1. Management Indicator Species
Birds of Conservation Concern
Focal Species
Management Indicator Species
Sensitive
Species
What
Strategy
Species
Priority
SPECIES
Surrogate
Species
In a perfect world we would have one list that everyone would agree on. But we don’t live in a perfect world, agencies and organizations have different mandates and missions or different interpretations of the same or very similar mandates or missions, so we end up with lots of lists and lots of confusion
Target Species
Species of Greatest Conservation Need

2. Goals No Nuts and Bolts on Species List Processes
Enhanced Awareness of a couple differences in the processes and what that means in terms of species lists and conservation direction
Recommendations on the best approach for developing and using bird species lists
My goals for this talk are first to hopefully make you more aware of some basic fundamental differences …… and the consequences of those differences in the resulting species lists and more importantly the direction of conservation. And then secondly
I am not really going to get into the comparisons of species or the nuances involved in the processes used by different entities they are too complex and detailed for the time we have here.
No Nuts and Bolts on Species List Processes
No Threatened and Endangered Species

3. Species Lists: At-Risk/Vulnerable
Species of Greatest Conservation Need (Strategy Species)
IDFG, NRCS
Birds of Conservation Concern
USFWS
Sensitive Species
USFS
BLM
Watch List Species
ABC/Audubon
Target Species
TNC Ecoregional Plans
You can lump all the different bird species lists into two basic types. The majority of the species list and the ones most in use and you are most familiar with are those that the emphasis is on species that are at risk or vulnerable for any number of reasons. This includes most of the lists you are familiar with. For our purposes here today I am going to call all these types of lists Priority Species lists
Priority Species

4. Species Lists: Representative
Focal
OR-WA PIF
Surrogate
USFWS
Management Indicator
USFS (old)
Umbrella
The second type of list is based on a species representativeness of some ecological characteristic such as habitat type condition or attribute. This is what is used in the OR WA PIF plans using the term focal species. The same basic concept is what the FWS is using for a new initiative that they are calling surrogate species. For those of you with the FS you probably remember the term management Indicator species which I don’t think is in use now but it was the same idea. Another term that you may have seen used for this is umbrella species . For our purposes here today I am going to use the term focal species.
Focal Species

5. Priority Species: Sources of Data
Natural Heritage Programs (USFS/BLM/States/TNC)
Generic all-taxa system of NatureServe
Emphasis on rarity (lesser on threats and trends)
Political boundaries (States, Districts)
Bird Species Assessment Databases (USFWS, ABC/Audubon)
Bird-specific system of data and expertise
Balances several factors with flexibility
Ecological boundaries (BCRs)
I want to zero in on the two primary databases that are used in the development of priority species lists. But what I want to focus on is a comparison of the two primary sources of data used by all these agencies and organizations because there are major differences in the processes data sources which result in lists that are not only different but reflective of different conservation values
All sources are imperfect, but are simply tools to add value to your objective
When you apply any of the typical parameters of concern to political boundaries you have problems
Rarity is of course an important conservation concern for a species, but when used exclusively or if it dominates you are missing many species that are experiencing significant pop declines or threats
Results: Different Conservation Values

6. Consequences of Databases
Heritage Program - lists dominated by species with small populations &/or at the edge of their range, with no context as to the species status elsewhere in their range.
Species Assessment Database –lists that emphasize conservation where responsibility is greatest, there is the greatest need, and actions will be most significant to the species
The consequences of these differences is this intersection of responsibility/need/and outcomes

7. Using Jurisdictional Boundaries and Rarity
Edge of Range (peripherals?)
Virginia’s Warbler (BLM, IDFG), Blue Grosbeak (IDFG), Scott’s Oriole
Boreal Chickadee (USFS – not listed)
Rarity/Small Isolated Populations
Black Swift (BLM, IDFG, USFS)
Upland Sandpiper (BLM, IDFG, USFWS)
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (USFS, BLM, IDFG, USFWS)
So lets look at some examples of this with the Heritage Database which as I said emphasizes rarity and uses political boundaries
For this latter isolated small population group you might say, but they could be important, but in a world of limited resources do we want to be emphasizing these things over

8. Species Missed using Jurisdictional Boundaries and Rarity
Species Assessment Database
Flammulated Owl & Williamson’s Sapsucker
Sage Thrasher & Brewer’s Sparrow
Not rare, but significantly declining trends, high responsibility, extensive opportunities to make a difference

9. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)
Uses Species Assessment Databases that score/rank species
Uses Ecological Boundaries (BCRs)
PIF Scores (1-5) on several factors
population size & trend, threats (breeding & non), distribution, density (relative), % of pop.
Set Score Thresholds for inclusion on list
Allows for Adjustments (add or subtract species) with rationale/documentation (e.g., subspecies)
The approach that we think works best for Priority Species is the FWS BCC list.

