Habitat Conservation for Landbirds 

in the Coniferous Forests of 

Western Oregon and Washington

Version 2
Suggested citation: 

Altman, B. and J.D. Alexander. 2012. Habitat conservation for landbirds in coniferous forests 

of western Oregon and Washington. Version 2.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight 

(www.orwapif.org) and American Bird Conservancy and Klamath Bird Observatory. 

Habitat Conservation for Landbirds 

in the Coniferous Forests of 

Western Oregon and Washington

Version 2

Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight

www.orwapif.org

Bob Altman

American Bird Conservancy

and

John Alexander

Klamath Bird Observatory

August, 2012

Cover images of birds ( clockwise from top left):

Hammonds Flycatcher by Scott Streit

Brown Creeper by Michael Stubblefield

Pileated Woodpecker by Alan Wilson

Other images and cover design by Erik Ackerson
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—iii

Executive Summary

This document has been prepared to stimulate and support a 

proactive approach to the conservation of landbirds in coniferous 

forests of western Oregon and Washington. It represents the 

collective efforts of numerous individuals from multiple agencies 

and organizations within the Oregon-Washington Chapter of 

Partners in Flight.

Recommendations included in this document are intended to 

guide planning efforts and the habitat management actions of land 

managers, direct expenditures of government and non-government 

organizations, and stimulate monitoring and research to support 

landbird conservation. The recommendations also are expected 

to be the biological foundation for developing and implementing 

integrated conservation strategies for multiple species at multiple 

geographic scales to ensure functional ecosystems as indicated by 

healthy populations of landbirds.

The Birds and the Forests

Temperate rain forests of the Pacific Northwest support the 

highest abundances of birds of any coniferous forest system in 

North America. Non-game landbirds comprise the largest portion 

of this bird community, but have been underrepresented in resource 

management plans. Additionally, many coniferous forest landbird 

species are experiencing population declines. In coniferous forests 

of western Oregon and Washington, 32 species have significant 

recent (1980-2006) and/or long-term (1966-2006) declining 

trends based on Breeding Bird Survey data, while only 16 species 

have significantly increasing trends.

Most coniferous forests in western Oregon and Washington are 

regularly altered by land management activities, primarily timber 

production and harvest. Traditional forest management practices 

over the last 50 years have included fire suppression, disease control, 

salvage logging, shorter rotations, clearcutting, slash burning, 

herbicide applications, and thinning. These and other practices have 

resulted in a reduction in the amount of late-successional forest, 

and a reduction in the range of bird habitat structural variability 

present in younger forests. Recent forest management practices, 

particularly on federal lands, have changed with a greater emphasis 

on “ecosystem management” in which maintaining ecological values 

and function is integrated with sustainable commodity production. 

Management prescriptions that increase structural diversity are 

being implemented, including green tree and snag retention to 

enhancing late-successional characteristics, and thinning and group 

selection cuts that create different sizes and shapes of forest patches 

and gaps. Implementation of these and other new management 

prescriptions coupled with the long-term landbird species declines 

emphasizes the need to develop conservation strategies for 

maintaining functional ecosystems for landbirds.

Goals and Process 

The primary goal of this document is to promote long-term 

persistence of healthy populations of native landbirds in coniferous 

forests of western Oregon and Washington. To facilitate that 

goal, we describe the following steps in a process that emphasizes 

providing quantitative, prescriptive recommendations for the 

desired range of habitat types and habitat conditions needed for 

landbird conservation:

w identify habitats that are conservation priorities for 

landbirds

w identify the desired conditions for landbirds within the 

priority habitats

w identify species representative of the desired habitats and 

habitat attributes (i.e., focal species)

w supplement the focal species list with priority species that 

have been identified by primary bird conservation partners 

and would benefit from conservation of focal species

w establish measurable habitat objectives to achieve 

the desired habitat conditions based on the habitat 

requirements of the focal species 

w opportunistically supplement the habitat objectives with 

focal species population objectives to be used as the metric 

for tracking bird conservation

w recommend conservation strategies that can be 

implemented to achieve the habitat objectives

w conduct monitoring to assess the habitat and focal species 

response to the implemented conservation strategies and 

progress towards the habitat and population objectives 

w implement adaptive management as appropriate to 

adjust habitat management towards the trajectory of 

the biological objectives

Accomplishment of our primary goal through implementation 

of the process described above also should result in accomplishment 

of our secondary goal to help prevent listing of landbird species as 

threatened or endangered. When our vision of an ecosystem-driven 

conservation strategy is fully implemented at large geographic 

scales, the aggregated effect will be the creation of landscapes that 

should function to conserve landbird species and communities.
iv—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Focal Species

Our strategy for achieving functioning ecosystems for 

landbirds is described through the habitat requirements 

of 25 “focal species.” By managing for a suite of species 

representative of important habitat components in a 

functioning coniferous forest ecosystem, many other 

species and elements of biodiversity also will be conserved. 

The following focal species were selected based on their 

degree of association with important habitat attributes in 

coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington:

Forest Condition Habitat Attribute Focal Species

Old-growth/Mature Large snags Pileated Woodpecker

Old-growth/Mature Large trees Brown Creeper

Old-Growth/Mature Deciduous canopy trees Pacific-slope Flycatcher

Old Growth-Mature Mid-story tree layers Varied Thrush

Mature/Young Closed canopy Hermit/Townsend’s Warbler

Mature/Young Open mid-story Hammond’s Flycatcher

Mature/Young Deciduous understory Wilson’s Warbler

Mature/Young Forest floor complexity Winter Wren

Young/Pole Deciduous canopy trees Black-throated Gray Warbler

Sapling/Seedling Residual canopy tree Olive-sided Flycatcher

Sapling/Seedling Snags Northern Flicker

Sapling/Seedling Deciduous vegetation Orange-crowned Warbler

Unique Nectar-producing plants Rufous Hummingbird

Unique Mineral springs/seeps Band-tailed Pigeon

Unique Montane wet meadows Lincoln’s Sparrow

Unique Alpine grasslands American Pipit

Unique Waterfalls Black Swift

Unique Large hollow snags Vaux’s Swift

Unique Landscape mosaic forest Blue (Sooty) Grouse

Klamath Mts. Mixed Forest Pine-oak canopy/subcanopy trees Purple Finch

Klamath Mts. Mixed Forest Dense shrub understory Nashville Warbler

Klamath Mts. Mixed Forest Shrub-herbaceous interspersion Hermit Thrush

Klamath Mts. Mixed Forest Forest canopy edges Western Tanager

Klamath Mts. Mixed Forest Montane brushfields Fox Sparrow

Klamath Mts. Mixed Forest Post-fire Lazuli Bunting

Photo by Alan Wilson
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—v

Biological Objectives and 

Conservation Strategies

Based on the habitat relationships of our focal species, biological 

objectives are recommended and conservation strategies to achieve 

them are identified. Simply stated, biological objectives are “what 

we think the birds need.” They are not regulatory, nor do they 

represent the policies of any agency or organization. Establishing 

quantitative biological objectives serves several purposes:

w provides targets for designing management plans and 

benchmarks for measuring success of management actions

w helps formulate hypotheses for research, particularly when 

objectives are based on assumptions and/or professional 

opinion due to lack of data

w assists outreach to communicate to others what is needed 

to conserve landbirds

w provides a starting point for discussion of integration with 

broader ecosystem-based objectives

Biological objectives include site and landscape-level habitat 

objectives, and some population objectives. Habitat objectives are 

derived from current knowledge and professional judgment about 

bird-habitat relationships. Population objectives are primarily a 

direct translation of habitat objectives based on a species habitatspecific density. Additionally, regional habitat objectives are 

included for forest successional stages, forest cover in developing 

landscapes, and natural forest regeneration in post-wildfire habitat.

Conservation strategies are examples of management actions 

that may be used to support the biological objectives or enhance 

conservation relative to a habitat attribute or focal species. They are 

recommendations that can be institutionalized into management 

practices or implemented on an opportunistic basis within the 

broader context of ecosystem management. 

This document emphasizes conservation efforts in areas where 

each species’ abundance is greatest and presumably habitat is 

most suitable. To facilitate this at a regional scale, recommended 

management is prioritized for focal species and their associated 

habitat attributes by forest type, ecoregion, and elevation where 

appropriate. Highest regional priorities include two forest types 

and three ecoregions:

High Priority Forest Types w low elevation Western Hemlock/Western Redcedar

w mixed-conifer forest in the Klamath Mountains 

ecoregion

High Priority Ecoregions

w Klamath Mountains

w Oregon Coast Range

w Olympic Peninsula

Education and Implementation

Conservation of landbirds in the coniferous forests of western 

Oregon and Washington will require not only the development and 

implementation of a variety of biological objectives and conservation 

strategies, but also increased public awareness, commitment, and 

political support to ensure that resources are available to conduct 

the work. This means information must be communicated to the 

public to educate them about the benefits of bird conservation, and 

also communicated to land managers in a manner that is concise 

and understandable. 

For the most effective translation of the information and 

recommendations of this document into education programs, it 

is suggested that teams of scientists and educators work together 

to develop outreach products such as bird-habitat conservation 

Decision Support Tools. To facilitate that, we provide two examples 

of Decision Support Tools—one for the focal species and habitat 

attributes of the mixed conifer and mixed conifer-hardwood forests 

of the Klamath Mountains ecoregion of southwest Oregon, and the 

other for regional landscape-level conservation and management 

for Pacific-slope Flycatcher.

Implementation of landbird conservation as described in this 

document will require conservation actions that are:

w integrated across focal species and habitat types and 

conditions

w implemented at several geographic and ecological scales

w coordinated among various landowners and land 

management agencies

w monitored and adjusted as new data warrant

Photo by Bob Altman
vi—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

All these actions will require careful consideration of numerous 

options to maximize conservation efforts, and the integration 

of diverse values and goals of land owners/managers with that of 

bird conservation. Implementation also will require a broad range 

of partnerships, extensive cooperation, considerable financial 

resources, and a strong scientific biological foundation within 

the context of multiple biological and non-biological goals and 

objectives. Biological objectives in this document should be used 

as the foundation for the bird conservation part of comprehensive, 

integrated, landscape designs for conservation of all natural 

resources.

Recommendations in this document include opportunities 

for participation at any level. This includes directing management 

actions for small landowners to provide habitat for a single species 

(e.g., managing for deciduous canopy trees and Black-throated Gray 

Warblers), and as the foundation for comprehensive, integrated 

complex multi-agency/organization, multi-species conservation 

within large-scale management units (e.g., watersheds, land 

management districts, ecoregions). At smaller scales, management 

actions should be ecologically appropriate based on site-specific 

conditions, and fit into the context of conservation across the 

landscape or region. At larger scales, management should emphasize 

functioning ecosystems with adequate representation of appropriate 

habitat attributes to support the entire landbird community.

This document has broad applicability to many other 

conservation planning efforts. This includes use of our 

recommendations in development of site-specific conservation 

plans such as State and private Habitat Conservation Plans, 

agency and inter-agency Management Plans, and local land-use 

planning strategies. Conversely, areas designated for conservation 

or management in other land management plans (e.g., Northwest 

Forest Plan) should be evaluated for potential support of landbird 

conservation as recommended in this document.

Monitoring, Research, and 

Adaptive Management

All conservation actions implemented on the basis of 

recommendations described in this document should include a 

monitoring and/or research component. This will be necessary not 

only to test the effectiveness of management actions, but also to 

evaluate assumptions upon which many of the biological objectives 

are based. When habitat management actions are undertaken as 

described in this document, monitoring and/or research programs 

should be designed and implemented to:

w test the effectiveness of the actions

w evaluate assumptions built into biological objectives

w direct adaptive management to achieve desired 

results

In addition to the need for validation of the biological 

objectives, there are three recurrent research themes throughout 

the document:

w focal species reproductive success and population viability 

in various forest conditions and from different forest 

management activities 

w area-requirements (i.e., patch size minimums) necessary 

for occupancy and population viability of area-sensitive 

(i.e., forest interior) focal species

w landscape-level assessments of habitat needs for some focal 

species

The direct outgrowth of monitoring and research conducted to 

support the recommendations in this document should be adaptive 

management. Monitoring and research are an integral part of the 

adaptive management component of our recommendations, and 

will function to increase our knowledge base and provide scientific 

data to revise biological objectives as necessary.

Future Versions

This document should be considered a “working document” 

with anticipated revisions and expansions as new information 

becomes available. Future versions may include more focal species 

and additional habitat and population objectives. As additional 

focal species are added and biological objectives are revised and 

updated, a more complete ecosystem management strategy will 

be continually formulated. Ultimately, we envision designated 

Landbird Conservation Areas identified on the regional landscape 

where integrated conservation for multiple species is being 

implemented as part of ecosystem management.

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our appreciation and thanks to the 

many individuals who contributed their time and expertise in the 

development of this document and the previous version upon which 

it is based. Individuals providing a review of earlier drafts of Version 

2.0 include B. Bresson, J. Buchanan, M. Green and E. Ackerson. 

A. Dayer prepared the chapter on Education. E. Ackerson prepared 

the layout and design. Funding for Version 2.0 was provided by the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the Gwladys & John 

Zurlo Charitable Foundation through grants administered by the 

Klamath Bird Observatory.

Photo by Erik Ackerson
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—vii

Contents

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................. iii

The Birds and the Forests ...................................................................................................................... iii

Goals and Process.................................................................................................................................. iii

Focal Species ..........................................................................................................................................iv

Biological Objectives and Conservation Strategie ....................................................................................v

Education and Implementation...............................................................................................................v

Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management.................................................................................vi

Future Versions ......................................................................................................................................vi

Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................... vi

Introduction to Landbird Conservation .................................................................................................... 1

Partners in Flight.....................................................................................................................................1

North American Bird Conservation Initiative..........................................................................................1

Joint Ventures..........................................................................................................................................2

Purpose of this Document.......................................................................................................................2

Version 2.0..............................................................................................................................................2

Integration with Other Plans...................................................................................................................3

Scope of Conservation............................................................................................................................... 5

Geographic..............................................................................................................................................5

Ecoregions.........................................................................................................................................5

Coniferous Forests...................................................................................................................................5

Unique Forest Habitats .....................................................................................................................5

Urban-Residential Coniferous Forests................................................................................................6

Breeding Birds.........................................................................................................................................6

Outside of our Scope...............................................................................................................................7

The Process ............................................................................................................................................... 8

Conceptual Approach..............................................................................................................................8

Organizational Framework......................................................................................................................9

Components of the Process .....................................................................................................................9

Desired Habitat Attributes ......................................................................................................................9

Focal Species .........................................................................................................................................10

Integration of Priority Species ...............................................................................................................11

Biological Objectives ............................................................................................................................11

Habitat Objectives ..........................................................................................................................12

Population Objectives .....................................................................................................................12

Conservation Strategies .........................................................................................................................13

Monitoring and Adaptive Management.................................................................................................13

The Forests.............................................................................................................................................. 14

Forest Types...........................................................................................................................................14

Sitka Spruce Zone...........................................................................................................................14

Western Hemlock Zone ..................................................................................................................14

Pacific Silver Fir Zone......................................................................................................................14

Mountain Hemlock Zone ...............................................................................................................15

Mixed-Conifer Zone.......................................................................................................................15

Forest Succession...................................................................................................................................15
viii—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

The Birds ................................................................................................................................................ 16

Bird-Habitat Relationships....................................................................................................................16

Bird Conservation Issues .......................................................................................................................16

Land Ownership .............................................................................................................................16

Declining Landbird Populations......................................................................................................16

Forest Loss and Conversion.............................................................................................................17

Forest Management.........................................................................................................................19

Forest Fragmentation ......................................................................................................................21

Fire..................................................................................................................................................22

Climate Change..............................................................................................................................23

Focal Species ...................................................................................................................................24

Priority Species................................................................................................................................24

Population Estimates.......................................................................................................................24

Biological Objectives and Habitat Conservation Strategies ..................................................................... 27

Regional Habitat Objectives..................................................................................................................27

Late-successional Forest...................................................................................................................27

Early and Mid-successional Forest...................................................................................................27

Residential/Urban Forest Cover in Developing Landscapes .............................................................28

Natural Forest Regeneration in Post-Wildfire Habitat......................................................................28

Biological Objectives for Focal Species and Habitat Attributes. .............................................................28

Old-Growth/Mature Forest.............................................................................................................28

Large Snags – Pileated Woodpecker...........................................................................................29

Large Trees – Brown Creeper.....................................................................................................30

Deciduous Canopy/Subcanopy Trees – Pacific-Slope Flycatcher ................................................32

Mid-Story Tree Layers – Varied Thrush .....................................................................................33

Mature/Young Forest.......................................................................................................................34

Closed Canopy – Hermit/Townsend’s Warbler..........................................................................35

Open Mid-Story – Hammond’s Flycatcher................................................................................36

Deciduous Understory – Wilson’s Warbler ................................................................................37

Forest Floor Complexity – Winter Wren ...................................................................................38

Young/Pole Forest............................................................................................................................39

Deciduous Canopy Trees – Black-Throated Gray Warbler .........................................................40

Early Successional Forest .................................................................................................................41

Residual Canopy Trees – Olive-Sided Flycatcher .......................................................................41

Snags – Northern Flicker...........................................................................................................42

Deciduous Vegetation – Orange-Crowned Warbler...................................................................43

Unique Forest Habitats ...................................................................................................................44

Nectar-Producing Plants – Rufous Hummingbird.....................................................................45

Mineral Springs/Seeps – Band-Tailed Pigeon.............................................................................46

Montane Wet Meadows – Lincoln’s Sparrow .............................................................................47

Alpine Grasslands – American Pipit...........................................................................................47

Waterfalls – Black Swift.............................................................................................................48

Large Hollow Snags – Vaux’s Swift ............................................................................................49

Landscape Mosaic Forest – Blue (Sooty) Grouse........................................................................50

Klamath Mountains Mixed Conifer/Hardwood Forest....................................................................51

Pine-Oak Canopy/Subcanopy Trees – Purple Finch...................................................................51

Dense Shrub Understory – Nashville Warbler ...........................................................................52

Shrub-Herb Interspersion Understory – Hermit Thrush............................................................53

Forest Canopy Edges – Western Tanager ...................................................................................54
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—ix

Montane Brushfields – Green-Tailed Towhee ............................................................................55

Post-Fire – Lazuli Bunting.........................................................................................................56

Implementation ...................................................................................................................................... 57

Protected Areas......................................................................................................................................57

Scale and Landscape Considerations......................................................................................................57

Regional Prioritization of Ecoregions, Forest Types, and Forest Conditions...........................................58

Conservation Design.............................................................................................................................59

Opportunities for Participation .............................................................................................................59

Monitoring and Research................................................................................................... 65

Integration of Research with Monitoring...............................................................................................65

Turning Monitoring and Research Results into Adaptive Management .................................................66

Education and Outreach ......................................................................................................................... 67

Primary Audiences ................................................................................................................................67

Key Messages.........................................................................................................................................67

Involving Education Experts .................................................................................................................67

Decision Support Tools .........................................................................................................................67

Ensuring Effectiveness of Education Efforts...........................................................................................68

Literature Cited....................................................................................................................................... 69

 List of Figures

Figure 1. Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5) and the 

geographic scope of this document (Oregon and Washington) ...............................................5

Figure 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1996) Level III ecoregions .......................................6

 List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of ecoregion designations between Franklin and Dyrness (1973) 

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1996) Level III ecoregions.................................7

Table 2. Forest types and vegetation characteristics of coniferous forests in 

western Oregon and Washington..........................................................................................14

Table 3. Successional stages and characteristics of coniferous forests in 

western Oregon and Washington..........................................................................................15

Table 4. Coniferous forest landbird species with significant population trends based on 

Breeding Bird Survey data (1966–2007) within the area encompassed by the 

coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington..........................................................18

Table 5. Forest successional stages and associated habitat attributes and focal species for 

landbird conservation in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington ...................20

Table 6. Regularly breeding landbird species in western Oregon and Washington 

that have been designated as priority bird species by primary bird 

conservation partners............................................................................................................25

Table 7. Population estimates of focal species in the Oregon and Washington 

portions of BCR 5 (i.e., western Oregon and western Washington) stepped-down 

from Partners in Flight continental population estimates......................................................26

Table 8. Regional prioritization of forest types and ecoregion for conservation of focal 

species in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington ..........................................60

Table 9. Summary of habitat relationships and biological objectives for focal species 

in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington......................................................62
x—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

 List of Appendices 

Appendix A. Priority species most likely to benefit from habitat management or 

restoration actions directed towards focal species and associated habitat 

attributes in westside conifer forests..................................................................................... 79

Appendix B. Relationships between thinning and breeding bird species abundance 

in conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation 

Region (BCR 5.....................................................................................................................81

Appendix C. Birds in Mixed-Conifer Hardwood Forests: managing fire-adapted ecosystems 

in southwestern Oregon .......................................................................................................85

Appendix D. Decision support tool fact sheet for landscape-level conservation 

and management for Pacific-slope Flycatcher........................................................................87
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—1

Introduction to Landbird Conservation

Partners in Flight

Continental, regional, and local declines in North American 

landbird populations, first brought to public attention in the late 

1980s (Robbins et al. 1989), have led to concern for the future of 

migratory and resident landbirds. Scientists and the concerned 

public recognized that a coordinated, cooperative, conservation 

initiative focusing on landbirds was needed to address the problem 

(Pashley et al. 2000). In late 1990, Partners in Flight (PIF; www.

partnersinflight.org) was conceived as a voluntary, international 

coalition of government agencies, conservation groups, academic 

institutions, private organizations, and citizens dedicated to 

“keeping common birds common” and “reversing the downward 

trends of declining bird species” (Rich et al. 2004).

The Oregon-Washington chapter of PIF (OR-WA PIF; www.

orwapif.org), formed in 1992, has been at the forefront of landbird 

conservation not only in the Pacific Northwest but also throughout 

North America. It produced the first regional document within 

PIF that prioritized landbird species for conservation based on 

a scoring system (Andelman and Stock 1994), and the first PIF 

chapter “Project Directory” to catalogue and describe existing 

monitoring projects (Altman 1994). OR-WA PIF partners have 

been actively engaged in every aspect of landbird conservation at 

regional, national, and international levels, providing leadership 

and participation on various committees and programs along with 

developing strong partnerships and projects in Canada, Mexico, 

and Central America, including an OR-WA PIF sister chapter in 

El Salvador.

The foundation of PIF’s long-term strategy for bird conservation 

is a series of geographically-based landbird conservation plans, 

of which this document is one. The primary goal of PIF landbird 

conservation planning is to promote long-term persistence of 

healthy populations of native landbirds. This document is intended 

to facilitate that goal by stimulating conservation actions for 

landbirds, particularly for nonlisted and nongame landbirds which 

historically have been under-represented in conservation efforts, 

and many of which are exhibiting significant declines that may 

be possible to reverse if appropriate actions are taken now. Thus, 

implementation of the recommendations in this and other OR-WA 

PIF landbird conservation plans also supports efforts to reduce 

the need for future listings of bird species under the Endangered 

Species Act.

North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI; 

www.nabci-us.org) emerged in the late 1990s out of the disparate 

but extensive evolution of the four major bird conservation 

initiatives (waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds, landbirds) to facilitate 

coordinated implementation of “all-bird, all-habitat” conservation. 

It was established to provide a unifying theme for bird conservation, 

a forum for communication, and an avenue for integration among 

the bird conservation initiatives in North America. The purpose of 

NABCI is to ensure the long-term health of North America’s native 

bird populations by increasing the effectiveness of bird conservation 

initiatives, enhancing coordination among initiatives, and fostering 

greater cooperation among the continent’s three national governments 

and their people. The goal of NABCI is to deliver the full spectrum 

of bird conservation through regionally-based biologically-driven, 

landscape-oriented partnerships.

Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are the ecological units that 

have been identified through NABCI for the delivery and tracking 

of bird conservation. There are 67 BCRs within North America and 

Hawaii (NABCI 2000), including the Northern Pacific Rainforest 

Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5) which encompasses all of the 

geographic scope of this document (Figure 1).

Joint Ventures

Under the vision of NABCI, Joint Venture partnerships are 

being encouraged to play an integral role in the implementation 

of landbird conservation. Traditionally, Joint Venture partnerships 

focused on wetland and waterfowl conservation to implement the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The success of 

their wetland/waterfowl conservation actions since the late 1980s, 

along with the need to support implementation of bird and habitat 

conservation for the other three major bird initiatives, resulted in 

expansion of the role for Joint Ventures to address “all-bird, allhabitat” conservation.

There are nearly two dozen Joint Venture partnerships within 

North America, including the Pacific Coast Joint Venture (PCJV; 

www.pcjv.org), which encompasses the geographic scope of this 

document. The primary way in which the PCJV partnership is 

advancing landbird conservation is through their position of Science 

Coordinator for Upland Birds and Habitats, and the development 

of habitat and population objectives for landbirds as part of their 

implementation plans (www.pcjv.org/home/implementation/). 

The PCJV partnership also is supporting landbird conservation 

through habitat protection activities, and project funding for 

planning, research, monitoring, and outreach.

The primary goal of PIF landbird 

conservation planning is to promote 

long-term persistence of healthy 

populations of native landbirds.

“

” 
2—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Purpose of this Document

This document is intended to support both the development 

of conservation or management plans and the implementation 

of on-the-ground habitat management activities that have the 

potential to benefit breeding bird populations in the coniferous 

forests of western Oregon and Washington. The degree to which 

a land manager is willing or able to manage for bird habitat or bird 

populations is a decision based on many factors beyond the scope 

of the document. We assume users of this document already have 

an interest in managing for bird habitat or bird populations as one 

of several objectives that land managers must typically balance. 

However, it is not our purpose to discuss integration of bird 

conservation with other management objectives. Our objective 

is simply to provide those interested in bird conservation with 

information and recommendations on:

w the landbird species and habitat attributes (i.e., habitat 

conditions and/or habitat elements) that should be 

emphasized for conservation, and

w the quantitative, measurable objectives that are 

recommended to support conservation of those landbird 

species and habitat attributes. 

Version 2.0

This document is an update of Conservation Strategy for 

Landbirds in Coniferous Forests in Western Oregon and Washington 

(Altman 1999), the original landbird conservation plan for westside 

coniferous forests. Among PIF bird conservation plans nationally, 

one of the unique features of Version 1.0 of the OR-WA PIF bird 

conservation plans was the quantitative and prescriptive objectives 

that were established for habitat attributes important to landbird 

species. One reason for doing this was to fill a gap, which exists in 

most conservation planning efforts (i.e., the absence of quantitative 

objectives), yet is something that most land managers want not only 

to direct their management but also to use for tracking progress 

towards conservation goals. We have received numerous reports 

which show the range of how the OR-WA PIF plans have been 

used—as focal species lists in environmental assessments (See: Using 

the PIF Plans in Biological Evaluations), as a guide to restoration 

efforts (See: Using the PIF Plans to Guide Restoration Efforts), and 

as a tool for ecoregional analyses to assess how alternatives in major 

forest plans meet the regional habitat objectives (See: Assessing 

Alternatives in Forest Plans for Meeting PIF Plan Objectives).

Using the PIF Plans in Biological Evaluations 

I use the table of focal species and habitat attributes 

they represent in Biological Evaluations. In the narrative, 

I discuss which species may be impacted (positively or 

negatively) by the project. I also correlate this information 

with Breeding Bird Survey data from nearby routes to 

show population trends and discuss long-term impacts 

to landbirds and habitat. I have found the Westside 

Coniferous Forest Plan to be very useful. Kevin Sands, 

Tiller Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service.

Since the development of Version 1.0 in the mid to late 

1990s, considerable changes have occurred in the world of bird 

conservation, along with significant changes in the management 

and policy regarding coniferous forests in the Pacific Northwest. 

Regionally within coniferous forests, there has been noteworthy 

loss of private forest land, both industrial and nonindustrial, into 

development or speculative development; and significant changes 

in management of public forest lands based on changes in planning 

regulations. Internationally and nationally, we have seen the 

emergence of NABCI and BCRs, and the enhanced role of Joint 

Ventures in landbird conservation. Within PIF, there has been 

extensive emphasis on the geospatial design of landscapes for birdhabitat conservation through the publication of the Five Elements 

Process (Will et al. 2005). Additionally, the North American 

Landbird Conservation Plan (hereafter Continental Plan) was 

completed for the United States and Canada with the first attempt 

to establish continental population estimates and population 

objectives for landbird species (Rich et al. 2004). An updated version 

of this document, which included Mexico (hereafter Trinational 

Plan), further expanded the vision and connectivity necessary for 

migratory bird conservation (Berlanga et al. 2010). 

“

” 

This document is intended to support 

both the development of conservation 

or management plans and the 

implementation of on-the-ground 

habitat management activities that have 

the potential to benefit breeding bird 

populations in the coniferous forests of 

western Oregon and Washington. 

Photo by Erik Ackerson
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—3

“

” 

Using the PIF Plans to Guide Restoration Efforts 

The OR-WA PIF Bird Conservation Plans have allowed 

me to enhance my restoration work by providing 

specific, measurable targets at both coarse scales (habitat 

types) and fine scales (species). Your plans are a terrific 

compilation of the state of knowledge of what habitat 

elements are essential to contribute to the long-term 

persistence of landbird species. I really wish the same sort 

of information were available for non-avian species. The 

type of information present in the landbird conservation 

plans is pure gold to me. Elaine Stewart, Natural Resource 

Scientist, Portland Metro. 

In this Version 2.0, we are not only updating the biological 

objectives for habitat attributes based on new data, but continuing to 

take leadership in being progressive and innovative in our approach 

to PIF landbird conservation by providing examples of habitat 

objectives at landscape scales and population objectives at several 

scales. Because the latter is relatively new, we opportunistically 

present these objectives for species and habitats where this work has 

been completed as part of PCJV or other planning. It is hoped that 

the presentation of quantitative biological objectives will not only 

stimulate conservation action on the ground, but also stimulate data 

collection and analyses to test the models and professional opinion 

used to develop the objectives.

Assessing Alternatives in Forest Plans 

for Meeting PIF Plan Objectives

In the Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of 

the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon 

Bureau of Land Management Districts, we conducted 

analyses of different alternatives for forest management on 

the OR-WA PIF plan habitat objectives for the amount of 

late-successional forest needed for landbird conservation. 

The type of quantitative objectives presented in the PIF 

plans are just not available in other plans, and they allowed 

us to present a more meaningful and accurate assessment 

of different management scenarios on landbirds that 

we could not do for other taxa. Chris Foster, Roseburg 

District, Bureau of Land Management.

In Version 2.0 we also are recognizing the mixed conifer and 

mixed conifer-hardwood forests of the Klamath Mountains 

ecoregion of southwestern Oregon separately because the uniqueness 

of the floristic diversity and the convergence of different ecological 

zones results in noteworthy differences in bird-habitat relationships 

from the rest of western Oregon and Washington (Olson et al. 

2001). This region supports the highest bird biodiversity in western 

Oregon and Washington, which has been attributed in particular 

to the diversity and abundance of hardwood trees (Hagar 2001).

Integration with Other Plans

This updated bird conservation plan is one of five original 

OR-WA PIF ecoregional plans for priority habitats and associated 

landbirds in Oregon and Washington (Altman, 1999a, Altman 

2000a, 2000b, 2000c, Altman and Holmes 2000). These 

ecoregional plans can function independently for landbird-specific 

conservation, but also are intended to complement plans of the 

waterfowl, shorebird, and waterbird initiatives within the framework 

of NABCI. Ongoing efforts to integrate with these initiatives 

during program or project-level planning and implementation 

will help ensure that healthy populations of all native bird species 

continue to exist. We recommend that the biological objectives and 

conservation strategies described in this document be integrated 

with other conservation planning and implementation in coniferous 

forests of western Oregon and Washington to provide functioning 

ecosystems for the region’s diverse array of landbird species.

Integration with the Northwest Forest Plan

The Northwest Forest Plan has guided forest management 

on federal lands for nearly two decades. The NWFP was 

designed as an ecosystem management plan to address 

biodiversity of late-successional forests through a variety 

of mechanisms. Integration of components of this ORWA PIF bird conservation plan, which also is ecosystemdriven, with the NWFP presents a significant opportunity 

to advance landbird conservation in coniferous forests. The 

greatest potential integration of recommendations in this 

document with the NWFP is our biological objectives for 

focal species associated with late-successional forests. For 

example, our fine filter, quantitative habitat objectives 

provide the prescriptive habitat conditions and metrics 

that can be used to guide habitat management and 

assess the coarse filter assumptions of conservation of 

biodiversity in the NWFP’s designated late-successional 

reserves.

PIF landbird conservation plans also are one of numerous 

recent planning efforts that address conservation of natural 

resources and ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest. This document 

is intended to supplement and support these other planning and 

conservation processes (e.g., Northwest Forest Plan [See above], 

Habitat Conservation Plans, State Wildlife Action Plans [See

below], Ecoregional Plans of the Nature Conservancy, Pacific Coast 

Joint Venture Implementation Plans [See below]) and regulatory 

We recommend that the biological 

objectives and conservation strategies 

described in this document be 

integrated with other conservation 

planning and implementation in 

coniferous forests of western Oregon 

and Washington to provide functioning 

ecosystems for the region’s diverse 

array of landbird species.

Photo by Erik Ackerson
4—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

enactments (e.g., State Forest Practices Act, Endangered Species 

Act, Migratory Birds Treaty Act) in two particular ways:

w by addressing conservation towards a suite of landbird 

species representative of desired habitat conditions for 

birds in priority habitats; thus, species that are often not 

addressed in other plans, and

w by providing quantitative objectives for specific habitat 

attributes and populations of landbird species at site and 

landscape scales, which are rarely provided in other plans.

Integration with State Wildlife Action Plans 

The States of Oregon and Washington recently completed 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies (aka 

State Wildlife Action Plans) as directed by Congress 

to proactively encourage the maintenance of healthy 

fish and wildlife populations and minimize the costly 

and controversial listing of species under the Federal 

Endangered Species Act. These plans provide a broad 

conceptual framework that identifies and prioritizes 

species and habitats for conservation and the qualitative 

actions that need to occur to support their conservation. 

