 2007 re-survey of the East Kootenay and difficulties in searching a region of about 1,000 km² with 100% efficiency, the apparent population decline noted in COSEWIC (2010) may not have actually occurred.

In the East Kootenay, several projects to restore open savannah-like parklands for Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) and Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) have benefited Lewis’s Woodpecker. For example, dense trees were thinned and the understory removed, probably followed by a prescribed burn (underburning), on 671 ha of the Skookumchuk Prairie in 2011 to 2013 to provide habitat for ungulates and Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) (Cooper 2017a, 2020). No Lewis’s Woodpeckers were present in 2007 (Beauchesne and Cooper 2008) or 2013 (Gyug 2013b), but five nests were active in 2016, 18 in 2017, and 21 in 2019 (Cooper 2020). The large increase by 2017 indicated that birds in the East Kootenay may have shifted the areas they occupied as habitat suitability changed.

Before the first abundance estimates were obtained in the Okanagan and Similkameen regions in 2022, many Lewis’s Woodpecker surveys had been carried out in the region, including those for two master’s theses (Zhu 2006a; Macfarland 2016), 395 point count surveys (points chosen by observers) from 2006 to 2007, 164 random point counts in 2013, and many re-surveys of heavily used nest areas by the Wildlife Tree Stewardship Program, from 2008 to 2012 (ECCC–CWS 2023). Although the sites in the earlier studies were not randomly selected, they enable ad-hoc comparisons to be drawn with other sites surveyed at a later time during the 2003 to 2022 period (Table 4). The mean 2022 nest abundance in these areas where time-wise comparisons were possible was 48% lower in the Okanagan than the value from prior years (paired t-test: t = 3.37, 7 df, p = 0.01) averaged over 13 years (2009 as the mean year of prior data, compared to 2022). The observed rate of decline (48% over 13 years) is equivalent to a decline of 35% over a 10-year period. In 2022, the Okanagan population was estimated at 150 pairs (Table 3), or about 12% of the estimated Canadian population of 1,265 pairs (Table 3). The estimated population loss in the Okanagan region over a decade would therefore correspond to an estimated loss of 4.2% (that is, 35% x 12%) in the Canadian population. No significant difference was found for the Similkameen population (paired t-test: t = 0.28, 4 df, p = 0.79) over the mean period of 2011 to 2022 (Table 4).

A downward trend in Lewis’s Woodpecker numbers in the Okanagan Valley has also been noted by local biologists and residents. This species is now very difficult to find in the Okanagan at previously occupied sites where there have been no visible habitat changes, in contrast to the Kettle and Similkameen river valleys, where it still occurs in similar habitat with no visible changes (Cannings pers. comm. 2023). Lewis’s Woodpeckers were common in cottonwood stands in the region in 1986, even though European Starlings nested in abundance there at that time (Cannings et al. 1987; Cannings pers. comm. 2023). Fewer migrating Lewis’s Woodpeckers are typically observed now than in the past, with a flock of 80 birds once seen making an hour-long stop in Ponderosa Pine habitat during fall migration in the mid-1990s near Willowbrook in the Okanagan Valley (Sarell pers. comm. 2023). In contrast, flock size in recent years rarely exceeds about ten birds (Sarell pers. comm. 2023; eBird 2024; Gyug unpubl. data).

While wildfire may also create short-term habitat, Lewis’s Woodpecker does not currently appear to have the reproductive capacity to populate all such habitats. The 4.2% population decline noted in the Okanagan occurred despite the creation of 27,000 ha of possibly suitable habitat over that same time period. From 2012 to 2021, burns occurred in 22% (or 270 km²) of the south Okanagan region that could potentially be occupied by Lewis’s Woodpeckers, out of the total regional area of 1,218 km² (see Figure 4; Gyug unpubl. analyses using DataBC fire polygons).

In 2018, a catastrophic flood in Grand Forks caused significant riverbank erosion (Gyug et al. 2023), resulting in the direct loss of 12% of known nest trees on the riverbank; this was correlated with a 22% decline in relative abundance based on annual roadside point counts and a 31% decline in absolute abundance based on complete nest counts of the area in 2012 and in 2023 (Gyug et al. 2023). The overall scope of this reduction was relatively small (affecting 4% of the estimated Canadian population) with moderate severity (19 to 31% reduction), equivalent to a decline of about 1% in the estimated Canadian population during the 2012 to 2023 period.

The actual population decline may be slightly higher than the minimum of 5% estimated using the quantitative data cited above, and likely as much as roughly 10%, projected from the impact of threats considered in ECCC (2017; Gyug pers. calc. ). A rounded range of 5 to 10% is inferred here to approximate the rate of decline in the past 10 years, and is considered to be continuing, because all contributing threats are continuing.

Evidence for projected or suspected future decline over next 10 years

Overall, declines inferred over the past decade in the number of Lewis’s Woodpeckers are expected to continue into the next decade, because all major threats are continuing, including nine level 1 threats that are considered to have important impacts. These include three of anticipated High – Medium impact, two of Medium impact, and four of Low impact (Appendix 1). The overall High – Medium threat impact score corresponds to an anticipated further decline of 3 to 70% over the next 10 years (see Current and future threats). Because most threats are anticipated to have about the same impact in the next 10 years as they had during the past 10-year period, it is anticipated that the 5 to 10% rate of decline inferred for the past 10 years (see Evidence for decline over past 10 years) will continue over the next decade.

Long-term trends

The breeding range of Lewis’s Woodpecker in Canada has contracted over the last century. Although considered an abundant breeding bird near Victoria, British Columbia, in the 1920s and 1930s (Cowan 1940), breeding Lewis’s Woodpeckers were extirpated on Vancouver Island by 1962 and in the lower Fraser River valley by 1964 (Campbell et al. 1990; Cooper et al. 1998). Breeding groups at the northern limit of the species’ range in the Kootenay region near Golden and Revelstoke have also disappeared, as have northern breeding occurrences in the Wells Gray Park area (Cooper et al. 1998).

Long-term BBS trends indicate an annual decline of 1.3% from 1970 to 2021 in British Columbia (Table 1), equivalent to a 49% cumulative reduction from 1970 to 2021. Continent-wide, a cumulative -58% reduction occurred during that time period. These estimates have medium and high reliability (Table 1). The large losses in the past, on the order of 50% of the population, particularly from 1970 to the mid-1990s, do not appear to be continuing into the present (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Annual index of population abundance for Lewis’s Woodpecker in Canada, based on Breeding Bird Survey data from 1970 to 2021 and 2005 to 2021 (n = 20 routes). The GAM (generalized additive model) trend represents the best curvilinear fit of data, whereas the slope trend represents a straight-line comparison between start and end points. Blue and grey shading, respectively, show the 95% credible intervals for the GAM and slope trends, and note that the overall reliability of the BBS in Canada is low (Smith unpubl. data).

In the United States, CBC trends indicate a significant long-term decline in Lewis’s Woodpecker numbers (F_1,82 = 30.2, p < 0.0001, Figure 5). From 1938 to 1977, the average counted/party-hour was 0.058, which declined to 0.025 after 1978. Since 1978, there has been no significant trend (r² = 0.03, F_1,42 = 1.19, p = 0.28). A significant 56% decline in mean relative abundance occurred between these two periods (1938 to 1977 and 1978 to 2021) (t = 5.02, 40 df, p < 0.001).

Lewis’s Woodpecker was noted as being so common in the Okanagan Valley from 1900 to 1936 that it deserved special mention:

Particularly so were the Lewis’s Woodpeckers… These birds came in their scores as the apples ripened, to pierce with their sharp beaks one red apple after another, compelling us, in self-defence, to shoot large numbers of them. Unlike the crows, which too came occasionally in big flocks to feed on the fruit, they would not take the hint and go when shot at. (Parham 1937)

The European Starling appears to have replaced Lewis’s Woodpecker as the major orchard and vineyard pest, and past woodpecker numbers must have been much higher in order for birds to arrive at an individual orchard “in scores.”

Population fluctuations, including extreme fluctuations

Lewis’s Woodpecker numbers in Canada are not known to experience extreme fluctuations. In British Columbia, breeding numbers may change markedly at the local scale in a few years, for example, when birds occupy new habitat in recently burned areas (see Fluctuations and trends in Distribution), but overall numbers change much more slowly. Annual roadside monitoring from 2015 to 2022 did not show any appreciable fluctuations in numbers at the regional or provincial scales over that period (see Evidence for decline over past 10 years).

Severe fragmentation

Potential fragmentation was assessed for Lewis’s Woodpecker, as this species has a restricted distribution in Canada and an estimated current IAO of between 1,436 and 1,664 km² (see Current index of area of occupancy). Nesting pairs are thinly spread out across the breeding range, and areas of occupied breeding habitat may be separated by several tens of kilometres (for example, Figure 3). However, breeding habitat is not considered to be severely fragmented, because individual birds are able to disperse considerable distances, often colonizing newly available habitats such as burns that may be widely separated from other occupied sites (Gyug, pers. obs.).

Rescue effect

As the range of Lewis’s Woodpecker in Canada is continuous with the much larger population in the United States, there is a potential source of immigrants from the south. However, between 1970 and 2021, BBS data show negative long-term trends in the adjacent states of Washington, Idaho, and Montana that are similar to the trend in British Columbia (Smith unpubl. data 2023). There have been slight positive trends for these states in the past 10 years, similar to that noted for British Columbia (Figure 7, Smith unpubl. data). These short-term (10-year) trends are based on relatively few data, and, in each case except Idaho, the 95% bounds of the trend overlap zero and have low reliability (Smith unpubl. data 2023). Because the highest quality breeding habitat, that is, mature riparian cottonwood stands, appears to be limiting in Canada, and declines in habitat quality and quantity are continuing, there appears to be little capacity in Canada to accommodate immigrants, and thus little overall likelihood of rescue.