10. Using Focal Species Setting Quantitative Prescriptive Targets
restoration or management using focal species habitat requirements
Monitoring Indicator
positive response to targeted objectives – but not negative
broad ecological values such as health of ecosystem with a suite of focal species
There are two basic ways to use focal species
Caution: Some species may fall through the cracks because of their specialization that may not be captured with the broad brush focal species approach

11. Priority Focal Versus Priority Focal
Conservation is about the species itself
WHWO – large patches of late-successional forest, large snags, moderately open canopy, open understory
Random approach to ecosystem health
Focal
Conservation is about the specific habitat condition(s) they represent
WHWO – large patches of late-successional forest
Relies on other Focal Species for other conditions – e.g., PYNU, WETA, CHSP,
Systematic approach to ecosystem health

12. Recommendations: Hybrid Approach
Focal Species for planning and monitoring broad ecological values (e.g., ecosystem health, habitat restoration)
Priority Species for species not well captured by Focal Species approach
Focal Species: OR-WA PIF for landbirds
Priority Species: USFWS BCC

14. Examples Small population but expanding Small population Edge of range
Lesser Goldfinch – mostly suburban areas
Bewick’s Wren – mostly BLM in SE; private & public in west-central
Small population
Black Swift – mostly USFS
Yellow-billed Cuckoo – BLM, IDFG, private
Swamp Sparrow – scattered marshes (state, private)
Edge of range
Mountain Quail – mostly USFS & private
White-headed Woodpecker – USFS & private

15. Thanks!
to Bob Altman (ABC) for sharing the original version of this talk

17. Conservation directed towards a SUITE of species
OR-WA PIF Focal Species
Conservation directed towards a SUITE of species
that sufficiently represent the RANGE of desired habitat conditions in a habitat should also address the habitat needs of MOST other species in that habitat (Lambeck 1997)
Shortcut “coarse filter” to ecosystem health or biodiversity
Although species are unique in their niches… if you focus on the overlap in habitat needs and cover the range of conditions you should capture the system
Some priority species can be good focal species – many not because of degree of specialization for unique features (BTPI, BLSW) or rarity/difficulty for monitoring (FLOW)
Lets switch gears and talk about Focal Species. Within ORWAPIF here is the basic definition we used from the paper by Lambeck We are using focal species in our bird-habitat models because we feel this approach has the best chance of capturing conservation of the entire habitat type or ecosystem. We base this on the assumption that conservation of a suite of focal species that represent the range of desired conditions should encompass the habitat needs of most if not all of the species in the system. The key word is represent…
Comments – It is unrealistic to plan or implement conservation for every species that needs it so a coarse filter shortcut is to use focal species to capture the most important attributes
We know that speciation is the result of uniqueness and no on species can represent another but there is substantial overlap among species in their habitat requirements and that overlap is where we direct our actions with a suite of species covering that range
Selection of focal species is very critical in order to capture the right species and the conditions you want to represent. In order to do that focal species need to be moderately or highly associated with the habitat and/or conditions they represent. More…..
In our BCR 5 oak project we are selecting focal species at each subregional level such that within the 7 subecoregions we have 3-6 focal species/region, but there are enough differences that there are about 20 different focal species overall. In several cases it is just due to range differences, but even where range was not a factor there are reasons to select different species just simply because they are better representatives for similar conditions across the BCR
We also added in the priority species that have been identified by partners and were not already considered as focal species and doing the analysis for those species in each habitat so that we can come up with regional pop estimates and pop and habitat objectives.

18. East-slope Cascades Focal Species: Ponderosa Pine Forest
Desired Habitat Condition
Focal Species
Large patches of mature/old-growth forest
White-headed Woodpecker
Large trees/snags
Pygmy Nuthatch
Open understory
Chipping Sparrow
Burned forest
Lewis’s Woodpecker
This is an example of the focal species selected for the ESC.
The key point here is the attempt to capture the range of desired habitat conditions such as trees with large cavities, trees with small cavities; canopy-foliage associated species associated with edges and interiors and lastly an understory species.
Species to Benefit