The greatest potential integration of recommendations 

in this document with the State Wildlife Action Plans 

is our prescriptive, quantitative habitat and population 

objectives that provide the “next step” for specifically 

directing conservation and management of species and 

habitats to support the qualitative, conceptual objectives 

in the State Wildlife Action Plans.

Integration with Pacific Coast Joint Venture 

Implementation Plans

The PCJV partnership has prepared ecoregional 

Implementation Plans with an emphasis on sciencebased, quantitative habitat objectives that are directly 

linked to bird populations, and assess the habitat 

capacity of the Joint Venture area to contribute to 

continental bird population objectives (www.pcjv.org/

home/implementation/). The biological objectives (i.e., 

habitat objectives and population objectives) established 

in these ecoregional plans provide PCJV partners with a 

numerical context within which to stimulate conservation 

action and gauge the regional perspective of their local 

conservation actions. The greatest potential integration 

of recommendations in this document with the PCJV 

Implementation Plans is our prescriptive habitat 

objectives that describe the specific conditions needed 

to support species and habitat conservation, and thus 

provide the “how to” aspect of conservation that 

complements the “how much” objectives in the PCJV 

plans. 

Photo by Erik Ackerson

Photo by Bob Altman
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—5

Scope of Conservation

Geographic

The geographic scope of this document is coniferous forest 

in Oregon and Washington west of the crest of the Cascade 

Mountains (i.e., westside coniferous forest), and the variable zone 

approximately 2–10 miles east of the crest where similar westside 

forest conditions and types prevail (Figure 1). This boundary was 

selected because it is a relatively distinct range boundary for many 

landbird species. Species composition on the east-slope of the 

Cascade Mountains tends to have more habitat and bird species 

affinities with coniferous forests elsewhere in eastern Oregon and 

Washington (e.g., Ochoco Mountains, Blue Mountains, Okanogan 

Mountains) than with coniferous forests in western Oregon and 

Washington.

E Ecoregions

Throughout the geographic scope of this document, there are 

many similarities in ecosystems, habitats, and land uses. However, 

noteworthy differences in environmental resources exist within 

several relatively distinct geographic areas. These “ecoregions” 

provide a finer-scale spatial framework for describing and assessing 

the conservation landscape. For the purposes of this document, 

we use Level III ecoregions of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (1996) (Figure 2), which is similar to the slightly finerfiltered ecoregions of Franklin and Dyrness (1973) (Table 1) used 

in Version 1.0 (Altman 1999).

Coniferous Forests

Coniferous forest, as defined in this document, includes all forest 

lands where the ecologically appropriate forest canopy is dominated 

by coniferous trees (i.e., generally >70% coniferous trees). This 

includes early successional habitat that is not currently dominated 

by coniferous trees (e.g., dominated by shrubs or small deciduous 

trees), but would meet that criteria in an older successional stage. 

E Unique Coniferous Forest Habitats

Within the vast landscape of coniferous forests in western 

Oregon and Washington, there are several unique non-forest 

habitats or forest inclusions important to landbirds such as alpine 

grasslands, waterfalls, wet meadows, and mineral springs that also 

are considered in this document because there are priority species 

associated with them. Some species are highly associated or obligate 

to these habitats such as American Pipit with alpine grasslands and 

Black Swift with waterfalls. Conversely, there are other habitats, 

such as wetlands, ponds, and lakes, within the coniferous forest 

landscape that we don’t consider in this document because they are 

dominated by non-landbird species.

A forest landscape habitat not addressed in this document is 

riverine riparian forest with >30% deciduous/hardwood canopy 

closure. Within the coniferous forest landscape, these habitats 

generally occur at lower elevations or in the more arid montane 

environments of the Klamath Mountains ecoregion of southwestern 

WA S H IN GT O N

CA L IF O R N IA

O R E G O N

B R IT I SH

C O L U M B IA

A L A S K A

YU K O N

T ER R IT O R IE S

P a c i f i c

O c e a n

BCR 5

Washington

Oregon

Cartography by

CORE GIS LLC

www.coregis.net

0 100 200

Kilometers [

August 2010

Data: WA ReGAP,

OR ReGAP, CA FRAP

Figure 1. Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation

Region (BCR 5) and the geographic scope of this document

(Oregon and Washington).
6—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Oregon and are addressed in Conservation Strategy for 

Landbirds in Lowlands and Valleys of Western Oregon 

and Washington (Altman 2000a), because landbird 

species associations are generally different from 

adjacent coniferous forest, and most similar to species 

associations of deciduous riparian forests in lowland 

valleys. Conversely, riparian stringers of second and 

third order streams that extend into headwaters are 

considered a part of this conservation document 

because the deciduous composition is generally <30%, 

and the landbird species composition is similar to the 

adjacent upland coniferous forest (McGarigal and 

McComb 1992; Pearson and Manuwal 2001).

E Urban/Residential Coniferous Forests

Within the geographic scope of this document, 

there are patches of coniferous forest that occur in 

urban and residential settings, particularly in the Puget 

Trough and Willamette Valley ecoregions. Although 

these may be relatively minimal in terms of habitat 

amount and/or conservation value to landbirds 

compared to the vast landscape of coniferous forest in 

western Oregon and Washington, we recognize their 

potential contribution to landbird conservation, and 

suggest the same level of consideration of the biological 

objectives and conservation strategies as recommended 

throughout the document for other coniferous forest. 

However, it also is important to recognize that these 

areas may have problematic conservation issues due 

to the relatively small size of the forest patches which 

excludes many species with larger area requirements 

(Donnelly and Marzluff 2004), the potential impacts 

of adjacent developed areas on bird populations such 

as increased predation and disturbance (Marzluff 

2001), and the higher likelihood of future loss of many 

of these areas to development. Thus, conservation 

strategies as described herein should be vetted against 

these and other issues that occur in urban/residential 

forests before implementing the recommended 

conservation actions.

Breeding Birds

In this document, we emphasize the conservation 

of native landbird species that regularly breed in 

coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington. 

Because breeding bird species occur in all the habitats 

and conditions that support non-breeding bird 

species, we are making the assumption that habitat 

management for breeding birds will likely support 

most, if not all, of the habitat needs of non-breeding 

birds in these forests.

Although we only address the conservation of 

landbirds during the breeding season, factors that 

operate outside the breeding season may adversely affect 

populations of these birds. This may be particularly 

true for migratory birds subject to habitat changes and 

other factors on their wintering grounds and/or during 

migration that may impact the abundance and health 

WA S H IN GT O N

C A L IF O R N IA

O R E G O N

Level III Ecoregions

Cascades

Coast Range

Klamath Mountains

North Cascades

Puget Lowland

Willamette Valley

Cartography by

CORE GIS LLC

www.coregis.net

0 25 50

Kilometers [

August 2010

Data: WA ReGAP,

OR ReGAP, CA FRAP

Figure 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1996) Level III 

Ecoregions.

This document does not directly address 

all landbird species, but instead uses ‘focal 

species’ to describe the biological objectives 

for the avian community.

“

” 
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—7

Photo by Erik Ackerson

Table 1. Comparison of ecoregion designations between Franklin 

and Dyrness (1973) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1996).

Franklin and Dyrness (1973) U.S.E.P.A (1996) Level III

Olympic Peninsula (WA) Coast Range (OR and WA)

Coast Range (OR) Coast Range (OR and WA)

Southern Cascades (WA) Cascades (OR and WA)

Western Cascades (OR) Cascades (OR and WA)

Klamath Mountains (OR) Klamath Mountains (OR)

Northern Cascades (WA) North Cascades (WA)

Puget Trough (WA) Puget Lowlands (WA)

Willamette Valley (OR) Willamette Valley (OR)

of breeding populations. Although we cannot address the breadth 

of those issues here, we consider appropriate conservation actions 

on the breeding grounds a stewardship responsibility of a natural 

resource shared with many other countries and peoples (Altman 

and Hagar 2007). We encourage bird conservation partners to seek 

opportunities to develop international partnerships and projects to 

support conservation of our shared migratory landbirds (Berlanga 

et al. 2010).

This document does not directly address all landbird species, 

but instead uses “focal species” to describe the biological objectives 

for the avian community. Many species not emphasized are ‘habitat 

generalists” that thrive in a wide range of forest conditions (e.g., 

American Robin), and thus are of less concern for conservation.

Four federally-listed or recently delisted species; Bald Eagle, 

Marbled Murrelet, Northern Spotted Owl, and Peregrine Falcon 

are not considered in this document because species-specific 

conservation strategies and/or recovery plans have already been 

established for these species. However, existing regulations/

recommendations for management and conservation of these species 

has significance for landbird conservation. For example, designated 

areas for management and conservation of the Northern Spotted 

Owl and Marbled Murrelet are an important opportunity for the 

conservation of other late-successional forest landbird species.

Outside of our Scope

There are of course many other aspects to landbird conservation 

beyond habitat such as policy, education, and land protection, 

but in this document we only provide a cursory background of 

those components of landbird conservation. We also only provide 

limited geospatial recommendations for landbird conservation, 

usually at larger scales such as ecoregions. This spatially-explicit 

aspect of conservation has been a focus of other plans such as PCJV 

Strategic Plans, Ecoregional Plans of The Nature Conservancy, 

and State Wildlife Action Plans, although usually for broader 

conservation goals than landbirds. The identification of spatiallyexplicit conservation areas specifically for birds has been addressed 

to some extent through the Important Bird Areas programs of 

the American Bird Conservancy (www.abcbirds.org) and State 

Audubon chapters (www.oregoniba.org and http://wa.audubon.

org/science_IBAWashington.html). We recommend that bird 

conservation partners seek spatially-explicit guidance for bird 

conservation from the aforementioned plans and others that 

provide these types of recommendations.

Photo by Erik Ackerson
8—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

The Process

“

” 

Conceptual Approach

Numerous conceptual approaches for wildlife conservation 

have been proposed and implemented in recent decades. These 

approaches have focused on various elements such as single species, 

management indicator species, ecological guilds, management 

assemblages, and ecosystems (reviewed by Block et al. 1995). All 

the approaches by themselves have inherent practical or biological 

limitations. For example, the single-species approach is usually 

not cost effective or practical for many species, and a broad-based 

biodiversity approach can have conflicting objectives among the 

myriad of species involved—and can be ambiguous in terms of design 

and evaluation without reference to specific habitat requirements 

for individual species (Lambeck 1997). Salwasser (2001) suggests 

that a coarse filter (i.e., multiple species, landscapes, ecosystems) 

and fine-filter (i.e., species and their habitat needs) approach that 

is nested and overlapping is the most likely to provide effective 

wildlife conservation. 

Within PIF, species prioritization for conservation is driven by 

the quantitative scoring system of the Species Assessment Database 

(www.rmbo.org/pif/pifdb.html; [Panjabi et al. 2005]), which has 

been externally reviewed by Beissinger et al. (2000). Although the 

emphasis is on single-species conservation, there is an underlying 

assumption that conservation of priority species supports 

ecosystem management because other species will likely benefit 

from actions implemented to conserve priority species. However, 

it is unlikely that a suite of PIF priority species can represent the 

array of habitat features or conditions important for landbirds in a 

functioning ecosystem, in part because priority species often are a 

priority because they are “habitat specialists.” Thus, conservation of 

an ecosystem or habitat type for birds is likely to be compromised 

because desired conditions for some/many habitat features or 

functional relationships would not be addressed if just focusing on 

priority species. Furthermore, the broader goals for conservation of 

biodiversity, increasingly desired as societal and ecological goals, 

cannot be achieved on a species by species basis (Franklin 1993).

Given the limitations of the priority species approach for 

ecosystem or habitat-level conservation and the recommendations 

of Salwasser (2001), we developed a multiple-scale approach 

for landbird conservation that emphasizes conservation of the 

...our conservation emphasis is on 

habitat and habitat attributes, and we 

use a suite of bird species and their 

relationships to those habitats and 

habitat attributes as the mechanism 

for achieving bird conservation. 

coniferous forest ecosystem through appropriate representation of 

the habitat types and conditions important to birds as described 

through the habitat requirements of a suite of individual bird species 

most representative of those desired habitat types and conditions.

Thus our conservation emphasis is on habitat and habitat attributes, 

and we use a suite of bird species and their relationships to those 

habitats and habitat attributes as the mechanism for achieving bird 

conservation. Two key components of this approach are:

w Adequate representation of the primary bird-habitat 

relationship categories within the coniferous forest 

ecosystem (e.g., forest type, successional stage)

w Adequate representation of the key desired habitat elements 

or attributes within the coniferous forest ecosystem (e.g., 

snags, canopy cover, shrub cover, tree size)

At the core of this approach is the use of focal species (Lambeck 

1997). Our rationale for using focal species is to draw immediate 

attention to habitat features and conditions most in need of 

conservation or most important in a functioning ecosystem for 

landbirds. Although conservation is directed towards focal species, 

establishment of conditions favorable to focal species also will likely 

benefit a wider group of species with similar habitat requirements 

(Lambeck 1997).

Our use of a suite of focal species provides an efficient and 

comprehensive way to address ecosystem conservation because 

it ensures that conservation is directed at the range of important 

habitat conditions within the ecosystem. Implementation of this 

multi-focal species approach should result in a high likelihood 

of maintaining key habitat attributes and providing functioning 

ecosystems for landbirds because the most important habitat 

attributes for landbirds are targeted for conservation. This approach 

also provides a comprehensive framework for dealing with priority 

species (current and future) because the component(s) of the 

habitat needed by those species are likely already addressed through 

our suite of focal species. It also provides the opportunity to include 

priority species either as focal species or as independently unique 

species, and include species-level recommendations for their 

conservation.

Our use of a suite of focal 

species provides an efficient and 

comprehensive way to address 

ecosystem conservation because it 

ensures that conservation is directed 

at the range of important habitat 

conditions within the ecosystem.

“

” 
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—9

Organizational Framework Forest successional stage is used as the primary category to 

organize the document because it provides the most distinct 

separation of bird-habitat relationships in coniferous forests of 

western Oregon and Washington (Meslow and Wight 1975). 

However, it is widely recognized that successional stage alone can 

be an insufficient measure of wildlife habitat quality (Bunnell et 

al. 1997), because many wildlife species respond to specific habitat 

attributes that can occur in multiple successional stages such 

as canopy closure, presence of large trees and snags, understory 

development, structural heterogeneity, and a deciduous tree 

component. Additionally, intensively managed forests and 

efforts to implement multi-aged management complicates use 

of successional stage because the various structural features 

characteristic of “natural habitats” are managed for or against under 

different management objectives. Thus, we use successional stage as 

our coarse-filter organizational category, and use habitat attributes 

(See Habitat Attributes) within successional stages as our fine-filter 

organizational category. Finally, as described below, we use a suite of 

bird species to address conservation of the habitat attributes within 

successional stages, and also use populations of those bird species 

as one of the performance metrics for tracking progress towards 

objectives.

Habitat Attributes

We use the term habitat attribute to describe those habitat 

features, conditions, or elements that function as important 

life requisites for the focal species representing them. Our 

presentation of quantitative objectives for habitat attributes 

within the context of the appropriate successional stage 

provides land managers with descriptive and measurable 

targets to strive to achieve through management or natural 

succession.

Further, for some bird species, habitat relationships are not best 

described by successional stage and/or habitat attributes but by the 

composition and pattern of structural attributes or successional 

stages across the landscape. Since this strategy is designed to be 

an ecosystem planning tool, it also will be necessary to design and 

implement management at the landscape-level to support these 

species and ensure adequate representation of all the other species. 

Landscape planning will require addressing regional populations or 

sub-populations of birds that occur both within and across large 

landscapes. However, most of what we know about landbird ecology 

in coniferous forests exists at the scale of individual birds/pairs or 

small populations at the site-level (often referred to as stand-level 

in coniferous forests), and less is known about the relationships 

between landbird populations and habitat at the landscape scale 

(Marzluff et al. 2000). However, recognition of the importance 

of landscape-level considerations for forest bird conservation 

is receiving more recent attention (Aubry 2007), and herein 

we include some landscape-level objectives, based on emerging 

biological knowledge (e.g., Nott et al. 2005) and some professional 

judgment, to be tested in an effort to expand our knowledge of 

landbird biology and management toward the landscape scale.

...we use successional stage as our 

coarse-filter organizational category, 

and use habitat attributes within 

successional stages as our fine-filter 

organizational category.

“

” 

Components of the Process

The conservation planning process to support the conceptual 

approach described above includes the following components 

which are summarized in the following sections and presented in 

detail in subsequent chapters:

w identify habitats that are conservation priorities for 

landbirds

w identify the desired habitat attributes for landbirds 

w identify species representative of the desired habitats and 

habitat attributes (i.e., focal species)

w supplement the focal species list with priority species that 

have been identified by primary bird conservation partners 

and would benefit from conservation of focal species

w establish measurable habitat objectives to achieve 

the desired habitat conditions based on the habitat 

requirements of the focal species 

w supplement the habitat objectives with focal species 

population objectives to be used as the metric for tracking 

bird conservation

w recommend conservation strategies that can be 

implemented to achieve the habitat objectives,

w conduct monitoring to assess the habitat and focal species 

response to the implemented conservation strategies and 

progress towards the habitat and population objectives 

w implement adaptive management as appropriate to 

adjust habitat management towards the trajectory of 

the biological objectives

Desired Habitat Attributes

We reviewed the scientific literature on bird-habitat relationships 

in westside coniferous forests to determine the range of important 

habitat attributes most associated with bird species habitat selection 

or use within the context of the ecologically desired conditions for 

these forests. We did not emphasize habitat attributes which may 

be ecologically important to the forest community or other taxa, 

but are not a primary habitat feature for landbirds (e.g., seeps for 

amphibians and downed logs for mammals).

Because there is considerable latitudinal and elevational 

variability in the geographic scope of this document, there also is 

variability in the habitat types and conditions and the bird species 

relationships with those habitat conditions. Thus, it is important to 

recognize that although bird species are generally responsive to the 

same habitat conditions throughout coniferous forests of western 

Oregon and Washington, there often is variation in response to the 

specific parameters of the habitat condition. Our characterization 
10—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

of bird-habitat relationships reflects primary tendencies that can 

be targeted for the greatest conservation value for those species 

and habitats. However, there are no absolutes in bird-habitat 

relationships and our characterizations should not replace local 

knowledge or data applicable for the conservation of our focal 

species and their associated habitats and habitat attributes.

Focal Species

The two primary goals for bird conservation under the PIF 

Initiative are 1) helping species at risk, and 2) keeping common 

birds common (Rich et al. 2004). Planning to meet these goals can 

be problematic because of the large number of landbird species and 

the need for conservation actions for both rare and common species. 

It is unrealistic in terms of cost and time to plan or implement 

species-specific conservation for so many species. Thus, the use of 

focal species (See: Focal Species) is an alternative approach widely 

used for conservation of biodiversity (Rempel 2007).

Focal Species

Although each bird species has evolved to occupy a unique 

ecological niche, there is significant overlap among many 

species in their basic habitat requirements. These areas 

of overlap provide an opportunity to efficiently capture 

the habitat needs of many bird species by directing 

conservation towards a few key species (i.e., focal species) 

associated with a suite of shared habitat requirements. 

The assumption is that conservation directed towards the 

collective needs of a suite of focal species that represent 

the range of desired habitat conditions for birds in the 

habitat should also address the habitat needs of most if 

not all of the other bird species occurring in that habitat 

type. Thus, our use of focal species is a “coarse filter” 

attempt to conserve biodiversity, a firmly entrenched 

objective of conservation.

After determining the important habitat attributes for landbirds 

as described above, we reviewed the scientific literature to determine 

the coniferous forest bird species that best met the following criteria 

as focal species for those attributes:

w regularly occurring breeding species throughout our 

geographic scope

w strongly associated with conifer forests such that it is the 

primary habitat for the species and they reach their highest 

breeding densities there 

w strongly associated with an important habitat attribute 

within conifer forests such that they would demonstrate 

significant responses to management or restoration 

targeted at the habitat attribute

w readily monitored using standard techniques to be able to 

track progress towards objectives at multiple scales

When considering bird species suitable to meet these criteria, we 

first evaluated the appropriateness of any priority species identified 

by primary bird conservation partners. They were used as a focal 

species if we were confident they were a good representative relative 

to other potential focal species for a particular habitat attribute. 

When more than one species would seemingly make a good 

focal species for a particular habitat attribute, we usually deferred 

to the species for which more knowledge exists about its life history 

and ecology to provide the source for setting biological objectives, 

or species that we had more national “responsibility” for based on 

their restricted distribution to the Pacific Northwest. 

Although we tried to ensure the completeness of the geographic 

representation of each focal species, there is coniferous forest habitat 

in western Oregon and Washington where some focal species may 

not occur as breeding species. In these cases, we suggest using the 

habitat objectives presented for the focal species and using one 

of the species listed under “species to benefit” (Appendix A) for 

tracking population response or progress towards any population 

objective for the focal species. 

We also identified some additional habitat attributes and focal 

species for the Klamath Mountains ecoregion of southwestern 

Oregon because of their uniqueness to that area. We suggest using 

these focal species to supplement the regional focal species and 

associated forest conditions and habitat elements as appropriate 

when planning or implementing conservation in southwestern 

Oregon. 

Our premise throughout this document 

is that measurable, prescriptive targets 

for birds and associated habitat 

attributes are what is most needed 

by those working on-the-ground for 

landbird conservation.

“

” 

Photo by Erik Ackerson
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—11

Integration of Priority Species

Many PIF partner agencies and organizations have prioritized 

bird species for conservation based on factors such as small 

populations, limited distribution, declining population trends, 

threats to habitat, or dependence on the geographic area being 

considered. When using these lists of “priority” species to direct 

conservation, the emphasis is on single-species conservation with 

an underlying assumption that actions to conserve priority species 

supports some degree of habitat or ecosystem conservation because 

other species will likely benefit. However, the conservation of any 

particular feature or condition within the habitat or ecosystem is 

dependent on the chance that a priority species is associated with 

it. Thus, conservation using priority species is an opportunistic 

and often unbalanced approach for the conservation of habitats or 

ecosystems.

An assumption of our focal species approach is that the suite 

of focal species will cover the habitat requirements of priority bird 

species. However, some priority species are such unique ecological 

specialists that this is not always true. Some examples include 

Black Swift and waterfalls and Vaux’s Swift and large hollow snags. 

Additionally, most agencies and organizations have historically 

used priority species; thus, there is established interest in tracking 

conservation of these species. In order to ensure our approach 

addressed these priority species, we included a priority species as a 

focal species with biological objectives if they met the focal species 

criteria described above. If not, we integrated them into the strategy 

where appropriate as species to benefit from conservation actions 

directed towards focal species.

Biological Objectives

Quantitative habitat and population objectives (collectively 

referred to as biological objectives) are the cornerstone of this 

document. Stated simply, they are “what we think the birds need 

based on current knowledge.” They are not regulatory, nor do 

they represent the policies or recommendations of any agency 

or organization (See: Using our Quantitative Biological Objectives). 

Our premise throughout this document is that measurable, 

prescriptive targets for birds and associated habitat attributes are 

what is most needed by those working on-the-ground for landbird 

conservation. Establishing quantitative biological objectives serves 

several purposes:

w They provide targets for designing management plans and 

benchmarks for measuring success of management actions

w They provide hypotheses for research, particularly when 

objectives are based on assumptions and/or expert opinion 

due to lack of data

w They are probably our best form of outreach to communicate 

to others what is needed to conserve landbirds

w They function as a starting point for discussion of 

integration with broader ecosystem-based objectives

Using our Quantitative Biological Objectives 

It is important to recognize that our biological objectives 

have been established solely for the promotion of 

landbird conservation. They are not tempered by societal 

or economic concerns or by the conservation concerns 

of other wildlife or natural resource values. Integration 

of those factors is important, but outside the scope of this 

document. It will be important for people historically 

steeped in regulatory enactments such as the Endangered 

Species Act or National Environmental Policy Act, to 

think outside the regulatory paradigm that associates 

quantitative objectives with compliance and consequences 

of non-compliance, and recognize the different purpose 

and value of the biological objectives presented herein. 

Our quantitative biological objectives are what we 

think the birds need based on current knowledge and 

are intended to stimulate conservation action in the 

trajectory of an objective, not provide the expectation 

of a rigid threshold or benchmark with accompanying 

consequences. Furthermore, our biological objectives 

are based on the premise that a quantitative target is 

more likely to stimulate conservation action than a 

descriptive, qualitative target that does not provide any 

numerical context for the desired outcome or means of 

tracking progress towards it. Simply stated, most land 

managers want to know the measurable parameters—

how much, where, and by when—in order to plan and 

implement bird conservation actions in an effective and 

integrated manner with other objectives, and perhaps just 

as importantly to have a context within which to track 

their progress towards goals and objectives. 

Because of variability in the type, quality, and amount of data 

on focal species, some biological objectives are based on empirical 

data and others are based on expert opinion. To indicate this degree 

of variability, we provide the rationale and/or assumptions for the 

biological objectives as part of the process. We always strived to 

use the “best science available,” and in many cases, the biological 

objectives have been taken directly from the recommendations of 

others based on empirical data from studies. Where specific data 

are limited for a focal species, and the biological objectives are 

based more on expert opinion, these objectives become testable 

It is important to recognize that 

our biological objectives have been 

established solely for the promotion 

of landbird conservation. They are 

not tempered by societal or economic 

concerns or by the conservation 

concerns of other wildlife or natural 

resource values. Integration of those 

factors is important, but outside the 

scope of this document.

“

” 
12—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

hypotheses for research. All the biological objectives presented 

in this document should be viewed as dynamic with an emphasis 

on the need for research, refinement, and improvement of the 

numerical objectives over time.

E Habitat Objectives

Several types of habitat objectives at several different scales are 

presented in the document. At the scale of large landscapes such 

as ecoregions, quantitative habitat objectives are presented for 

representation of different amounts of habitat types or successional 

stages across the landscape. These are derived from expert opinion 

on adequate representation of successional stages relative to historic 

amounts and current and projected future land uses. We also 

present some smaller landscape-level habitat objectives based on 

the demographic monitoring of the Monitoring Avian Productivity 

and Survivorship (MAPS) program and species-specific ecological 

modeling for Pacific Northwest forests (Nott et al. 2005, Nott 

2009).

At smaller scales (e.g., sites), prescriptive habitat objectives are 

presented as measurable targets for specific habitat attributes such 

as canopy cover, tree or snag size, and understory cover. These are 

derived from an evaluation of bird-habitat relationship data in the 

scientific literature and determination of the most appropriate 

targets. Three factors were paramount in setting these quantitative 

objectives for habitat conditions or attributes:

w means (rather than minimums) of available data were used 

because they more likely provide adequate conditions for 

maintaining populations

w a range of values were often used to represent the plasticity 

of a species’ relationship with a habitat attribute and to 

acknowledge the historical range of variation that likely 

occurred for many habitat attributes

w optimal or high quality habitat was emphasized (to the 

degree of our knowledge) for self-sustaining populations 

in geographic areas most suitable for maintaining or 

providing that habitat

Unless otherwise indicated, data on population abundance 

or density are used to indicate habitat suitability. This assumes 

healthy, viable populations where species are most abundant, 

despite recognition that population density and associated habitat 

quality can in some cases be a misleading or inaccurate measure 

of population viability (Van Horne 1983). From a practical 

standpoint, this approach has been widely used because of the 

ease and cost effectiveness of collecting abundance or density data 

relative to demographic data, which is often unavailable. However, 

a consistent theme throughout this document is that use of habitat 

quality to represent population health is an assumption that will 

All the biological objectives 

presented in this document should 

be viewed as dynamic with an 

emphasis on the need for research, 

refinement, and improvement of the 

numerical objectives over time.

ultimately need to be validated with demographic data to determine 

relationships between habitat characteristics and population 

viability.

We emphasize setting habitat objectives for the most desirable 

habitat conditions for focal species in areas where those conditions 

are ecologically appropriate. Thus, throughout the habitat objectives 

we use the phrase “where ecologically appropriate” as a reminder that 

it is essential to consider the ecological appropriateness of the site to 

support the habitat attribute before initiating the management.

Finally, in the habitat objectives section, we provide quantitative 

targets not only for the habitat attribute the focal species is 

representing, but often for other habitat features the species is 

highly associated with. These additional habitat objectives are 

provided to recognize that the species conservation may include 

features beyond the habitat attribute they represent.

” 

“

We emphasize setting habitat 

objectives for the most desirable 

habitat conditions for focal species 

in areas where those conditions are 

ecologically appropriate.” 

“

E Population Objectives

The PIF Continental Plan used range-wide Breeding Bird 

Survey (BBS) trend data to establish ideal (i.e., not based on 

potential or capacity to achieve it) population abundance objectives 

(i.e., maintain, increase by 50%, increase by 100%) for the highest 

continental priority bird species (i.e., Watch List species; Rich et al. 

2004). The establishment of continental population objectives was 

based on the model of the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan in which population objectives have proven to be a valuable 

tool for stimulating conservation actions and for measuring the 

success of those actions. The population objectives established 

in the PIF Continental Plan were viewed as a starting point to 

initiate dialogue on the value of population objectives, and to 

stimulate action towards conservation of priority bird species at the 

continental scale by setting measurable targets. The expectation was 

that regional and local assessments would be conducted to establish 

habitat-based population objectives at those scales that reflect 

the practical realities of the capacity of those areas to contribute 

towards the continental population objective.

There is inherent value in having quantitative objectives for bird 

populations as part of bird conservation. Some of these include:

w a marketing tool to emphasize the magnitude of the 

conservation needed

w a communication tool that is compelling and understandable 

for public outreach

w a management tool with measurable targets for planning 

and implementation

w a performance metric to track bird populations relative to 

habitat management actions conducted on their behalf
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—13

...most land managers want to know 

the measurable parameters—how 

much, where, and by when—in 

order to plan and implement bird 

conservation actions in an effective 

and integrated manner with other 

objectives, and perhaps just as 

importantly to have a context within 

which to track their progress towards 

goals and objectives.

“

” 

w an adaptive management tool for monitoring ecological 

response and assessing where changes need to occur

w the “bottom line” metric for the ultimate assessment of 

bird conservation

w support of the continental population objectives presented 

in the PIF Continental Plan (Rich et al. 2004)

Population objectives were set in two ways. Most were set as a 

direct translation of habitat objectives based on abundance indices 

or density estimates. A few were set based on some desired density 

of breeding pairs within a landscape.

Conservation Strategies

Conservation strategies as defined herein are examples of 

management actions that may be used to support the biological 

objectives or enhance conservation relative to a habitat attribute or 

focal species. They are recommendations that can be institutionalized 

into management practices or implemented on an opportunistic 

basis within the broader context of ecosystem management. 

Management actions recommended include only a few of the wide 

variety of options available. Land managers and biologists should 

consult with ecologists and scientists from other disciplines to 

ascertain appropriate conservation actions to prescribe for specific 

areas. These individuals also can be a valuable source of information 

for additional management actions to achieve the biological 

objectives. Monitoring and Adaptive 

Management

Finally, monitoring of habitat attributes and focal species 

will provide a means of assessing bird and habitat response to the 

implemented conservation strategies and tracking progress towards 

our biological objectives. Monitoring provides essential feedback 

for demonstrating adequacy of conservation efforts on the ground, 

and guides the adaptive management component (Irwin and Wigley 

1993) that is inherent in this approach. Because bird monitoring is 

a cost-effective tool for measuring the ecological effects of habitat 

management (Alexander et al. 2007), it serves as a link between 

bird conservation and habitat management within the adaptive 

management framework. Standard bird monitoring methods are 

readily available (e.g., Ralph et al. 1993) for gathering the types of 

habitat and population data necessary to evaluate progress towards 

the biological objectives found in this document.

The population objectives established 

in the PIF Continental Plan were 

viewed as a starting point to initiate 

dialogue on the value of population 

objectives, and to stimulate action 

towards conservation of priority 

bird species at the continental 

scale by setting measurable targets. 

The expectation was that regional 

and local assessments would be 

conducted to establish habitat-based 

population objectives at those scales 

that reflect the practical realities 

of the capacity of those areas to 

contribute towards the continental 

population objective.

“

” 

Photo by Erik Ackerson
14—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

The Forests

The temperate “rain forests” of western Oregon and Washington 

represent maximal development of temperate coniferous forests in 

terms of extent and size, and have produced some of the greatest 

biomass accumulations of any plant formations in the world 

(Franklin and Dyrness 1973). These forests are characterized by the 

dominance of conifer tree species, the large size and longevity of the 

trees, and the high productivity of the forests. They also have been 

some of the most intensively managed forests in the world.

A thorough description of the physical and environmental 

setting and the historic and current forest vegetation of western 

Oregon and Washington is beyond the scope of this document. The 

information presented below is a cursory overview of the principal 

features of the environment and vegetation with an emphasis on the 

habitat that is provided for landbirds.

Forest Types

Coniferous forests in western Oregon and Washington include 

five climax forest types or vegetation zones; the coastal Sitka spruce 

zone, the widespread low-elevation western hemlock/western 

redcedar zone, the mid-elevation Pacific silver fir zone which occurs 

primarily in the Cascade and Olympic Mountains, the subalpine 

mountain hemlock zone of the Cascade, Olympic, and Klamath 

Mountains, and the mixed-conifer zone of the Klamath/Siskiyou 

Mountains (Franklin and Dyrness 1973) (Table 2). Beyond these 

general broad-scale geographic characterizations, local forest 

types often depend on elevation, aspect, and/or rainfall amounts. 

The text below and Table 2 provide a general description of the 

characteristics of each of the five forest types.