Threats

Historical, long-term, and continuing habitat trends

Long-term declines in the species’ foraging and nesting habitat have resulted from the loss of many productive mature riparian cottonwood forests due to diking, channelization, reservoir filling, and flooding; the loss of open Ponderosa Pine forests due to urbanization and conversion to agriculture; and the reduced incidence of fire in areas where frequent low-impact stand-maintaining fires formerly perpetuated open Ponderosa Pine savannahs.

The urbanization and agricultural conversion of natural areas have reduced the available Lewis’s Woodpecker habitat, which is likely to continue as human populations increase and urbanization continues (estimated 10% increase over next 10 years based on projected population increase – see Housing and urban areas), and as more orchards and vineyards are established in natural or relatively natural areas (estimated 2% increase – see Annual and perennial non-timber crops). A combination of diking, channelization, catastrophic flooding, and dam reservoirs continues to reduce the species’ most valuable cottonwood floodplain habitat. Increasing wildfire activity in western North America in recent decades due to climate change (Schoennagel et al. 2017) may be temporarily expanding the availability of suitable habitat in closed forests that are burned, as long as those areas are not salvage logged (Saab and Dudley 1998).

Significant regional differences in habitat availability in British Columbia are reflected in the types of nest tree used. Cottonwood nest trees accounted for 81% of known nest trees in the Boundary region, 40% in the Similkameen region, 28% in the Thompson region, but only 10% in the Okanagan and 8% in the East Kootenay regions (ECCC–CWS 2023). Most mature cottonwood stands in the Okanagan Valley have been lost to the diking and channelization of the Okanagan River since the 1940s, and in the East Kootenay, to the reservoir behind the Libby Dam on the Kootenay River in Montana (opened in 1975), which flooded into British Columbia 68 km north of the U.S. border. These two regions may therefore be particularly vulnerable to other stressors, given that the most productive habitats currently only account for a small fraction of their historical distribution, and abundance there is much reduced from historical levels.

Current and future threats

Lewis’s Woodpecker is vulnerable to the cumulative effects of various threats. These are categorized below and in Appendix 1, following IUCN (2022). The evaluation assesses impacts for each of 11 main Level 1 categories of threats and their Level 2 subcategories, based on the scope (proportion of population exposed to the threat over the next 10-year period), severity (predicted population decline among those exposed to the threat, during the next 10 years or 3 generations, whichever is longer), and timing of each threat. The overall threat impact is calculated by taking into account the separate impacts of all threat categories and may be adjusted by the species experts participating in the threat assessment.

For Lewis’s Woodpecker, the overall threat impact is considered to be High – Medium, corresponding to an anticipated further decline of between 3% and 70% over the next ten years (see Appendix 1 for details). The continuing and pervasive threats to the species’ habitat and continuing competition from European Starlings for nest sites indicate that some of the main threats that resulted in long-term population losses are still in effect. Threats are discussed below in order of decreasing severity of impact (greatest to least) with those of the same impact in numerical order, and ending with those for which the scope or severity is unknown.

IUCN 5. Biological resource use (high – medium threat impact)

5.3. Logging and wood harvesting

Lewis’s Woodpecker is not currently considered to be threatened by commercial forest harvesting, because stand densities in its open Ponderosa Pine nesting habitats are too low for harvesting to be economically viable and the wood of this species currently has very little market value. However, clearcut salvage logging of burns may occur, which negates their potential as suitable habitat if potential nesting trees are removed (Saab et al. 2007), whether as merchantable wood or as safety hazards. Extensive burns occurred in Lewis’s Woodpecker nesting areas from 2017 to 2023, and similar future burns are anticipated. Many burned areas are too extensive for complete salvage logging, and many stands are not salvage logged. In the past, most burns with accessible merchantable wood would have been salvage logged by clearcutting in British Columbia, because dead standing trees are considered safety hazards. Danger tree removal is likely to increase over the next ten years in cottonwood stands (Manning pers. comm. 2024). The scope of this threat is considered to be Large – Restricted and its severity to be Extreme – Serious, but both with wide variations and likely towards the lower end of the range.

IUCN 8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes (high – medium threat impact)

8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species

Competition for nest cavities from introduced species, particularly the European Starling, has frequently been identified as a threat to Lewis’s Woodpecker (for example, Campbell et al. 1990; Galen 2003). In the Okanagan Valley, 43% of cavities used by Lewis’s Woodpeckers in one year were occupied by the earlier-nesting European Starling in the following year (Zhu 2006a). However, Macfarland et al. (2019) found a level of tolerance between the two species based on nest productivity, and even in the Okanagan example, most evidence of the displacement of Lewis’s Woodpeckers by starlings was indirect (Zhu 2006a). Although Macfarland et al. (2019) indicated that Lewis’s Woodpeckers may tolerate starlings to some extent, they only used study sites where Lewis’s Woodpeckers were present, and did not estimate breeding density, which may have been affected by competition even if nest productivity was not. In particular, anecdotal evidence suggests that Lewis’s Woodpecker may be absent in some localities in British Columbia, particularly cities, due to competition from starlings for nest sites (Cannings pers. comm. 2023).

The number of European Starlings in the central and southern interior portions of British Columbia is estimated at 1 million (Partners in Flight 2023). Given that the BBS occurs in June when the first starling broods may have already fledged, a conservative estimate might be that 200,000 starling pairs will attempt to nest twice in a given season within the area occupied by Lewis’s Woodpecker in British Columbia. This level of demand for nest cavities exceeding previous natural levels has likely affected the Lewis’s Woodpecker population. While starling populations have been declining in British Columbia since the 1970s, with significant declines on the order of 4 to 7% from 2011 to 2021 (Smith unpubl. data), their numbers are still so high that this threat is assumed to be Large in scope and Moderate in severity. The range of the European Starling overlaps the entire range of Lewis’s Woodpecker in British Columbia, although the threat may be particularly acute in the Okanagan and East Kootenay valleys, where mature riparian cottonwood stands, in which Lewis’s Woodpecker is most productive, have largely been eliminated, and perhaps in the Thompson River valley east of Kamloops (Reudink pers. comm. 2024). The scope of this threat is considered to be Large and the severity, Serious – Moderate.

IUCN 1. Residential and commercial development (medium threat impact)

1.1. Housing and urban areas

Further habitat loss is anticipated due to human population growth and expansion throughout much of the range of Lewis’s Woodpecker in British Columbia. In the recovery strategy for Lewis’s Woodpecker (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2017), human population size (and by extension, urban development) was predicted to increase between 2013 and 2023 in the Thompson-Nicola, Okanagan-Similkameen, East Kootenay, and Kootenay Boundary regional districts by 8.9%, 5.3%, 4.4%, and 1.0%, respectively. However, census data indicate that population increases from 2011 to 2021 were much higher than expected: 11.8%, 11.7%, 16.5%, and 6.4% (listed in the same order as above; Statistics Canada 2019, 2023), so this threat may be having a larger effect than initially anticipated. Housing is likely to affect riparian habitats differently from upland habitats. Although there are 15- or 30-m no-build zones along rivers in British Columbia, these zones are usually within private lot lines, making it difficult to control individual landowners’ removal of mature cottonwood trees. Population growth in the southern interior of British Columbia is continuing, with no reduction in scope. The scope of this threat is considered to be Restricted and the severity, Extreme.

Some commercial development linked to increased housing will continue to occur, but is difficult to separate, so it has been included in 1.1 rather than being scored separately under 1.2 (Commercial and industrial development).

1.3. Tourism and recreation areas

There is the potential for habitat loss due to the development of new recreation areas similar to the loss due to housing considered under 1.1. However, the number of new sites that could be developed over the next 10 years is uncertain, and no new large recreational developments were identified during the threat assessment call. Given this uncertainty and the lack of quantification, the scope is considered to be Restricted and the severity, Serious.

IUCN 7. Natural system modifications (medium threat impact)

7.1. Fire and fire suppression

Low-intensity wildfire plays an important role in maintaining the open structure of low-elevation breeding habitats used by Lewis’s Woodpeckers, with fire suppression in lowland Ponderosa Pine forests considered a significant threat to these habitats. The suppression of low-intensity natural fires degrades breeding habitat by allowing dense stands of young Ponderosa Pine to develop and Douglas-fir to invade (Cooper et al. 1998). Those stands then become vulnerable to high-intensity fires that may kill most trees, resulting in some short-term habitat creation but also long-term habitat loss, because the standing dead trees used for nesting eventually fall in 10 to 25 years. No veteran trees may then be available for nesting if all were killed by severe fires, and fewer new trees may regenerate if a hotter and drier climate prevents seedlings from establishing.

Fire suppression is believed to have contributed to the extirpation of Lewis’s Woodpeckers in the Fraser River valley. Lewis’s Woodpeckers were common in Vancouver and North Vancouver between 1920 and 1940 in areas that had been burned or logged, but disappeared as the forests regenerated and fire suppression prevented the development of new open habitats (Cooper et al. 1998). In addition, fuel management activities in areas occupied by Lewis’s Woodpeckers can reduce habitat suitability by removing or burning all understory vegetation, including small fruit-bearing trees and shrubs such as Saskatoon and Chokecherry that the birds may rely upon for feeding nestlings (see Breeding habitat).