Table 2. Forest types and vegetation characteristics of coniferous forests in western Oregon and Washington.a

Forest Type Elevation Range Dominant Tree Species Common Shrubs Common Herbaceous Plants

Sitka 

Spruce

0–150 m

(0–500 ft)

Sitka spruce, western hemlock, western 

redcedar, Douglas-fir

huckleberry, salmonberry, 

devils club

sword fern, Oregon oxalis, 

evergreen violet

Western 

Hemlock

0–900 m

(0–3,000 ft)

Douglas-fir, western hemlock, western 

redcedar, red alder, big-leaf maple

salal, vine maple, huckleberry, 

oceanspray, rhododendron, 

Oregon grape, California hazel

vanillaleaf, sword fern, trillium, 

twinflower, evergreen violet

Pacific 

Silver Fir

600–1,200 m

(2,000–4,000 ft)

Pacific silver fir, noble fir, western 

hemlock, Douglas-fir

Oregon grape, salal, vine 

maple, huckleberry

beargrass, twinflower, trillium, 

ladyfern, vanillaleaf

Mountain 

Hemlock

1,200–1,800 m

(4,000–6,000 ft)

Mountain hemlock, subalpine fir, noble 

fir

huckleberry, Cascade azalea beargrass, dwarf blackberry, 

one-sided wintergreen

MixedConifer

300–1,800 m

(1,000–6,000 ft)

Douglas-fir, grand fir, white fir, red fir, 

Pacific madrone, sugar pine, Ponderosa 

pine, Incense-cedar

vine maple, Pacific yew, 

manzanita, Oregon grape, 

Pachistima, huckleberry, 

dewberry, ceanothus

twinflower, vanillaleaf, 

whipplevine, beargrass

a

 Franklin and Dyrness (1973)

Sitka Spruce Zone: This narrow zone along the Pacific coastline 

often is only a few miles wide. Most of the zone occurs below 150 m 

(500 ft) in elevation. It is characterized by a relatively mild climate 

with minimal fluctuations in moisture and temperature regimes, 

high rainfall amounts with frequent fog and low clouds, and dense, 

tall conifer trees with a limited hardwood component.

Western Hemlock Zone: This is the most extensive forest 

vegetation zone in western Oregon and Washington, and the most 

important in terms of timber production. Although it is called the 

western hemlock zone based on potential climax species, Douglasfir forests dominate large areas, and western hemlock often does 

not become dominant or codominant until late successional stages. 

It can extend from sea level up to 900 m (3,000 ft) in elevation, 

but most of the zone occurs below 600 m (2,000 ft). A wet, mild, 

maritime climate and a dense, tall forest canopy characterize this 

zone. Because of its extent and accessibility, most of the western 

hemlock zone has been disturbed by logging, fire, or human 

development.

Pacific Silver Fir Zone: This mid-elevation zone between 

the western hemlock and subalpine mountain hemlock zones is 

transitional in terms of precipitation and temperature regimes. 

The climate is cooler and wetter than the western hemlock zone, 

and approximately half the precipitation occurs as snow with a 

significant winter snowpack. It generally occurs from 600–1,200 m 

(2,000–4,000 ft) in elevation, but can occur up to 1,350 m (4,500 

ft). It is characterized by dense forests of tall conifers.
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—15

Mountain Hemlock Zone: This is the highest forested zone 

in western Oregon and Washington, extending from about 1,200 

m (4,000 ft) to timberline in the Cascade Mountains and on the 

Olympic Peninsula. Mountain hemlock is dominant at lower 

elevations, and is replaced by forest patches of subalpine fir at higher 

elevations. It is the coolest and wettest forested zone in western 

Oregon and Washington. Most precipitation occurs as snow, and 

snowpacks and snow duration often last up to six months or more. 

It is characterized by short to medium tall conifers in dense forests 

and forest patches interspersed with shrublands, grass meadows, 

and debris chutes.

Mixed-Conifer Zone: This forest zone includes the ecologically 

complex region of the Klamath Mountains ecoregion of 

southwestern Oregon where environmental and floristic diversity 

make this perhaps the most biologically diverse region in the 

United States (Whittaker 1960). It includes mixed vegetation 

zones of Douglas-fir, true firs (e.g., grand fir, white fir, red fir), pines, 

and hardwoods including oaks and Pacific madrone. These forests 

occur from sea level to 1,800 m (6,000 ft) in elevation, and climate 

tends to be milder and drier than elsewhere in western Oregon and 

Washington.

Forest Succession

As stated earlier, we use successional stage as the primary 

organizational category for describing bird-habitat relationships. 

For purposes of this document, successional stage categories are 

coarse-level descriptions of habitat characteristics derived in part 

from forest succession patterns described by Oliver (1981). In 

reality, there is a gradient or continuum of habitat characteristics 

with undefined breakpoints, and successional stage is subject to 

site-specific conditions and management actions. Additionally, 

catastrophic events, either natural (e.g., wildfire) or anthropogenic 

(e.g., tree harvest) can not only reset the successional stage but also 

result in a mixing of successional stage features when attributes are 

retained as legacies from the previous stand.

Table 3. Successional stages and characteristics of coniferous forests in western Oregon and Washington.

Names Age Structural Characteristics Tree Canopy Tree Size Unique Characteristics

Seedling/sapling

grass-forb; 

stand initiation; 

regenerating

0 to 15–20 years Variable: dominated by herbs and 

shrubs early with developing trees 

Open; 

0–30% tree 

cover 

<10 feet tall Even-aged cohort of new 

seedlings

Pole forest

stem exclusion

15–20 to 30–40 

years

Little to no understory vegetation 

(ground and shrub)

Dense 

closed 

canopy

<10 in dbh Dominance of the initial 

cohort of trees to the 

exclusion of others

Young forest

understory 

reinitiating

30–40 to 60–80 

years

Development of understory herbs, 

shrubs, and shade tolerant trees

Mixed open 

and closed

10–21 in dbh Thinned naturally or 

mechanically

Mature forest 

multi-layered

80–150 years Moderate structural and compositional complexity with a moderately 

developed sub-canopy and shrub layer

21–32 in dbh

Old-growth >150 years High level of structural and compositional diversity; replacement of 

long-lived pioneer species such as 

Douglas-fir with climax species such 

as western hemlock

>32 in dbh High degree of decadence 

and an abundance of 

downed woody debris

Our emphasis in this document is not on a detailed description 

of the stages of forest development, but on describing the habitat 

conditions most important to landbird conservation within the 

general framework of successional stage. To facilitate that, we use 

five categories to characterize successional stage (Table 3), but also 

further lump those into three general successional stages:

w Early-successional refers to the seedling/sapling stage 

w Mid-successional refers to the pole and young forest stages

w Late-successional refers to the mature and old-growth 

stages

The typical successional pattern in unmanaged forest, 

particularly in the western hemlock/western redcedar zone, 

begins with a dense layer of broad-leafed shrubs, followed by rapid 

growth of coniferous trees, and a relatively long period of dense 

patches of Douglas-fir until natural mortality begins to open up 

the forest and allow development of an understory. When the 

forest begins to open up, western hemlock invades to establish a 

subcanopy and eventually a multi-layered canopy with Douglasfir. If succession proceeds without disturbance, western hemlock 

may replace Douglas-fir at 400–500 years. Douglas-fir is often the 

dominant (often sole dominant) tree species up to the old-growth 

successional stage in several vegetation zones, due to its propensity 

for rapid reproduction in open or early-successional conditions and 

its longevity. 
16—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

The Birds

Douglas-fir forests, which dominate western Oregon and 

Washington, support the highest bird densities of any coniferous 

forest systems in North America (Weins 1975). Information on 

landbirds and their habitat relationships in the coniferous forests of 

western Oregon and Washington is relatively robust compared to 

most of Western North America. This is due in large part to extensive 

collateral work associated with late successional forest endangered 

species (i.e., Northern Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet), and the 

economic importance of the forests. Avian inventories, censusing, 

trend monitoring, and correlative associations with successional 

stage or habitat conditions have received the most emphasis. 

There are less data available on species relationships with habitat 

elements; demographic processes such as reproduction, mortality, 

and recruitment into the population; landscape issues such as 

patch size, distribution, and configuration; use of corridors; and 

fragmentation.

We considered over 100 breeding landbird species to be closely 

associated with habitats in the coniferous forests of western Oregon 

and Washington based on numerous sources (e.g., Johnson and 

O’Neil 2001). This does not include a number of other landbird 

species that may occur in these forests (particularly in riparian 

habitats), even occasionally as breeding species, but which are 

not considered to be regular components of the avifauna from a 

conservation perspective. Additionally, many other species may 

occur as migrants or wintering species only, but are not directly 

considered in this document. 

There are no landbird species endemic to the coniferous forests 

of western Oregon and Washington, although several breeding 

species are relatively unique to the area (i.e., a high percent of their 

global population occurs in western Oregon and Washington). 

These include Chestnut-backed Chickadee, Hermit Warbler, 

Hutton’s Vireo, Pacific-slope Flycatcher, Red-breasted Sapsucker, 

and Blue (Sooty) Grouse. No landbird species has been extirpated 

as a breeding species from westside coniferous forests.

Bird-Habitat Relationships

An essential component for establishing biological objectives and 

deciding appropriate management actions to support the biological 

objectives is an understanding of the relationships between landbird 

species and their habitat. The most recent synthesis of knowledge on 

landbird species and their habitat relationships is Wildlife Habitats 

and Species Associations in Oregon and Washington ( Johnson and 

O’Neil 2001). There are other compendiums of bird-habitat 

information for the forests of western Oregon and Washington 

including Brown (1985), Altman and Hagar (2007) for young 

conifer forests, and two recent State bird books, Marshall et al. 

(2003) for Oregon and Wahl et al. (2005) for Washington. Herein, 

we use available data on landbird species-habitat relationships from 

these compendiums and numerous studies to support our selection 

of focal species and the setting of biological objectives.

Bird Conservation Issues

Landbird conservation in the coniferous forests of western 

Oregon and Washington faces numerous challenges, most 

either directly or indirectly arising from conflicts with human 

development or economic issues. The principal conservation issue 

affecting breeding bird populations is forest management because 

of the extensive “use” of the forests for a variety of human activities 

and commodity production. Other issues such as habitat loss to 

development, diseases, increased levels of predation, and wildfire 

also impact bird populations to varying degrees, but are generally 

secondary to the consequences of forest management. For many 

migratory species, issues occurring outside our geographic scope also 

are likely affecting their breeding populations, perhaps even more 

significantly than forest management on the breeding grounds. 

E Land Ownership

Because most land ownership in the coniferous forests of western 

Oregon and Washington is large areas of public lands or industrial 

forest lands, a significant part of landbird conservation is addressing 

issues within the context of policy, planning, and regulations. This 

habitat-based landbird conservation strategy does not include the 

political-based strategies needed to address these issues. However, 

it does provide potential language in the form of our biological 

objectives that could be used in developing the policy/regulations 

that will be necessary to support landbird conservation.

E Declining Landbird Populations

At the core of our concern for landbirds in coniferous forests 

of western Oregon and Washington are the population declines 

being experienced by many species. The BBS (Robbins et al. 1986) 

is the primary source of population trend information for North 

American landbirds (www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/). There is no 

standard analyses of BBS data specifically for the geographic scope 

of this document, but three scales of BBS analyses provide insights 

into population trends for landbird species for all or large parts of our 

geographic scope (Table 4). These include two BBS physiographic 

regions, the Cascade Mountains and Southern Pacific Rainforests, 

and the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region. 

All these analyses include some areas outside our boundaries (e.g., 

Willamette Valley and Puget Lowlands are part of the Southern 

Pacific Rainforests; east-slope of the Cascades is part of the Cascade 

The principal conservation issue 

affecting breeding bird populations 

is forest management because of 

the extensive ‘use’ of the forests for 

a variety of human activities and 

commodity production. 

“

” 
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—17

Mountains; and western British Columbia, southeast Alaska, and 

northwestern California are part of the Northern Pacific Rainforest 

Bird Conservation Region).

Among landbird species regularly associated with coniferous 

forests of western Oregon and Washington, 32 species are 

experiencing significant (p <0.10) recent (1980–2006) and/or 

long-term (1966–2006) declining population trends based on a 

relatively high confidence of BBS data for at least one of the three 

BBS analysis regions described above (Sauer et al. 2007) (Table 4). 

Additionally, there are likely some species that are not adequately 

addressed by the BBS such as owls and birds with a limited 

distribution or small population (Altman and Bart 2001) that also 

are experiencing population declines. Conversely, only 16 species 

are experiencing significantly increasing population trends (Table 

4). Two species, Song Sparrow and White-crowned Sparrow, have 

significant trends in both directions (i.e., declining and increasing) 

in different BBS analysis regions. 

Among landbird species regularly 

associated with coniferous forests of 

western Oregon and Washington, 32 

species are experiencing significant 

(p <0.10) recent (1980–2006) and/

or long-term (1966–2006) declining 

population trends based on a relatively 

high confidence of BBS data...

“

” 

...only 16 species are 

experiencing significantly 

increasing population trends.” 

“

and in greater private ownership than in the Cascade Mountains, 

and likely have been more impacted by human development and 

forest management than forests in the Cascade Mountains, and 

loss of habitat is likely to be a more significant factor than in the 

Cascade Mountains, where there is extensive public ownership.

E Forest Loss and Conversion

The amount of forested landscape in western Oregon and 

Washington has changed little in the last 75 years. For example, 

comparisons with forest inventories in western Oregon and 

Washington in the 1930s indicate that greater than 90% of the forest 

land remains as forest (Campbell et al. 2002). Where permanent 

loss and conversion of coniferous forest habitat has occurred, most 

has been at low elevations due to growth and expansion of urban, 

residential, and agricultural areas. 

Although the loss of coniferous forest has not been substantial, 

the representation of late-successional forest has been greatly 

reduced. Mature and old-growth forest covered approximately 50% 

of the forested landscape in the Pacific Northwest prior to World War 

II, but now occupy less than 20%, and often occur in relatively small 

and isolated patches within a mosaic of younger forest (Bolsinger 

and Waddell 1993). Forest harvest practices that truncate succession 

at 40–70 years have resulted in a landscape dominated by early- and 

mid-successional forest (Bunnell et al. 1997). These changes have 

had significant impact on landbird species highly associated with 

late-successional forests, including endangered status for Northern 

Spotted-owl and Marbled Murrelet.

An underlying premise of this 

document is that forest management 

can have a direct and significant 

influence on bird populations. 

Consequently, manipulation of 

forest conditions as part of forest 

management can be designed 

and implemented to achieve bird 

conservation objectives.

“

” 

An examination of species population trends between the 

regional analyses indicates noteworthy geographic differences. There 

are 22 species with significantly declining long-term or recent trends 

in the Southern Pacific Rainforest BBS region, but only 8 species 

in the Cascade Mountains BBS region (Table 4). Conversely, there 

are 6 species in the Southern Pacific Rainforest BBS region with 

significantly increasing long-term or recent trends, and 10 species 

in the Cascade Mountains BBS region. These differences suggest a 

negative factor(s) specific to or primarily occurring in coastal forests 

(i.e., the Southern Pacific Rainforest BBS region). Coastal forests 

that comprise the Southern Pacific Rainforest are lower elevation 

Photo by Erik Ackerson
18—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Table 4. Coniferous forest landbird species with significant population trends based on analyses of Breeding Bird Survey data 

(1966-2007) within the area encompassed by the coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington.

Species

Significantly Declining Trends 1 Significantly Increasing Trends 1

Bird 

Conservation 

Region 5 2

Southern Pacific 

Rainforest

BBS Region 3

Cascade 

Mountains 

BBS Region 4

Bird 

Conservation 

Region 5 2

Southern Pacific 

Rainforest

BBS Region 3

Cascade 

Mountains 

BBS Region 4

American Goldfinch L R L R 5

American Robin L R

Band-tailed Pigeon L R

Black-headed Grosbeak L R

Black-throated Gray Warbler R

Blue Grouse L R

Brown Creeper R L

Brown-headed Cowbird L R

Bushtit L R

Cassin’s Vireo L R

Cedar Waxwing L R

Chipping Sparrow L R

Chestnut-backed Chickadee L R

Common Nighthawk R

Common Raven L L R L R

Common Yellowthroat L R

Dark-eyed Junco L R

Fox Sparrow L R L

Golden-crowned Kinglet L R

Gray Jay R

Hairy Woodpecker R

Hammond’s Flycatcher L R L R

Hermit Thrush L R

House Finch R

MacGillivray’s Warbler L R L R L

Mountain Quail L

Nashville Warbler R

Northern Flicker L R

Olive-sided Flycatcher L R L R

Orange-crowned Warbler L R L R

Pacific-slope Flycatcher R L R L R

Pine Siskin L R L R

Purple Finch L R L R

Red Crossbill L R

Red-breasted Nuthatch L R

Rufous Hummingbird L R L L

Song Sparrow L R L R L R

Spotted Towhee L

Steller’s Jay L R

Swainson’s Thrush L

Turkey Vulture R R

Varied Thrush R R

Warbling Vireo L R

Western Tanager R R
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—19

Species

Significantly Declining Trends 1 Significantly Increasing Trends 1

Bird 

Conservation 

Region 5 2

Southern Pacific 

Rainforest

BBS Region 3

Cascade 

Mountains 

BBS Region 4

Bird 

Conservation 

Region 5 2

Southern Pacific 

Rainforest

BBS Region 3

Cascade 

Mountains 

BBS Region 4

Willow Flycatcher L R L

Wilson’s Warbler L R L R L R

Wrentit R

Yellow Warbler L

1

 Species with significantly declining or increasing trends (p ≤0.10) and a relatively high degree of confidence (Sauer et al., 2008).

2

 Bird Conservation Region 5 = a NABCI ecological unit which includes northwestern California; western Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia; and southeast 

and southcoastal Alaska.

3

 Southern Pacific Rainforest BBS Region = a BBS physiographic province which includes northwestern California and coastal western Oregon and Washington 

(excludes Cascades Mountains).

4

 Cascade Mountains BBS Region = a BBS physiographic province which includes the Cascade Mountains in northern California, Oregon, and Washington.

5

 L = significant (p ≤0.10) long-term (1966-2007) population trend; R = significant (p ≤0.10) recent (1980-2007) population trend.

Table 4. Coniferous forest landbird species with significant population trends based on analyses of Breeding Bird Survey data 

(1966-2007) within the area encompassed by the coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington. — Continued

E Forest Management

An underlying premise of this document is that forest 

management can have a direct and significant influence on bird 

populations. Consequently, manipulation of forest conditions as 

part of forest management can be designed and implemented to 

achieve bird conservation objectives (Busing and Garman, 2002; 

Lehmkuhl et al. 2002). However, it is not our intent to describe all 

the potential forest management activities that could be conducted 

to achieve the desired habitat conditions for birds. Those need to be 

determined locally by assessing the most ecologically appropriate 

management at each site. However, to assist land managers, the 

document offers some basic forest management activities that are 

widely accepted for achieving particular habitat attributes.

There is an extensive body of literature on forest management 

in the Pacific Northwest that we will not attempt to summarize 

here. Simply stated, in the past 50–100 years, coniferous forests in 

western Oregon and Washington have been substantially altered 

by a variety of forest management activities, but especially timber 

harvest and subsequent replanting and management for wood 

production. Prior to management of these forests for timber 

extraction, patterns and dynamics of the forested landscape were 

shaped by natural disturbances such as fire, wind, floods, volcanic 

eruptions, insects, and disease (Pickett and White 1985), and smallscale disturbances (e.g., fire) initiated by Native Americans. Humaninduced disturbances, particularly timber harvesting, now influence 

most of the physical changes in these forests, and the changes have 

altered habitat for forest birds in a manner different from natural 

disturbances. In particular, there has been simplification of forest 

structure and composition at the site-level and fragmentation of 

formerly contiguous forest patches at the landscape level (Noss 

1999).

Traditional forest management on public and private lands 

in most of western Oregon and Washington into the 1980s was 

designed to maximize timber production (Franklin 1989). Relatively 

high growth rates have allowed for intensive management and short 

rotation periods between harvests (e.g., 40–60 years). Traditional 

logging practices were dominated by clearcutting; broadcast burning 

to remove slash and prepare for planting; replanting with Douglasfir seedlings; herbicide applications, fertilization, and pest control 

to ensure rapid development; pre-commercial thinning at 10–15 

years post-harvest to remove competitive deciduous trees and less 

vigorous conifers; and commercial thinning at 20–35 years postharvest to reduce competition for the target crop of trees (Swanson 

and Franklin 1992). This occurred across the landscape either in 

small, staggered patches or in large, continuous areas. Thus, much of 

the current forest landscape remnant is a mosaic of varying even-aged 

forest patches. Even-aged management results in simplified forest 

structure and reduced habitat heterogeneity and patchiness from 

Current forest management on most 

public lands focuses on ‘ecosystem 

management’ in which maintaining 

ecological functions and biological 

diversity is integrated with sustainable 

commodity production.

“

” 

Photo by Erik Ackerson
20—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

that of naturally regenerated forests. Additionally, shorter rotation 

lengths are insufficient for development of structural characteristics 

associated with mature or old-growth forests. Moreover, structural 

features such as snags and merchantable downed logs are often 

removed from harvested forest patches due to logistic or safety 

factors. The early-successional stage (shrub-dominated) of natural 

forest succession is also truncated under traditional logging practices 

to establish a tree crop as quickly as possible. 

Forest management in the predominately mixed conifer forest 

of the Klamath Mountains ecoregion of southwestern Oregon has 

included some of the traditional clearcutting practices of elsewhere 

in western Oregon and Washington, but also more selective cutting 

practices such as thinning and partial cuts. Harvest rotations tend to 

be longer due to slower growth rates, and the resultant forests tend 

to have more variable structure than managed forests elsewhere in 

western Oregon and Washington.

Current forest management on most public lands focuses 

on “ecosystem management” in which maintaining ecological 

functions and biological diversity is integrated with sustainable 

commodity production (Hansen et al. 1995). This change has often 

been referred to as “New Forestry” (Franklin 1989) or “Ecological 

Forestry” ( Johnson and Franklin 2009). The basis for this type of 

forest management is an attempt to 1) use disturbance patterns 

and habitat heterogeneity that occur in unmanaged forests as a 

guide for timber harvest patterns and retention, and 2) accelerate 

re-establishment of older forest conditions and structural elements 

such as snags, down logs, and vertical heterogeneity. 

Recent changes in silvicultural practices primarily on public 

lands include attempts to foster variability in forest structure 

through more selective cutting, and variable-density green-tree 

and snag retention to provide a “legacy” of structural complexity 

through stand development (Franklin 1989). Selective cutting 

includes group selection cuts of various sizes that create patches or 

Table 5. Forest successional stages and associated habitat attributes and focal species for landbird 

conservation in coniferous forests in western Oregon and Washington.

Forest Stage Habitat Attribute Focal Species

Old-Growth/Mature Forest

(Multi-Layered/Late-Successional)

Large snags Pileated Woodpecker

Large trees Brown Creeper

Deciduous canopy/sub-canopy trees Pacific-slope Flycatcher

Mid-story tree layers Varied Thrush

Mature/Young Forest

(Multi-Layered/

Understory Reinitiating)

Closed canopy Hermit Warbler

Open mid-story Hammond’s Flycatcher

Deciduous understory Wilson’s Warbler

Forest floor complexity Winter Wren

Young/Pole Forest

(Understory Reinitiating/

Stem Exclusion)

Deciduous canopy trees Black-throated Gray Warbler

Sapling/Seedling Forest

(Stand Initiation/Early Successional)

Residual canopy trees Olive-sided Flycatcher

Snags Northern Flicker

Deciduous shrub layer Orange-crowned Warbler

Unique Forest Habitats or Conditions

Mineral springs Band-tailed Pigeon

Wet meadows Lincoln’s Sparrow

Alpine grasslands American Pipit

Waterfalls Black Swift

Nectar-producing plants Rufous Hummingbird

Large hollow snags Vaux’s Swift

Landscape mosaic forest Blue (Sooty) Grouse

Klamath Mountains Mixed Conifer/Mixed 

Conifer-Hardwood Forests

Pine-oak canopy/subcanopy trees Purple Finch

Dense shrub understory Nashville Warbler

Shrub-herb interspersion understory Hermit Thrush

Forest canopy edges Western Tanager

Montane brushfields Fox Sparrow

Post-wildfire Lazuli Bunting

Photos by Erik Ackerson
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—21

gaps in an otherwise unharvested forest matrix. However, “greentree retention,” “structural retention,” or “variable retention” is 

becoming the predominant silvicultural practice on federal lands 

since the Northwest Forest Plan mandated that a minimum of 15% 

of the trees in a harvest unit be retained (USDA and USDI 1994). 

Green-tree retention provides features thought to be important to 

late-successional forest species, supports biological diversity goals, 

and may be viewed by the public more positively than clearcutting. 

An attempt to provide empirical data to evaluate consequences 

of green-tree retention is the U.S. Forest Service sponsored 

Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) 

study (Aubry et al. 1999, Halpern et al. 1999).

In addition to green-tree retention, a traditional forest 

management practice, thinning, also is being promoted as an 

ecological management tool for enhancing structural diversity and 

accelerating development of old forest conditions. In particular, 

variable-density thinning has been promoted to create the spatial 

heterogeneity that mimics natural conditions (Carey et al. 1996). 

When variable-density thinning is combined with legacy retention 

from the original forest, understory planting to enhance structural 

and compositional diversity, and decadence management (i.e., 

snags and downed logs), there is the potential for developing the 

complex forest conditions that occur in unmanaged forests. There 

has been a significant amount of literature on the use and types of 

thinning for ecological objectives (e.g., Harrington and Tappeiner 

2007), including its potential use in creating bird habitat, which has 

been summarized in Altman and Hagar (2007). A summary table 

on landbird species response to thinning from Altman and Hagar 

(2007) has been updated in Appendix B.

Landbird responses to forest management practices are complex, 

species-specific, and dependent upon many environmental and 

ecological factors. Summaries of the effects of forest management 

on birds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington 

have been synthesized by Hagar et al. (1995), Bunnell et al. (1997), 

and Sallabanks et al. (2001). Meslow and Wight (1975) identify 

and describe four areas of concern for forest birds associated with 

traditional production forests: 1) shortening of the grass-forbshrub stage, 2) effect of an even-aged Douglas-fir monoculture, 

3) elimination of snags, and 4) elimination of old-growth forest. 

Tools developed to monitor and/or predict bird response to habitat 

change resulting from forest management include risk ratings 

(Lehmkuhl and Ruggiero 1991), sensitivity indices (Hansen et 

al. 1993), viability assessments (Thomas et al. 1993, Holthausen 

et al. 1995), and versatility indices (Thomas 1979, Brown 1985, 

Chambers 1996).

Although fragmentation has been 

widely implicated in declines of several 

bird species in eastern and midwestern 

deciduous forests, there is no direct 

evidence of broad-scale adverse affects 

in western forests, including western 

Oregon and Washington.

E Forest Fragmentation

Forest fragmentation, the breaking up of a forest tract, involves 

both reduction of contiguous forest area (McGarigal and McComb 

1995), and the isolation of forest patches (Harris 1984). This has 

the potential to primarily affect species that: 1) are forest-interior 

specialists, 2) have large home ranges or habitat-area requirements, 

3) require connective corridors for movement, or 4) are vulnerable 

to indirect impacts associated with increased edges (e.g., changes 

in abundance or composition of predators, parasites, and food 

supply). In coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington, 

forest fragmentation has been widely regarded as the reduction and 

isolation of patches of older forest surrounded by younger forest 

managed for timber production (Bunnell et al. 1999). However, 

forest fragmentation does occur naturally and should not be 

interpreted solely in terms of negative impacts (Franklin et al. 

2002).

Although fragmentation has been widely implicated in declines 

of several bird species in eastern and midwestern deciduous forests 

(Whitcomb et al. 1981, Robinson et al. 1995, Thompson et al. 

2002), there is no direct evidence of broad-scale adverse affects 

in western forests (Hejl 1994, Schieck et al. 1995, Bunnell et al. 

1997), including western Oregon and Washington (Manuwal and 

Manuwal 2002). Reasons for this may be due to landscape-level 

effects such as 1) differences in land-use practices in the landscape 

matrix of western forests versus eastern forests, and 2) the natural 

heterogeneity and variability of western forests in which forest bird 

species evolved prior to forest management (Hansen et al. 1991). 

The landscape around fragmented forests in the East is agricultural 

and urban (unsuitable for a forest dwelling bird), while in the 

West it is often still forest, just differently-aged. Thus, in western 

forest landscapes, especially coniferous forests of western Oregon 

and Washington (Manuwal and Manuwal 2002), there is less 

contrast between intervening land-uses of fragmented patches, 

and potentially suitable habitat if characteristics of unfragmented 

forests are retained in harvested forest. The latter often occurs in 

naturally fragmented landscapes and can occur in managed forest 

landscapes with certain types of harvest. 

In a landscape-level analysis in the Oregon Coast Range, 

McGarigal and McComb (1995) reported that more bird species 

exhibited a positive relationship (i.e., abundance increased) with 

fragmented distribution of habitat. They did not identify any 

species that completely avoided edges created by fragmentation, 

and identified only five species (Gray Jay, Brown Creeper, Winter 

Wren, Varied Thrush, and Chestnut-backed Chickadee) that were 

less abundant along edges than in the forest interior. Relatively few 

species exhibited negative responses (i.e., abundance decreased) 

to forest fragmentation measures in Douglas-fir forests in 

northwestern California, and those that did were primarily wideranging species such as Pileated Woodpecker, Ruffed Grouse, 

and Spotted Owl (Rosenberg and Raphael 1986). In the western 

Washington Cascades, community-level bird species richness and 

abundance varied little in differing degrees of fragmented forest, 

although individual species did exhibit differences (Manuwal 

and Manuwal 2002). Although evidence documenting broadscale negative effects of fragmentation in forests of western 

Oregon and Washington is absent, it is possible that effects have 

yet to manifest themselves or have yet to be properly investigated 

“

” 
22—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

(Bunnell et al. 1997). Additionally, several studies have reported 

relatively consistent negative species responses to fragmentation, 

and some local declines in nesting success due to predation where 

fragmentation has occurred (George and Brand 2002). 

One of the outcomes and potentially adverse effects of forest 

fragmentation on birds is a higher ratio of edge to interior habitat 

(Primack 1998), and thus increased rates of parasitism and predation 

associated with those edges (Cavitt and Martin 2002). The latter 

may occur as a result of opening up forests,which may allow access 

for parasitic and predator species to occupy habitats previously not 

available to them. Parasitism by Brown-headed Cowbirds seems 

likely to have little effect in wet coastal forests (reviewed by Schieck 

et al. 1995), except potentially at low elevations at the interface 

of forests and agricultural lands (Chambers et al. 1999). Likewise 

there is a lack of compelling broad-scale evidence of negative edge 

effects and fragmentation on increase predation rates in western 

forests. However, some studies have reported local decreases in nest 

success due to nest predation where fragmentation has occurred. 

In redwood forests of northwestern California, George and Brand 

(2002) reported significantly negative effects on nest success for 

Swainson’s Thrush, and in the Oregon Cascades, Vega (1993) 

reported significantly increased nest predation rates on shrubnesting birds in green-tree retention harvest units than in clearcuts. 

Steller’s Jays also were more abundant in green-tree retention units 

than in clearcuts, and Vega (1993) speculated that retained greentrees might provide strategic perch sites for avian predators like 

Steller’s Jay.

The other principal potential consequence of forest 

fragmentation on bird species is reduction in patch size, particularly 

for late-successional forests (McGarigal and McComb 1999). 

Species that require patches of contiguous forest habitat much larger 

than their territory to maintain a presence or a viable population 

are referred to as forest-interior or area-sensitive species. There 

is a growing body of evidence to support this status during the 

breeding season for several bird species in late-successional forests, 

including seven species in at least three of the eight studies reviewed 

by George and Brand (2002): Brown Creeper, Chestnut-backed 

Chickadee, Golden-crowned Kinglet, Pileated Woodpecker, Redbreasted Nuthatch, Varied Thrush, and Winter Wren. Additionally, 

demographic monitoring and landscape analyses strongly suggest 

area-sensitivity for Pacific-slope Flycatcher (Nott et al. 2005). 

However, other studies report opposite effects for some species such 

as Brown Creeper (Mayrhofer 2006), and it has been speculated 

that the type of habitat at the edge of the patch may play a role in 

bird species use of different forest patch sizes (Mayrhofer 2006).

E Fire

The ecological persistence of coniferous forest birds was 

facilitated by fire,which historically played a role in maintaining a 

mosaic of seral stages or habitat structures (e.g., snags) in forests 

of the Pacific Northwest (Huff et al. 2005). The moist climate of 

most of western Oregon and Washington results in a fire regime 

characterized by long fire return intervals and high severity fires. At 

lower elevations and in dryer areas, westside coniferous forests are 

associated with mixed-severity fire regimes that are characterized by 

shorter fire return intervals. The most fire-prone ecoregion within 

the scope of western Oregon and Washington coniferous forests is 

the Klamath Mountains.

Drawing generalizations about the effects of fire suppression on 

birds is difficult given the inherent variability within and among 

the different forest types (Huff et al. 2005). Fire suppression in 

the 20th Century may have changed forest structure and landscape 

composition in the coniferous forests of Oregon and Washington 

at several spatial scales. Fire suppression probably has had less 

effect on bird communities in moister coastal and high elevation 

coniferous forests because the fire-return interval is beyond the time 

Fire suppression probably has had less 

effect on bird communities in moister 

coastal and high elevation coniferous 

forests because the fire-return interval 

is beyond the time frame of effective 

fire suppression. The effects of fire 

suppression on bird communities are 

probably more pronounced in the drier 

habitats of the Klamath Mountains 

ecoregion of southwestern Oregon 

because the fire-return interval has been 

lengthened by effective fire suppression.

Photo by Erik Ackerson

“

” 

Photo by Erik Ackerson
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—23

frame of effective fire suppression. The effects of fire suppression 

on bird communities are probably more pronounced in the drier 

habitats of the Klamath Mountains ecoregion of southwestern 

Oregon because the fire-return interval has been lengthened by 

effective fire suppression. Here, forest composition and structural 

characteristics maintained by recurring fires have changed as a result 

of fire suppression, and the heterogeneity of forest characteristics 

has likely been reduced at the landscape scale. 

Fire management tools that are designed to restore forest 

conditions associated with historical fire regimes might serve as 

tools for bird conservation. Huff et al. (2005) suggest that a series 

of research questions regarding the natural characteristics of fire 

regimes and how bird populations respond to fire, fire suppression, 

and fuels treatments, be addressed to provide critical information 

for the application of fire management towards effective bird 

conservation.

E Climate Change

The science of predicting effects of climate change on vegetation 

or habitat type, let alone bird populations, is in its infancy. It is a 

model-driven exercise highly dependent on the parameters and the 

input data of the model. The modeled effects of climate change on 

forests in the region are variable; however, it is generally felt that 

the cool, wet climate of Pacific Northwest forests make the region 

less vulnerable to climate change than warmer drier regions (Smith 

2004). Furthermore, forest birds are predicted to fare better in a 

changing climate than birds in other habitats (North American 

Bird Conservation Initiative 2010). It is generally recognized that 

where climate change effects are most likely to occur (i.e., within 

the geographic scope of this document) is at lower elevations in 

the ecotones between conifer forest and deciduous forest or nonforest, in the higher elevations between coniferous forest and alpine 

habitats, and in drier ecoregions such as the Klamath Mountains.

Herein, we make no attempt to address the issue of climate 

change relative to the setting of biological objectives. Most focal 

species habitat relationships are relatively static and changes in land 

cover will likely result in changes in the distribution and abundance 

of those species. Among the preliminary recommendations for 

conservation actions that consider the potential for impacts from 

climate change on landbird conservation is the protection of 

corridors where birds can make incremental changes in distribution 

following likely routes of change in vegetation (Peters 1992).

Among the preliminary 

recommendations for conservation 

actions that consider the potential 

for impacts from climate change 

on landbird conservation is the 

protection of corridors where birds 

can make incremental changes in 

distribution following likely routes 

of change in vegetation.

“

” 

For those interested in further information on this topic, there 

is a significant and growing body of information on climate change 

and birds. The international PIF web page (www.partnersinflight.

org/climate_change) provides a bibliography of articles on this 

topic, and two web pages on research and predictive modeling on 

climate change and birds in the Pacific Northwest are American 

Bird Conservancy (www.abcbirds.org/climate_change/statepage.

htm) and Institute for Bird Populations (www.birdpop.org/climate.

htm). Perhaps, the most thorough assessment of the science and 

implications of climate change on forests is Brown (2008). 

Photo courtesy of Olympic National Park

Although suitable habitat is essential 

for bird conservation, habitat 

conservation does not necessarily 

equate to bird conservation. Habitat 

conservation efforts still require 

a litmus test assessment of bird 

populations, the ultimate measure and 

currency of bird conservation.

“

” 

Photo by Bob Altman
24—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

E Focal Species

A list of 19 focal species and the habitat attributes and forest 

stages they represent throughout western Oregon and Washington 

is presented in Table 6. This includes seven focal species with an 

obligate or near-obligate relationship to some unique forest habitat 

attribute or condition. Because of the uniqueness of the mixedconifer/hardwood forests in the Klamath Mountains ecoregion of 

southwestern Oregon, we also recognize six focal species for forest 

and habitat conditions for that geographic area. However, we still 

recommend use of the 12 regional focal species in southwestern 

Oregon if the habitat attributes they represent are locally applicable 

(e.g., snags, forest floor complexity).

E Priority Species

There are 38 priority landbird species identified by primary 

bird conservation partners that are regularly breeding species in 

coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington (Table 

7). This includes 15 of our 25 focal species. Although we do not 

provide biological objectives for priority species like we do for focal 

species, the remaining 23 priority species in Table 7 that are not 

focal species are recognized where they are likely to directly benefit 

from conservation directed towards focal species (Appendix A). 

Additionally, priority species in Appendix A should be considered 

as potential surrogate species for focal species when the focal species 

is not appropriate for a site due to range, habitat type, elevation, 

etc.

E Population Estimates

Population size is an important metric in assessments of a species 

conservation status and its response to natural or anthropogenic 

changes in its habitat. Within PIF, the Species Assessment Database 

includes population size as one of several factors considered in the 

prioritization of species (Panjabi et al. 2005). Although suitable 

habitat is essential for bird conservation, habitat conservation does 

not necessarily equate to bird conservation. Habitat conservation 

efforts still require a litmus test assessment of bird populations, the 

ultimate measure and currency of bird conservation. This concept 

is currently receiving increasing emphasis among bird conservation 

partners as a means of quantitatively accounting for the response of 

bird populations to investments in habitat conservation. 

 Population estimates have been developed for all bird species in 

North America at the continental level by the four bird conservation 

initiatives. Population estimates for North American landbirds 

have been published in the PIF Continental Plan (Rich et al. 2004). 

These estimates were derived from a process described in Blancher 

et al. (2007) using relative abundance counts from BBS data 

from the 1990s. The population estimates were further “steppeddown” to smaller geographic scales (i.e., states, BCRs, state/BCR 

polygons) to provide a starting point for dialogue on the setting 

of regional population objectives through regional assessments 

(Rosenberg 2004). Although this “top-down” approach does not 

account for the known disproportionate sampling of habitats 

by the BBS, it does illustrate differences in the relative degrees of 

magnitude among species populations, and provides a point of 

discussion for initiating the dialogue on the impacts of actions on 

landbird populations. Examples of population estimates using the 

process stepped-down from the continental population estimates is 

provided for our focal species in Table 7.

Bird conservation partners, especially Joint Venture partnerships, 

are taking leadership in regional assessments to set quantitative 

habitat and bird population objectives for bird conservation. The 

principal components of this “bottom-up” process are regional 

geospatial data (e.g., GAP) on the amount and distribution of land 

cover types (i.e., habitat types for birds), and local and regional data 

on the degree of occurrence of bird species in the habitat (i.e., bird 

densities by habitat type or condition). For the latter, OR-WA PIF 

has created a database of studies that provide bird density estimates 

along with other pertinent data on the location, habitat, effort, 

and source of the information. These data in conjunction with 

geospatial data can be used to calculate estimates of bird population 

size at various scales.

Photo by Erik Ackerson

Photo by Erik Ackerson

Photo by Bob Altman
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—25

Table 6. Regularly breeding landbird species in western Oregon and Washington that have been designated as priority bird 

species by primary bird conservation partners. 1

Species

USFWS

BCC 3

USFS/BLM 

Sensitive 4

ODFW

Strategy 5

WDFW

Strategy 6

PIF

SAD 7

PIF

CPLAN 8

WATCH

LIST 9

Band-tailed Pigeon 2 X RC, RS SCI

Black Swift X X - OR X RC, RS Yellow

Black-throated Gray Warbler RS SCI

Blue (Sooty) Grouse RC, RS SCI Red

Cassin’s Vireo RC

Chestnut-backed Chickadee RS SCI

Cooper’s Hawk RC

Dusky Flycatcher RC

Flammulated Owl X X - OR SCI Yellow

Fox Sparrow SCI

Golden-crowned Kinglet RC, RS

Hermit Warbler RS SCI Yellow

Hutton’s Vireo RS

MacGillivary’s Warbler RS

Mountain Quail X - WA X SCI Yellow

Northern Goshawk X X X

Northern Pygmy-owl RS

Northern Saw-whet Owl RS

Olive-sided Flycatcher X X RC, RS SCI Yellow

Orange-crowned Warbler RS

Pacific-slope Flycatcher RS SCI

Pileated Woodpecker X

Purple Finch RC

Purple Martin X - OR X

Red-breasted Sapsucker RC, RS SCI

Red Crossbill RC, RS

Ruffed Grouse RC

Rufous Hummingbird X RS SCI

Spotted Towhee RS

Steller’s Jay RS SCI

Townsend’s Warbler RS

Varied Thrush RS SCI Yellow

Vaux’s Swift X RS

Western Bluebird X

White-headed Woodpecker X X - OR X SCI Yellow

Willow Flycatcher RC, RS SCI

Winter Wren SCI

Wrentit SCI Yellow

1

 This list does not include listed or recently delisted species, and species that are irregular or peripheral breeders in coniferous forests of western Oregon and 

Washington.

2

 Shaded species also are focal species within this conservation strategy.

3

 USFWS BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/bcc2002.pdf). The area encompassed 

by this list is BCR 5 which includes more than western Oregon and Washington.

4

 USFS/BLM Sensitive Species (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/). The area encompassed by this list is Oregon and Washington.

5 ODFW Strategy = Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife “Strategy” species for one or more of the western Oregon ecoregions as identified in the Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy (i.e., The Oregon Conservation Strategy) (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/contents.asp)

6

 WDFW Strategy = Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife “Strategy” species for one or more of the western Washington ecoregions as identified in the 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/cwcs/cwcs.htm).

7

 PIF SAD = Partners in Flight Species Assessment Database (www.rmbo.org/pif/jsp/BCRmap.asp): RC = Regional Concern; RS = Regional Stewardship. 

The area encompassed by this list is BCR 5 which includes more than western Oregon and Washington.

8

 PIF CPLAN = Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004) (http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/default.htm): 

SCI = Species of Continental Importance for the Pacific Avifaunal Biome.

9

 WATCH LIST = National Audubon/American Bird Conservancy Continental Watch List 2007; Red = Highest Priority; 

Yellow = Second Priority (http://web1.audubon.org/science/species/watchlist/) and www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/science/watchlist/index.html.
26—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Table 7. Population estimates of focal species in the Oregon and Washington portions of BCR 5 (i.e., western Oregon and 

western Washington) stepped-down from Partners in Flight continental population estimates.1

Species

Oregon Washington OR-WA Continental

Pop Est2 DQ3 %4

 Pop Est DQ % % pop Pop Estimate DQ

Pileated Woodpecker 11,000 1 1.2 6,000 1 0.6 1.8 930,000 0

Brown Creeper 200,000 1 3.8 110,000 1 2.0 5.8 5,400,000 0

Pacific-slope Flycatcher 1,000,000 1 11.7 900,000 1 10.3 22.0 8,300,000 0

Varied Thrush 400,000 2 1.4 400,000 2 1.4 2.8 30,000,000 1

Hermit Warbler 1,200,000 1 51.1 140,000 3 5.9 57.0 2,400,000 0

Hammond’s Flycatcher 300,000 1 2.4 150,000 2 1.2 3.6 13,000,000 0

Wilson’s Warbler 1,000,000 2 2.8 600,000 1 1.8 4.6 40,000,000 2

Winter Wren 400,000 1 1.1 500,000 1 1.3 2.4 40,000,000 2

Black-throated Gray Warbler 300,000 1 11.3 300,000 1 8.6 19.9 2,900,000 0

Olive-sided Flycatcher 30,000 1 2.3 12,000 1 1.0 3.3 1,200,000 1

Northern Flicker 98,000 0 0.6 30,000 1 0.2 0.8 15,000,000 1

Orange-crowned Warbler 440,000 0 0.6 400,000 2 0.5 1.1 80,000,000 1

Rufous Hummingbird 700,000 1 10.6 500,000 1 8.3 18.9 7,000,000 1

American Pipit 0 0 20,000,000 2

Lincoln’s Sparrow 9,000 3 0.0 3,000 4 0.0 0.00 40,000,000 1

American Dipper 19,000 2 3.0 19,000 2 3.0 6.0 600,000 2

Black Swift 0 3,000 3 1.9 1.9 150,000 2

Band-tailed Pigeon 140,000 1 3.6 160,000 2 4.1 7.7 4,000,000 2

Blue (Sooty) Grouse 40,000 2 1.5 70,000 2 2.8 4.3 3,000,000 2

Purple Finch 5 90,000 1 2.9 90,000 1 3.1 6.0 3,000,000 1

Nashville Warbler 5 400,000 2 1.2 20,000 3 0.1 1.3 34,000,000 0

Hermit Thrush 5 300,000 1 0.6 120,000 3 0.2 0.8 60,000,000 1

Western Tanager 5 310,000 0 3.5 170,000 1 2.0 5.5 8,900,000 0

Green-tailed Towhee 5 4,000 3 0.1 0 0.1 4,100,000 0

Lazuli Bunting 5 100,000 2 4.2 5,000 3 0.2 4.4 2,300,000 0

1

 http://www.rmbo.org/pif_db/laped/

2

 Pop est = population estimate (heavily rounded) 

3

 DQ = Data quality. Lower numbers equal higher quality and quantity of data and higher numbers indicate some combination of low sample size, high variance in 

the BBS counts, or an otherwise poorly sampled species.

4

 % = percent of the population. Estimates of percent population are likely more accurate than population estimates which are heavily rounded, whereas percent 

populations are not (P. Blancher pers. comm.).

5

 The population estimates for focal species in the mixed-conifer forests of the Klamath Mountains ecoregion of southwestern Oregon are population estimates for all 

of western Oregon or western Washington not just southwestern Oregon because the Partners in Flight database does not have population estimates at that scale.
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—27

Two types of landbird biological objectives (i.e., habitat and 

population) are presented at several scales. First, regional habitat 

objectives are presented for the desired proportions of forest 

successional stages at large landscape scales, for the amount of 

forest cover in urban/residential forests in developing landscapes, 

and for the amount of natural forest regeneration in post-wildfire 

habitat. These objectives are presented to recognize the biodiversity 

provided by these habitats across the landscape of coniferous forests 

of western Oregon and Washington, and to support the diversity of 

landbird species that occur within these ecological niches. Secondly, 

habitat objectives are presented for focal species and their associated 

habitat attributes at landscape and site scales to provide the desired 

array of forest conditions and structural components to support 

landbird diversity. Finally, population objectives are presented as 

the ultimate bird conservation metric to assess focal species status 

relative to the habitat objectives. 

Regional Habitat Objectives

The following habitat objectives are provided to assist 

bird conservation partners with regional or unique forest land 

management responsibilities or mandates. 

E Late-Successional Forest

w Maintain all existing late-successional (mature and oldgrowth) forest patches.

w Maintain >30% of large landscape units (e.g., Level 3 or 4 

ecoregions, multiple watersheds) as late-successional forest 

with >30% of the late-successional forest as old-growth.

w Where existing late-successional forest comprises <30% 

of the large landscape units, initiate actions to meet that 

goal by first attempting to increase net size of existing latesuccessional forest patches; and patches designated as future 

late-successional forest should have a minimum patch size of 

50 ha (125 ac) with minimum edge to interior ratio.

w Late-successional forest should have or be managed for 

the ecologically appropriate range of variability in habitat 

attributes as described in this document for focal species in 

old-growth/mature forests.

Assumptions/Data Sources: Old-growth forest comprised 

approximately 49% of the total forest area in California, Oregon, 

and Washington in the 1930s compared to 18% in the early 1990s 

(Bolsinger and Waddell 1993). The large landscape, regional goal 

of 30% late-successional forest represents the need for an increased 

representation of this successional stage that is reasonably achievable. 

The term late-successional forest as used here is not synonomous 

with Late Successional Reserves (LSR) in the NWFP unless the 

current condition in the LSR is actually late-successional forest (i.e., 

not an earlier successional stage that is being managed to enhance 

development of late-successional characteristics). Minimum patch 

size of 125 acres is subjective based on the professional experience 

of several individuals. 

E Early and Mid-Successional Forest

w Outside of late-successional forest and designated latesuccessional forest (i.e., LSRs in the NWFP), maintain >25% 

of the remaining area of each large landscape (e.g., Level 3 

or 4 ecoregions, multiple watersheds) in each of these three 

successional stages: young forest (understory reinitiation), 

pole forest (stem exclusion), and early-successional forest 

(stand initiation).

wEarly and mid-successional forest should have or be managed 

for the ecologically appropriate range of variability in 

habitat conditions (most readily achieved through natural 

regeneration – see Naturally Regenerated Early-Successional 

Forest) as described in this document for young forest, pole 

forest, and early-successional forest.

Assumptions/Data Sources: Maintaining a diversity of native 

landbird species over large landscapes is ecologically appropriate 

from an historical perspective, and a desirable goal for biodiversity 

and ecological resiliency in coniferous forests of western Oregon 

and Washington. Landbirds often are associated with successional 

stages in coniferous forests, so the initial step to achieve this goal 

would be to provide some relatively equal mix of successional 

stages. The objectives above are intended to provide a coarse 

framework for maintaining successional stage diversity across 

large landscapes with minimum thresholds and flexible targets for 

each successional stage. The objectives are not intended for levels 

smaller than ecoregion or large landscapes of multiple watersheds, 

but could be used as guidelines for smaller scales (e.g., watersheds) 

where intensive management often precludes representation of 

late-successional forest. Specific structural habitat components 

within each of the successional stages also will be necessary to meet 

landbird biodiversity goals, and these attributes are the focus of 

species habitat objectives described throughout the remainder of 

this document.

Naturally Regenerated Early-Successional Forest 

Early-successional forest includes all forest in the early 

post-disturbance stage prior to the dominance of tree 

canopies. However, there are great differences in the 

value of early-successional forests to birds depending 

on the type of disturbance and the post-disturbance 

management or lack thereof. Intensive management that 

maximizes removal of timber volume and minimizes 

retention of biological legacies (e.g., snags, down wood, 

deciduous trees and shrubs), followed by dense tree 

planting and control of deciduous vegetation simplifies 

early-successional habitat and reduces its value to bird 

species, especially focal or priority species. Intensive 

management also truncates the period of time as earlysuccessional habitat, further reducing the value of these 

sites to birds that depend on this successional stage. 

To meet bird conservation objectives, it is important 

to maintain landscapes with representative amounts of 

well-distributed naturally regenerated early-successional 

forests with biological legacies maintained through 

disturbance events.

Biological Objectives and Habitat Conservation Strategies
28—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

 ... species-specific habitat objectives 

are provided to assist bird conservation 

partners interested in focal species 

conservation beyond the objectives for 

the habitat attribute they represent in our 

ecosystem-based conservation strategy. 

E Residential/Urban Forest Cover in Developing

Landscapes

w	In developing suburban and exurban areas within a 

coniferous forest landscape, maintain >27% forest cover 

for each 100 ha (250 ac) developed with at least one area of 

>60% forest cover, and maintain the forest cover in patches 

>21 ha (51 ac) with some at least one patch >42 ha (101 ac). 

w	Within the context of forest cover in developing landscapes, 

maintain/provide the ecologically appropriate range 

of variability in habitat conditions as described in this 

document for the appropriate focal species.

Assumptions/Data Sources: These recommendations are based 

on research in the Seattle metropolitan area assessing the ability 

of urban/residential landscapes to support regional bird diversity. 

The recommendation for percent forest cover is from the work 

of Blewett and Marzluff (2005) which indicated that 27% per 

100 ha was the minimum forest cover needed to maintain the 

presence of the nine regularly occurring cavity-nesting bird species, 

provided that their snag requirements were met. However, for 

some species such as Brown Creeper, Chestnut-backed Chickadee, 

Hairy Woodpecker, and Pileated Woodpecker, higher densities 

were associated with forest cover amounts greater than 60%. The 

recommendation for size of forest patches is from the work of 

Donnelly and Marzluff (2004) which indicated that species such as 

Brown Creeper, Golden-crowned Kinglet, and Hutton’s Vireo were 

mostly present in forest patches >21 ha (51 ac) but mostly absent 

in forest patches smaller than this. For some species such as Hermit 

Warbler and Varied Thrush, forest patches >42 ha (101 ac) were 

necessary for their occurrence.

E Natural Forest Regeneration in Post-Wildfire

Habitat

w	Maintain >50% of post-wildfire habitat as naturally 

regenerating forest.

w	Where salvage logging is occurring, maintain post-wildfire 

growth of deciduous shrub and tree vegetation as described 

below in the habitat objectives for Klamath Mountains 

Ecoregion Post-Wildfire focal species Lazuli Bunting.

Assumptions/Data Sources: Natural forest regeneration after 

wildfires is an historical ecological process under which landbirds 

evolved. Fire suppression and aggressive timber salvage policies 

have reduced the extent of this habitat across the landscape. Where 

wildfires have occurred, there is significant pressure to conduct salvage 

logging to extract merchantable lumber. There is a need to maintain 

some of this naturally occurring habitat to enhance biodiversity, 

and to function as control sites to promote understanding of bird 

use of this habitat for developing management prescriptions where 

salvage logging is occurring. The recommendation for >50% as 

naturally regenerating forest is based on the professional judgment 

of several individuals as a compromise between economic and 

biological goals. 

Biological Objectives for Focal 

Species and Habitat Attributes

In the following sections, biological objectives and habitat 

conservation strategies are described for each focal species and 

associated habitat attribute within the forest successional stages 

presented in Table 5. Preceding these, there is a brief overview 

of management issues related to the conservation of each habitat 

attribute. Assumptions and data sources upon which the biological 

objectives are based are stated, along with suggestions for research 

or monitoring to address information needs and provide data to 

refine and update biological objectives. Examples of priority species 

expected to benefit from management for each focal species is 

presented in Appendix A, although conservation of priority species 

is not dependent upon or synonymous with conservation of focal 

species.

It is important to note that the habitat objectives for each 

focal species are mostly specific to the habitat attribute that a 

particular species is representing. However, we also include some 

habitat objectives for a focal species beyond the habitat attribute 

they represent if there are other important habitat attributes for 

that focal species’ conservation. For example, we specify riparian 

buffer widths and patch sizes for several species, canopy cover for 

Olive-sided Flycatcher and Varied Thrush, and tree size and type 

for Hermit Warbler. These species-specific habitat objectives are 

provided to assist bird conservation partners interested in focal 

species conservation beyond the objectives for the habitat attribute 

they represent in our ecosystem-based conservation strategy.

E Old-Growth/Mature Forest

Amid the mosaic of land ownerships, forest types, habitat 

conditions, and forest management practices, there is clearly a 

need to maintain some coniferous forest in western Oregon and 

Washington as late-successional (i.e., old-growth and mature) 

(Hayes et al. 1997). Timber extraction on federal forest land has 

been substantially reduced from previous levels, and federal lands 

are likely to play the primary role in providing habitat for species 

associated with late-successional forest (Bunnell et al. 1997). 

Several non-listed landbird species are highly associated with 

late-successional forests. These species may be associated with 

complexity of the forest (i.e., multiple habitat attributes) or with 

a single habitat attribute. We considered the following habitat 

attributes most important for landbirds in late-successional forests: 

large snags, large trees, deciduous canopy/subcanopy trees, and the 

structural diversity of mid-story tree layers.

“

” 
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—29

Forest Stage: OLD GROWTH/MATURE FOREST

Habitat Attribute: LARGE SNAGS

Focal Species: PILEATED WOODPECKER (Dryocopus pileatus) Photo by Erik Ackerson Photo by Alan Wilson

Old-Growth/Mature Forest

E Habitat Issue

Many species of birds use or are dependent upon snags (i.e., 

dead trees) as both nesting (Mannan et al. 1980, Lundquist 

and Mariani 1991) and foraging (Mannan et al. 1980, Weikel 

and Hayes 1999) substrates. In unmanaged late-successional 

forests there is a regular supply of dying and dead trees due to 

natural processes. Large diameter snags are more abundant 

in old-growth than mature forest (Spies and Franklin 1991), 

and large snags harbor more insects and insect larvae than 

small diameter snags (Cline 1977). Large snags are generally 

unavailable under intensive forest management practices such 

as clearcut logging, repeated harvest entries, and rotation 

ages <80 years (Mannan et al. 1980, Cline et al. 1980). This 

is primarily because 1) cost-effective extraction of wood 

and shorter rotation ages preclude development of snags, 

particularly large snags, and 2) existing snags in harvest units 

are typically removed if they are considered operational safety 

hazards. Where snag management policies are implemented 

on intensively managed lands, created or retained snags 

are generally <50 cm (20 in) dbh because large snags (e.g., 

>65 cm [25 in] dbh) require more than 80 years to develop 

(Cline et al. 1980) and are not available from the cohort of 

trees in the harvest unit. Snags originating from the current 

cohort of trees in intensively managed forests are usually too 

small to provide adequate nesting sites for many species of 

cavity-nesting birds (Zarnowitz and Manuwal 1985, Nelson 

1988). Thus, recommendations for large snags are unlikely 

to be achieved in intensively managed forests unless legacy 

snags and recruitment snags (large live trees) are maintained 

through rotations.

E Habitat Objectives

w Landscapes: At small landscape scales (e.g., 

watersheds, townships, sections) provide 

u >40% of the area as suitable nesting habitat (forest 

>60 years old with adequate snags as described 

below), and >30% of the suitable nesting habitat 

should be late-successional forest 

w Sites: Where ecologically appropriate in forests >60 

years old provide

u >70% canopy closure and >70% conifer species 

canopy trees 

u ≥2 nest snags/ha (0.7/ac) >80 cm (32 in) dbh of 

decay class 2 (mostly hard) 

u ≥15 foraging snags/ha (6/ac) (mix of hard and soft 

snags) in the following size classes:

w 25–50 cm (10–20 in) dbh = ≥9/ha (3.6/ac)

w	50–75 cm (20–30 in) dbh = ≥4/ha (1.6/ac)

w	>75 cm (>30 in) dbh = ≥2/ha (0.7/ac) (may 

include the nest snag)

w Sites: Maintain a 2 ha (5 ac) no-harvest buffer around 

known nest or roost sites.

E Population Objectives

w	Landscapes: The density of breeding pairs should be an 

average of at least one pair per 600 ha (1,500 ac) within 

the landscape that is suitable habitat (i.e., forest >60 

years old with adequate snags as described above).

Assumptions/Data Sources: Late-successional forest is 

generally sufficient to provide suitable large snag habitat 

conditions. Forests <60 years old are generally not 
30—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Old-Growth/Mature Forest—Continued

sufficient to provide suitable large snags unless significant 

large tree or snag retention has occurred from previous 

harvests/disturbance. The landscape-level habitat objective 

is calculated from the regional habitat objective for percent 

of large landscapes in different successional stages (i.e., >30% 

late-successional plus approximately 10% of the young forest 

[i.e., >60 years old]). The canopy closure objective is based 

on Hartwig et al. (2006) and Raley and Aubry (2006). Data 

used for the site-level biological objectives for snag sizes 

and amounts are based on several studies including Nelson 

(1988), Mannan et al. (1980), Mellen et al. (1992), Aubry 

and Raley (2002), Hartwig et al. (2002, 2004, 2006), and 

Raley and Aubry (2006). The population density objective 

is based on mean density data and presented as a check to 

see if created or maintained suitable habitat is supporting 

populations.

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w In forests managed for wood products, extend rotation 

ages to >80 years to provide potential snags of sufficient 

size, and retain these snags and recruit replacement snags 

(large live trees) at each harvest entry.

w Retain all large live trees with defective or dying conditions 

such as broken tops, fungal conks, and insect infestations.

w If snags have not been retained (or are insufficient in 

number), create snags through blasting tops, girdling, 

inoculation with heart rot, or other effective methods if 

size of trees meets species requirements.

w Retain known or suitable nesting and roosting snags from 

all harvest and salvage activities and restrict access for 

fuelwood cutters.

w Avoid use of pesticides near retained snags (Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995).

w During harvest operations, retain large logs and stumps in 

various stages of decay for foraging sites.

E Habitat Information Needs

w Are there thresholds for the proportion or distribution 

of varying aged habitat patches within a Pileated 

Woodpecker’s territory?

Forest Stage: OLD GROWTH/MATURE FOREST

Habitat Attribute: LARGE SNAGS

Focal Species: PILEATED WOODPECKER (Dryocopus pileatus)

Forest Stage: OLD GROWTH/MATURE FOREST 

Habitat Attribute: LARGE TREES

Focal Species: BROWN CREEPER (Certhia americana) Photo by Erik Ackerson

Photo by Michael Stubblefield

E Habitat Issue

Large trees add vertical structure and complexity to forests. 

Large trees with deeply fissured bark such as Douglas-fir or 

scaly bark such as western redcedar increase surface area for 

bark foraging birds (Mariani and Manuwal 1990, Weikel and 

Hayes 1999). Late-successional forest is generally sufficient 

to provide suitable large tree habitat conditions. Forests 

managed for production of wood products <60 years old are 

generally not sufficient to provide suitable large tree habitat 

conditions unless significant large tree retention has occurred 

from previous harvests or natural disturbances. Large trees 

are generally unavailable under intensive forest management 

practices such as clearcut logging, repeated harvest entries, 

and rotation ages <80 years where cost-effective extraction of 

wood and shorter rotation ages preclude development of large 

trees. Where green-tree retention policies are implemented 

on intensively managed lands, the initial retained trees are 

generally <50 cm (20 in) dbh because large trees require 

more than 80 years to develop (Cline et al. 1980). However, 

retention of those trees through the following rotation may 

allow the trees to achieve size and height characteristics of 

late-successional trees.
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—31

E Habitat Objectives

w	Landscapes: At small landscape scales (e.g., watersheds, 

townships, sections), provide ≥3 blocks of latesuccessional forest >30 ha (75 ac) or one block >85 ha 

(210 ac) per square mile with site-level habitat conditions 

as described below.

w	Sites: Where ecologically appropriate in forests >60 

years old provide

u	canopy closure >70%

u	≥15 trees/ha (6/ac) >50 cm (20 in) dbh 

u	≥3 trees/ha (1.2/ac) >70 cm (24 in) dbh 

u	most or all of the trees should be Douglas-fir

w Sites: Riparian buffer zones within harvest units should 

be >30 m (100 ft) wide to provide suitable habitat, and 

should meet site-level habitat conditions described 

above.

Assumptions/Data Sources: The landscape-level habitat 

objective is calculated from the regional habitat objective for 

percent of large landscapes in different successional stages 

(i.e., >30% late-successional plus approximately 10% of the 

young forest [i.e., >60 years old]), and presented in patch size 

thresholds for this area-sensitive species. Patch size of 30 ha 

(75 ac) is based on an upwardly adjusted patch size minimum 

(i.e., 20 ha) for winter wren, another species considered a 

forest interior species, in Douglas-fir dominated forests in 

northwestern California (Rosenberg and Raphael 1986). 

The objective for canopy closure is based on Banks et al. 

(1995; 60%) and Doyon et al. (2000; 80%). The objective for 

a minimum of 15 trees/ha (/ac) >50 cm (20 in) dbh is a 50% 

increase over the minimum for suitability (10/ha) (Hansen 

and Hounihan 1996). The 50cm dbh is a frequently used 

cutoff point for separating large and small trees. The 70 cm 

(28 in) dbh is the approximate mean of nest tree dbh from 

several studies (e.g., Lundquist and Mariani 1991, Mariani 

1987, Nelson 1988). Data indicate that Brown Creepers are 

absent or occur in limited abundance in green-tree retention 

units with 15% and 40% retention (Mayrhofer 2006), and 

are not present in young green-tree retention harvest units 

with <12 trees/ha (5/ac) >30 cm (12 in) dbh, but are present 

and in proportional abundance as density of large trees is 

increased (Vega 1993). The objective for riparian buffer 

width is based on Pearson and Manual (2001). 

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w	Maintain late-successional forests in the largest tracts 

possible to reduce amount of edge and fragmentation.

w	Small patches of late-successional forest or light or 

moderately thinned forest dominated by large trees can 

be suitable for foraging only if extensive areas of latesuccessional forest are adjacent (Mayrhofer 2006).

w	Retain or create snags (essential for nesting) within latesuccessional forest that are of earlier decay classes with bark 

remaining rather than older snags without bark. 

w	In forests managed for production of wood products, 

extend rotation age to >80 years to allow for development 

of large trees and snags, and retain these trees and snags 

and recruit replacements at each harvest entry.

w	In conjunction with extended rotations in forests managed 

for wood products, and where physically practical (e.g., not 

on steep slopes), conduct early and frequent thinning to 

accelerate individual tree growth and faster development 

of large trees.

w	In harvest units of forests managed for wood products, 

retained trees should be clumped (retention aggregates), 

and should be primarily Douglas-fir with an emphasis on 

trees with deep fissures or furrows in the bark to provide 

more surface area and complexity of micro habitats for 

foraging (Van Pelt 2007). 

E Habitat Information Needs 

w	What are the relationships between the size of latesuccessional forest patches and Brown Creeper occupancy 

and population viability?

w	At the landscape-level does patch size, configuration, or 

proportional occurrence in the landscape affect Brown 

Creeper reproductive success?

w	In forests managed for wood products, do riparian buffer 

zones or logged patches provide Brown Creeper nesting 

habitat if suitable large trees are retained? If so, are there 

limiting factors such as buffer width, patch size, or tree 

density?

w	Are Brown Creeper populations in young forest (<80 

years old) contributing to species persistence (i.e., are they 

reproductively viable?).

w	Is there a minimum density of Brown Creeper foraging sites 

(i.e., large trees) per territory? If so, is there a threshold of 

the spatial extent of foraging sites that cannot be exceeded 

for acceptable levels of energetic sustainability in winter? 

Does this vary by elevation or forest type? Photo by Erik Ackerson
32—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Forest Stage: OLD GROWTH/MATURE FOREST 

Habitat Attribute: DECIDUOUS CANOPY/SUBCANOPY TREES

Focal Species: PACIFIC-SLOPE FLYCATCHER (Empidonax difficilis) Photo by Bob Altman Photo by Jim Livaudais

Old-Growth/Mature Forest—Continued

E Habitat Issue

Some landbird species in multi-layered late-successional 

coniferous forests are associated with deciduous trees for 

foraging or nesting. Deciduous trees provide ecological 

diversity and foliage-hatched insects different from that of 

conifers. Late-successional forest may or may not be sufficient 

to provide deciduous canopy/subcanopy tree habitat 

conditions, depending on the site. In coniferous forests 

without management of competing vegetation, particularly 

in wet sites, deciduous trees may contribute significantly to 

the tree canopy. However, intensive management of forests 

for production of conifer tree species limits habitat for 

species associated with deciduous trees. Additionally, there 

is economic incentive to convert hardwoods to softwoods, 

particularly on lands managed intensively for timber 

production.