Stand-replacing fires in mature and old-growth forests can generate new Lewis’s Woodpecker habitat by creating open habitat with standing snags, but the quality of these burn habitats declines over time with post-fire succession (see Breeding habitat). If the rate of habitat creation by fire is lower than the rate of habitat degradation due to succession, the amount of suitable Lewis’s Woodpecker habitat declines over the long term. However, this has not yet been the case, because the annual area burned has increased dramatically. The average area burned annually in the species’ breeding range increased from 81 km² in 1950 to 1999, to 235 km² in 2000 to 2009, to 652 km² in 2010 to 2019, and to 2,274 km² in 2020 to 2022 (Gyug unpubl. analyses using DataBC fire polygons).

Currently, the percentage of critical habitat made up of burned habitat types, relative to floodplain or upland Ponderosa Pine habitat types, is highest in the East Kootenay region at 44%, compared to 22 to 30% for the other regions (Gyug unpubl. data). Therefore, continuing fire suppression in the East Kootenay region may have a particularly large negative impact on regional abundance that is not made up for by the few areas where ecosystem restoration is underway. Overall, the scope of the fire suppression threat is considered to be Restricted and its severity, Serious.

7.2. Dams and water management/use

The construction of dikes and cofferdams is underway in Grand Forks to mitigate future flood risk (see 11.4, Storms and flooding), which is likely to have further negative impacts on Lewis’s Woodpecker because 90% of nest trees in that area are within 50 m of riverbanks (Gyug et al. 2023), and the creation of dikes and cofferdams requires the removal of all trees within the construction footprint, and over a larger area if removal is required for access. A management plan for Lewis’s Woodpecker in Grand Forks has been drafted (Coleshill 2018), but not adopted or implemented. A diking project is also underway in Lewis’s Woodpecker habitat along the Kettle River and Boundary Creek, near the town of Midway. Loss of mature cottonwood floodplain forests due to diking is likely ongoing in these areas, and similar effects have occurred in the past in other areas. Overall, the scope of this threat is considered to be Small and its severity, Serious.

7.3. Other ecosystem modifications

Other ecosystem modifications include indirect habitat loss from other causes such as grazing, insecticides, and pine beetle infestations that do not cause direct mortality, as well as complete habitat loss directly attributed to specific threats such as housing.

The long-term or concentrated presence of livestock that impacts vegetation through grazing, browsing, or trampling may degrade habitat by reducing insect production in the herb and shrub layer (Belsky et al. 1999; Abele et al. 2004). In Arizona, insect abundance was 4 to 10 times higher in grazing exclosures than in grazed habitat (Rambo and Faeth 1999). Vierling (1997) found that Lewis’s Woodpeckers avoided nesting in heavily grazed habitats, and suggested that this may be due to relatively low insect abundance. However, Vierling (1997) also found that, in lightly grazed areas, Lewis’s Woodpecker was actually more likely to select nest trees in grazed versus ungrazed habitats, suggesting that lighter levels of grazing may be beneficial.

Declines in insectivorous bird populations have been linked to the increased use of neonicotinoid pesticides (Hallmann et al. 2014). Neonicotinoids are presumed to have an effect on birds by reducing insect populations, as they generally have very low mammalian and bird toxicity (Godfray et al. 2014), although some neonicotinoids have moderate to high toxicity in small birds (Gibbons et al. 2015).

Invasive, non-native Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is an aggressive species that also suppresses cottonwood regeneration in the Grand Forks area, as does intensive browsing by White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus), which are resident year-round in the same area (Coleshill pers. comm 2024).

Pine beetle epidemics in the mid-2000s posed a significant threat to Lewis’s Woodpecker habitat. Mountain and Western pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae and D. brevicomis) infested 83,325 ha of Ponderosa Pine forests within the species’ Canadian range (Maclauchlan et al. 2008). The area of potentially suitable habitat (classes 1-4, Gyug 2013a) in the infested area was over 12,000 ha. This may have created a short-term supply of decaying trees suitable for nesting Lewis’s Woodpeckers, but the length of time that these trees remain suitable is far shorter than that of trees that die from other causes. Observations from the Thompson-Nicola regional district, where infestations have been the most severe, suggest that most pine beetle-killed trees fall a few years later (Manning pers. comm. 2022; Surgenor pers. comm. 2022). Given the extent of the outbreak there, with fatal infestation in many stands approaching 100% of Ponderosa Pine, a dramatic loss in nest tree availability will soon occur. This is particularly notable in the Thompson-Nicola district, where over 55% of known nests are in Ponderosa Pine habitats (ECCC–CWS 2023). In areas where almost all mature pine trees were killed, it may take several decades to a few centuries before trees of a suitable size and decay class are available again to support nesting Lewis’s Woodpeckers. Similar levels of infestation have not been observed in the other regions, but may occur under future climate change scenarios.

The overall scope of this complex threat is Pervasive, affecting 71 to 100% of the population, but severity is Moderate – Slight.

IUCN 11. Climate change and severe weather (medium threat impact)

The 2017 federal recovery strategy for Lewis’s Woodpecker (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2017) indicated that climate change may affect the species through northward habitat shifts, earlier arrival on breeding grounds and nest initiation, increased rates of habitat loss due to pine beetle outbreaks (Logan et al. 2003) and increased loss of nest trees in high wind events (IPCC 2007). The most immediate climate-related threats to Lewis’s Woodpecker are extreme heat (Philip et al. 2021) and flooding, which can be directly tied to extreme rainfall events.

11.3 Temperature extremes

During an unprecedented Pacific Northwest heat wave from 25 June to 2 July 2021, temperatures reached a new Canadian record of 49.6 °C at Lytton, British Columbia, exceeding the previous record by 4.6 °C (White et al. 2023). Many other areas in southern British Columbia exceeded all-time maximums by more than 5 °C, including many Lewis’s Woodpecker nesting areas. The anthropogenic warming of the planet clearly contributed to the severity of this event (White et al. 2023).

The 2021 heatwave occurred during the middle of the Lewis’s Woodpecker nestling phase in British Columbia, with several observers noting that adults stopped feeding nestlings and were resting and gular-fluttering in an attempt to cool down (Hobbs and Mailloux 2021; Luszcz pers. comm. 2024). Extreme heat can reduce nesting success but is unlikely to cause appreciable (or any) adult mortality. Although there is no firm evidence that extreme heat events have reduced nesting success or contributed to past or current population declines, anecdotal information indicates that some localities that had been regularly occupied annually prior to the 2021 heatwave were not used in the following few years (discussion on threat assessment call, 15 January 2024). As heatwaves of this type are expected to occur more frequently and over wide areas (Philip et al. 2021; White et al. 2023), the scope of this threat is considered Pervasive and the severity, Moderate, based on anecdotal information and expert opinion.

11.4. Storms and flooding

An “atmospheric river” event of November 2021 that produced unusually high levels of rainfall caused extensive flooding and riverbank erosion in southern British Columbia, when warm rain fell on early snow (Gillett et al. 2022). Atmospheric river events of the magnitude of the November 2021 one are considered to be “approximately one in ten year events in the current climate of the region, and that such events have been made at least 60% more likely by the effects of human-induced climate change” (Gillett et al. 2022).

The 2021 floods particularly affected Lewis’s Woodpecker habitat in the lowest 20 km of the Nicola River valley, where Highway 8 was washed out in 23 places (British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 2022) and closed for a year. That flooding was particularly severe due to the added effects of a 19,000-ha fire in the Nicola River headwaters that started on 13 July 2021. Of 35 previously known nest trees in the valley, 14 were in the floodplain, and 10 of these (71%) either disappeared or were no longer suitable. By way of comparison, only 3 (14%) of the 21 nest trees that were not in the floodplain disappeared (that is, were consumed by fire) in 2021 (Gyug unpubl. data). This flood impacted a relatively small area, likely affecting less than 5% of the Canadian population.

The city of Grand Forks also experienced unprecedented spring flooding in 2018, exceeding the 200-year flood level and covering the entire floodplain and most of the downtown area (City of Grand Forks 2022). This was correlated with a subsequent decline of 22 to 31% in the abundance of nesting Lewis’s Woodpeckers (Gyug et al. 2023). The scope of this threat is considered Small and the severity, Moderate.

IUCN 2. Agriculture and aquaculture (low threat impact)

2.1. Annual and perennial non-timber crops

Conversion of areas of open woodland to agricultural use for orchards and similar non-timber crops has resulted in the loss of suitable breeding habitat for Lewis’s Woodpecker in Canada. From 2011 to 2021, the area cultivated in British Columbia for tree fruits and grapes increased by 18% (British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture 2022). As of early 2024, this growth is expected to continue in the future, although at a much lower rate.

There are 5,011 ha of tree fruit orchards in the Okanagan-Similkameen region, representing 95% of such orchards in all of British Columbia (British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries 2020). Most are for apples (52% by area), followed by cherries (37%). The area under tree fruit cultivation increased by 27% from 2011 to 2020, but is not expected to continue at that pace, with only a 2% increase from 2015 to 2020 (British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture 2022).

In 1921, tree fruit orchards covered 15,068 ha in British Columbia, which peaked at 16,286 ha in 1951 and fell to 11,715 ha by 1976 (Statistics Canada 2007), likely driven primarily by urban conversion. The reduction in orchard area stabilized in 1974 with the passing of the British Columbia Land Commission Act, which was updated as the Agricultural Land Commission Act in 2002 (Government of British Columbia 2024). The establishment of the Agricultural Land Reserve in 1974 under this Act preserved existing agricultural areas, which caused urban development to move into hillsides and natural areas. The area of tree fruit orchards declined significantly from the 1990s through the 2000s, as many orchards were converted to vineyards.