E Habitat Objectives

w	Landscapes: Within landscapes >1,000 ha (2,500 ac), 

maintain 

u	approximately 90% as late-successional coniferous 

forest that includes a high percent of unfragmented 

core areas of densely canopied forest and patches of 

thinly canopied forest interspersed with patches of 

mixed coniferous-deciduous forest and deciduous 

forest (includes riparian habitat) (2-10%) with sitelevel habitat conditions as described below.

w Sites: Where ecologically appropriate in forests >40 

years old provide 

u	>20% deciduous canopy cover, particularly where 

associated with riparian zone or wet site deciduous 

trees especially red alder.

w	Sites: In harvest units with deciduous tree site potential, 

retain all deciduous canopy trees near the riparian zone 

(i.e., within one tree length of outer boundary of existing 

riparian buffer) to expand potential suitable nesting and 

foraging habitat.

w	Sites: Riparian buffer zones within harvest units should 

be >40 m (130 ft) wide to provide suitable habitat, and 

should meet site-level habitat conditions described 

above.

Assumptions/Data Sources: The landscape-level objectives are 

from Nott et al. (2005) and Nott (2009). The objective for 

>20% deciduous canopy cover was subjectively developed 

based on collective experience of several individuals. The 

objective for presence of red alder canopy/subcanopy trees is 

based on Leu (2000). The objective for riparian buffer width 

is based on Hagar (1999) to support approximately one-half 

the abundance in adjacent unlogged sites, and is supported 

by Nott et al. (2005).

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w	In forests managed for wood products with an existing 

deciduous canopy component, extend rotation age to >80 

years to allow for development of canopy and sub-canopy 

gaps for suitable foraging habitat.

w	Conduct conifer tree thinning where there is potential for 

understory development of deciduous trees, particularly in 

wet sites. Conduct thinning early in forest development 

(<20 years-old) to enhance competitive opportunities for 

deciduous trees, and minimize short-term effect of reduced 

canopy closure and suitability of habitat.

w	Where deciduous trees have been retained from earlier 

successional stages, ensure release of these trees by thinning 

of conifers shading them out.
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—33

w	If deciduous trees have not been retained from earlier 

successional stages and the site is suitable, conduct 

thinning in scattered patches (variable-spaced) to openup the canopy and allow for understory development of 

deciduous trees adjacent to the closed-canopy conifer 

dominated forest.

w	Conduct repeated thinning as necessary in conjunction 

with a longer rotation to maintain a deciduous canopy 

component for a longer period of time.

w	When conducting thinning activities, minimize 

mechanical impact on shrub cover to maintain this desired 

feature.

E Habitat Information Needs

w	What is Pacific-slope Flycatcher reproductive success 

in late-successional forests where red alder is absent or 

limited?

w	What are the habitat type and condition thresholds 

for Pacific-slope Flycatcher occupancy and population 

viability in riparian buffer zones?

Forest Stage: OLD GROWTH/MATURE FOREST

Habitat Attribute: MID-STORY TREE LAYERS

Focal Species: VARIED THRUSH (Ixoreus naevius) Photo by Bob Altman Photo by Steve Dowlan

E Habitat Issue

Tree layering in the mid-story of late-successional coniferous 

forests provides structural complexity and dense foliage. 

These layers tend to reduce understory shrub development, 

but can provide extensive forest floor debris from the organic 

matter associated with multiple tree layers, particularly if a 

deciduous tree component exists. Late-successional forest is 

generally sufficient to provide suitable mid-story tree layer 

habitat conditions, and the litter layer in old-growth forest is 

deeper than in mature or younger forests (Spies and Franklin 

1991). Even-aged management for timber production limits 

tree layering by precluding multiple age- or size classes of trees. 

Forests <60 years old are generally not sufficient to provide 

suitable mid-story tree layers unless significant variable sized 

tree retention has occurred from previous disturbances. 

E Habitat Objectives

w	Landscapes: Within small landscapes (e.g., watersheds, 

townships, sections), provide ≥3 blocks of latesuccessional forest >30 ha (75 ac) or one block >85 ha 

(210 ac) per square mile with site-level habitat conditions 

as described below.

w	Sites: Where ecologically appropriate in forests >60 

years old provide 

u	multiple tree layers with mixed species (deciduous and 

coniferous) composition 

u	berry-producing trees and shrubs

u	high canopy closure (>70%)

u	>30% deciduous cover in the sub-canopy and 

understory for a dense leaf litter layer

w	Sites: Riparian buffer zones within harvest units should 

be >70 m (230 ft) wide to provide suitable habitat, and 

should meet site-level habitat conditions described 

above.

Assumptions/Data Sources: The landscape-level habitat 

objective is calculated from the regional habitat objective for 

percent of large landscapes in different successional stages 

(i.e., >30% late-successional plus approximately 10% of the 

young forest [i.e., >60 years old]), and presented in patch 

size thresholds for this area-sensitive species (McGarigal and 

McComb 1995, George and Brand 2002). The minimum 

patch size of 30 ha (75 ac) is based on an upwardly adjusted 

patch size minimum (i.e., 20 ha) for winter wren, another 

likely forest interior species in Douglas-fir dominated forests 

in northwestern California (Rosenberg and Raphael 1986), 
34—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

and the approximate doubling of minimum patch size for 

occupancy (16 ha [40 ac]) in redwood forests in northwestern 

California (Hurt 1996). The site-level habitat objective for 

multiple tree layers and berry-producing shrubs is based on 

Carey et al. (1991) and Gilbert and Allwine (1991). The 

site-level habitat objectives for >70% canopy cover and 

>30% deciduous cover in the subcanopy and understory 

was subjectively developed based on collective experience 

of several individuals. The site-level habitat objective for 

riparian buffer width is based on Hagar (1999). 

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w	Maintain late-successional forest patches in the largest 

tracts possible to reduce the amount of edge and 

fragmentation.

w	In forests managed for wood products, extend rotation age 

to >80 years to allow for development of a multi-layered 

canopy and sub-canopy.

w	Retain volunteer regeneration of hardwoods.

w	Conduct light to moderate thinning from below early 

in forest development to enhance survival of suppressed 

and intermediate trees and layered development earlier in 

mid-successional stages. This should include thinning in 

variable densities (spacing), variable intensities (amount), 

variable size classes (layering), and variable species to 

promote faster growth for some trees and reduced growth 

for others (McComb et al. 1993).

w	During regeneration, plant mixtures of tree species and 

incorporate small gaps in the planting prescription to 

enhance compositional and structural diversity in the midstory (Carey and Curtis 1996).

w	As necessary, conduct thinning in conjunction with 

underplanting of a diversity of species to increase tree 

layering and species diversity.

w	Because the time frame of understory response to 

commercial thinning is <10 years (Alaback and Herman 

1988), repeated thinnings may be necessary to advance 

understory development into sub-canopy layers through 

longer periods of commercial rotation.

w	Retain and/or plant ecologically appropriate native berry 

and fruit producing shrubs (huckleberry, elderberry) in the 

understory preferentially over other deciduous trees and 

shrubs.

E Habitat Information Needs

w	Data are needed on all aspects of Varied Thrush nesting 

ecology.

w	Are Varied Thrush populations in younger forests (<80 

years) contributing to species persistence (i.e., are they 

reproductively viable)?

w	Are there site-level thresholds of patch size for Varied 

Thrush successful reproduction to occur? 

w	Are riparian management zones within harvest units 

suitable habitat to support successfully reproducing 

populations of Varied Thrush? How much area is necessary?

Old-Growth/Mature Forest—Continued

E Mature/Young Forest

Forests in the mature/young successional stage can be highly 

diverse in terms of habitat conditions provided for landbirds 

depending on previous management/disturbances. They also 

represent a link between early and late successional forests; providing 

marginal to good habitat for many species highly associated with 

both these successional stages. Additionally, it is within the young/

mature forest stages where tree harvest usually occurs; thus, the 

presence of mature/young forest on the landscape can be abruptly 

changed, with concomitant consequences for landbird species.

Many of the landbird species highly associated with mature/

young forests are among the most common species in Pacific 

Northwest forests (e.g., Hermit Warbler, Wilson’s Warbler, Winter 

Wren). The habitat attributes these species are associated with 

often can occur throughout the range of habitat conditions in 

these forests. Other species such as Hammond’s Flycatcher require 

more specialized habitat attributes to support populations. We 

considered the following habitat attributes most important for 

landbirds in mature/young forests: closed canopy, open mid-story, 

deciduous understory, and forest floor complexity.

Forest Stage: OLD GROWTH/MATURE FOREST

Habitat Attribute: MID-STORY TREE LAYERS

Focal Species: VARIED THRUSH (Ixoreus naevius)

Photo by Bob Altman
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—35

Forest Stage: MATURE/YOUNG FOREST 

Habitat Attribute: CLOSED CANOPY

Focal Species: HERMIT/TOWNSEND’S WARBLER (Dendroica occidentalis/

townsendii)

Photo by Bob Altman

Photo by Glen Tepke

E Habitat Issue

Canopy closure and high canopy foliage volume is generally 

available throughout development of young forests. However, 

thinning is being extensively used to move forest patches out 

of the young closed-canopy stage and accelerate development 

of conditions found in late-successional forests. Although 

thinning in young (20–50 year-old) forests can promote 

development of large crowns and high foliage volume on 

dominant and codominant trees, extensive thinning can 

render a site unsuitable for species requiring a closed canopy 

until the crown achieves canopy closure again.

E Habitat Objectives

w	Landscapes: At small landscape-levels (e.g., watersheds, 

townships, sections), provide >55% of the area as 

suitable nesting habitat (forest >40 years old with 

adequate canopy cover as described below), and >25% of 

the suitable habitat should be young forest. 

w	Sites: Where ecologically appropriate in forests >30 

years old provide

u average tree dbh >30 cm (12 in)

u >90% canopy closure

u a dominance of Douglas-fir trees

w	Sites: Riparian buffer zones within harvest units should 

be >70 m (230 ft) wide to provide suitable habitat, and 

should meet site-level habitat conditions described 

above.

Assumptions/Data Sources: The landscape-level habitat 

objective is calculated from the regional habitat objective for 

percent of large landscapes in different successional stages 

(i.e., >30% late-successional forest plus >25% young forest). 

The site-level habitat objectives for trees are based on several 

studies including Morrison (1982), Vega (1993), Hagar et al. 

(1996), and Pearson (1997). The site-level habitat objective 

for riparian buffer width is based on Hagar (1999).

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w	In forests managed for wood products, extend rotation ages 

to lengthen the period of time that the forest is available as 

suitable habitat.

w	Conduct light to moderate thinning early in forest 

development (<30 years-old) to promote development of 

large crowns to increase habitat suitability later in forest 

development.

E Habitat Information Needs

w	Are there differences in Hermit/Townsend’s Warbler 

nesting and pairing success in varying aged forests >20 

years old that are based on age or forest structure?

w	Are there differences in Hermit/Townsend’s Warbler 

reproductive success and habitat relationships on ridge 

tops and benches where high densities often occur (S. 

Pearson, pers. comm.)?

Mature/Young Forest
36—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Forest Stage: MATURE/YOUNG FOREST

Habitat Attribute: OPEN MID-STORY

Focal Species: HAMMOND’S FLYCATCHER (Empidonax hammondii) Photo by Bob Altman Photo by Scott Streit

Mature/Young Forest—Continued

E Habitat Issue

Some forest aerial predators require open areas beneath the 

forest canopy for adequate foraging space, because a low 

tree density allows clear flight paths to capture flying prey. 

Openings and reduced stem density occur naturally in the 

canopy and sub-canopy of late-successional forests where 

natural mortality occurs. Tree density in closed-canopy 

forests is high in the younger stages until natural mortality 

occurs due to competition. In forests managed for wood 

products, silvicultural prescriptions that include thinning of 

trees reduce tree density and can create an open mid-story.

E Habitat Objectives

w Landscapes: Within small landscapes (e.g., watershed, 

township, section), provide ≥6 blocks of late-successional 

and young forest >20 ha (50 ac) or one block >120 ha 

(300 ac) per square mile with site-level habitat conditions 

as described below.

w Landscapes: Within large landscapes (i.e., >1,000 ha 

[2,500 ac]) maintain large core areas of unfragmented 

coniferous forest including

u 80–90% of the area in high canopy cover (i.e., >80%) 

of coniferous forest

u 10–20% of the area in early successional habitat

u <1% cover of deciduous forest habitat in drier upland 

habitats (i.e., with low stream density).

w Sites: Where ecologically appropriate in forests >40 

years old provide

u forest patches >15 ha (42 ac)

u canopy closure >50% 

u a relative stem density of 0.2 to 0.3 to maintain an open 

mid-story (Relative stem density is the ratio of actual 

stem density to the maximum density available). 

w Sites: Riparian buffer zones within harvest units should 

be >70 m (230 ft) wide to provide suitable habitat, and 

should meet site-level habitat conditions described 

above.

Assumptions/Data Sources: The landscape-level habitat 

objective is calculated from the regional habitat objective for 

percent of large landscapes in different successional stages 

(i.e., >30% late-successional plus approximately 10% of the 

young forest [i.e., >60 years old]), and presented in patch 

size thresholds for this area-sensitive species. The square mile 

landscape objective is based on minimum patch size, and the 

desired condition of at least 30% of subprovinces in latesuccessional and 25% in young forest conditions. The large 

landscape habitat objective is from Nott et al. (2005) and Nott 

(2009), and is recommended to maintain high reproductive 

success. The patch size of 15 ha (42 ac) is based on data (i.e., 

minimum of 15 ha) from work conducted in Douglas-fir/

tanoak forests of northwestern California (Sakai and Noon 

1991), and data (10–15 ha to support breeding) from Nott 

(2009). The site-level habitat objective for relative stem 

density is from Hagar et al. (1996). The site-level objective 

for >50% canopy cover is adjusted based on data (i.e., >40%) 

from southwestern Oregon (Alexander 1999). The site-level 

habitat objective for riparian buffer width is based on Hagar 

(1999) and supported by Nott (2009).

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w Conduct light to moderate single-layered thinning from 

below to reduce the density of trees and open-up the 

area below canopy foliage, but do not encourage layered 

understory development characteristics of variable-spaced 

and variable-layered thinning.

w Conduct habitat management in areas without an extensive 

riparian or deciduous tree component.
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—37

E Habitat Information Needs 

w How do various thinning regimes affect Hammonds 

Flycatcher reproductive success?

w Are there differences in prey (flying insects) abundance 

and availability for Hammond’s Flycatcher in thinned 

forest versus unmanaged mature forest?

w Are riparian management zones within harvest units 

suitable habitat to support successfully reproducing 

populations of Hammond’s Flycatcher? What size area is 

necessary?

E Habitat Issue

Understory vegetation is a significant component of the 

floristic and structural diversity of coniferous forests 

(Halpern and Spies 1995). Some landbirds are associated 

with deciduous shrubs and trees in the understory of 

late-successional forests (Chambers 1996, Hagar 2004). 

Deciduous vegetation increases structural heterogeneity 

and vegetative diversity in the understory (Hagar 2007). 

In unmanaged late-successional forest, natural openings 

in the canopy due to mortality and tree-fall gaps provide 

opportunities for development of a deciduous understory. In 

forests managed for wood products, deciduous vegetation has 

been traditionally managed against because of competition 

with commercially planted conifers. A dense close-canopied 

conifer forest precludes development of an understory which 

excludes some bird species and reduces overall biodiversity 

(Hagar 2007).

E Habitat Objectives

w Landscapes: Within landscapes >1,000 ha (2,500 ac) 

maintain a complex heterogeneity of habitat types and 

conditions including

u >60% of the area in contiguous deciduous or mixed 

deciduous-coniferous forest

Forest Stage: MATURE/YOUNG FOREST

Habitat Attribute: DECIDUOUS UNDERSTORY

Focal Species: WILSON’S WARBLER (Wilsonia pusilla) Photo by Erik Ackerson

u >4% of the area in early successional habitat in 

corridor-type strips or complex shapes (i.e., not 

uniform in shape) to maximize edge.

w Sites: Where ecologically appropriate in forests >40 

years old provide

u >40% understory cover of deciduous shrubs and small 

trees (<10 ft) 

u >25% of the shrub cover as western sword fern or 

bracken fern

w Sites: Riparian buffer zones within harvest units should 

be >30 m (100 ft) wide to provide suitable habitat, and 

should meet site-level habitat conditions described 

above

Assumptions/Data Sources: The landscape-level habitat 

objective is from Nott et al. (2005) and Nott (2009),which 

emphasizes requirements for reproductive success and postbreeding dispersal habitat. The site-level habitat objective for 

>40% deciduous shrub-layer cover is based on the occupancy 

of habitat for foraging Wilson’s Warblers (Hagar 2004). The 

site-level objective for >25% of the shrub cover as western 

sword fern or bracken fern is a quantitative representation 

of the subjective observations of the importance of this 

plant as a foraging and nesting substrate (Chambers 1996, 

Hagar 2004, Manuwal and Palazotto 2004). The site-level 

habitat objective for riparian buffer width is based on Hagar 

(1999). Photo by Barth Schorre

Continued
38—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w In forests managed for wood products, extend rotation age 

to >60 years in conjunction with thinning as described 

below to lengthen suitability of the habitat for a longer 

period of time.

w If understory deciduous vegetation has not been 

maintained through earlier successional stages, conduct 

moderate to heavy variable-density thinning to create 

canopy openings and small gaps (<1 ha [2 ac]) to promote 

understory shrub development.

w Small patch (0.2 ha [0.5 ac]) group selection cuts, rather 

than green-tree retention or modified clearcuts, may 

provide habitat since these cuts have the overall least 

impact on important habitat features in the unharvested 

understory (Chambers 1996).

w If patches of understory deciduous vegetation have been 

maintained through earlier successional stages, conduct 

thinning as necessary to prevent conifers from competing 

and shading out deciduous understory.

w Because the time frame of understory response to 

commercial thinning is <10 years (Alaback and Herman 

Mature/Young Forest—Continued

Forest Stage: MATURE/YOUNG FOREST

Habitat Attribute: DECIDUOUS UNDERSTORY

Focal Species: WILSON’S WARBLER (Wilsonia pusilla) 1988), repeated thinnings may be necessary to advance 

understory development.

w During thinning, activities should be carefully designed 

and logging systems tailored to site-specific conditions to 

minimize understory disturbance and site productivity 

(e.g., road systems and skid trails, type of harvest and 

equipment), especially tall shrub cover (Hagar 2004).

w In harvest units, retain intact patches of forest with 

understories rather than dispersed trees or aggregate 

clumps of trees with treated understories.

w Discontinue use of herbicides for deciduous tree and shrub 

control for species associated with a deciduous understory.

E Habitat Information Needs

w What are the habitat components (e.g., species composition, 

structure) in a deciduous understory important to Wilson’s 

Warbler abundance and reproductive success?

w Are riparian management zones within harvest units 

suitable habitat to support successfully reproducing 

populations of Wilson’s Warbler? What size area is 

necessary?

w Are there site-level thresholds of patch size for Wilson’s 

Warbler occupancy and population viability? 

Forest Stage: MATURE/YOUNG FOREST

Habitat Attribute: FOREST FLOOR COMPLEXITY

Focal Species: WINTER WREN (Troglodytes troglodytes) Photo by Bob Altman

E Habitat Issue

Some landbirds, that forage or nest on the forest floor or low 

understory of late-successional forests, are associated with the 

complex vegetative structure and habitat attributes unique 

to older forests (e.g., large down logs, dense vegetation). The 

understory and forest floor is more complex in unmanaged 

forests. In unmanaged forests, the litter layer is deeper in oldgrowth than in mature or younger forests (Spies and 

Franklin 1991). In intensively managed forests, forest 

floor components such as downed logs and litter layer 

are limited or unavailable.

E Habitat Objectives

w Landscapes: Within small landscapes (e.g., 

watershed, township, section), provide an average 

Photo by Michael Stubblefield
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—39

of ≥2 blocks of late-successional forest >30 ha (75 ac) or 

one block >60 ha (150 ac) per square mile with site-level 

habitat conditions as described below.

w Landscapes: Within landscapes >150 ha (375 ac), 

maintain >10% of the area as mixed forest or deciduous 

forest (includes riparian areas) with site-level conditions 

as described below.

w Sites: Where ecologically appropriate in forests >60 

years old provide

u an average of 10 down logs/ha (4/ac) with a dbh >61 

cm (24 in) in decay classes 3–5 (i.e., softer down logs) 

and >15.2 m (50 ft) long (decay class 3–5) 

u shrub cover (woody or ferns) >60% and fern cover 

>20% within 3 m (9 ft) of the ground

u tree trunk surface area for foraging with a mean dbh 

>40 cm (16 in)

w Sites: Riparian buffer zones within harvest units should 

be >40 m (130 ft) wide to provide suitable habitat, and 

should meet site-level habitat conditions described 

above.

Assumptions/Data Sources: The ecoregional objective for an 

emphasis on riparian areas in the Klamath Mountains is based 

on Barrows (1986). The landscape-level habitat objective is 

calculated from the regional habitat objective for percent of 

large landscapes in different successional stages (i.e., >30% 

late-successional plus approximately 10% of the young forest 

[i.e., >60 years old]), and presented in patch size thresholds 

(minimum 30 ha [75 ac]) for this area-sensitive species based 

on upwardly adjusted data (i.e., a minimum of 20 ha) from 

a study in Douglas-fir dominated forests of northwestern 

California (Rosenberg and Raphael 1986). The landscapelevel habitat objective for mixed or deciduous forest is from 

Nott et al. (2005). Site-level habitat objectives for down logs, 

tree dbh, and deciduous cover were subjectively developed by 

several individuals based on knowledge of habitat attributes 

in late-successional forests. The site-level habitat objective for 

riparian buffer width is based on Hagar (1999) to support 

approximately one-half the abundance in adjacent unlogged 

habitat.

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w Maintain forests in the largest possible tracts to reduce the 

amount of edge and fragmentation.

w Retain down woody debris during forest management, and 

supplement where necessary by felling trees to create this 

attribute.

w Retain root wads where they occur.

w Create and retain slash piles of varying sizes at each harvest 

entry.

w Conduct light, variable-spaced thinning to enhance 

understory development rather than uniform thinning 

because variable-spaced thinning reduces the negative 

effects of reduced overstory canopy closure by maintaining 

some areas with high canopy closure.

w Harvest entries should be carefully designed and logging 

systems tailored to site-specific conditions to minimize 

understory disturbance and site productivity.

w Within the Klamath Mountains, provide site-level habitat 

conditions as described above within or adjacent to 

riparian areas.

E Habitat Information Needs

w What are the relationships between Winter Wren 

reproductive success and patch size/fragmentation?

w What are the mechanisms (e.g., microclimate) by 

which edge effects and fragmentation influence habitat 

components (e.g., mossy vegetation) and abundance and 

reproductive success of Winter Wren?

w Do riparian management zones within harvest units 

provide enough suitable habitat to support successfully 

reproducing populations of Winter Wren? What size is 

necessary?

E Young/Pole Forest

Young, pole forests are structurally simple and characterized 

by an even-aged, single-layered, closed-canopy with little or no 

understory development. Where understory vegetation exists, it is 

generally low growing and dominated by one or two shade-tolerant 

species (e.g., western sword fern). The age of these forests may range 

from sapling trees with high foliage ratios that have just attained 

canopy closure, to large pole trees that are densely stocked and have 

low foliage ratios and a high degree of canopy lift.

Young, pole forests are relatively depauperate in landbird 

species composition and richness (Hansen et al. 1991, Manuwal 

and Pearson 1997). Most species abundant in this stage also are 

relatively abundant in older closed-canopy forests (Hansen et al. 

1995). However, one species, Black-throated Gray Warbler can 

be highly associated with this forest stage if there are deciduous 

canopy trees present. Conservation actions to maintain this habitat 

attribute through the stem exclusion/pole forest stage also will 

benefit species associated with deciduous canopy trees in older 

forest stages.

Photo by Erik Ackerson
40—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

E Habitat Issue

Some landbird species in coniferous forests are associated 

with deciduous trees for foraging or nesting. Deciduous 

trees provide ecological diversity, fruits and foliage insects 

different from that of conifers, a higher density of cavities 

than conifers (Gumtow-Farrior 1991). In coniferous forests 

without management of competing deciduous vegetation, 

particularly at wet sites, deciduous trees may contribute 

significantly to the forest canopy. Intensive management of 

forests for production of conifer tree species limits habitat 

for species associated with deciduous trees. Additionally, 

there is economic incentive to convert hardwoods to 

softwoods, particularly on lands managed intensively for 

timber production.

E Habitat Objectives

w Landscapes: Within small landscapes (e.g., watersheds, 

townships, sections), provide >30% of the area as young/

pole forest with site-level habitat conditions as described 

below. 

w Sites: Where ecologically appropriate in forests >30 

years old provide

u >20% canopy cover of deciduous trees.

w Sites: Riparian buffer zones within harvest units should 

be >55 m (180 ft) wide to provide suitable habitat, and 

should meet site-level habitat conditions described 

above.

Assumptions/Data Sources: The landscape-level habitat 

objective is calculated from the regional habitat objective for 

percent of large landscapes in different successional stages 

Forest Stage: YOUNG/POLE FOREST

Habitat Attribute: DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREES

Focal Species: BLACK-THROATED GRAY WARBLER (Dendroica nigrens) Photo by Erik Ackerson Photo by Greg Lavaty

Young/Pole Forest—Continued

(i.e., >30% late-successional and the remainder in mid and 

early-successional). There have been no species-specific 

studies on Black-throated Gray Warbler in this region, so the 

site-level habitat objective for >20% deciduous canopy cover 

was subjectively developed based on collective experience 

of several individuals. The site-level habitat objective for 

riparian buffer width is based on the mean from Pearson and 

Manuwal (2001).

E Habitat Conservation Strategies 

w Where deciduous trees occur, ensure persistence of these 

trees by thinning of conifers shading them out.

w If deciduous trees are not present, conduct thinning 

to open-up the canopy and allow for development of 

deciduous trees where ecologically appropriate (e.g., wet 

sites). Thinning should occur in patches and be variablespaced rather than uniform to minimize negative effects 

of reduced overstory canopy closure by maintaining some 

areas with high canopy closure.

w Under long rotations, conduct repeat thinning as necessary 

to maintain a deciduous canopy component and lengthen 

the suitability of the habitat for a longer period of time.

E Habitat Information Needs

w Are there thresholds of deciduous tree cover for Blackthroated Gray Warbler occupancy and population 

viability?

w Almost all aspects of Black-throated Gray Warbler 

breeding biology are poorly known (Guzy and Lowther 

1997) so additional information on habitat relationships 

would be valuable.
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—41

E Sapling/Seedling Forest

Early successional habitat can be highly diverse in terms of 

structure and species composition. Natural or human-induced 

early-successional forests are characterized by grasses and forbs 

for the first 2–3 years, followed by a shrub layer of tall herbaceous 

vegetation and woody vegetation such as deciduous shrubs and 

trees and conifer saplings. This condition exists until conifer trees 

approach crown closure and understory vegetation is reduced due 

to competition and shading.

Some landbird species reach maximum abundance in the 

stand initiation stage of early-successional forests. Species highly 

Forest Stage: SAPLING/SEEDLING FOREST (EARLY-SUCCESSIONAL)

Habitat Attribute: RESIDUAL CANOPY TREES

Focal Species: OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER (Contopus cooperi) Photo by Bob Altman Photo by Daniel Lebbin

Sapling/Seedling Forest

E Habitat Issue

Several landbird species are positively associated with the 

presence of large green-trees within early-successional 

forest (Vega 1993, Chambers 1996). Traditional even-aged 

management using clearcut harvesting does not provide 

habitat for these species or other species associated with latesuccessional forests that may use early-successional forest 

if the habitat attribute is available. Retention of large trees 

within harvest units increases structural heterogeneity within 

the developing forest, and provides a legacy of structure that 

may provide habitat (primarily foraging and dispersal) for 

some species associated with late-successional conditions. 

Green-trees that are retained in early-successional habitat 

will become future snags, thus also benefiting snag dependent 

species in older forest conditions.

E Habitat Objectives

w Landscapes: Within small landscapes (e.g., watersheds, 

townships, sections), provide >30% of the area as earlysuccessional forest with site-level habitat conditions as 

described below. 

w Sites: Where ecologically appropriate in earlysuccessional forests >20 ha (50 ac) provide

u >3 1-ha (2.5 ac) areas (aggregate clumps) with 10–30 

trees/ha (4–12/ac) >12 m (40 ft) high, and within the 

early successional habitat, not adjacent to the forest 

edge

u remainder of the harvest unit should average 3–5 trees/

ha (1–2/ac) >12 m (40 ft) high, dispersed relatively 

equally throughout the harvest unit (dispersed trees)

u retained large trees should be >50% hemlocks or true 

firs to provide preferred nest trees, and have ≥25% 

foliage volume for nesting substrates. 

u retain suppressed or understory plantation trees in the 

harvest unit (>13 ha [5/ac]) 3–12 m (10–40 ft) high

w Sites: In thinned sites, maintain 10–50% canopy cover 

with some areas 10–20% canopy cover.

w Sites: In post-fire habitat, maintain >40% as unsalvaged, 

and where salvage is occurring, retain all trees and snags 

>51 cm (21 in) dbh and >50% of those 27–50 cm (12–20 

in) dbh.

associated with this forest condition are often dependent upon 

some habitat attribute(s) that is either naturally occurring or can 

be provided through management. Management actions initiated 

at the early-successional stage (e.g., green-tree, snag, and hardwood 

retention; clumped thinning to create broken canopies) will benefit 

species associated with these habitat attributes in older forests by 

increasing heterogeneity and providing structural features that 

are characteristic of older forests. Structural and compositional 

attributes that we deemed most important for landbirds in the 

stand initiation/early-successional stage are residual canopy trees, 

snags, and deciduous shrub-layer vegetation.

Continued
42—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

E Population Objectives

w The density of breeding pairs should be an average of one 

pair/24 ha (60 ac) within the landscape that is suitable 

habitat (i.e., early successional with habitat conditions 

described above).

Assumptions/Data Sources: The landscape-level habitat 

objective is calculated from the regional habitat objective for 

percent of large landscapes in different successional stages 

(i.e., >30% late-successional and the remainder in mid and 

early-successional). The site-level habitat objectives are based 

on three years of data from western Oregon (Altman 1999b). 

The site-level habitat objectives for retained large trees are 

based on approximately 1

/5 of retained trees in a harvest unit 

being in small clumps and the remainder in dispersed trees. 

The population density objective is based on mean density 

data and presented as a check to see if created or maintained 

suitable habitat is supporting populations. 

Sapling/Seedling Forest—Continued

Forest Stage: SAPLING/SEEDLING FOREST (EARLY-SUCCESSIONAL)

Habitat Attribute: RESIDUAL CANOPY TREES

Focal Species: OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER (Contopus cooperi)

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w In addition to green-tree retention, seed tree, shelterwood, 

or group selection cuts may be used to meet the biological 

objectives.

w In reforestation areas, include at least 10% hemlock or true 

fir seedlings, and retain these trees through thinnings and 

harvest.

w Retain residual clumps of older forest in association with 

retained green-trees to increase edge and reduce the 

likelihood that retained trees will be lost to windtrow.

w Retain large trees in association with retained large snags 

where snags can serve as guard and foraging perches.

w Maintain retained large canopy trees through forest 

development and recruit replacement green-trees at each 

harvest entry.

E Habitat Information Needs

w Are there differences in Olive-sided Flycatcher reproductive 

success in harvest units with green-tree retention and latesuccessional habitats with large canopy openings?

w Examine prey availability and selection by Olive-sided 

Flycatchers relative to nesting success to ascertain whether 

food resources limit productivity (Altman and Sallabanks 

2000).

E Habitat Issue

The presence of snags in early-succcessional habitats is 

directly related to use of the site by cavity-nesting birds 

(Schreiber and deCalesta 1992). Intensive, efficient forest 

management practices for extraction of wood products (e.g., 

clearcutting) have reduced the availability of snags within 

Forest Stage: SAPLING/SEEDLING FOREST (EARLY-SUCCESSIONAL)

Habitat Attribute: SNAGS

Focal Species: NORTHERN FLICKER (Colaptes auratus) Photo by Erik Ackerson Photo by Tom Grey

early-successional forest. Snags are typically removed for 

economic, safety, or logistivc concerns (Neitro et al. 1985). 

Further, expansion of non-native competitors (e.g., European 

Starling) into lowland forested clearings has likely adversely 

impacted some cavity-nesting bird populations in these areas. 

During the last 20 years, guidance and management strategies 
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—43

for the conservation of cavity-nesting birds have been 

developed. Implementation of these strategies (e.g., retention 

and creation of snags) has improved the status of some cavitynesters in some early-successional forest habitats.

E Habitat Objectives

w Landscapes: Within small landscapes (e.g., watersheds, 

townships, sections), provide >30% of the area as earlysuccessional forest with site-level habitat conditions as 

described below. 

w	Sites: Where ecologically appropriate in earlysuccessional forests provide

u >3 snags/ha (1 snag/ac) ≥61 cm (24 in) dbh and >12 

m (40 ft) in height and in decay classes 2–3 (soft with 

moderate bark remaining)

u	>7 snags/ha (3 snags/ac) 40–61 cm (16–24 in) dbh 

and >12 m (40 ft) in height

u	>10 snags/ha (4 snags/ac) 10–30 cm (4–12 in) dbh 

E Population Objectives

w The density of breeding pairs should be an average of one 

pair/32 ha (80 ac) within the landscape that is suitable 

habitat (early successional with habitat conditions 

described above).

Assumptions/Data Sources: The landscape-level habitat 

objective is calculated from the regional habitat objective 

for percent of large landscapes in different successional 

stages (i.e., >30% late-successional and the remainder in mid 

and early-successional). The population density objective 

is a check to see if created or maintained suitable habitat 

is supporting populations and is based on a territory size 

of 16 ha (40 ac) (Brown 1985) and an assumption of 50% 

occupancy of suitable habitat. Snag size objectives are based 

on Deal and Setterington (2000) and Brett (1997) and the 

collective experience of several people. 

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w	Retain large dying and defective trees (e.g., broken tops, 

fungal conks, insect infestations) where they occur.

w If snags have not been retained (or insufficient in number), 

create snags within the existing forest through blasting 

tops, inoculation with heart rot, or other suitable methods 

if size of trees meets species requirements.

w Retain known or suitable nesting snags from all harvest and 

salvage activities and restrict access for fuelwood cutters.

w Clearings and snags created from forest fires should be 

left to succeed naturally where possible (Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995).

w In harvest units, implement green-tree retention for longterm snag management.

E Habitat Information Needs 

w Are there factors other than snag availability that limit 

Northern Flickers in early-successional habitat?

w Are there thresholds of snag densities or configurations 

(e.g., aggregated versus dispersed) that limit Northern 

Flicker presence, abundance, or nest success?

Forest Stage: SAPLING/SEEDLING FOREST (EARLY-SUCCESSIONAL)

Habitat Attribute: DECIDUOUS SHRUB LAYER

Focal Species: ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER (Vermivora celata) Photo by Bob Altman Photo by To Grey

E Habitat Issue

Many landbirds are positively associated with deciduous 

shrubs and trees in early-successional habitats (Morrison 

1981). Deciduous vegetation increases structural 

heterogeneity and vegetative diversity of early-successional 

habitats (Morrison and Meslow 1983). In forests managed 

for wood products, deciduous vegetation has been 

traditionally managed against because of competition with 

commercially planted conifers. A dense growth of young 

conifer trees limits overall biodiversity. Some bird species 

highly associated with deciduous vegetation in earlysuccessional habitats such as Orange-crowned Warbler, 

Rufous Hummingbird, and MacGillivray’s Warbler have 

significantly declining populations in western Oregon and 
44—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Sapling/Seedling Forest—Continued

Forest Stage: SAPLING/SEEDLING FOREST (EARLY-SUCCESSIONAL)

Habitat Attribute: DECIDUOUS SHRUB LAYER

Focal Species: ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER (Vermivora celata)

Washington. The main features of deciduous vegetation in 

early-successional habitats are cover in the shrub layer (e.g., 

ferns, salal, salmonberry, Oregon grape, rhododendron), and 

cover, height, and distribution of deciduous trees such as red 

alder and big leaf maple.

E Habitat Objectives 

w Landscapes: Within small landscapes (e.g., watersheds, 

townships, sections), provide >30% of the area as earlysuccessional forest with site-level habitat conditions as 

described below. 

w Sites: Where ecologically appropriate in earlysuccessional forest provide

u	>30% cover of the area in deciduous shrubs and small 

trees (<15 ft tall).

Assumptions/Data Sources: The landscape-level habitat 

objective is calculated from the regional habitat objective for 

percent of large landscapes in different successional stages 

(i.e., >30% late-successional and the remainder in mid and 

early-successional). The site-level habitat objective for >30% 

deciduous shrub cover was subjectively developed based on 

collective experience of several individuals.

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w Allow early-successional habitat to regenerate naturally 

where there is the potential for a structurally complex and 

well-developed deciduous component of shrubs and trees.

w Maintain deciduous vegetation in areas where conifer 

seedlings are not planted or difficult to establish such as 

along logging roads and landings; on unstable, steep slopes; 

and in moist depressions, gullies, and stream courses.

w Where vegetation management is conducted, use 

selective control of deciduous vegetation (e.g., 

immediately adjacent to conifer seedlings) by manual 

thinning or limited herbicide application.

w Where vegetation management is conducted, retain 

small, untreated patchily distributed plots (e.g., 0.1 

ha, [Marcot 1984]; 10 X 20 m, Morrison [1982]) of 

deciduous vegetation throughout the conifer plantation.

w Lengthen time in early-successional condition by 

planting a lower density of conifers in conjunction with 

limited or no competing vegetation management.

w Conduct non-uniform (i.e., patchily) thinning and 

pruning of conifers in later stages of early-successional 

and into the pole stage to maintain a deciduous shrub 

component, particularly on rich, moist sites, to enhance 

and prolong suitability of the habitat.

w Discontinue use of herbicides for deciduous tree and 

shrub control.

w Harvest entries should be carefully designed and logging 

systems tailored to site-specific conditions to minimize 

ground disturbance and site productivity. 

E Habitat Information Needs

w What are the effects of deciduous vegetation type, patch 

size, and other factors on reproductive success of Orangecrowned Warblers?

w What are the effects of different types of vegetation 

management on reproductive success of Orange-crowned 

Warblers?

E Unique Forest Habitats

Several unique habitats or habitat attributes occur within the 

coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington. Often, 

priority landbird species are associated with these habitats because 

their uniqueness results in a degree of habitat specialization and 

hence the vulnerability of the species to changes in the habitat or 

habitat attribute. In this document, we use the phrase unique forest 

habitats to capture a range of desired habitat conditions important 

for several priority landbird species.

There is extensive variability in the type of unique forest 

habitats we are emphasizing for landbird conservation. Some are 

characterized as small and occurring in scattered locations (e.g., 

mineral springs), are associated with a particular forest condition 

(e.g., large hollow snags), receive limited direct human impact 

(e.g., alpine grasslands), or their occurrence and condition is often 

controlled by natural factors such as climate, water tables, etc. 

(e.g., waterfalls). Some are widespread and occur in many forest 

conditions or landscapes (e.g., nectar-producing plants), and others 

are the result of the juxtaposition of multiple forest habitats (e.g., 

landscape mosaic forest). 

For many of these unique forest habitats or the focal species 

associated with them, less is known about the species populations 

or associations with the habitat type or attribute than for our other 

focal species. Although we provide specific biological objectives 

for each species depending on our knowledge and understanding 

of their habitat relationships, these objectives may or may not 

represent the “essential” conservation attribute like they do for our 

focal species.

Photo by Erik Ackerson
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—45

E Habitat Issue

Cover and productivity of flowering plants are influenced 

by the characteristics of the forest overstory. Lightenriched areas can produce greater biomass of flowering 

plants (Bunnell 1990). Many deciduous trees, shrubs, and 

herbaceous plants produce flowers and nectar. In forests 

managed for wood products, especially in early-successional 

habitats, deciduous vegetation is often managed against 

because of competition with commercially planted conifers or 

inadvertently degraded/destroyed as a result of management 

activities. Rufous Hummingbirds are highly associated with 

nectar produced by flowering plants, and their territory 

size is dependent on the presence and abundance of nectarproducing flowers (Horvath 1963).

E Habitat Objectives

w Sites: Where ecologically appropriate in any forest stage 

or condition provide >20% of the shrub/herbaceous 

understory cover as nectar-producing plants (e.g., 

salmonberry, rhododendron, currant).

Assumptions/Data Sources: The habitat objective for >20% 

cover as nectar-producing plants is subjective based on the 

collective experiences of several individuals.

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w Allow unmanaged early-successional habitat to regenerate 

naturally, particularly where there is the potential for a 

well-developed deciduous component of flower (nectar) 

producing plants.

w Retain and/or plant flower (nectar) producing shrubs and 

trees such as salmonberry, currant, and snowbrush, and 

herbaceous plants such as penstemenon, columbine, and 

paintbrush.

Forest Stage: UNIQUE FOREST HABITAT

Habitat Attribute: NECTAR-PRODUCING PLANTS

Focal Species: RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD (Selasphorus rufus)

w Maintain deciduous vegetation in areas where conifer 

seedlings are not planted or difficult to establish such as 

along logging roads and landings: on unstable, steep slopes; 

and in moist depressions, gullies, and stream courses.

w Where vegetation management is conducted, use selective 

control of deciduous vegetation (e.g., immediately adjacent 

to conifer seedlings) by manual thinning or limited 

herbicide application.

w Where vegetation management is being conducted, retain 

small, untreated patchily distributed plots (e.g., 0.1 ha, 

Marcot [1984]; 10 x 20 m, Morrison [1982]) of deciduous 

vegetation throughout the conifer plantation.

w Discontinue use of herbicides for deciduous tree and 

shrub control for species associated with early-successional 

deciduous shrub-layer vegetation.

w Lengthen time in early-successional condition by planting 

a lower density of conifers in conjunction with limited or 

no competing vegetation management.

w Harvest entries should be carefully designed and logging 

systems tailored to site-specific conditions to minimize 

ground disturbance and site productivity.

w Beneath transmission powerlines where vegetation is 

maintained at shrub/sapling heights, selectively retain 

flower and nectar producing shrubs and trees.

E Habitat Information Needs

w Are there degrees of Rufous Hummingbird use/selection 

of particular nectar-producing plant species?

w Are there thresholds of patch size, distribution, or number 

of nectar-producing plants for Rufous Hummingbird 

occurrence or population viability?

Photo by Erik Ackerson

Photo by Matt Lee 

Unique Forest Habitats
46—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

.

E Habitat Issue

Mineral springs/seeps are a small and rare feature of 

the coniferous forest landscapes of western Oregon and 

Washington. However, they provide an essential habitat 

resource (i.e., calcium) for nesting Band-tailed Pigeons, and 

their distribution and abundance may affect reproductive 

performance by constraining the distribution of suitable 

nesting sites (Leonard 1998). 

E Habitat Objectives

w Sites: Maintain a 2 ha (5 ac) no harvest buffer around all 

mineral springs/seeps.

w Sites: Maintain an herbicide no spray zone around 

patches >0.2 ha (0.5 ac) with >75% cover of primary 

foraging plants such as cascara, elderberry, wild cherry, 

madrone, or huckleberry.

w Sites: Maintain 10–50% shrub cover including some 

fruit, berry, or mast producing shrubs.

Assumptions/Data Sources: The 2 ha (5 ac) no-harvest buffer 

area around mineral springs is a subjective judgment to 

provide protection to these essential sites for Band-tailed 

Pigeons. The objective for shrub cover is subjective based on 

the collective experiences of several individuals.

Forest Stage: UNIQUE FOREST HABITAT

Habitat Attribute: MINERAL SPRINGS/SEEPS

Focal Species: BAND-TAILED PIGEON (Columba fasciata)

E Habitat Conservation Strategies 

w Maintain forest cover around mineral springs/seeps.

w Avoid forest management around mineral sites during the 

breeding season (late April to mid October).

w Replant and maintain berry, fruit, and mast producing 

shrubs and trees, especially near mineral sources.

w Discourage use of herbicides that eliminate berry, fruit, 

and mast producing shrubs and trees by using integrated 

pest management strategies that target specific plants.

E Habitat Information Needs

w Can created mineral springs (e.g., salt blocks buried in 

seeps) be located and function to increase distribution of 

Band-tailed Pigeon nesting territories? 

w Is there a threshold in the abundance and/or type of 

fruit, berry, and mast producing shrubs and trees within a 

successful Band-tailed Pigeon nesting territory?

w Are there vegetation features (or patch configurations/

sizes) associated with mineral springs/seeps that make 

these sites more productive for Band-tailed Pigeons?

Photo by Erik Ackerson

.Photo by Gary Kramer - U. S. Fish & Wildlife

Unique Forest Habitats—Continued

Photo by Bob Altman
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—47

Forest Stage: UNIQUE FOREST HABITAT

Habitat Attribute: MONTANE WET MEADOWS

Focal Species: LINCOLN’S SPARROW (Melospiza lincolnii) Photo courtesy of Olympic National Park Photo by Ted Ardley

E Habitat Issue

Montane wet meadows are varying-sized, patchily distributed, 

unique components of the coniferous forests of western 

Oregon and Washington. Lincoln’s Sparrows are obligate 

to montane wet meadows for nesting habitat. Grazing can 

reduce the suitability of the habitat by altering the vegetative 

composition and abundance. Tree harvesting adjacent to 

wet meadows can alter the hydrological component of the 

meadows and reduce the quality of the habitat due to erosion, 

especially where there are steep slopes. 

E Habitat Objectives

w Sites: Maintain a 0.1 km (0.17 mi) no–harvest buffer 

zone around montane wet meadows.

Assumptions/Data Sources: The habitat objective for a 0.4 

km (0.25 mi) no-harvest buffer zone around montane wet 

meadows is a subjective judgment to provide protection to 

these discreet and limited habitats.

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w Avoid timber management activities (e.g., road 

construction) in montane wet meadows.

w Restrict domestic animal grazing from montane wet 

meadows.

E Habitat Information Needs

w What are the appropriate buffer widths around montane 

wet meadows necessary to maintain suitable hydrological 

conditions and an abundant food source for Lincoln’s 

Sparrow?

Forest Stage: UNIQUE FOREST HABITAT

Habitat Attribute: ALPINE GRASSLANDS

Focal Species: AMERICAN PIPIT (Anthus rubescens) Photo by Bob Altman Photo by Gary Smyle

Continued
48—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Unique Forest Habitats—Continued

Forest Stage: UNIQUE FOREST HABITAT

Habitat Attribute: ALPINE GRASSLANDS

Focal Species: AMERICAN PIPIT (Anthus rubescens)

E Habitat Issue

Alpine grasslands occur above treeline on the highest 

mountain ranges. American Pipits are obligate to alpine 

grassland habitats for nesting and reproduction. Alpine 

grassland habitats are one of the most likely habitats to be 

reduced in size by the effects of climate change. Grazing can 

reduce the suitability of these fragile habitats by altering the 

vegetative composition and abundance, and exacerbate the 

anticipated losses from climate change.

E Habitat Objectives

Sites: Restrict domestic animal grazing from alpine 

grasslands <10 ha (25 ac), and limit the timing and/or 

areas of domestic animal grazing on all alpine grasslands 

>10 ha (25 ac). Not a habitat objective—a strategy.

Assumptions/Data Sources: The habitat objective for restricted 

or limited grazing in alpine grasslands is a subjective judgment 

to protect these fragile habitats.

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w	Conduct management (i.e., tree and shrub removal) to 

maintain the herbaceous dominance of grasslands where 

woody encroachment is occurring.

E Habitat Information Needs

w	What are the threshold levels of grazing that result in 

compromised density and/or reproductive success of 

American Pipits in alpine grasslands?

w	Is management to thwart encroachment of woody vegetation 

sufficient to maintain populations of American Pipit or are 

there additional climate change issues related to herbaceous 

vegetation (e.g., changes in species composition) that are 

also affecting American Pipit populations?

Forest Stage: UNIQUE FOREST HABITAT

Habitat Attribute: WATERFALLS

Focal Species: BLACK SWIFT (Cypseloides niger) Photo by Erik Ackerson Photo by Glan Tepke

E Habitat Issue

Waterfalls are unique and limited features of the coniferous 

forested landscapes of western Oregon and Washington. 

Black Swifts are obligate to waterfalls for nesting and roosting. 

Waterfall presence and quality is dependent on stream flows 

which can be affected by forest harvest activities within the 

watershed.

E Habitat Objectives

w Sites: Maintain a 0.1 km (0.17 mi) no-harvest buffer 

zone around known nesting waterfalls.

E Population Objectives

w Maintain breeding populations at 100% of known and 

newly located sites.

Assumptions/Data Sources: The habitat objective for a 0.1 km 

(0.17 mi) no-harvest buffer zone around nesting waterfalls is 

a subjective judgment to provide protection to these discreet 

and limited nesting sites. The population objective for 

maintaining 100% of the populations is based on the small 

population of this species, and its obligate relationship to 

waterfalls.

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w	Avoid management activities that reduce stream flows to 

waterfalls.

E Habitat Information Needs

w	Complete inventory of waterfalls for nesting Black Swifts 

in western Oregon.
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—49

Forest Stage: UNIQUE FOREST HABITAT

Habitat Attribute: LARGE HOLLOW SNAGS

Focal Species: VAUX’S SWIFT (Chaetura vauxi) Photo by Erik Ackerson Photo by Glen Tepke

E Habitat Issue

Large snags with hollow trunks provide unique and essential 

habitat for several wildlife species. In late-successional 

unmanaged forests, large hollow snags can be regularly 

occurring due to natural processes. Vaux’s Swifts require 

these snags for nesting and roosting in late-successional 

conifer forests (Bull and Collins 1993). Suitable large hollow 

snags for Vaux’s Swift are rare in forests managed for wood 

products, but they have been reported nesting and roosting 

in logged forest in northeastern Oregon (Bull and Hohmann 

1992) where some large snags are retained. If nesting habitat 

can be provided in forests managed for wood products, it 

will likely require long rotations with snag and/or greentree retention (recruitment snags) at all harvest entries and 

through multiple rotations. Proximity to aquatic/riparian 

habitats for increased prey base may be important for Vaux’s 

Swift in drier sites (e.g., mixed-conifer forests of the Klamath 

Mountains ecoregion).

E Habitat Objectives

w Landscapes: Provide an ≥5 potential nest/roost 

structures (as described below) per square mile 

within landscape management units (e.g., watersheds, 

townships, sections) at any point in time, under the 

following conditions:

u	≥30% with broken tops (created or natural)

u up to 20% can be snags

u ≤70% can be live trees with obvious signs of defects 

(broken tops, large cavity excavations)

w Sites: Maintain a 2 ha (5 ac) no harvest buffer around all 

known nest or roost sites.

w Sites: Where ecologically appropriate, initiate actions to 

maintain or provide the following conditions:

u hollow snags in different stages of decay that are

u >68 cm (27 in) dbh and >25 m (82 ft) tall

u aerial accessible either above the canopy or in canopy 

gaps

u in forest patches with ≥60% canopy closure

Assumptions/Data Sources: Most data are from forests in 

northeastern Oregon, and from a limited sample size of 

nests. Objectives for canopy closure, snag size and height are 

based on data from Bull and Collins (1993). Objectives for 

nest/roost conditions reflect a range of potential nest types 

to maintain the species throughout an area.

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w Extend rotation ages to >100 years to provide snags 

of sufficient size, and retain these snags and recruit 

replacement snags (large live trees) at each harvest entry.

w In harvest units and riparian buffer zones, retain the largest 

live trees, particularly dying or defective trees (e.g., broken 

tops, fungal conks, insect infestations), through rotations 

as recruitment snags for potential nest sites.

w Retain known or suitable nesting and roosting snags, 

particularly hollow snags, from all harvest and salvage 

activities and restrict access for fuelwood cutters.

w If snags have not been retained (or insufficient in number), 

create snags through blasting tops, inoculation with heart 

rot, or other effective methods if size of trees meets species 

requirements.

w Where possible, introduce fire into forests with large snags 

to enhance processes to create hollow snags.

w Avoid use of pesticides near retained snags (Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995).

Continued
50—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Unique Forest Habitats—Continued

Forest Stage: UNIQUE FOREST HABITAT

Habitat Attribute: LARGE HOLLOW SNAGS

Focal Species: VAUX’S SWIFT (Chaetura vauxi)

Forest Stage: UNIQUE FOREST HABITAT

Habitat Attribute: LANDSCAPE MOSAIC FOREST

Focal Species: BLUE (SOOTY) GROUSE (Dendragapus obscurus) Photo by Bob Altman Photo by Glen Tepke

E Habitat Issue

Some wildlife species are associated with the juxtaposition 

of several habitat types or successional stages to meet their 

habitat requirements. These “landscape” species have 

threshold requirements for the presence and amount of 

habitat types or conditions.

E Habitat Objectives

w Sites: Maintain an interspersion of tree cover (20–50%), 

shrub cover (10–40%), and herbaceous cover (30–60%) 

within a 0.8 km (0.5 mi) radius.

Assumptions/Data Sources: The site-level habitat objective for 

interspersion of tree, shrub, and herbaceous cover is based 

mostly on Schroeder (1984) with subjective modifications 

for the Pacific Northwest.

E Habitat Conservation Strategies 

w In managed landscapes, ensure diversity of habitat types 

and conditions.

E Habitat Information Needs 

w Is there a particular range of patch configurations etc. that 

favor occupancy and reproduction of Sooty Grouse?

E Habitat Information Needs

w Data are needed on all aspects of Vaux’s Swifts nesting 

ecology and habitat use in coniferous forests. For example, 

are there limiting factors such as microclimate, proximity 

to water or forest openings?

w In forests manage for wood products, will riparian buffer 

zones or logged forest provide Vaux’s Swift nesting habitat 

if suitable large hollow snags are retained? If so, are there 

limiting factors such as buffer width, patch size, snag 

distribution, density, or configuration?

w How can processes that create hollow snags (e.g., heart 

rot, fire) be incorporated and maintained through forest 

management?

w Will Vaux’s swifts recolonize areas where suitable snags are 

created? Are there variables to consider such as proximity 

to riparian habitats, proximity to other nesting areas?

Photo by Erik Ackerson 
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—51

E Klamath Mountains Mixed Conifer and Mixed

Hardwood-Conifer Forests

The structurally and floristically complex mixed forests of 

the Klamath Mountains ecoregion of southwestern Oregon 

provide a diversity of habitat conditions unique to western 

Oregon and Washington due not only to floristic diversity 

but also to substantial variability in elevation and aspect.

Forest Type: KLAMATH MOUNTAINS MIXED CONIFER

and MIXED HARDWOOD-CONIFER FORESTS 

Habitat Attribute: PINE-OAK CANOPY/SUBCANOPY TREES

Focal Species: PURPLE FINCH (Carpodacus purpureus) Photo by Bob Altman Photo by Bill Hubick

Kalamath Mountains Mixed Conifer and Mixed Hardwood-Conifer Forests

E Habitat Issue

The presence of ponderosa pine and several species of oaks 

in the mixed forest of the Klamath Mountains ecoregion of 

southwestern Oregon provide unique habitat opportunities 

for several bird species with habitat affinities for those trees. 

The economic incentives for harvest of large ponderosa 

pines and the economic disincentives for the presence 

and competition of large oaks results in potential loss of 

the habitat value these trees provide under some forest 

management practices.

E Habitat Objectives

w	Sites: Maintain >60% canopy/subcanopy closure, 

especially where pine and oak are part of the canopy.

w	Sites: Where ecologically appropriate (e.g., drier sites), 

maintain >25% canopy cover of pine and oak trees.

Assumptions/Data Sources: The significant relationship of 

Purple Finch with pine and oak canopy trees is based on 

data from southwestern Oregon (Alexander 1999). The sitelevel habitat objective for >60% cover in the canopy and 

subcanopy, and >25% canopy cover of pine and oak trees 

was subjectively developed based on collective experience of 

several individuals.

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w	Retain all mature pine-oak canopy trees.

w	Conduct thinning or other forest management to select 

for growth of mature pine and oak trees in ecologically 

appropriate sites.

w	Where managed regeneration is occurring, plant pine and 

oak trees in ecologically appropriate sites (e.g., drier sites).

E Habitat Information Needs

w	What are the threshold and most suitable levels of canopy 

cover and cover of pines and oaks for Purple Finch 

occupancy and population viability?

w	Are there patch size thresholds for Purple Finch occupancy 

and population viability?

Photo by Bob Altman
52—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington Photo by Michael Stubblefield

Kalamath Mountains Mixed Conifer and Mixed Hardwood-Conifer Forest 

— Continued

E Habitat Issue

Many bird species are highly associated with understory 

shrub-layer vegetation in the mixed forests of the Klamath 

Mountains ecoregion. The degree of development of a 

shrub understory is dependent on site conditions, with 

lower elevation and wetter sites most suitable, especially 

north facing slopes. Forest management activities such as 

harvest and thinning have immediate although usually 

short-term (i.e., <5 years) negative impacts on shrub-layer 

cover. In intensively managed forests, competing vegetation 

management (i.e., removal and management against 

deciduous vegetation) results in short-term and long-term 

negative effects on shrub-layer cover. Furthermore, a recent 

emphasis on fuels reduction as part of fire management 

is resulting in significant local losses of shrub cover with 

unknown cumulative impacts across the region.

E Habitat Objectives

w Sites: Where ecologically appropriate (e.g., wetter sites), 

maintain or provide >40% understory shrub layer cover.

Forest Type: KLAMATH MOUNTAINS MIXED CONIFER

and MIXED HARDWOOD-CONIFER FORESTS 

Habitat Attribute: DENSE SHRUB UNDERSTORY

Focal Species: NASHVILLE WARBLER (Vermivora ruficapilla) 

Assumptions/Rationale: The site-level habitat objective for 

40% understory cover in the shrub layer was subjectively 

developed based on collective experience of several 

individuals.

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w Promote understory growth through natural disturbance 

or management that breaks up the forest canopy yet still 

maintains the dominance of a mid- or late-successional 

forest.

w Discontinue use of herbicides for deciduous tree and shrub 

control.

E Habitat Information Needs

w What are the threshold and most suitable amounts of shrub 

cover for Nashville Warbler occupancy and population 

viability?

w What are the degrees of negative impacts of fuels reduction 

activities on Nashville Warbler habitat and populations?

w What are the range of spatial patterns of patches that 

promote occupancy and population viability of Nashville 

Warblers while effectively reducing fire risk?

Photo by Bob Altman
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—53

Forest Type: KLAMATH MOUNTAINS MIXED CONIFER

and MIXED HARDWOOD-CONIFER FORESTS 

Habitat Attribute: SHRUB-HERBACEOUS INTERSPERSION UNDERSTORY

Focal Species: HERMIT THRUSH (Catharus guttatus) Photo by Bill Hubick

E Habitat Issue

Some bird species in the mixed forests of the Klamath 

Mountains ecoregion require a shrub layer for nesting and 

open herbaceous ground for foraging. The relationship 

between shrub and herbaceous cover is dependent on site 

conditions, especially moisture levels affected by variables 

such as elevation, aspect, proximity to streams, etc. 

Furthermore, a recent emphasis on fuels reduction as part 

of fire management is resulting in significant local losses of 

shrub cover with unknown cumulative impacts across the 

region.

E Habitat Objectives

w Landscapes: Within 1,000 ha (2,500 ac) blocks, provide 

patch sizes according to the following forest cover 

amounts for high suitability habitat:

u >90% forest cover = >8 ha (20 ac) patch size

u >80% forest cover = >26 ha (64 ac) patch size

u >70% forest cover = >66 ha (163 ac) patch size

u >60% forest cover = >156 ha (385 ac) patch size

u >50% forest cover = >353 ha (873 ac) patch size

w Sites: Where ecologically appropriate, maintain an 

understory ratio of shrub-herbaceous (includes bare 

ground) cover within a range of 30–70% for each 

parameter.

Assumptions/Data Sources: The landscape-level objective 

for the relationship between patch size and forest cover is 

based on summarized data from throughout Western North 

America indicating the sensitivity of Hermit Thrush to forest 

fragmentation (Rosenberg et al. 2003). The site-level habitat 

objective for 30–70% understory cover of either shrubs 

or herbaceous cover was subjectively developed based on 

collective experience of several individuals.

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w Remove or explicitly control the timing and intensity of 

grazing to develop and promote the long-term persistence 

and balance of shrub and herbaceous communities.

w Promote understory growth through natural disturbance 

or management that breaks up the forest canopy yet still 

maintains the dominance of a mid- or late-successional 

forest.

w Where ecologically appropriate in drier mixed conifer 

forests, maintain large forest tracts (i.e., minimize 

fragmentation) for highly suitable habitat.

E Habitat Information Needs

w What are the threshold and most suitable ratios of shrub 

and herbaceous cover for Hermit Thrush occupancy and 

population viability?

w Are Hermit Thrush sensitivities to forest fragmentation in 

Western North America (Rosenberg et al. 2003) applicable 

to the mixed conifer/mixed conifer-hardwood forests of 

the Klamath Mountains?

w What are the range of spatial patterns of patches that 

promote occupancy and population viability of Hermit 

Thrush while effectively reducing fire risk?

Photo by Bob Altman
54—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington Photo by Matt Lee 

Kalamath Mountains Mixed Conifer and Mixed Hardwood-Conifer Forest 

— Continued

Forest Type: KLAMATH MOUNTAINS MIXED CONIFER

and MIXED HARDWOOD-CONIFER FORESTS 

Habitat Attribute: FOREST CANOPY EDGES

Focal Species: WESTERN TANAGER (Piranga ludoviciana) 

E Habitat Issue 

Many forest birds find suitable habitat at the juxtaposition 

of the canopy and forest openings where increased sunlight 

supports greater foliage and insect density. Forest canopy 

edge habitats occur naturally in the complex mixed forests 

of the Klamath Mountains ecoregion due to the floristic 

diversity and variable growth site potential due to moisture, 

elevation, aspect, etc. Intensive forest management can reduce 

the understory foliage density and diversity to support insect 

populations and/or reduce the forest edge canopy cover below 

levels needed for forest birds such as Western Tanager.

E Habitat Objectives

w Sites: Where ecologically appropriate, maintain a 

dispersed or patchy forest canopy with cover between 

40–70%. 

Assumptions/Data Sources: The site-level habitat objective for 

40–70% dispersed or patchy canopy cover was subjectively 

developed based on collective experience of several 

individuals.

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w Promote forest edges through natural disturbance or 

management that breaks up the forest canopy yet still 

maintains the dominance of a mid- or late-successional 

forest.

w Conduct variable density thinning with some small 

openings to create more edge habitat.

E Habitat Information Needs 

w What are the habitat suitability relationships between 

forest cover and edge habitat for Western Tanager 

occupancy and population viability?

Photo by Bob Altman
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—55

E Habitat Issues

Montane brushfields occur naturally at higher elevations 

where soils and other conditions (e.g., south facing slopes, 

harsher climate) are more suitable for lower growing shrubby 

vegetation than large trees and dense forests. 

E Habitat Objectives

w Sites: Where ecologically appropriate, maintain shrub 

cover >60% within a forest with canopy cover <30% 

cover.

Assumptions/Data Sources: The site-level habitat objective for 

>60% shrub cover and <30% canopy cover was subjectively 

developed based on collective experience of several 

individuals.

Forest Type: KLAMATH MOUNTAINS MIXED CONIFER

and MIXED HARDWOOD-CONIFER FORESTS 

Habitat Attribute: MONTANE BRUSHFIELDS

Focal Species: FOX SPARROW (Passerella iliaca)

E Habitat Conservation Strategies

w Discontinue use of herbicides for deciduous tree and shrub 

control for species associated with deciduous shrub and 

small tree cover.

w Minimize or discontinue grazing in naturally occurring 

montane brushfields to maintain shrub cover levels and the 

herbaceous understory and interspersion that protects the 

soils from erosion, especially on steeper slopes.

Habitat Information Needs

w What are the threshold and most suitable amounts of 

shrub cover for Fox Sparrow occupancy and population 

viability?

Photo by Pepper Trail

Photo by James Leupold - U.S. Fish & Wildlife
56—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

E Habitat Issue 

Some bird species respond positively to the conditions 

created by wildfires. Lazuli Buntings demonstrate a strong 

positive response to early-successional conditions following 

fires throughout their range (Hutto 1995, Leidolf et al. 2007) 

including the Klamath Mountains ecoregion (Seavy 2006, 

Fontaine 2007). Salvage logging to harvest the standing 

dead trees is a management option in post-wildfire habitat. 

Salvage logging not only removes standing dead tree habitat 

for birds, but also can negatively impact the presence and/or 

quality of shrub habitat through ground-disturbing activities. 

Furthermore, post-salvage planting and management for 

conifer trees often selects against deciduous trees and shrubs 

through activities of competing vegetation management.

E Habitat Objectives

w Sites: Maintain post-wildfire vegetation, especially 

deciduous shrub/tree vegetation, where opportunities 

exist or can be managed for with <20% live tree cover 

and a shrub-herbaceous (includes bare ground) cover 

ratio that is within a range of 30-70% for each parameter.

Assumptions/Data Sources: The site-level habitat objective 

for amounts of tree, shrub, and herbaceous cover was 

subjectively developed based on collective experience of 

several individuals.

Forest Type: KLAMATH MOUNTAINS MIXED CONIFER

and MIXED HARDWOOD-CONIFER FORESTS 

Habitat Attribute: POST-WILDFIRE

Focal Species: LAZULI BUNTING (Passerina amoena) Photo by Tom Grey

E Habitat Conservation Strategies 

w Discontinue use of herbicides for deciduous tree and shrub 

control for species associated with deciduous vegetation in 

post-fire habitat.

w Restore fire as a management tool where ecologically 

appropriate.

w Maintain areas of unaltered post-fire habitat where 

regeneration can occur naturally.

w Retain and encourage the development of shrubs within 

post-fire habitat

w Minimize the impact to shrubs during management 

activities in post-fire habitat

E Habitat Information Needs

w What are the threshold and most suitable amounts and 

ratios of tree, shrub, and herbaceous cover for Lazuli 

Bunting occupancy and population viability?

w Under what conditions do nest parasitism or nest 

predation negatively influence breeding success of Lazuli 

Bunting populations in open conditions following fires?

Photo by Jaime Stephens 

Kalamath Mountains Mixed Conifer and Mixed Hardwood-Conifer Forest 

— Continued
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—57

Implementation

As stated earlier, our goal for landbird conservation is to 

promote long-term persistence of healthy populations of native 

landbirds. To facilitate accomplishing this goal, the quantitative 

biological objectives we have presented will need to be:

w integrated across focal species and habitat types and 

conditions

w implemented at several geographic and ecological scales

w coordinated among various landowners and land 

management agencies

w monitored and adjusted as new data warrant

Implementation also will likely require the need for areas which 

function as reserves (primarily federal lands), and as described 

throughout this document, a blend of conventional forestry with 

modifications such as longer rotations, structural heterogeneity, 

and efforts to create old-growth attributes in managed forest 

(Bunnell et al. 1997). Thus implementation to achieve our landbird 

conservation objectives will require careful consideration of 

numerous potential options to maximize conservation efforts, and 

integrate the diverse values and goals of landowners with that of 

bird conservation. Our biological objectives are intended to be 

the foundation for developing these comprehensive, integrated 

strategies. An overview of the process and example case studies 

of the integration of multi-species objectives in land management 

planning and implementation is presented in Bettinger et al. 

(2001). 

It is beyond the scope of this document to attempt to describe all 

the potential considerations when developing an implementation 

strategy for landbird conservation. Some of these have been 

described in other sources (e.g., Altman and Hagar 2007). Herein, 

we describe some things to consider relative to the habitats and 

focal species emphasized in the document.