Although the area cultivated for grapes in the Okanagan-Similkameen region was reduced from 1,375 ha to 460 ha with the passing of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the subsequent development of a vinifera grape wine industry led to an increase in the area of vineyards to 4,150 ha in 2021. While some vineyards were converted from tree fruit orchards, many were established on hillsides, in natural areas, and on hayfields or pasture that previously had not been intensively farmed (Gyug unpubl. data). The rate of increase in vineyard area is likely to slow or halt in the next 10 years, because of the irreparable damage to existing vineyards from cold snaps in December 2022 and January 2024, when temperatures dropped to less than -20 °C. The December 2022 cold snap reduced grape and wine production in 2023 by 58%, and it is projected that the January 2024 cold snap will reduce the 2024 harvest by 97 to 99% (Snoek and Elbourne 2024). Until vineyards have recovered from these very expensive setbacks through replanting, further vineyard expansion is unlikely. The scope of the impact of conversion to non-timber crops is considered to be Small, and the severity, Extreme.

Sarell (pers. comm. 2023) observed the indiscriminate shooting of starlings in the south Okanagan during the 1980s and 1990s for control purposes, which likely also killed many Lewis’s Woodpeckers and contributed to the latter’s decline, although it has now largely ceased. The British Columbia Grape Growers Association initiated a starling control program in 2003 using traps designed to exclusively catch starlings, with the captured birds checked individually before being euthanized, and birds of other species released alive. About 40,000 starlings are killed annually, and no Lewis’s Woodpeckers have been reportedly captured (Miskell pers. comm. 2023). Some accidental woodpecker mortality due to vineyard netting has also been reported (Vellend and Connolly 1999).

IUCN 3. Energy production and mining (low threat impact)

3.3. Renewable energy

The East Kootenay has become a focus for possible solar panel farm installations, with many south-facing slopes and open areas under consideration as possible sites for a solar farm (Adams pers. comm. 2024). An investigative licence for a solar panel farm on over 4,000 ha of crown land in the Skookumchuck Prairie Important Bird Area (IBA) was issued by the province of British Columbia, to expire in 2026 (iMapBC 2023). If built, this solar farm could affect up to 25 of the estimated 1,200 Lewis’s Woodpecker nests in Canada, or about 2% of the estimated Canadian population (Cooper 2017b; Sanders-Green 2017; ECCC–CWS 2023). The severity of threats from solar farms is extreme, as all trees are removed from the site of the solar panel array. This facility could eliminate all the nesting trees known in that IBA, although the current status of the application is unknown. The threat from renewable energy is considered to be Small in scope, and Extreme in severity.

There are no wind-energy farms in any areas occupied by Lewis’s Woodpeckers in Canada, nor are any planned in the near future.

IUCN 4. Transportation and service corridors (low threat impact)

4.1. Roads and railroads

Lewis’s Woodpecker seems particularly vulnerable to mortality from collisions with vehicles on roads. Although these woodpeckers often forage on the wing like swallows, they are slow, lumbering, and much less agile fliers. There were eight documented cases of vehicle collisions with Lewis’s Woodpeckers in Canada between 1998 and 2014, with three in 2014 alone (ECCC–CWS 2023). Up until 2022, one observer found six Lewis’s Woodpeckers struck by vehicles, five of which died, including both apparent members of a nesting pair, while one injured bird recovered following rehabilitation (Luszcz pers. comm. 2023). Adult Lewis’s Woodpeckers have been observed feeding on insects and drinking from puddles on asphalt roads (ECCC–CWS 2023), which may increase the risk of vehicle collisions.

Adult birds with nests within about 50 m of roads can frequently be seen crossing roads to forage, sometimes at vehicle level, and sometimes on every foraging trip (ECCC–CWS 2023). Zhu (2006b) found that about 50% of adult foraging flights to procure food for nestlings extended further than 50 m from the nest, and 25% were further than 100 m (n = 3,588 flights observed). Of the 1,300 nest trees in the ECCC–CWS (2023) database with accurate nest site information, 14% were within 50 m of a paved road, and 23% within 100 m, likely putting adults from such nests at a relatively high risk of vehicle collisions. Although data are not available for Lewis’s Woodpecker, a recent analysis of mortality factors for all Canadian landbirds indicated that vehicle collisions were responsible for the fourth-highest number of mortalities among 27 factors examined (Calvert et al. 2013). The scope of this threat is considered to be Pervasive and the severity, Slight.

4.2. Utility and service lines

Construction is underway or planned for several oil and gas transportation and electrical transmission infrastructure projects in Lewis’s Woodpecker habitat, which are likely to be most significant in the Thompson-Nicola and Cariboo regions. Lewis’s Woodpecker surveys conducted prior to the construction of the Trans-Mountain Pipeline detected birds at four sites, and a mitigation plan was prepared to minimize impact (Trans-Mountain Pipeline 2017), with a SARA permit issued for the potential relocation of four nest trees. The pipeline is under construction as of early 2023, and no assessment of final impacts has been released. The scope of this threat is considered to be Small and the severity, Extreme.

IUCN 6. Human intrusions and disturbance (low threat impact)

6.1. Recreational activities

The growing human population in the southern interior of British Columbia has led to an increase in recreational activity in many of the remaining natural areas. Although Lewis’s Woodpeckers may accommodate human disturbance in some areas, most are very wary of people near the nest site and stay away from the nest until the intruder is no longer detected nearby (COSEWIC 2010). Bock (1970) found that Lewis’s Woodpeckers subjected to sustained disturbance occasionally deserted the nest. Off-road recreational vehicle use has also increased significantly in recent decades in several regions, especially the East Kootenay. For example, upland pine areas around Koocanusa Reservoir are important nesting areas for Lewis’s Woodpecker, but are also increasingly popular with off-road vehicle enthusiasts. Off-road vehicles impact Lewis’s Woodpecker habitat by damaging understory vegetation, and their noise may also disturb birds during nesting, potentially altering foraging behaviour and nestling provisioning. The scope of this threat is considered to be Large and the severity, Slight.

IUCN 9. Pollution (unknown threat impact)

9.3. Agricultural and forestry effluents

As Lewis’s Woodpecker is mainly insectivorous during the breeding season (Vierling et al. 2020), the direct and indirect effects of pesticide use on Lewis’s Woodpecker are of particular concern in the fruit- and grape-growing regions of British Columbia’s Okanagan and Similkameen valleys. Where Lewis’s Woodpecker nests near orchards, it can be often seen feeding on cherries during the breeding season (Gyug unpubl. obs.). Direct effects include ingestion of pesticides on fruit, while indirect effects include a reduction in the availability of insect prey because of insecticide use (considered under Threat 7.3). Pesticides also pose a potential risk on the wintering grounds, particularly in California’s Central Valley, which is now dominated by agricultural activity rather than oak woodlands, but the scope and severity there are unknown. On the breeding grounds in Canada, the scope is considered to be Large, as pesticides are used throughout orchards and vineyards in the Okanagan-Similkameen region, where 11% to 30% of the Lewis’s Woodpecker population occurs, as well as in other regions, but the severity is considered Unknown.

Number of threat-based locations

Lewis’s Woodpecker locations in Canada consist of geographically or ecologically distinct areas in which a single threatening event could rapidly affect all individuals of the species present. The most serious plausible threat likely comes from those threats that had a High – Moderate threat impact in the threat assessment (Appendix 1), including the harvesting of potential nest trees and nest-site competition with European Starling, both of which affect the availability of nest sites.

Harvesting of potential nest trees on public lands occurs on the scale of single cut blocks between 10 ha and 100 ha in size. These are found throughout the range of Lewis’s Woodpecker and, at most, would likely affect only a few nests at a time. Given the estimated nest abundance of 1,293 nests (Table 3) and the IAO of 1,436 to 1,664 km² (see Current index of area of occupancy), well over 50 threat-based locations are likely, based on this threat.

Similarly, nest site competition with European Starlings occurs at the individual nest level, with starlings found throughout the range of Lewis’s Woodpecker. Even though these instances of competition can sometimes be grouped at a small scale, this would make well over 50 threat-based locations, up to the estimated number of nests (1,293; Table 3).

On the basis of either of the two threats considered above, appreciably more than 10 Lewis’s Woodpecker threat-based locations are estimated to exist in Canada, and likely well over 50 locations.

Protection, status, and ranks

Legal protection and status

Lewis’s Woodpecker was listed as Threatened in 2012 in Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (2002) (Government of Canada 2023a). The species and its nests are protected in Canada under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (Government of Canada 2023b). The birds, and their nests and eggs, are also protected under the British Columbia Wildlife Act (Province of British Columbia 2023a). Lewis’s Woodpecker is not listed under the Endangered Species Act in the United States (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2023a,b).

Non-legal status and ranks

BirdLife International and NatureServe (2023) consider Lewis’s Woodpecker to be Apparently Secure globally and nationally in the United States, Vulnerable nationally in Canada and provincially in Alberta, but Imperilled to Vulnerable in British Columbia, the only province in which it regularly breeds (Table 5). It is Blue-listed (Special Concern) in British Columbia and not listed provincially in Alberta. In the U.S. states bordering British Columbia, Lewis’s Woodpecker is considered Imperilled to Vulnerable in Washington, Vulnerable in Idaho, and Imperilled in Montana.

Partners in Flight (2023) ranks Lewis’s Woodpecker as a Yellow Watch List species with a conservation concern of “D” (declining). According to the organization, the declines noted are consistent with heavy losses of Ponderosa Pine habitat due to fire suppression, intensive grazing, and logging. The species is considered to be a bird of conservation concern at the continental level by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2021).

Land tenure and ownership

Of 1,490 known Lewis’s Woodpecker nest trees in British Columbia, 839 (56%) are on public lands, 116 (8%) on First Nations reserves, and the remaining 535 (36%) on private lands (ECCC–CWS 2023). However, these percentages should be considered approximations, as public lands have been generally surveyed more intensively than other lands.