...implementation to achieve our 

landbird conservation objectives 

will require careful consideration 

of numerous potential options to 

maximize conservation efforts, and 

integrate the diverse values and 

goals of landowners with that of bird 

conservation. Our biological objectives 

are intended to be the foundation 

for developing these comprehensive, 

integrated strategies.

At small scales, management 

decisions should be based on how 

a parcel of land can contribute to 

bird conservation by emphasizing 

the most ecologically appropriate 

habitat attributes and focal 

species based on site-specific 

factors unique to that area.

“

” 

“

” 

Protected Areas

The importance of protected areas as a part of natural 

resource conservation and ecosystem management has been well 

documented (Noss 1996, Dellasalla et al. 1996). Within our 

geographic scope, there are existing and proposed protected areas 

to address the conservation needs of wildlife species in coniferous 

forests of the Pacific Northwest, especially late-successional forests. 

Within this document, it is not our intent to expand on this topic, 

but to recognize the value of these areas and support their role in 

conservation through our biological objectives for late-successional 

forest.

Scale and Landscape Considerations

Biological objectives at the site-scale for one focal species or 

habitat attribute can be in direct conflict with those for another. 

Indeed, actions designed to manage for one focal species are often 

detrimental to other focal species. For example, at the site scale, 

the objective to provide deciduous canopy trees for Pacific-slope 

Flycatcher in late-successional forest is counter to the objective to 

maintain high canopy cover of coniferous trees for Hermit Warbler. 

Likewise the open subcanopy needs of Hammond’s Flycatcher are 

in direct conflict with the multilayered understory and subcanopy 

needed by Varied Thrush. However, management actions should 

be employed in an integrated and complementary design across 

the landscape to accommodate these conflicting objectives at the 

site-scale. This will require cooperative decisions by appropriate 

land managers at the landscape scale on the proportion and spatial 

distribution of the area desired in particular successional stages or 

containing particular habitat attributes.

It also is impractical and may be inappropriate to attempt 

conservation for the entire landbird community or all our focal 

species on any one property. At small scales, management decisions 

should be based on how a parcel of land can contribute to bird 

conservation by emphasizing the most ecologically appropriate 

habitat attributes and focal species based on site-specific factors 

unique to that area. For example, areas with relatively poor site 

potential for growth and development of characteristics associated 
58—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

with older forest conditions (e.g., drier sites) could be designated as 

management areas for early and mid-successional focal species. Areas 

with relatively good site potential for growth and development of 

characteristics associated with older forest conditions could be 

designated as management areas for focal species associated with 

these conditions.

Conversely, at smaller scales, multiple biological objectives for 

focal species can be achieved simultaneously through a combination 

of management actions. For example, combining variable-spaced 

thinning with retention of old-growth clumps from the preharvest stand will further diversify forest structure through stand 

development and potentially reduce short-term negative effects of 

thinning on bird species associated with dense forest canopies and 

old-growth attributes (e.g., Pacific-slope Flycatcher and Hermit 

Warbler). These actions also will increase the likelihood that 

younger forests will be used by species associated with older forests 

and larger trees such as Brown Creeper (Dellasala et al. 1996).

It also will be important to consider where habitat conservation 

networks are necessary to conserve landbird populations. This may 

include a network of upslope and riparian corridors to connect 

tracts of similar habitat. Although the connectivity of habitats that 

function as corridors may not be essential for mobile animals like 

birds (With 1999), the connectivity may be particularly important 

for area-sensitive species such as Winter Wren and Varied Thrush 

when it results in an expansion of the area of suitable habitat.

Regional Prioritization of Ecoregions, 

Forest Types, and Forest Conditions

This document encourages habitat management at all scales. 

However, for those making decisions on allocation of resources at 

regional scales, we suggest the highest priorities for conservation 

of focal species and their associated habitat attributes include three 

ecoregions, two forest types, and one successional stage:

E Regional Scale: High Priority Ecoregions

w Klamath Mountains

w Oregon Coast Range

w Olympic Peninsula

E Regional Scale: High Priority Forest Types

w Western Hemlock/Western Red-cedar forest

w Mixed conifer and hardwood-conifer forest of the 

Klamath Mountains ecoregion

E Regional Scale: High Priority Forest 

Conditions

w Late-successional Forest

It is noteworthy that the three high priority physiographic 

provinces include all the coastal forest ranges in western Oregon 

and Washington. These areas have been heavily impacted and have 

disproportionately high numbers of declining species. Among the 

high priority forest types, Western hemlock/Western red-cedar 

provides high quality habitat for nearly every focal species, and also 

is the most impacted forest type from habitat loss and alteration. 

The mixed conifer and hardwood-conifer forests of Klamath 

Mountains ecoregion of southwestern Oregon support the greatest 

diversity of landbird species in the coniferous forests of western 

Oregon and Washington. Finally, it is widely recognized and we 

fully support the prioritization of late-successional forest because 

of the reduction of this successional stage throughout coniferous 

forests of western Oregon and Washington.

Below the regional scale, numerous other decisions have to be 

made relative to the “ecological appropriateness” of the area for 

emphasizing certain habitat attributes or species, and finally the 

more specific decisions regarding the species or habitat attributes 

to emphasize in implementing conservation actions. To facilitate 

some of these decisions, we prioritize focal species by forest type 

and ecoregion in Table 8, and then summarize the key habitat 

relationships and biological objectives for the focal species and 

associated habitat attributes in Table 9. It should be noted that if 

conservation is not recommended (or a low recommendation) for 

a species at a particular place, it may still be appropriate to conduct 

habitat management for the habitat attribute using a surrogate 

species (i.e., other species that will benefit; see Appendix A).

...it is widely recognized and we 

fully support the prioritization 

of late-successional forest 

because of the reduction of this 

successional stage throughout 

coniferous forests of western 

Oregon and Washington.

“

” 

Photo by Erik Ackerson
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—59

Opportunities for Participation

Implementation of landbird conservation in the coniferous 

forests of western Oregon and Washington will require a broad 

range of partnerships, an extensive amount of cooperation, and 

considerable financial resources. However, the opportunities 

for participation in landbird conservation as described in this 

document are numerous. These could occur at any level from a 

small landowner who provides habitat for one species to detailed, 

complex multi-agency/organization multi-species conservation 

efforts within large-scale management units such as ecoregions. 

These types of large-scale efforts will require participation from 

federal and state natural resource agencies, forest products industry, 

academia, private environmental organizations, etc.

Recently, Joint Venture partnerships have expanded their 

mission beyond wetland and waterfowl conservation to function as 

a delivery mechanism for all-bird, all-habitat conservation. Because 

of the tremendous habitat diversity within the PCJV, and the limited 

amount of resources available for bird and habitat conservation, the 

PCJV partnership is focusing its current efforts on lowland habitats 

(e.g., riparian, oak, grassland) within the landscape of its traditional 

focus on wetlands. Thus, most coniferous forest habitat, which 

occurs at higher elevations, is not a current focus of the PCJV. 

However, where tracts of coniferous forest occur in the lowland 

landscapes there are opportunities to work with bird conservation 

partners to provide “added value” to PCJV projects, by including 

coniferous forest habitat management activities.

Conservation Design

Because of the complexities of scale, species, and ownerships 

as described above and throughout this document, efficient and 

effective implementation of landbird conservation across the region 

will not only require extensive partnerships and cooperation, but 

also a strong scientific biological foundation within the context 

of multiple biological and non-biological goals and objectives. 

Many agencies and organizations are undertaking this type of 

“conservation design” either independently within their ownership 

(e.g., Comprehensive Conservation Plans of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service) or in partnership across large landscapes (e.g., 

Ecoregional Planning of The Nature Conservancy). It is beyond the 

scope of this document to provide a spatially-explicit, integrated 

design of how habitat conservation should occur to support our 

biological objectives. However, for illustrative purposes, we provide 

an example of conservation design for Pacific-slope Flycatcher 

and a suite of late-successional focal species on U.S. Forest Service 

lands within the Hamma Hamma watershed (Appendix C). 

Additionally, we encourage bird conservation partners to use our 

biological objectives as part of the development of spatially-explicit 

landscapes for bird conservation.

Photo by Erik Ackerson

Photo by Erik Ackerson
60—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Table 8. Regional prioritization of forest types and ecoregions for conservation of focal species in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington.1 (Note: The use of tables to prioritize species or habitats for an ecoregion, forest type, or habitat condition should be considered “tools” for planning and initiating conservation actions, but should not replace local knowledge or data on the applicability of those same species and habitats). 

Forest

Stage

Habitat 

Attribute

Focal

Species

Forest Type2 Ecoregions3

Elevations4 SS WH SF MH MC OP CR KM NC SC WC HC

Old Growth/ Mature

Large snags Pileated Woodpecker 2 5 1 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 Low-mid

Old-growth/ Mature

Large trees Brown Creeper 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 All

Old-Growth/ Mature

Deciduous canopy/ subcanopy

Pacific-slope Flycatcher 1 1 2 4 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 Low-mid

Old Growth/ Mature

Mid-story tree layers Varied Thrush 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 Mid-high

Mature/ Young Canopy closure Hermit/Townsend’s

Warbler

3 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 1 1 2 All

Mature/ Young Open mid-story Hammond’s Flycatcher 4 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 Mid-high

Mature/ Young Deciduous understory Wilson’s Warbler 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 All

Mature/ Young Forest floor complexity Winter Wren 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 All

Young/ Pole Deciduous canopy trees Black-throated Gray Warbler 1 1 3 4 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 4 Low-mid

Sapling/ Seedling Residual canopy trees Olive-sided Flycatcher 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 All

Sapling/ Seedling Snags Northern Flicker 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 All

Sapling/ Seedling Deciduous shrub layer Orange-crowned Warbler 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 Low-mid

Unique Mineral springs Band-tailed Pigeon 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 Low-mid

Unique Alpine American Pipit 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 1 1 4 1 High

Unique Waterfalls Black Swift 4 4 2 1 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 Mid-high

Unique Wet meadows Lincoln’s Sparrow 4 4 3 2 3 4 4 3 2 2 3 1 High

Unique Nectar-producing plants Rufous Hummingbird 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 All

Unique Landscape mosaic forest Blue (Sooty) Grouse 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 All

1 The habitat relationships presented here are for breeding season nesting habitat only and do not include the six focal species for southwestern Oregon which are representative of only one forest type (MC) and one 

ecoregion (KM). Primary sources include: Manuwal et al. (1987), Smith et al. (1997), Alexander (1999), Johnson and O’Neil (2001), Marshall et al. (2003), and Wahl et al. (2005).

2 Only conifer-dominated forest types are considered. SS=Sitka Spruce; WH=Western Hemlock (includes Western Red-cedar and Douglas-Fir); SF = Pacific Silver Fir; MH = Mountain Hemlock; MC = Mixed Conifer 

(includes Shasta Red Fir; southwest Oregon only) Source; Franklin and Dyrness, (1980).

3 Ecoregions. OP = Olympic Peninsula (Washington); CR = Coast Range (Oregon and Washington); KM = Klamath Mountains (Oregon); NC = Northern Cascades (Washington); SC = Southern Cascades (Washington); 

WC = Western Cascades (Oregon); HC = High Cascades (Oregon)

Continued
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—61

4 Elevations identify where the species is most abundant and where conservation should be emphasized. Birds may occur outside of these limits, but these are peripheral to the core of the species breeding distribution and of 

less conservation importance. The subjective elevation categories of low, mid, and high should be considered relative to the range of elevations that occur within the area of interest.

5 The subjective categorizing of focal bird species use of forest types and ecoregions is provided to assist land managers to prioritize conservation towards the forest type(s) or ecoregions(s) most important for that species. 

Lower numbers indicate a higher degree of importance for that forest type or ecoregion for that species relative to other forest types or ecoregions for that species (i.e., higher priority).

1 = focal species is highly associated with this forest type or ecoregion (i.e., its breeding population is of high abundance relative to other forest types or ecoregions) and this is the most appropriate forest type or ecoregion to target for conservation activities for this species provided other factors are suitable (e.g., range, successional stage, habitat features, etc.).2 = focal species is moderately associated with this forest type or ecoregion (i.e., its breeding population is of moderate abundance relative to other forest types and ecoregions) and it is appropriate to target this forest 

type or ecoregion for conservation activities for this species provided other factors are suitable (e.g., range, successional stage, habitat features, etc.).3 = focal species has a low association with this forest type or ecoregion (i.e., its breeding population is of low abundance relative to other forest types and ecoregions) and it is not recommended to target this forest type or ecoregion for conservation activities for this species, although recognition of the limited use of this forest type or ecoregion by this species is appropriate.4 = focal species either does not occur or only occasionally occurs as a breeding species in this forest type or ecoregion and conservation activities for this species are not recommended. If conservation is not recommended (low or no association) for a focal species at a particular place based on this table, it may still be desirable to conduct habitat management for the habitat attribute using a surrogate species from the “species to benefit” list in Appendix A.

Using the Regional Prioritization TableDetermine your ecoregion and forest type. Look for focal species with 1s or 2s to target for conservation. For focal species with 3s or 4s, consider the applicability of other species listed under species to benefit in Appendix A (i.e., their range and abundance) to capture the habitat attributes of the non-targeted 3s and 4s species. Example Silver Fir forest type in the North Cascades ecoregion: Focal species not to be targeted include Black-throated Gray Warbler and Orange-crowned Warbler. Surrogate species from the species to benefit list include Cassin’s Vireo or Black-headed Grosbeak for Black-throated Gray Warbler and MacGillivray’s Warbler for Orange-crowned Warbler.

Table 8. Regional prioritization of forest types and ecoregions for conservation of focal species in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington.1 — Continued

Photo by Erik Ackerson
62—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Table 9. Summary of habitat relationships and biological objectives for focal species in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington.

Forest 

Condition

Habitat 

Attribute

Focal 

Species

Habitat Relationships/Biological Objectives

Vegetative 

Compositiona Vegetation Structure Patch size Landscape Special Considerations

Old-Growth/ Mature

Large snags Pileated 

Woodpecker

Douglas-fir >70% canopy closure with >70% 

conifer; 2 nest snags/ha >80 cm dbh and >15 foraging snags/ha 25–70 cm dbh

>40% >60 years old with >30% late-successional

retain defective and dying trees; maintain 2 ha no-harvest buffer around nest and roost trees

Old-growth/ Mature

Large trees Brown

Creeper

Douglas-fir >70% canopy closure; ≥15 trees/

ha >50 cm dbh with >3 >70 cm; riparian buffer width >30 m

>30 ha ≥ 3 blocks >30 ha/sq mi or 

one >85 ha/sq mi 

include large snags for nesting; tree density may effect energetics 

Old-Growth/ Mature

Deciduous canopy/subcanopy trees

Pacific-slope Flycatcher

red alder (Leu 2000), big-leaf maple

≥ 20% deciduous canopy cover; riparian buffer width >40 m

90% of 1,000 ha landscapes as late-successional with patches of deciduous and mixed forest

wet site conifers such as western hemlock, western redcedar; near riparian zones

Old-Growth/ Mature

Mid-story tree layers

VariedThrush

deciduous trees and wet site conifer trees

>70% canopy closure; >30% deciduous sub-canopy/understory; riparian buffer width >70 m

>30 ha ≥3 blocks >30 ha/sq mi or 

one >85 ha/sq mi 

fruit/berry shrubs and trees; forest floor debris; mixed tree composition

Mature/ Young

Canopy closure Hermit/

Townsend’s Warbler

Douglas-fir (Pearson 1997, Janes 2003)

>90% canopy closure; mean tree dbh >30 cm; riparian buffer >70 m

>55% of landscape as suitable with >25% as young forest

retain patches of forest >2 ha (retention aggregates) rather than selective cuts

Mature/ Young

Open sub-canopy

Hammond’s Flycatcher

Douglas-fir >50% canopy cover; 0.2–0.3 

relative stem density; riparian buffer >70 m

>15 ha ≥6 blocks >20 ha/sq mi or 

one >120 ha/sq mi; 80–90% canopy closure with >80% coniferous 

high canopy closure; thinning can open understory

Mature/ Young

Deciduous understory

Wilson’s Warbler

western sword fern (Altman and Hagar 2007), bracken fern, vine maple, California hazel, oceanspray (Hagar 2004)

>40% understory cover of shrubs/trees; >25% shrub layer of western sword or bracken fern; riparian buffer width >30 m

>60% canopy cover of deciduous or mixed forest

retain patches of forest (retention aggregates) rather than selective cuts

Mature/ Young

Forest floor complexity

WinterWren

ferns 10 down logs/ha >61 cm dbh: tree 

dbh >40 cm; >60% shrub layer cover; riparian buffer width >40 m

>30 ha ≥ 2 blocks >30 ha or one 

>60 ha/sq mi; >10% as deciduous or mixed forest

stumps, rootwads, slashpiles

Young/Pole Deciduous 

canopy trees

Black-throated Gray Warbler

big leaf maple, alder, California hazel

>20% deciduous canopy cover; riparian buffer width >55 m

>30% young/pole forest wet site conifers

Sapling/ Seedling

Residual canopy trees

Olive-sided Flycatcher

mountain and western hemlock; noble and silver fir (Altman and Sallabanks 2000)

3 1-ha areas 10–30 trees/ha >12 m; rest avg 5 trees/ha >12 m; trees >25% foliage volume

>20 ha >30% early successional 

forest

retain understory hemlocks and true firs, and large snags
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—63 Forest Condition Habitat Attribute Focal Species Habitat Relationships/Biological Objectives Vegetative Compositiona Vegetation Structure Patch size Landscape Special Considerations Sapling/ Seedling Deciduous shrub layer Orange-crowned Warbler alder, willow, currant, snowberry, vine maple >30% cover of deciduous shrubs and small trees >30% as early successional primarily coastal forests; approx. 10–15 year window of habitat suitability in early successional Unique Nectar- producing plants Rufous Hummingbird salmonberry, currant, rhododendron, pen- stemon, paintbrush >20% of shrub/herbaceous as nectar-producing plants open space for aerial courtship display Unique Mineral springs Band-tailed Pigeon cascara, elderberry, wild cherry, mad- rone, huckleberry; Douglas-fir (Leonard 1998) herbicide no-spray zone around patches >0.2 ha with >75% cover of foraging plants interspersion of seral stages juxtaposition of mineral and food sources; uneven canopy; mature trees for nesting; >2 ha no-harvest buffer around mineral springs Unique Alpine American Pipit patches of tussocks and vegetation clumps south-facing meadows; rocky hillsides Unique Waterfalls Black Swift open flight access; dark, moist ledges behind water Unique Large hollow trees Vaux’s Swift Snags >68 cm dbh with >60% canopy cover ≥5 nest/roost structures per sq mi >2 ha no-harvest buffer around nest or roost sites Unique Wet meadows Lincoln’s Sparrow dense sedges and forbs with low alder and willow interspersion of herbaceous and woody bogs, watercourses within moist meadows Unique Landscape mosaic forest Blue (Sooty) Grouse diverse and variable interspersion of tree cover (20–50%), shrub (10–40%), herbaceous (30–60%) within 0.8 km radius deciduous shrubs breeding; conifer trees in winter Southwest Oregon Mixed Forest Pine and oak trees Purple Finch ponderosa pine, California black oak, Oregon white oak >60% canopy/subcanopy cover with >25% pine and oak trees berry-producing trees and shurbs Southwest Oregon Mixed Forest Dense shrub understory Nashville Warbler Pacific madrone, California black oak >40% shrub layer cover Southwest Oregon Mixed Forest Shrub- herbaceous interspersion Hermit Thrush Ratio of shrub-herbaceous within 30–70% cover for each parameter Variable by forest cover (see text) >66 ha if >70% forest cover; >8 ha if >90% forest cover Semi-open canopies; fruit and berry-producing trees and shrubs Southwest Oregon Mixed Forest Forest canopy edge Western Tanager Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine Dispersed or patchy forest canopy between 40–70%

Table 9. Summary of habitat relationships and biological objectives for focal species in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington. — Continued

Continued
64—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington Forest Condition Habitat Attribute Focal Species Habitat Relationships/Biological Objectives Vegetative Compositiona Vegetation Structure Patch size Landscape Special Considerations Sapling/ Seedling Deciduous shrub layer Orange-crowned Warbler alder, willow, currant, snowberry, vine maple >30% cover of deciduous shrubs and small trees >30% as early successional primarily coastal forests; approx. 10–15 year window of habitat suitability in early successional Southwest Oregon Mixed Forest Post-fire Lazuli Bunting deciduous shrubs and trees, especially oaks <20% live tree cover and shrub- herbaceous cover ratio of 30–70% for each parameter

a Plant species or types considered important components of suitable habitat.

These habitat relationships/biological objectives are for high quality habitat and they may not represent the comprehensiveness or detail presented in the text due to the need for brevity in this table. Please review chapter 6 

Table 9. Summary of habitat relationships and biological objectives for focal species in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington. — Continued

for more detail. Additionally, herein we provide measurements in metric units only to save space. 

Photo by Erik Ackerson
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—65

Monitoring and Research

“

” 

When habitat management actions are undertaken as described 

in this document, monitoring and/or research programs should be 

designed and implemented to:

w test the effectiveness of the actions

w evaluate assumptions built into biological objectives 

w direct adaptive management to achieve desired results

Monitoring is essential to evaluate the effectiveness of actions 

implemented. In conjunction with research, monitoring also is 

important for providing data to evaluate assumptions and revise and 

update biological objectives in the adaptive management process. 

Research is particularly essential since many of the biological 

objectives are based on limited data or professional judgment. 

Additionally, there is the broader need to test the assumption 

associated with using a suite of focal species to meet the avian 

conservation needs for the coniferous forest ecosystem. The NABCI 

monitoring subcommittee recommends that monitoring be fully 

integrated into bird management and conservation practices; be 

aligned with management and conservation priorities; be part of 

coordinated monitoring programs among organizations; and be 

integrated across spatial scales to effectively solve conservation or 

management problems (NABCI 2007). 

Large-scale monitoring programs, like the BBS, can be used as 

one tool to track the long term regional response of bird populations 

to habitat management conducted based on recommendations 

in this document, however the potentially weak correlation of 

the relationships between the two and the time required to assess 

statistical changes in the BBS data make this approach less than 

satisfactory for most purposes. Regional bird monitoring programs 

like the Klamath Bird Monitoring Network (Alexander et al. 2004) 

use a variety of monitoring techniques at a variety of spatial and 

temporal scales to measure landscape level and site specific trends 

in population abundance and demographics that can help to asses 

the individual and cumulative effectiveness of local or smaller-scale 

regional management actions with regards to biological objectives 

described herein. Finally, local or project-level monitoring is 

essential to support evaluation of the biological objectives in this 

document, and it should be designed and conducted in a consistent 

and systematic manner to allow for integration at larger scales 

(Ralph et al. 1993).

After reviewing forest research initiatives involving partnerships 

among federal, state, private and non-governmental scientists, 

the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Research Advisory 

Committee suggested that broad-based research partnerships be 

established during early planning stages to facilitate participation 

of forest managers and other stakeholders in the development 

and prioritization of relevant research questions (Forest Research 

Advisory Committee [FRAC] 2008). The research and monitoring 

priorities put forth in this document and by PIF in general (www.

partnersinflight.org/pif_needs/searchform.cfm) represent such 

a collaborative approach and builds increased ownership in the 

results by all parties. 

Integration of Research 

with Monitoring

This document provides numerous opportunities for integration 

of monitoring and research activities. In addition to the primary need 

for validation of the biological objectives, three recurrent research 

themes throughout the document and within the Information 

Needs section for each focal species/habitat attribute in Biological 

Objectives and Habitat Conservation Strategies are:

w focal species reproductive success and population viability 

in various forest conditions and from different forest 

management activities 

w area-requirements (i.e., patch size minimums) necessary 

for occupancy and population viability of area-sensitive 

(i.e., forest interior) focal species

w landscape-level assessments of habitat needs for some focal 

species

Data are especially needed on reproductive success and 

population viability to provide the best measure of species fitness, 

and determine where source and sink habitats are occurring. Some 

examples of western Oregon and Washington studies conducted 

to determine optimal nesting habitats from reproductive data 

are Pearson (1997) for Hermit Warbler, Leu (2000) for Pacificslope Flycatcher, Altman (1999) for Olive-sided Flycatcher, and 

community-level studies such as Sallabanks and Quinn (2000).

The need for data on reproductive success is particularly 

important where different silvicultural practices are occurring 

such as green-tree retention or thinning because of the prevalence 

of these activities and their promotion as management tools to 

achieve conditions associated with natural late-successional forests. 

Additionally, there are data that indicate these types of management 

(i.e., green-tree retention) may increase predation rates on some 

open-nesting species (Vega 1993). A community-level ongoing 

project at several locations in Oregon and Washington entitled 

Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (Aubrey et al. 

2009) has reported on bird response to five harvest strategies that 

vary green-tree retention levels and spatial distribution.

Data are especially needed 

on reproductive success and 

population viability to provide the 

best measure of species fitness, 

and determine where source and 

sink habitats are occurring.
66—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Turning Monitoring and Research 

Results into Adaptive Management

The direct outgrowth of monitoring and research conducted 

to support the recommendations in this document should be 

adaptive management. Monitoring and research are part of the 

adaptive management loop that provides a framework to increase 

our knowledge base and revise biological objectives with updated 

information.

Monitoring and research are part 

of the adaptive management loop 

that provides a framework to 

increase our knowledge base and 

revise biological objectives with 

updated information.” 

“

Within the PIF conservation planning process, species 

assessment and effectiveness monitoring are employed in the 

design and implementation of regional conservation objectives; 

this facilitates integration of PIF conservation objectives with 

priority land management challenges (Alexander in review). 

Monitoring and research results inform the design of projects that 

meet priority management objectives (e.g., fire hazard reduction) in 

concert with bird conservation objectives and serve as a catalyst for 

adaptive management. Bird monitoring data can be used to identify 

opportunities to integrate PIF conservation objectives within 

the land management process and influence the design of future 

projects that fall within land management priorities and funding 

mechanisms. Effectiveness monitoring can be used to evaluate the 

compatibility of projects designed to meet priority management 

objectives (e.g., fire hazard reduction) with bird conservation 

objectives. By monitoring the ecological effects of management 

actions using standard bird monitoring methods, land managers can 

integrate PIF conservation objectives and design treatment projects 

to meet potentially competitive management objectives (e.g., fuels 

reduction and conservation of coniferous forest bird species). 

Photo by Erik Ackerson

Photo by Erik Ackerson
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—67

Education and Outreach

“

” 

Conservation of landbirds in the coniferous forests of western 

Oregon and Washington will require not only the implementation 

of a variety of habitat biological objectives and conservation 

strategies as described herein, but also increased awareness and 

support from a variety of audiences to ensure there are resources 

and opportunities to effectively conduct the conservation activities. 

Information must be communicated to these audiences in an 

effective manner to garner their support for bird conservation. 

Education can be defined broadly as the presentation of information 

to change individuals’ knowledge, attitudes, or behaviors. This 

definition includes activities referred to as outreach, interpretation, 

communication, and marketing.

Primary Audiences

The two primary audiences for education related to this 

document are public land managers and private landowners. 

Public land managers generally are familiar with and have a 

positive attitude towards bird conservation plans as an available 

tool for management, but can be further aided by either top-down 

direction within their agency and/or guidance from a regional bird 

conservation expert. Private landowners tend to be unaware of bird 

conservation plans and the opportunities for integration with their 

land management. A primary constraint in implementation of bird 

conservation objectives by these audiences is a lack of personal 

interaction with someone who can provide guidance on the use of 

the information in the document. Although many individuals and 

organizations can aid local land managers and private landowners 

in plan implementation, without adequate funding there is a limit 

to how many people can be reached on a personal level. Thus, we 

describe below some components to consider in an education 

program to effectively educate land managers and landowners 

about bird conservation and the biological objectives presented in 

this document.

Key Messages

The following key messages are suggested for any education 

program targeting public land managers and private land owners 

for support and implementation of the biological objectives and 

habitat conservation strategies in this document:

w In the coniferous forests of western Oregon and 

Washington, there are twice as many landbird species 

with significantly declining trends as there are species 

with significantly increasing trends.

w We use a suite of “focal species” to represent and describe 

the habitat and population objectives for the entire avian 

community.

w Our recommendations focus on the ecological 

relationships between focal species and their habitat 

through the presentation of quantitative, prescriptive 

biological objectives for habitat and bird populations.

w Manipulation of forest conditions as part of forest 

management can be designed and implemented to achieve 

our biological objectives for bird conservation.

Involving Education Experts

Professional educators are skilled in following various 

principles for effective education. Most Oregon-Washington PIF 

organizations employ education and outreach staff. For the most 

effective translation of the information and recommendations in 

this document into education programs, it is suggested that teams 

of scientists and educators work together and include stakeholders 

if possible. Additionally, partner organizations in the national 

Bird Education Alliance for Conservation (BEAC; http://www.

birdedalliance.org/) provide a ready source for information and 

expertise. The mission of the BEAC is to promote bird conservation 

education, to engage new audiences in conservation action, to 

develop the tools necessary to improve bird conservation messages 

and education materials, and to incorporate education as a tool into 

conservation efforts.

Decision Support Tools

In translating the recommendations in this document to public 

land managers and private landowners, the educational objective is 

to stimulate the implementation of our biological objectives and 

conservation strategies into practices on the ground. Success is 

dependent on effective communication and education techniques. 

In order to reach this goal it is critical to deliver the message and the 

necessary suite of tools to land managers. One of the most effective 

ways of doing this is through Decision Support Tools (DSTs). 

DSTs, produced in various formats (e.g., interactive computer 

programs, brochures and pamphlets, white papers) that link priority 

land management challenges and bird conservation objectives in a 

language specific to target audiences (e.g., land management agency 

decision makers, private land owners). These tools synthesize the 

best available science information to enhance decision-making 

through analysis and visualization of management alternatives. 

In translating the recommendations 

in this document to public land 

managers and private landowners, 

the educational objective is to 

stimulate the implementation 

of our biological objectives and 

conservation strategies into 

practices on the ground. 
68—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Ensuring Effectiveness 

of Education Efforts

It cannot be assumed that educational programs will be useful, 

of high quality, or lead to intended impacts. Conducting evaluation 

provides findings to aid us in decision-making about educational 

programs in all phases of program planning, implementation, and 

completion or repetition. A front-end evaluation allows for decisions 

about whether a program should be implemented, what strategies to 

use, and what content to present. A formative evaluation that takes 

place throughout the life of a program offers information about 

how to improve the program. A summative evaluation is conducted 

upon program completion to gauge the impact of the program. 

Each of these types of evaluations has a role in aiding in decisionmaking about the effectives of education activities associated with 

bird conservation strategies. Increasing, grant-making foundations 

and agencies are requiring that education programs demonstrate 

outcomes with an evaluation component. 

DSTs can be descriptive or interactive. One example of an 

interactive DST to support landbird conservation in the coniferous 

forests of western Oregon and Washington uses landbird 

demographic information (e.g., productivity) from the MAPS 

program and proposed land management to predict population 

outcomes for priority/focal species (See: Interactive Decision Support 

Tool for Landbird Demographic Responses to Land Management). 

An example of a descriptive habitat DST prepared by the education 

and outreach staff at Klamath Bird Observatory for focal species 

in the mixed conifer and conifer-hardwood forests of the Klamath 

Mountains ecoregion of southwestern Oregon is presented in 

Appendix C. An example of a species regional landscape-level 

descriptive DSTs (Pacific-slope Flycatcher) prepared by the Institute 

for Bird Populations is presented in Appendix D.

Interactive Decision Support Tool for Landbird 

Demographic Responses to Land Management

A recent emphasis in bird conservation has been the 

development and use of Decision Support Tools (DST) for 

assisting in land management and conservation decisionmaking. Although most of these are conceptual tools that 

provide descriptive information through the use of text or 

graphics, some interactive tools are being developed that 

allow a user to input quantitative data into mathematical 

models that will provide quantitative outputs.

One pertinent example for the coniferous forests of 

western Oregon and Washington is Managing Landbird 

Populations of Forests of the Pacific Northwest (www.

birdpop.org/usfsr6/usfspnwr6.htm). This web-based, 

interactive DST developed by The Institute for Bird 

Populations in collaboration with U.S. Forest Service 

Region Six and the Bureau of Land Management can 

help land managers assess the impact of proposed 

management on the demographics (adult and young 

population sizes, and indices of reproductive success) 

of focal/priority species. It uses spreadsheets to quantify 

the “what if” scenarios of proposed management using 

pre-management demographic data from the MAPS 

(Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship) program, 

several geospatial layers, and proposed management 

scenarios simulated in GIS. Pre- and post-management 

values of spatial parameters are used to populate the 

spreadsheets which report changes that will occur in 

the demographic parameters for a target species. The 

simulation and adaptation of the management scenarios 

for a variety of species can allow the user to assess the 

“community effect.” 

Photo by Erik Ackerson

Photo by Erik Ackerson
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—69

Literature Cited

Alaback, P.B. and F.R. Herman. 1988. Long-term response 

of understory vegetation to stand density in Picea-Tsuga

forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 18:1522-

1530.

Alexander, J.D. 1999. Bird-habitat relationships in the 

Klamath/Siskiyou Mountains. M.S. Thesis, Southern 

Oregon University, Ashland. 89 pp.

Alexander, J.D., C.J. Ralph, K. Hollinger, and B. Hogoboom. 

2004. Using a wide-scale landbird monitoring network 

to determine landbird distribution and productivity in 

the Klamath Bioregion. Pp. 33-41 in K.L. Mergenthaler, 

J.E. Williams, and E.S. Jules (editors), Proceedings of 

the Second Conference on Klamath-Siskiyou Ecology. 

Copies available from Klamath Bird Observatory, PO 

Box 758, Ashland, Oregon, 97520.

Alexander, J.D., N.E. Seavy, and P.E. Hosten. 2007. Using 

conservation plans and bird monitoring to evaluate 

ecological effects of management: an example with fuels 

reduction activities in southwest Oregon. Forest Ecology 

and Management 238:375-383. 

Altman, B. 1994. Neotropical migratory landbird 

monitoring project directory. Oregon-Washington 

Partners in Flight working document.