Wildlife Habitat Areas to protect identified wildlife species have been established on public forest lands in British Columbia under the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy of the Forest and Range Practices Act (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection 2004). As of 2022, 101 Wildlife Habitat Areas totalling 30.26 km² had been established to protect Lewis’s Woodpecker breeding habitat (Province of British Columbia 2023b). Limited timber harvesting is allowed in some of these areas under certain conditions, but mature timber is protected (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection 2004). A total of 74 Wildlife Habitat Areas (1,947 ha) were established as no-harvest zones and 27 (1,078 ha), as conditional harvest zones. Altogether, these Wildlife Habitat Areas contain 242 (16.2%) of the 1,490 known nest trees in British Columbia (ECCC–CWS 2023).

As of 2022, the effectiveness of Wildlife Habitat Areas for Lewis’s Woodpecker conservation had not been formally assessed, although assessments are planned for six areas affected by 2021 wildfires (Denesiuk pers. comm. 2023). Informal assessments were undertaken at 18 of 19 Wildlife Habitat Areas in the East Kootenay region in 2022 (Stark pers. comm. 2023). Occupancy was confirmed at eight areas, and 14 areas were classified as being in “good” habitat condition and 4, in “fair” habitat condition. In the Okanagan and Similkameen regions, all or portions of 40 of 48 Wildlife Habitat Areas were checked during nest surveys in 2022, with 19 active nests or pairs found in these areas.

Lewis’s Woodpecker has been confirmed to breed in 15 British Columbia provincial parks and protected areas (Table 6). These parks contain 87 (5.8%) of the 1,490 known Lewis’s Woodpecker nest trees in British Columbia (ECCC–CWS 2023).

Lewis’s Woodpecker has been confirmed to breed in nine IBAs in British Columbia (Table 7; ECCC–CWS 2023). Four of these (Chopaka Customs, Chopaka East and Kilpoola Lake Area, Douglas Lake, and Vaseux Lake) contain nationally significant numbers of Lewis’s Woodpecker.

Recovery activities

The management and monitoring activities undertaken for Lewis’s Woodpecker since COSEWIC (2010) include the preparation of a management plan (Environment Canada 2014), which was later replaced by a recovery strategy (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2017); the compilation of nest and other site data in a single database (ECCC–CWS 2023); the calculation of quantitative abundance estimates for most regions occupied by the species in British Columbia (Table 3); and monitoring along eight annual roadside routes (ECCC–CWS 2023).

Activities undertaken since 2010 to specifically support the species’ recovery and not previously discussed are briefly described below.

The annual trend monitoring program is currently under review by Environment and Climate Change Canada (as of March 2023) to determine whether it can be redesigned to better detect trends and incorporate existing data from 2015 to 2022 into the redesign (Luszcz pers. comm. 2023).

Mapping of riparian cottonwood stands in the Boundary region was funded by Environment and Climate Change Canada (Luszcz pers. comm. 2023). Enhancement of riparian cottonwood habitat was carried out in the Boundary area with funding from the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund of British Columbia and Environment and Climate Change Canada (Coleshill pers. comm. 2023). As of 2022, 20 to 25 properties, covering about 4 km of river length, had been enhanced, including both stewardship and restoration activities, such as bank fortification and protection of mature cottonwoods from Beaver (Castor canadensis).

Several Motus Wildlife Tracking System stations were established in British Columbia in 2022 by Environment and Climate Change Canada, with the primary goal of filling critical gaps in Lewis’s Woodpecker biology in Canada (Luszcz pers. comm. 2023). The information to be collected will be used in identifying the migratory pathways and wintering grounds used by Lewis’s Woodpeckers that breed in Canada; assessing the post-breeding use of Wildlife Habitat Areas and critical habitat; and determining arrival and departure dates, adult winter survival, and related demographic data. However, the work has been postponed because of the difficulties in catching and tagging Lewis’s Woodpeckers (Luszcz pers. comm. 2024).

Wildlife tree creation and enhancement has been undertaken using mechanical means and/or fungal inoculation to increase the potential supply of suitable nesting trees for Lewis’s Woodpeckers and other cavity nesters. Between 2007 and 2022, 1,227 such trees were “created” or enhanced in the East Kootenays, most in areas that Lewis’s Woodpeckers could occupy (Manning pers. comm. 2023). Although fungal inoculation will take many years to spread through tree trunks, initial assessments indicate that the method can work for cavity nesters, with 21% of 182 trees showing either feeding use or cavity excavation (Manning 2023).

The Lake Windermere Rod and Gun Club in the East Kootenay constructed and erected 70 nest boxes designed specifically for Lewis’s Woodpeckers (Hoar 2016). However, as of 2016, none had been used by Lewis’s Woodpeckers, although use by the Northern Flicker, Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), and bluebirds (Sialia spp.) was reported.

Information sources

Abele, S.C., V.A. Saab, and E.O. Garton. 2004. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Website: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edward-Garton-2/publication/242080545_Lewis%27s_Woodpecker_Melanerpes_lewis_A_Technical_Conservation_Assessment/links/00b4952cc5bbb4e84b000000/Lewiss-Woodpecker-Melanerpes-lewis-A-Technical-Conservation-Assessment.pdf [accessed January 2023].

Adams, I., pers. comm. 2024. Comments provided during Lewis’s Woodpecker threat assessment. January 2024. Wildlife Biologist, British Columbia Regional Coordinator, Key Biodiversity Areas, Cranbrook, British Columbia.

Alberta Conservation Information Management System. 2022. Alberta Environment and Parks. Website: https://www.albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/management-land-use/Alberta-conservation-information-management-system-acims/download-data/ [accessed January 2023].

Altman, B. 2011. Historical and current distribution and populations of bird species in prairie-oak habitats in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Science 85:194-222.

Antifeau, T., pers. comm. 2009. Personal communication to J. Cooper and/or S. Beauchesne. 2009. Biologist, (formerly with) Ministry of Environment, Nelson, British Columbia.

Bartels, A., pers. comm. 2023. Email correspondence to L. Gyug. January 2023. Biologist, Tatlayoko Lake Bird Observatory, Tatlayoko Lake, British Columbia.

Beal, F.E.L. 1911. Food of the woodpeckers of the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Biological Survey Bulletin 37.

Beauchesne, S.M., and J.M. Cooper. 2002. Lewis’s Woodpecker Stewardship Account for the Garry Oak Ecosystems of Southwestern British Columbia. Prepared for the Vertebrates at Risk Recovery Action Group of the Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team, and British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, British Columbia.

Beauchesne, S.M., and J.M. Cooper. 2008. Lewis’s Woodpecker survey in the East Kootenay Trench, 2007. Unpublished report prepared for the Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, British Columbia.

Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Surveys of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:419-431.

Bird, J.P., R. Martin, H.R. Akçakaya, J. Gilroy, I.J. Burfield, S. Garnett, A. Symes, J. Taylor, C.H. Şekercioğlu, and S.H.M. Butchart. 2020. Generation lengths of the world’s birds and their implications for extinction risk. Conservation Biology 34:1252-1261.

Blake, W.M., K.R. Stone, W.M. Janousek, and T.E. Martin. 2022. Lewis’s Woodpecker nest success and habitat selection in floodplain and burned forests in western Montana. Journal of Field Ornithology 92:402-416.

Blancher, P.J., K.V. Rosenberg, A.O. Panjabi, B. Altman, J. Bart, C.J. Beardmore, G.S. Butcher, D. Demarest, R. Dettmers, E.H. Dunn, W. Easton, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, D.N. Pashley, C.J. Ralph, T.D. Rich, C.M. Rustay, J.M. Ruth, and T.C. Will. 2007. Guide to the Partners in Flight Population Estimates Database. Version: North American Landbird Conservation Plan 2004. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 5. Website: http://www.partnersinflight.org/ [accessed 2009].

Bock, C.E. 1970. The ecology and behaviour of the Lewis’s Woodpecker (Asyndesmus lewis). University of California Publications in Zoology 92:1-100.

Bock, C.E., H.H. Hadow, and P. Somers. 1971. Relations between Lewis’ and Red-headed Woodpeckers in southeastern Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 83:237-248.

British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture. 2022. British Columbia Agriculture Sector Snapshots. Website: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/agriculture-seafood/statistics/agriculture-and-seafood-statistics-publications [accessed February 2023].

British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. 2020. British Columbia Cherry and Apple Acreage Report. Website: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/agriculture-and-seafood/animal-and-crops/crop-production/2020_bc_cherry_apple_acreage_report.pdf [accessed February 2023].

British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. 2022. 2021 B.C. Highway Flood Recovery Projects. Website: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation-projects/bc-highway-flood-recovery/2021-flood-road-recovery-projects-highway-8 [accessed February 2023].

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2004. Accounts and measures for managing identified wildlife. Version 2004. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, British Columbia. Website: https://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/documents/Birds/b_lewisswoodpecker.pdf [accessed February 2023].

Calvert, A.M., C.A. Bishop, R.D. Elliot, E.A. Krebs, T.M. Kydd, C.S. Machtans, and G.J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:11.

Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, and M.C.E. McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia. Volume 2. The Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, British Columbia, and the Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, British Columbia. 636 pp.

Cannings, R.A., R.J. Cannings, and S.G. Cannings. 1987. Birds of the Okanagan Valley. British Columbia Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 420 pp.

Cannings, R.J., pers. comm. 2023. Telephone correspondence with L. Gyug. January 2023. Wildlife Biologist, Penticton, British Columbia.

City of Grand Forks. 2022. Grand Forks Flood Mitigation Program. Website: https://www.grandforks.ca/fmp/ [accessed February 2023].

Coleshill, J. 2018. Melanerpes lewis management plan for the City of Grand Forks. Report prepared by Granby Ecological for City of Grand Forks, British Columbia.

Coleshill, J., pers. comm. 2023. Email and telephone correspondence to L. Gyug. February 2023. Biologist, Granby Wilderness Society, Grand Forks, British Columbia.

Coleshill, J., pers. comm. 2024. Comments provided during Lewis’s Woodpecker threat assessment. January 2024. Biologist, Granby Wilderness Society, Grand Forks, British Columbia.

Cooper, D. 2017a. End-of-season report, Lewis’s Woodpecker nests on Skookumchuk Prairie, 2017. Website: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/siwe/details.do;jsessionid=ACC87400002B53CB8A1F08686B005662?projectId=5527&surveyId=32649&pagerOffset=0 [accessed February 2023].

Cooper, D. 2017b. Solar arrays in the East Kootenay. Website: https://www.rockymountainnaturalists.org/rmn-projects--issues/category/skookumchuck-prairie [accessed February 2023].

Cooper, D. 2020. End-of-season report 2019, survey of cavity nesting birds on Skookumchuk Prairie. Website: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/siwe/details.do?projectId=5527&surveyId=40776&pagerOffset=0 [accessed February 2023].

Cooper, J.M., and S. Beauchesne. 2000. Inventory of Lewis’s Woodpecker Breeding Population and Habitat in the East Kootenay. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch. Working Rep. WR-100. 38 pp.

Cooper, J.M., and C. Gillies. 2000. Breeding Distribution of the Lewis’s Woodpecker in the East Kootenay Trench in Relation to Fire History. Pp. 423-428, in L.M. Darling (ed.). Proceedings of the Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, Kamloops, British Columbia, 15-19 February 1999. Volume 1; British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, British Columbia, and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, British Columbia. 490 pp.

Cooper, J.M., C. Siddle, and G. Davidson. 1998. Status of the Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-91, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, British Columbia.

COSEWIC. 2001. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Lewis’s Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. vi + 18 pp.

COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Lewis’s Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. x + 23 pp.

COSEWIC. 2018. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. xii + 60 pp.

Court, G., pers. comm. 2024. Comments provided in review of Lewis’s Woodpecker provisional status report. July 2024. Provincial Wildlife Status biologist, Alberta Department of Environment and Protected Areas, Edmonton, Alberta.

Cowan, I.M. 1940. Winter occurrence of summer birds on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Condor 42:213-214.

Currier, E.S. 1928. Lewis’s Woodpeckers nesting in colonies. Condor 30:356.

Denesiuk, D., pers. comm. 2023. Email correspondence to L. Gyug. January 2023. Biologist, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Natural Resources, Penticton, British Columbia.

Dulisse, J., pers. comm. 2023. Telephone correspondence to L. Gyug. January 2023. Wildlife Biologist, Nelson, British Columbia.

Dulisse, J., and M. Harrison. 2013. Inventory, Monitoring and Prioritization of Conservation Activities for Lewis’s Woodpecker in the West Kootenay. Prepared for Columbia Power Corporation, Castlegar, British Columbia, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, British Columbia, and Teck Resources Ltd., Trail, British Columbia.

eBird. 2024. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Website: http://www.ebird.org [accessed July 2024].

eBird Basic Dataset. 2021. Version: EBD_relDec-2021. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. December 2021.

Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2017. Recovery Strategy for the Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. vi + 40 pp.

Environment and Climate Change Canada – Canadian Wildlife Service (ECCC–CWS). 2023. Database of Lewis’s Woodpecker records. Unpublished data not publicly available.

Environment Canada. 2014. Management Plan for the Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. iii + 23 pp.

Federation of Alberta Naturalists. 2007. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta: a Second Look. Edmonton, Alberta. 626 pp.

Fenger, M., E.T. Manning, J.M. Cooper, S. Guy, and P. Bradford. 2006. Wildlife and trees in British Columbia. Lonepine Press, Edmonton, Alberta. 336 pp.

Ferguson, G., and F. Iredale. 2007. Survey and Monitoring of Lewis’s Woodpecker in the Thompson Region. Unpublished report to the British Columbia Conservation Foundation and British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Kamloops, British Columbia.

Fink, D., T. Auer, A. Johnston, V. Ruiz-Gutierrez, W. Hochachka, and S. Kelling. 2020. Modeling avian full annual cycle distribution and population trends with citizen Science data. Ecological Applications 30(3):e02056. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2056

Fink, D., T. Auer, A. Johnston, M. Strimas-Mackey, S. Ligocki, O. Robinson, W. Hochachka, L. Jaromczyk, C. Crowley, K. Dunham, A. Stillman, I. Davies, A. Rodewald, V. Ruiz-Gutierrez, and C. Wood. 2023. eBird Status and Trends, Data Version: 2022; Released: 2023. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Website: https://doi.org/10.2173/ebirdst.2022 [accessed March 2024].

Fraser, D.F., W.L. Harper, S.G. Cannings, and J.M. Cooper. 1999. Rare birds of British Columbia. Wildlife Branch and Resources Inventory Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, British Columbia. 244 pp.

Fraser, D.F., and L. Ramsay. 2015. Lewis’s Woodpecker in Davidson, P.J.A., R.J. Cannings, A.R. Couturier, D. Lepage, and C.M. Di Corrado (eds.). The Atlas of the Breeding Birds of British Columbia, 2008-2012, Bird Studies Canada, Delta, British Columbia. Website: http://www.birdatlas.bc.ca/accounts/speciesaccount.jsp?sp=LEWO&lang=en [accessed January 2023].

Frei, B., K.G. Smith, J.H. Withgott, P.G. Rodewald, P. Pyle, and M.A. Patten. 2020. Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Website https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/rehwoo/1.0/introduction [accessed January 2023].

Galen, C. 2003. Lewis’s Woodpecker. Pp. 350-352, in D.B. Marshall, M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras (eds.) Birds of Oregon: A General Reference, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Gentry, D., and K.T. Vierling. 2007. Old burns as source habitats for Lewis’s Woodpeckers breeding in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Condor 109:122-131.

Gibbons, D., C. Morrissey, and P. Mineau. 2015. A review of the direct and indirect effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on vertebrate wildlife. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22:103-118.

Gillett, N.P., A.J. Cannon, E. Malinina, M. Schnorbus, F. Anslow, Q. Sun, M. Kirchmeier-Young, F. Zwiers, C. Seiler, X. Zhang, G. Flato, H. Wan, G. Li, and A. Castellan, 2022. Human influence on the 2021 British Columbia floods. Weather and Climate Extremes 36:100441.

Godfray, H.C.J., T. Blacquière, L.M. Field, R.S. Hails, G. Petrokofsky, S.G. Potts, N.E. Raine, A.J. Vanbergen, and A.R. McLean. 2014. A restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning neonicotinoid insecticides and insect pollinators. Proceedings of the Royal Society B.281:2014.0558.

Government of British Columbia. 2024. Agricultural Land Commission Act (2022). Website: https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/compete/statreg/02036_01 [accessed July 2024].

Government of Canada. 2023a. Species at Risk Act, 2002. Website: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-15.3/ [accessed February 2023].

Government of Canada. 2023b. Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. Website: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/m-7.01/ [accessed February 2023].

Gutsell, R., pers. comm. 2024. Comments provided during Lewis’s Woodpecker threat assessment. January 2024. Wildlife Status Biologist, Alberta Department of Environment and Protected Areas, and COSEWIC member.

Gyug, L.W. 2011. Lewis’s Woodpecker long-term monitoring plan in Canada. Report prepared for Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, British Columbia.

Gyug, L.W. 2012a. Kamloops and Boundary Lewis’s Woodpecker population estimates 2011-12. Report prepared for Environment Canada - Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, British Columbia.

Gyug, L.W. 2012b. 2012 Lewis’s Woodpecker monitoring in the Boundary. Report prepared for Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, British Columbia.

Gyug, L.W. 2013a. Lewis’s Woodpecker species account and habitat suitability model (December 2013) for interior British Columbia. Report prepared for Environment Canada - Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, British Columbia.

Gyug, L.W. 2013b. 2013 Lewis’s Woodpecker monitoring in B.C. Report prepared for Environment Canada - Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, British Columbia.

Gyug, L.W. 2016. 2015 Lewis’s Woodpecker monitoring in British Columbia. Report prepared for Environment Canada - Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, British Columbia.

Gyug, L.W. 2019. 2018 Lewis’s Woodpecker Savona-Cache Creek subregion nest population estimate: re-analysis. Report prepared for Environment and Climate Change Canada - Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, British Columbia.

Gyug, L.W. 2020. Assessment of 2014-2019 Lewis’s Woodpecker relative abundance monitoring in British Columbia Report prepared for Lewis’s Woodpecker Recovery Team and Environment and Climate Change Canada - Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, British Columbia.

Gyug, L.W., J. Coleshill, M. Harrison, J. Hobbs, and T. Luszcz. 2023. Lewis’s Woodpecker breeding population size and trends in Grand Forks, British Columbia, after a severe flood event. British Columbia Birds 34:19-28.

Gyug, L.W., pers. comm. 2024. Email correspondence to R.D. Elliot. August 2024. Independent Wildlife Biologist and Species Expert, Kelowna, British Columbia.

Haines, D.E., and K.H. Pollock. 1998. Estimating the number of active and successful bald eagle nests: an application of the dual frame method. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 5:245-256.

Hallmann, C.A., R.P.B. Foppen, C.A.M. van Turnhout, H. de Kroon, and E. Jongejans. 2014. Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations. Nature 511:341-343.

Hatch, D.R.M., and L.P. L’Arrivée. 1981. Status of the Lewis’ and red-bellied woodpeckers in Manitoba -1929-1980. Blue Jay 39:209-216.

Hoar, R. 2016. Lewis Woodpecker nesting box. Report prepared for Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, British Columbia. Website: https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/documents/r52336/COL-F17-W-1219-FinalReport-LkWindermereRodandGun-_1491251551758_1250674726.pdf [accessed February 2023].

Hobbs, J., and J. Mailloux. 2021. Survey for Lewis’s Woodpecker in the Cariboo Region-2021. Report prepared for Ecosystems Section of the British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, Williams Lake, British Columbia.

Hudson, M-A.R., C.M. Francis, K.J. Campbell, C.M. Downes, A.C. Smith, and K.L. Pardieck. 2017. The role of the North American Breeding Bird Survey in conservation. Condor 119:526-545.

iMapBC. 2023. iMapBC. Website: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/data/geographic-data-services/web-based-mapping/imapbc [accessed February 2023].

IPCC. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, New York.

IUCN. 2022. Threats Classification Scheme, version 3.3. Website: https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/threat-classification-scheme [accessed February 2023].

Kook, D., and J.D. Moodie. 2009. Using nest boxes for Lewis’s Woodpecker conservation in central Oregon. Pp. 565-568, in T.D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, D.W. Demarest, and C. Thompson (eds). Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics, McAllen, Texas.

Krannitz, P.G. 2007. Abundance and diversity of shrub-steppe birds in relation to encroachment of Ponderosa Pine forest. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119:655-664.

Lea, T. 2008. Historical (pre-settlement) ecosystems of the Okanagan Valley and Lower Similkameen Valley of British Columbia – pre-European contact to the present. Davidsonia 19:3-35.

Linder, K.A. 1994. Habitat utilization and behaviour of nesting Lewis’s Woodpeckers (Melanerpes lewis) in the Laramie Range, southeast Wyoming. M.Sc. thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

Linder, K.A., and S.H. Anderson. 1998. Nesting habitat of Lewis’s Woodpeckers in southeastern Wyoming. Journal of Field Ornithology 69:109-116.

Logan, J. A., J. Regniere, and J. A. Powell. 2003. Assessing the impacts of global warming on forest pest dynamics. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 1:130-137.

Luszcz, T., pers. comm. 2023. Email and telephone correspondence to L. Gyug. January-March 2023. Wildlife Biologist, Environment and Climate Change Canada - Canadian Wildlife Service, Penticton, British Columbia.

Luszcz, T., pers. comm. 2024. Comments provided during Lewis’s Woodpecker threat assessment. January 2024. Wildlife Biologist, Environment and Climate Change Canada - Canadian Wildlife Service, Penticton, British Columbia.

Luszcz, T., and B. Sawicz. 2007. 2006 Inventory of Lewis’s Woodpecker in British Columbia. Internal working report, Ministry of Environment, Penticton, British Columbia.

McDonald, L. 2019. Savona-Cache Creek Lewis’s Woodpecker Nest Population Estimate 2018. Report prepared for Environment and Climate Change Canada – Canadian Wildlife Service, Kelowna, British Columbia.

Macfarland, L., N.A. Mahony, M. Harrison, and D. Green 2019. Habitat-mediated breeding performance of Lewis’s Woodpeckers (Melanerpes lewis) in British Columbia. PLoS ONE 14:e0212929.

Macfarland, L.E. 2016. Habitat-specific breeding performance and cavity dynamics of Lewis’s Woodpeckers (Melanerpes lewis) in British Columbia. M.Sc. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Maclauchlan, L.E., M. Cleary, L. Rankin, A. Stock, and K. Buxton. 2008. 2007 Overview of Forest Health in the Southern Interior Forest Region. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Southern Interior Forest Region, Kamloops, British Columbia. 68 pp.

Manning, T. 2023. Wildlife tree effectiveness monitoring 2022 – summary report. Strategic Resource Solutions, Victoria, British Columbia.

Manning, T., pers; comm. 2022. In-person communication to L. Gyug. 2022. Biologist, Strategic Resource Solutions, Victoria, British Columbia.

Manning, T., pers. comm. 2023. Email correspondence to L. Gyug. January 2023. Biologist, Strategic Resource Solutions, Victoria, British Columbia.

Manning, T., pers. comm. 2024. Comments provided during Lewis’s Woodpecker threat assessment. January 2024. Biologist, Strategic Resource Solutions, Victoria, British Columbia.

McLaren, I.A. 2012. All the Birds of Nova Scotia. Gaspereau Press, Kentville, Nova Scotia. 336 pp.

Miskell, T., pers. comm. 2023. Telephone correspondence to L. Gyug. February 2023. Executive Director, British Columbia Grape Growers Association, Penticton, British Columbia.

National Audubon Society. 2014. Christmas Bird Count Compiler’s Manual. National Audubon Society, Willow Grove, Pennsylvania. 11 pp.

National Audubon Society. 2023. Christmas Bird Count Historical Data. https://netapp.audubon.org/CBCObservation/Historical/ResultsBySpecies.aspx?1 [accessed February 2023].

NatureServe. 2023. NatureServe Network Biodiversity Location Data accessed through NatureServe Explorer [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Website: https://explorer.natureserve.org/ [accessed: January 2023].

Navarro-Sigüenza, A.G., H. Vázquez-Miranda, G. Hernández-Alonso, E.A. García-Trejo, and L.A. Sánchez-González. 2017. Complex biogeographic scenarios revealed in the diversification of the largest woodpecker radiation in the New World. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 112:53-67 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2017.04.013

Newlon. K.R. 2005. Demography of Lewis’s Woodpecker, breeding bird densities, and riparian aspen integrity in a grazed landscape. M.Sc. thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.

Nuszdorfer, K., pers. comm. 2018. Telephone correspondence to L. Gyug. 2018. Birder, Kelowna, British Columbia.

Parham, H.J. 1937. A nature lover in British Columbia. H.F. and G. Witherby Ltd., London, Great Britain.

Partners in Flight. 2020. Population Estimates Database, version 3.1. Website: https://pif.birdconservancy.org/population-estimates-database/ [accessed: January 2023].

Partners in Flight. 2023. Species Conservation Profiles: Lewis’s Woodpecker. Website: https://partnersinflight.org/species/lewiss-woodpecker/ [accessed: January 2023].

Philip, S.J., S.F. Kew, G.J. van Oldenborgh, W. Yang, G.A. Vecchi. F.S. Anslow, S. Li, S.I. Seneviratne, L.N. Luu, J. Arrighi, R. Singh, M. van Aalst, M. Hauser, D.L. Schumacher, C.P. Marghidan, K.L. Ebi, R. Bonnet, R. Vautard, J. Tradowsky, D. Coumou, F. Lehner, M. Wehner, C. Rodell, R. Stull, R. Howard, N. Gillett, and F.E.L. Otto. 2021. Rapid attribution analysis of the extraordinary heatwave on the Pacific Coast of the US and Canada June 2021. Website: https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/wp-content/uploads/NW-US-extreme-heat-2021-scientific-report-WWA.pdf [accessed February 2023].

Province of British Columbia. 2023a. Wildlife Act, 1996. Website: https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96488_01 [accessed February 2023]

Province of British Columbia. 2023b. Data Catalogue. Website: https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/ [accessed February 2023].

Rambo, J.L., and S.H. Faeth. 1999. Effect of vertebrate grazing on plant and insect community structure. Conservation Biology 13:1047-1054.

Reudink, R., pers. comm. 2024. Comments provided on Draft Lewis’s Woodpecker status report. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, Kamloops, British Columbia.

Routley, I., pers. comm. 2023. Telephone correspondence to L. Gyug. January 2023. Birder, Lillooet, British Columbia.

Saab, V.A., and J.G. Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement fire and salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho. Research Paper RMRS-RP-11. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Saab, V.A., R.E. Russell, and J.G. Dudley. 2007. Nest densities of cavity-nesting birds in relation to postfire salvage logging and time since wildfire. Condor 109:97-108.

Saab, V.A., and K.T. Vierling. 2001. Reproductive success of Lewis’s Woodpeckers in burned pine and cottonwood riparian forests. Condor 103:491-501.

Sanders-Green, L. 2017. No policy is bad policy: solar energy and grasslands. Wildsight. Website: https://wildsight.ca/2017/06/12/no-policy-is-bad-policy-solar-energy-and-grasslands/ [accessed February 2023].

Sarell, M., pers. comm. 2023. Email and telephone correspondence to L. Gyug. February 2023. Biologist, Ophiucus Consulting, Oliver, British Columbia.

Sauer, J.R., D.K. Niven, J.E. Hines, D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr., K.L. Pardieck, J.E. Fallon, and W.A. Link. 2017. The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966 - 2015. Version 2.07.2017. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. Website: https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/. [accessed February 2023].

Schoennagel, T., J.K. Balch, H. Brenkert-Smith, P.E. Dennison, B.J. Harvey, M.A. Krawchuk, N. Mietkiewicz, P. Morgan, M.A. Moritz, R. Rasker, M.G. Turner, and C. Whitlock. 2017. Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests as climate changes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(18):4582-4590. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617464114

Schwab, F.E., N.P.P. Simon, and A.R.E. Sinclair. 2006. Bird-vegetation relationships in southeastern British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:189-195.

Semenchuk, G.P., ed. 1992. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta. Federation of Alberta Naturalists, Edmonton, Alberta.

Siddle, C., and G. Davidson. 1991. Status of the Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) in British Columbia. Unpublished report. Wildlife Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria, British Columbia.

Sims, J., pers. comm. 2023. Telephone correspondence to L. Gyug. February 2023. Birder, Canim Lake, British Columbia.

Small, A. 1994. California Birds: their Status and Distribution. Ibis Publishing Company, Vista, California.

Smith, A.C., and B.P.M. Edwards. 2020. North American Breeding Bird Survey status and trend estimates to inform a wide range of conservation needs, using a flexible Bayesian hierarchical generalized additive model. Ornithological Applications 123:duaa065. https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithapp/duaa065

Smith, A.C., M-A.R. Hudson, V.I. Aponte, and C.M. Francis. 2020. North American Breeding Bird Survey - Canadian Trends Website, Data-version 2019. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Gatineau, Quebec. Website: https://wildlife-species.Canada.ca/breeding-bird-survey-results [accessed February 2023].

Snoek, J., and L. Elbourne. 2024. Anticipated impact of January 2024 cold event on BC wine industry. Cascadia Partners. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IHd31jeFEfIhz8JVsk5E92hZJbDHOKOG/edit?pli=1 [accessed March 2024].

Sousa, P.J. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Lewis’s Woodpecker. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, District of Columbia.

Stanton, J.C., P. Blancher, K.V. Rosenberg, A.O. Panjabi, and W.E. Thogmartin. 2019. Estimating uncertainty of North American landbird population sizes. Avian Conservation and Ecology 14:4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01331-140104

Stark, K., pers. comm. 2023. Email correspondence to L. Gyug. January 2023. Biologist, Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, Nelson, British Columbia.

Statistics Canada. 2007. Selected historical data from the Census of Agriculture. Website: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/95-632-x/95-632-x2007000-eng.htm [accessed February 2023].

Statistics Canada. 2019. Census profile for 2011 Census of Population. Website: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E [accessed February 2023].

Statistics Canada. 2023. Census profile for 2021 Census of Population. Website: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E [accessed February 2023].

Surgenor, J., pers. comm. 2022. Telephone and email correspondence to L. Gyug. 2022. Biologist (retired as of 2023), British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, Kamloops, British Columbia.

Thomas, L., J.L. Laake, E. Rexstad, S. Strindberg, F.F.C. Marques, S.T. Buckland, D.L. Borchers, D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, M.L. Burt, S.L. Hedley, J.H. Pollard, J.R.B. Bishop, and T.A. Marques. 2009. Distance 6.0. Release 2. Research Unit for Wildlife Population Assessment, University of St. Andrews, Scotland. Website: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250047710_Distance_60 [accessed 2011].

Tobalske, B.W. 2001. Morphology, velocity and intermittent flight speed in birds. American Zoologist 41:177-187.

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC. 2017. Williamson’s Sapsucker and Lewis’s Woodpecker mitigation and habitat restoration plan for the Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Trans Mountain Expansion Project NEB Condition 44. Website: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiyqMnVi92MAxVJl4kEHbhYLCsQFnoECBYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs2.cer-rec.gc.ca%2Fll-eng%2Fllisapi.dll%2FOpen%2F3297872&usg=AOvVaw10JCjD67zMu5oaP5i9omhz&opi=89978449 [accessed February 2023].

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Birds of Conservation Concern 2021. Migratory Bird Program. Website: https://www.fws.gov/media/birds-conservation-concern-2021 [accessed July 2023].

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023a. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Department of the Interior, Washington, District of Columbia, United States. Website: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species-act-accessible_7.pdf [accessed February 2023].

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023b. Listed animals. Website: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/ad-hoc-species-report?kingdom=V&kingdom=I&status=E&status=T&status=EmE&status=EmT&status=EXPE&status=EXPN&status=SAE&status=SAT&mapstatus=3&fcrithab=on&fstatus=on&fspecrule=on&finvpop=on&fgroup=on&header=Listed+Animals [accessed July 2023].

Velland, M., and V. Connolly. 1999. COSEWIC status report on the Lewis’s Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 18 pp.

Vierling, K.T. 1997. Habitat selection of Lewis’s Woodpeckers in southeastern Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 109:121-130.

Vierling, K.T., V.A. Saab, and B.W. Tobalske. 2020. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), version 1.0., in A.F. Poole (ed.) Birds of the World Cornell. Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.lewwoo.01 [accessed January 2023].

White, R.H., S. Anderson, J.F. Booth, G. Braich, C. Draeger, C. Fei, C.D.G. Harley, S.B. Henderson, M. Jakob, C.-A. Lau, L.M. Admasu, V. Narinesingh, C. Rodell, E. Roocroft, K.R. Weinberglocationer, and G. West. 2023. The unprecedented Pacific Northwest heatwave of June 2021. Nature Communications 14, Article number 727.

Will, T., J.C. Stanton, K.V. Rosenberg, A.O. Panjabi, A.F. Camfield, A.E. Shaw, W.E. Thogmartin, and P.J. Blancher. 2020. Handbook to the Partners in Flight Population Estimates Database, Version 3.1. PIF Technical Publication No. 7.1. Website: https://pif.birdconservancy.org/popest.handbook.pdf.

Zhu, X. 2006a. Habitat selection and reproductive success of Lewis’s Woodpecker in the south Okanagan valley (Final September 2006). M.Sc. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Zhu, X. 2006b. Habitat selection and reproductive success of Lewis’s Woodpecker in the south Okanagan valley. M.Sc. thesis, June 2006 draft, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Zhu, X., D.S. Srivastava, J.N.M. Smith, and K. Martin. 2012. Habitat selection and reproductive success of Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) at its northern limit. PloS ONE 7:e44346. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044346

Collections examined

No collections were examined for the preparation of this report.

Authorities contacted

Adams, I. Wildlife biologist, British Columbia Regional Coordinator, Key Biodiversity Areas, Cranbrook, British Columbia. Anderson, L. Wildlife biologist, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, Nelson, British Columbia.

Denesiuk, D. Wildlife biologist, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, Penticton, British Columbia.

Densmore-McCulloch, J. Wildlife biologist, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, Kamloops, British Columbia.

Henderson, D. Head, Stewardship Unit, Environment and Climate Change Canada - Canadian Wildlife Service, Kelowna, British Columbia.

Luszcz, T. Wildlife biologist, Environment and Climate Change Canada - Canadian Wildlife Service, Penticton, British Columbia.

Smith, A.C. Biostatistician, Environment and Climate Change Canada - Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario.

Stark, K. Wildlife biologist, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, Nelson, British Columbia.

Steciw, J. Wildlife biologist, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, Williams Lake, British Columbia.

Surgenor, J. Wildlife biologist, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, Kamloops, British Columbia.

Acknowledgements

Funding for the preparation of this report was provided by Environment and Climate Change Canada. The authorities listed below provided valuable data and/or advice. Tanya Luszcz, Environment and Climate Change Canada – Canadian Wildlife Service, Penticton, British Columbia, was particularly helpful in the preparation of this report. She has studied Lewis’s Woodpecker since the mid 2000s, and was instrumental in getting the report writer involved in the study of Lewis’s Woodpecker in 2009. The Okanagan Nation Alliance provided unpublished data on nest abundance. The previous COSEWIC status report (2010) was prepared by Suzanne Beauchesne and John Cooper, and some text and personal communications from that report have been retained. Some text, particularly for the Threats section, was taken from the 2017 recovery strategy, prepared by Environment and Climate Change Canada staff, including Megan Harrison and Tanya Luszcz, with assistance from other members of the Lewis’s Woodpecker Expert Review Committee. Thanks are extended by the report writer to Richard Elliot, COSEWIC Birds Specialist Sub-committee (SSC) Co-chair, for his feedback and constructive comments throughout the preparation of this assessment, and to SSC members Pete Davidson, Ann McKellar, and Liana Zanette for their helpful reviews of earlier drafts.

Biographical summary of report writer

Les W. Gyug is a Registered Professional Biologist in British Columbia. He has a BSc (Honours) degree in Biology from Carleton University (1978), and an MSc in Zoology from University of Western Ontario (1979). Les has worked throughout the southern interior of British Columbia since 1981, including with the Canadian Wildlife Service on the wildlife component of biophysical inventories of mountain national parks (1981 to 1984); as a seasonal naturalist for Parks Canada (1986 to 1990); and as a consulting biologist from 1987 to the present. For the past 33 years, much of his work has involved species at risk, habitat modelling, and assessing the effects of forestry on wildlife, including songbirds, woodpeckers, owls, ungulates, Grizzly Bears, furbearers, small mammals, and amphibians, from the stand to the landscape level. Les prepared the COSEWIC status report for Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa) in 1999 and the update report in 2012, and the COSEWIC status report for Williamson’s Sapsucker in 2005 and the update report in 2017. Les has undertaken inventory and research on Williamson’s Sapsucker since 1996 and on Lewis’s Woodpecker since 2010, both of which have continued to the present.

Appendix 1. Threats calculator results for Lewis’s Woodpecker

Threats assessment worksheet

Species or Ecosystem Scientific name

Lewis’s Woodpecker

Date:

2024-01-15

Assessor(s):

Dwayne Lepitzki (facilitator), Les Gyug (report writer), Richard Elliot (Birds SSC co-chair), Karen Timm (COSEWIC Secretariat), Ian Adams, Louise Blight, Jenny Coleshill, Dianne Cooper, Dan Denisuik, Tasha Gallagher, Eric Gross, Robin Gutsell, Nathan Hentze, Jared Hobbs, Tanya Luszcz, Todd Manning, Robyn Reudink, Michael Stahlberg, Julie Steciw

References:

Draft Lewis’s Woodpecker update status report (16 November 2023) and draft threats calculator (15 January 2024).

Assigned overall threat impact

BC = High – Medium

Overall threat comments

Generation time for Lewis’s Woodpecker is approximately 2.2 years (Bird et al. 2020), so the time frame for considering scope, severity, and timing is 10 years. Threats to the Canadian population of Lewis’s Woodpecker are considered on breeding grounds in Canada, on migration, and on wintering grounds in the western United States.