Altman, B. 1999a. Conservation strategy for landbirds in 

coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington. 

Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 

http://www.orwapif.org/pdf/western_forest.pdf.

Altman, B. 1999b. Nest success and habitat relationships 

of the olive-sided flycatcher in managed forests of 

northwestern Oregon. Unpublished report submitted to 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; U.S. 

Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest; and Bureau of 

Land Management, Portland.

Altman, B. 2000a. Conservation strategy for landbirds 

in the lowlands and valleys of western Oregon and 

Washington. Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners 

in Flight. http://www.orwapif.org/pdf/western_

lowlands.pdf. 

Altman, B. 2000b. Conservation strategy for landbirds in 

the northern Rocky Mountains of eastern Oregon and 

Washington. Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners 

in Flight. http://www.orwapif.org/pdf/northern_rockies.

pdf.

Altman, B. 2000c. Conservation strategy for landbirds 

of the east-slope of the Cascade Mountains of eastern 

Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. OregonWashington Partners in Flight. http://www.orwapif.org/

pdf/east-slope.pdf. 

Altman, B., and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation strategy for 

landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of eastern Oregon and 

Washington. Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners 

in Flight. http://www.orwapif.org/pdf/columbia_basin.

pdf. 

Altman, B. and R. Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher 

(Contopus cooperi), in The Birds of North America, No. 

502 (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Altman, B. and J. Bart. 2001. Special species monitoring 

and assessment in Oregon and Washington: landbird 

species not adequately monitored by the Breeding Bird 

Survey. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. http://

www.orwapif.org/pdf/special_monitoring.pdf.

Altman, B. and J. Hagar. 2007. Rainforest birds: A land 

manager’s guide to breeding bird habitat in young conifer 

forests in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5304. 60 pp.

Andelman, S. J. and A. Stock. 1994. Preliminary assessment 

of management, research, and monitoring priorities for 

the conservation of neotropical migratory birds that 

breed in Washington State (one report) and Oregon (one 

report). Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight working 

documents.

Artman, V.L. 1990. Breeding bird populations and 

vegetation characteristics in commercially thinned and 

unthinned western hemlock forests of Washington. M.S. 

Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. 55 pp.

Aubry, K.B. 2007. Changing perceptions of the role 

of managed forests as wildlife habitat in the Pacific 

Northwest. Pp.3-18 in T.B. Harrington and G.E. 

Nicholas (technical editors) Managing for wildlife habitat 

in west-side production forests. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-695. Portland, OR.

Aubry, K. B. and C. M. Raley. 2002. Selection of nest and 

roost trees by pileated woodpeckers in coastal forests of 

Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:392-

406.
70—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Aubry, K.B., C.B. Halpern, and C.E. Peterson. 2009. 

Variable-retention harvests in the Pacific Northwest: a 

review of short-term findings from the DEMO study. 

Forest Ecology and Management 258:398-408.

Aubry, K.B., M.P. Amaranthus, C.B. Halpern, J.D. White, 

B.L. Woodard, C.E. Peterson, C.A. Lagoudakis, and A.J. 

Horton. 1999. Evaluating the effects of varying levels 

and patterns of green-tree retention: experimental design 

of the DEMO study. Northwest Science 73:12-26.

Banks, T., D. Farr, R. Bonar, B. Beck, and J. Beck. 1995. 

Draft Habitat Suitability Index Model, Foothills Model 

Forest, Hinton, Alberta. 7 pp.

Barrows, C.W. 1986. Habitat relationships of winter wrens 

in northern California. Western Birds 17:17-20.

Beissinger, S.R., J.M. Reed, J.M. Wunderle, Jr., S.K. 

Robinson, and D.M. Finch. 2000. Report of the AOU 

conservation committee on the Partners in Flight species 

prioritization plan. Auk 117:549-561.

Berlanga, H., J. A. Kennedy, T. D. Rich, M. C. Arizmendi, 

C. J. Beardmore, P. J. Blancher, G. S. Butcher, A. 

R. Couturier, A. A. Dayer, D. W. Demarest, W. E. 

Easton, M. Gustafson, E. Iñigo-Elias, E. A. Krebs, A. 

O. Panjabi, V. Rodriguez Contreras, K. V. Rosenberg, 

J. M. Ruth, E. Santana Castellón, R. Ma. Vidal, T. 

C. Will. 2010. Saving Our Shared Birds: Partners in 

Flight Tri-National Vision for Landbird Conservation. 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ithaca, NY. http://www.

savingoursharedbirds.org.

Bettinger, P.K., J. Boston, J. Sessions, and W.C. McComb. 

2001. Integrating wildlife species habitat goals and 

quantitative land management planning processes. Pp. 

567-579 in D.H Johnson and T.A. O’Neil (managing 

directors), Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and 

Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

Blancher, P.J., K.V. Rosenberg, A.O. Panjabi, B. Altman, J. 

Bart, C.J. Beardmore, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, 

R. Dettmers, E.H. Dunn, W. Easton, W.C. Hunter, 

E.E. Inigo-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. 

Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 5. http://www.

partners inflight.org/.

Blewett, C.M. and J.M. Marzluff. 2005. Effects of urban 

sprawl on snags and the abundance and productivity of 

cavity-nesting birds. Condor 107:678-693.

Block, W.M., D.M. Finch, and L.A. Brennan. 1995. 

Single-species versus multiple-species approaches for 

management. Pp. 461-476 in T.E. Martin and D.M. 

Finch (editors) Ecology and management of neotropical 

migratory birds. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.

Bolsinger, C.L. and K.L. Waddell. 1993. Area of old-growth 

forests in California, Oregon, and Washington. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Research 

Bulletin PNW-RB-197.

Brett, T.A. 1997. Habitat associations of woodpeckers in 

managed forests of the southern Oregon Cascades. M.S. 

Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 95 pp.

Brown, E.R. (editor). 1985. Management of wildlife 

and fish habitats in forests of western Oregon and 

Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Publication Number R6, Fish and Wildlife 192-1985.

Brown, R. 2008. The implications of climate change for 

conservation, restoration, and management of National 

Forest lands. Defenders of Wildlife publication for The 

National Forest Restoration Collaborative. University of 

Oregon Press.

Bull, E.L. and C.T. Collins. 1993. Vaux’s swift (Chaetura 

vauxi), in The Birds of North America, No. 77 (A. Poole 

and F. Gill, editors). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA.

Bull, E.L. and J.E. Hohmann. 1992. The association 

between Vaux’s swift and old-growth forests in 

northeastern Oregon. Western Birds 24:38-42.

Bunnell, F.L. 1990. Reproduction of salal (Gaultheria 

shallon) under forest canopy. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 20:91-100.

Bunnell, F.L., L.L. Kremsater, and R.W. Wells. 1997. Likely 

consequences of forest management on terrestrial, forestdwelling vertebrates in Oregon. Report M-7 of the 

Centre for Applied Conservation Biology, University of 

British Columbia. 130 pp.

Bunnell, F.L., R.W. Wells, J.D. Nelson, and L.L. Kremsater. 

1999. Patch sizes, vertebrates, and effects of harvest 

policy in southeastern British Columbia. Pp. 217-293 

in J.A. Rochelle, L.A., Lehmann, and J. Wisniewski 

(editors), Forest fragmentation: wildlife and management 

implications. Brill Publications, The Netherlands.

Busing, R.T., and S.L. Garman. 2002. Promoting oldgrowth characteristics and long-term wood production 

in Douglas-fir forests. Forest Ecology and Management 

160:161-175.
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—71

Campbell, S., D. Azuma, and D. Weyermann. 2002. Forests 

of western Oregon: an overview. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-525. 27 pp.

Carey, A.B. and R.O. Curtis. 1996. Conservation of 

biodiversity: a useful paradigm for forest ecosystem 

management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(4):610-620.

Carey, A.B., M. Hardt, S.P. Horton, and B.L. Biswell. 1991. 

Spring bird communities in the Oregon Coast Range. 

Pp. 123-137 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, 

and M.H. Huff (technical coordinators). Wildlife and 

vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General 

Technical Report PNW-285.

Cavitt, J.F. and T.E. Martin. 2002. Effects of forest 

fragmentation on brood parasitism and nest predation 

in eastern and western landscapes. Pp 73-80 in T.L. 

George and D.S Dobkin (editors), Effects of habitat 

fragmentation on birds in western landscapes: contrasts 

with paradigms from the eastern U.S. Studies in Avian 

Biology 25. Cooper Ornithological Society.

Chambers, C.L. 1996. Response of terrestrial vertebrates to 

three silvicultural treatments in the central Oregon Coast 

Range. PhD. Dissertation. Oregon State University, 

Corvallis. 213 pp.

Chambers, C.L., W.C. McComb, and J.C. Tappeiner. 1999. 

Breeding bird responses to three silvicultural treatments 

in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecological Applications 

9:171-185.

Cline, S.P. 1977. The characteristics and dynamics of snags 

in Douglas-fir forests of the Oregon Coast Range. PhD. 

Dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis

Cline, S.P., A.B. Berg, and H.M. Wight. 1980. Snag 

characteristics and dynamics in Douglas-fir forests, 

western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 

44:773-786.

Deal, J. and M. Setterington. 2000. Woodpecker nest 

habitat in the Nimpkish valley, northern Vancouver 

Island. Canadian Forest Products Ltd. and AXYS 

Environmental Consulting Ltd.

Dellasala, D.A., J.C. Hagar, K.A. Engel, W.C. McComb, 

R.L. Fairbanks, and E.G. Campbell. 1996. Effects of 

silvicultural modifications of temperate rainforests on 

breeding and wintering bird communities, Prince of 

Wales Island, southeast Alaska. Condor 98:706-721.

Dillingham, C.P., D.P. Vroman, and P.W. Dillingham.  2008.  

Breeding bird responses to silvicultural treatments in the 

Klamath Province of Oregon.  Northwestern Naturalist 

89:33-45.

Donnelly, R. and J.M. Marzluff. 2004. Importance 

of reserve size and landscape context to urban bird 

conservation. Conservation Biology 18:733-745.

Doyon, F., P.E. Higgelke, and H.L. MacLeod. 2000. Brown 

creeper (Certhia americana). Prepared for Millar Western 

Forest Product’s Biodiversity Assessment Project. KBM 

Forestry Consultants Inc. Thunder Bay, Ontario.

Fontaine, J.B. 2007. Influences of high severity fire 

and postfire logging on avian and small mammal 

communities of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon, USA. 

Ph.D dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Forest Research Advisory Committee (FRAC). 2008. 

Report to the Secretary of Agriculture. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service Research and Development 

and Cooperative State Research Education and Extension 

Service. Washington D.C.

Franklin, J.F. 1989. Toward a new forestry. American 

Forests 37-44.

Franklin, J.F., 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, 

ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecological Applications 3(2): 

202-205.

Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation 

of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report 

PNW-8. 417 pp.

Franklin, J.F., T.A. Spies, R. Van Pelt, A.B.Carey, D.A 

Thornburgh, D.R. Berg, D.B. Lindenmayer, M.E. 

Harmon, W.S. Keeton, D.C. Shaw, K. Bible, and J. 

Chen. 2002. Disturbances and structural development 

of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural 

implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. 

Forest Ecology and Management 155:399-423.

George, T.L., and L.A. Brand. 2002. The effects of 

habitat fragmentation on birds in Coast Redwood 

forests. Pp. 92-102 in T.L. George, and D.S. Dobkin 

(editors), Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds in 

western landscapes: contrasts with paradigms from the 

eastern U.S. Studies in Avian Biology 25. Cooper 

Ornithological Society.
72—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Gilbert, F.F. and R. Allwine. 1991. Spring bird communities 

in the Oregon Cascade Range. Pp. 145-158 in L.F. 

Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and M.H. Huff 

(technical coordinators), Wildlife and vegetation of 

unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report 

PNW-285.

Gumtow-Farrior, D.A. 1991. Cavity resources in Oregon 

white oak and Douglas-fir stands in the mid-Willamette 

Valley, Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis. 89 pp.

Guzy, M.J. and P.E. Lowther. 1997. Black-throated Gray 

Warbler (Dendroica nigrescens), in The Birds of North 

America, No. 319 (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). The 

Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA and The 

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Hagar, J.C. 1999. Influence of riparian buffer width on 

bird assemblages in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 63:484-496.

Hagar, J.C. 2001. Patterns of bird communities in 

coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington. 

Pp 192-193 in D.H. Johnson and T.A. O’Neil 

(managing directors), Wildlife-habitat relationships in 

Oregon and Washington, Oregon State University Press, 

Corvallis.

Hagar, J.C. 2004. Functional relationships among 

songbirds, arthropods, and understory vegetation in 

Douglas-fir forests, western Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation, 

Oregon State University, Corvallis. 143 pp.

Hagar, J.C. 2007. Key elements of stand structure for 

wildlife in production forests west of the Cascade 

Mountains. Pp. 35-48 in T.B. Harrington and G.E. 

Nicholas (technical editors) Managing for wildlife habitat 

in west-side production forests. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-695. Portland, OR.

Hagar, J.C. and C. Friesen. 2009. Young stand thinning 

and diversity study: response of songbird community one 

decade post-treatment. U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2009-1253.

Hagar, J.C., W.C. McComb, and C.C. Chambers. 1995. 

Effects of forest practices on wildlife. Chapter 9 in

R.L. Beschta, J.R. Boyle, C.C. Chambers [and others]. 

Cumulative effects of forest practices in Oregon: 

literature and synthesis. Oregon State University, 

Corvallis.

Hagar, J.C., W.C. McComb, and W.H. Emmingham. 

1996. Bird communities in commercially thinned 

and unthinned Douglas-fir stands of western Oregon. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:353-366.

Hagar, J.C., S. Howlin, and L.M. Ganio. 2004. Short-term 

response of songbirds to experimental thinning of young 

Douglas-fir forests in the Oregon Cascades. Forest 

Ecology and Management 199:333-347.

Halpern, C.B. and T.A. Spies. 1995. Plant species diversity 

in natural and unmanaged forests of the Pacific 

Northwest. Ecological Applications 5:913-934.

Halpern, C.B., S.A. Evans, C.R. Nelson, D. McKenzie, D.A. 

Liguori, D.E. Hibbs, and M.G. Halaj. 1999. Response 

of forest vegetation to varying levels and patterns 

of green-tree retention: an overview of a long-term 

experiment. Northwest Science 73:27-44.

Hansen, A.J., and P. Hounihan. 1996. Canopy tree 

retention and avian diversity in the Oregon Cascades. 

Pp. 401-421 in R.C. Szaro and D.W. Johnston (editors), 

Biodiversity in managed landscapes: theory and practice. 

Oxford University Press, New York.

Hansen, A.J., S.L. Garman, B. Marks, D.A. Urban. 1993. 

An approach for managing vertebrate diversity across 

multiple-use landscapes. Ecological Applications 3:481-

496.

Hansen, A.J., T.A. Spies, F.J. Swanson, and J.L. Ohmann. 

1991. Conserving biodiversity in managed forests. 

BioScience 41:382-392.

Hansen, A.J., W.C. McComb, R. Vega, M.G. Raphael, and 

M. Hunter. 1995. Bird habitat relationships in natural 

and managed forests in the west Cascades of Oregon. 

Ecological Applications 5:555-569.

Harrington, T.B. and J.C. Tappeiner II. 2007. Silvicultural 

guidelines for creating and managing wildlife habitat 

in west-side production forests. Pp. 49-60 in T.B. 

Harrington and G.E. Nicholas (technical editors), 

Managing for wildlife habitat in west-side production 

forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-695. Portland, 

OR.

Harris, L.D. 1984. The fragmented forest: Island 

biogeographic theory and the preservation of biotic 

diversity. University of Chicago Press. 211 pp.

Hartwig, C. L., D. S. Eastman, and A. S. Harestad. 

2002. Forest age and relative abundance of pileated 

woodpeckers on southeastern Vancouver Island. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General 

Technical Report PSW-GTR-181.
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—73

Hartwig, C. L., D. S. Eastman, and A. S. Harestad. 2004. 

Characteristics of pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus 

pileatus) cavity trees and their patches on southeastern 

Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Forest 

Ecology and Management 187:225-234.

Hartwig, C.L., D.S. Eastman, and A.S. Harestad. 2006. 

Characteristics of foraging sites and the use of structural 

elements by the pileated woodpecker on southeastern 

Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Annales 

Zoologici Fennici 43:186-197. 

Hayes, J.P., S.S. Chan, W.H. Emmingham, J.C. Tappeiner, 

L.D. Kellogg, and J.D. Bailey. 1997. Wildlife response 

to thinning young forests in the Pacific Northwest. 

Journal of Forestry 95:28-33.

Hayes, J.P., J.M. Weikel, and M. Huso. 2003. Response of 

birds to thinning young Douglas-fir forests. Ecological 

Applications 13:1222-1232.

Hejl, S.J. 1994. Human-induced changes in bird 

populations in coniferous forests in western North 

America during the past 100 years. Pp. 232-246 in

J.R. Jehl, Jr. and N.K. Johnson (editors), A century of 

avifaunal change in western North America. Studies in 

Avian Biology No. 15. Cooper Ornithological Society. 

Holthausen, R.S., M.G. Raphael, K.S. McKelvey, E.D. 

Forsman, E.E. Starkey, and D.E. Seamen. 1995. The 

contribution of Federal and non-Federal habitat to 

persistence of the northern spotted owl on the Olympic 

Peninsula, Washington: report of the reanalysis team. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-352. 

Horvath, O. 1963. Contributions to nesting ecology of 

forest birds. M.F. Thesis, University of British Columbia, 

Vancouver. 182 pp.

Huff, M.H., N.E. Seavy, J.D. Alexander, and C.J. Ralph, C.J. 

2005. Fire and birds in the maritime Pacific Northwest. 

Studies in Avian Biology 30:46-62.

Hurt, M. 1996. The influence of forest fragmentation 

and vegetation structure on the breeding distribution 

of Varied Thrushes in redwood forests. M.S. Thesis, 

Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 42 pp.

Hutto, R.L. 1995. Composition of bird communities 

following stand-replacement fires in the Northern Rocky 

Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology 

9:1041-1058.

Irwin, L. L. and T. B. Wigley. 1993. Toward an experimental 

basis for protecting forest wildlife. Ecological 

Applications 3: 213-217. 

Janes, S.W. 2003. Hermit Warbler. Pp. 515-517 in Birds 

of Oregon: a general reference. (D.B. Marshall, M.G. 

Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, editors). Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis.

Johnson, D.H., and T.A. O’Neil (managing directors). 

2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and 

Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 

768 pp.

K.N. Johnson and J.F. Franklin. 2009. Restoration of 

federal forests in the Pacific Northwest: strategies 

and management implications. August 15, 2009. 

http://www.forestry.oregonstate.edu/cof/fs/PDFs/

JohnsonExecutiveSummary.pdf.

Lambeck, R.J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella 

for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11:849-

856.

Lehmkuhl, J.F. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1991. Forest 

fragmentation in the Pacific Northwest and its potential 

effects on wildlife. Pp. 35-46 in L.F. Ruggiero, 

K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and M.H. Huff (technical 

coordinators), Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged 

Douglas-fir forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-285.

Lehmkuhl, J.F., S.D. West, C.L. Chambers, W.C. McComb, 

D.A. Manuwal, K.B. Aubry, J.L. Erickson, R.A. Glitzen, 

and M.Leu. 1999. An experiment for assessing wildlife 

response to varying levels and patterns of green-tree 

retention. Northwest Science 73:45-63.

Lehmkuhl, J.F., C.O. Loggers, and J.H. Creighton. 2002. 

Wildlife considerations for small diameter timber 

harvesting. Pp. 85-92 in D.M. Baumgartner, L.R. 

Johnson, and E.J. DePuit (editors), Small diameter 

timber: resource management, manufacturing, and 

markets. Washington State University Cooperative 

Extension, Pullman. MISC0509.

Leidolf, A., T. Nuttle, and M.L. Wolfe. 2007. Spatially 

scaled response of a Lazuli Bunting population to fire. 

Western North American Naturalist 67:1-7.

Leonard, J.P. 1998. Nesting and foraging ecology of Bandtailed Pigeons in western Oregon: Corvallis. Ph.D. 

dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 95 pp.

Leu, M. 2000. Breeding territory settlement patterns and 

mate choice in a monochromatic tyrannid flycatcher. 

Ph.D dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. 

129 pp.
74—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Lundquist, R.W. and J.M. Mariani. 1991. Nesting 

habitat and abundance of snag-dependent birds in the 

southern Washington Cascade range. Pp. 221-240 in

L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and M.H. Huff 

(technical coordinators), Wildlife and vegetation of 

unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report 

PNW-285.

Mannan, R.W., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1980. Use 

of snags by birds in Douglas-fir forests, western Oregon. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 44:787-797.

Manuwal, D.A., and N.J. Manuwal. 2002. Effects of habitat 

fragmentation on birds in the coastal coniferous forests of 

the Pacific Northwest. Pp. 103-112 in T.L. George and 

D.S Dobkin (editors), Effects of habitat fragmentation 

on birds in western landscapes: contrasts with paradigms 

from the eastern U.S. Studies in Avian Biology 25. 

Cooper Ornithological Society.

Manuwal, D.A., and N. Palazzotto. 2004. Bird community 

response to thinning in coniferous forests at Fort Lewis, 

Washington: Unpublished final report submitted to U.S. 

Army, Department of Defense, Fort Lewis, Washington. 

101 pp.

Manuwal, D.A., and S. Pearson. 1997. Bird populations 

in managed forests in the western Cascade Mountains, 

Washington. Pp. 1-61 in K.B. Aubry, S.D. West, D.A. 

Manuwal, A.B. Stringer, J.L. Erickson, and S.F. Pearson 

(editors), Wildlife use of managed forests: a landscape 

perspective. Timber, Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 

TFW-WL4-98-002.

Manuwal, D.A., M.H. Huff, M.R. Bauer, C.B. Chappell, 

and K. Hegstad. 1987. Summer birds of the upper 

subalpine zone of Mount Adams, Mount Rainer, and 

Mount Saint Helens, Washington. Northwest Science 

61:82-92.

Marcot, B.G. 1984. Habitat relationships of birds and 

young-growth Douglas-fir in northwestern California. 

PhD. Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

282 pp.

Mariani, J.M. 1987. Brown creeper (Certhia americana) 

abundance patterns and habitat use in the southern 

Washington Cascades. M.S. Thesis, University of 

Washington, Seattle. 67 pp.

Mariani, J.M., and D.A. Manuwal. 1990. Factors 

influencing brown creeper Certhia americana abundance 

patterns in the southern Washington Cascade Range. Pp 

53-57 in M.L. Morrison, C.J. Ralph, J. Verner., and J.R. 

Jehl Jr. (editors). Studies in Avian Biology, Volume 13. 

Avian foraging: theory, methodology, and applications.

Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras (editors). 

2003. Birds of Oregon: a general reference. Oregon 

State University Press, Corvallis. 768 pp.

Marzluff, J.M. 2001. Worldwide urbanization and its effects 

on birds. Pp 19-47 in J.M. Marzluff, R. Bowman, and 

R. Donnelly (editors). Avian ecology and conservation 

in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 

Boston, MA.

Marzluff, J.M., M.G. Raphael, and R. Sallabanks. 2000. 

Understanding the effects of forest management on avian 

species. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:1132-1143

Mayrhofer, M. 2006. Spatial point processes and brown 

creepers (Certhia americana): estimating habitat use of 

a silvicultural experiment. M.S. Thesis, University of 

Washington, Seattle. 60 pp.

McComb, W.C., T.A. Spies, W.H. Emmingham. 1993. 

Douglas-fir forests: managing for timber and matureforest habitat. Journal of Forestry 91:31-42.

McGarigal, K. and W.C. McComb. 1992. Streamside 

versus upslope breeding bird communities in the central 

Oregon Coast Range. Journal of Wildlife Management 

56:10-21.

McGarigal, K. and W.C. McComb. 1995. Relationships 

between landscape structure and breeding birds in the 

Oregon Coast Range. Ecological Monographs 65:235-

260.

McGarigal, K. and W.C. McComb. 1999. Forest 

fragmentation effects on breeding bird communities in 

the Oregon Coast Range. Pp.223-246 in J.A. Rochelle, 

L.A. Lehmann, and J. Wisniewski (editors), Forest 

fragmentation: wildlife and management implications. 

Brill Publications, The Netherlands.

Mellen, T.K., E.C. Meslow, and R.W. Mannan. 1992. 

Summertime home range and habitat use of pileated 

woodpeckers in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 56:96-103.

Meslow, E.C. and H.M. Wight. 1975. Avifauna and 

succession in Douglas-fir forests of the Pacific Northwest. 

Pp. 266-271 in D.R. Smith (technical coordinator), 

Proceedings of the symposium on management of 

forest and rangeland habitats for non-game birds. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General 

Technical Report.WO-1.

Morrison, M.L. 1981. The structure of western warbler 

assemblages: analysis of foraging behavior and habitat 

selection in Oregon. Auk 98:578-588.
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—75

Morrison, M.L. 1982. The structure of western warbler 

assemblages: ecomorphological analysis of the blackthroated gray and hermit warblers. Auk 99:503-513.

Morrison, M.L. and M.E. Meslow. 1983. Avifauna 

associated with early growth vegetation on clearcuts 

in the Oregon coast ranges. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service Research Paper PNW-305. 

Portland, OR.

Muir, P.S., R.L. Mattingly, J.C. Tappeiner II, J.D. Bailey, 

W.E. Elliott, J.C. Hagar, J.C. Miller, E.B. Peterson, E.E. 

and Starkey. 2002. Managing for biodiversity in young 

Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Biological Resources Division, Biological Sciences 

Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0006.

Neitro, W.A., V.W. Brinkley, S.P. Cline, R.W. Mannan, 

B.G. Marcot, D.Taylor, and F.F. Wagner. 1985. 

Snags. Pp.129-168 in E.R. Brown (technical editor), 

Management of wildlife and fish habitats in western 

Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region. 

Portland, OR.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 2000. 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative: Bird 

Conservation Region descriptions. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. 

Committee. 2010. The State of the Birds 2010 Report 

on Climate Change. United States of America, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative Monitoring 

Subcommittee (NABCI). 2007. Opportunities for 

Improving Avian Monitoring.. U.S. North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative Report. 50 pp. Available from the 

Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA; http://www.nabci-us.

org/.

Nelson, S.K. 1988. Habitat use and densities of cavitynesting birds in the Oregon coast ranges. M.S. Thesis, 

Oregon State University, Corvallis. 157 pp.

Noss, R.F. 1996. Ecosystems as conservation targets. Trends 

in Ecology and Evolution 11:351.

Noss, R.F. 1999. Assessing and monitoring forest 

biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. 

Forest Ecology and Management 115:135-146.

Nott, M.P, D.F. DeSante, P. Pyle, and N. Michel. 2005. 

Pacific Northwest forest bird population declines: 

formulating population management guidelines from 

landscape-scale ecological analyses of MAPS data from 

avian communities on seven national forests in the 

Pacific Northwest. A report to the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service Region 6, NFWF project 

#2002-0232-000. Institute for Bird Populations, Point 

Reyes Station, CA.

Nott, M.P. 2009. Managing bird populations in forests 

of the Pacific Northwest: materials for managers and 

GIS specialists. Institute for Bird Populations, Species 

Management Accounts. http://www.birdpop.org/usfsr6/

usfspnwr6_materials.htm.

Oliver, C.D. 1981. Forest development in North America 

following major disturbances. Forest Ecology and 

Management 3:153-168.

Olson, D.H., J.C. Hagar, A.B. Carey, J.H. Cissel, and F.J. 

Swanson. 2001. Wildlife of westside and high montane 

forests. Pp 187-212 in D.H. Johnson and T.A. O’Neil 

(managing directors), Wildlife-habitat relationships in 

Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, 

Corvallis.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. The 

Oregon Conservation Strategy. Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon. http://www.dfw.state.

or.us/conservation strategy/.

Panjabi, A.O., E.H. Dunn, P.J. Blancher, W.C. Hunter, B. 

Altman, J. Bart, C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, G.S. 

Butcher, S.K. Davis, D.W. Demarest, R. Dettmers, W. 

Easton, H. Gomez de Silva Garza, E.E. Inigo-Elias, D.N. 

Pashley, C.J. Ralph, T.D. Rich, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. 

Rustay, J.M. Ruth, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2005. 

The Partners in Flight Handbook on Species Assessment. 

Version 2005. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 3. 

http://www.rmbo.org/pubs/downloads/Handbook2005.

pdf.

Pashley, D.N., C.J. Beardmore, J.A. Fitzgerald, R.P. Ford, 

W.C. Hunter, M.S. Morrison, and K.V. Rosenberg. 

2000. Partners in Flight: conservation of the landbirds 

of the United States. American Bird Conservancy, The 

Plains, Virginia.

Pearson, S.F. 1997. Hermit warbler (Dendroica occidentalis). 

In The Birds of North America, No. 303. (A.Poole and 

F. Gill, editors). The Academy of Natural Sciences, 

Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithological 

Union, Washington, D.C.

Pearson, S.F. and D.A. Manuwal. 2001. Breeding bird 

response to riparian buffer width in managed Pacific 

Northwest Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications 

11:840-853.
76—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Peters, R.L. 1992. Conservation of biological diversity in 

the face of climate change. In Global Warming and 

Biological Diversity (R.L. Peters and T.E. Lovejoy, 

editors). Yale University Press, New Haven.

Pickett, S.T.A. and P.S. White. (editors). 1985. The ecology 

of natural disturbances and patch dynamics. Academic 

Press, Orlando, FL.

Primack, R.B. 1998. Essentials of conservation biology. 

Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

Raley, C. M. and K. B. Aubry. 2006. Foraging ecology of 

pileated woodpeckers in coastal forests of Washington. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1266-1275.

Ralph, C.J., G.R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T.E. Martin, and D.F. 

DeSante. 1993. Handbook of field methods for 

monitoring landbirds. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station General Technical Report 

PSW-GTR-144. 41 pp.

Rempel, R.S. 2007. Selecting focal songbird species for 

biodiversity conservation assessment: response to forest 

cover amount and configuration. Avian Conservation 

and Ecology 2(1) Bird conservation in the boreal forest: 

is there a case for resilience? (F. Schmiegelow and M-A 

Villard, editors). http://www.ace-eco.org/vol2/iss1/art6/.

Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, 

M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, 

E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, J.A. 

Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, 

K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. 

Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American 

Landbird Conservation Plan: Ithaca, NY, Cornell Lab 

of Ornithology. http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_

plan/.

Robbins, C.S., D. Bystrak, and P.H. Geissler. 1986. The 

Breeding Bird Survey: its first 15 years, 1965-1979. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

Research Publication 157:133-159. Washington, D.C.

Robbins, C.S., J.R. Sauer, R. Greenburg, and S. Droege. 

1989. Population declines in North American birds that 

migrate to the neotropics. Proceedings of the Natural. 

Academy of Sciences. 86:7658-7662.

Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thompson, T.M. Donovan, D.R. 

Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional forest 

fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. 

Science 267:1987-1990.

Rosenberg, K.V. 2004. Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies Partners in Flight Landbird Reports. http://

fishwildlife.org/allbird_landbird.html.

Rosenberg, K.V. and M.G. Raphael. 1986. Effects of forest 

fragmentation on vertebrates in Douglas-fir forests. Pp. 

263-272 in J. Verner, M.L. Morrison, and C.J. Ralph 

(editors) Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships 

of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, 

Madison.

Rosenberg, K.V., R.S. Hames, R.W. Rohrbaugh, Jr., S. Barker 

Swarthout, J.D. Lowe, and A.A. Dhondt. 2003. A land 

manger’s guide to improving habitat for forest thrushes. 

The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 29 pp.

Sakai, H.F. and B.R. Noon. 1991. Nest-site characteristics 

of Hammond’s and Pacific-slope flycatchers in 

northwestern California. Condor 93:563-574.

Sallabanks, R., E. Arnett, T.B. Wigley, and L. Irwin. 2001. 

Accommodating birds in managed forests of North 

America: a review of bird-forestry relationships. National 

Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Technical 

Bulletin No. 822. Research Triangle Park, NC. 50 pp. 

plus appendices.

Sallabanks, R. and T. Quinn. 2000. Can we infer habitat 

quality from the results of wildlife surveys?. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife TFW-LWAG6-01-001. 

Olympia, WA. 187 pp.

Salwasser, H. 2001. Single species, multiple species, or 

ecosystem management: a perspective on approaches 

to wildlife conservation. Pp 624-627 in D.H. Johnson 

and T.A. O’Neil (managing directors), Wildlife-habitat 

relationships in Oregon and Washington, Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis.

Sauer, J. R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North 

American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 

1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. http://

www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

Schieck, J., K. Lertzman, B. Nyberg, and R. Page. 1995. 

Effects of patch size on birds in old-growth montane 

forests. Conservation Biology 9:1072-1084.

Schreiber, B. and D.S. deCalesta. 1992. The relationship 

between cavity-nesting birds and snags on clearcuts 

in western Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 

50:299-316.

Schroeder, R.L. 1984. Habitat suitability index models: 

Blue Grouse. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/10.81. 19 pp.

Seavy, N.E. 2006. Effects of disturbance on animal 

communities: fire effects on birds in mixed-conifer forest. 

Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. 

112 pp. 
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—77

Seigel, R.B., and D.F. DeSante. 2003. Bird communities in 

thinned versus unthinned Sierran mixed conifer stands. 

Wilson Bulletin 115:155-165.

Smith, J.B. 2004. A synthesis of potential climate change 

impacts on the U.S. Arlington, Virginia: Pew Center on 

Global Climate Change. 44pp.

Smith, M.R., P.W. Mattocks, Jr., and K.M. Cassidy. 

1997. Breeding birds of Washington State. Vol. 4 in 

Washington State Gap Analysis - Final report (K.M. 

Cassidy, C.E. Grue, M.R. Smith, and K.M. Dvornich, 

editors). Seattle Audubon Society Publications in 

Zoology Number 1. Seattle, WA. 538 pp.

Spies, T.A. and J.F. Franklin. 1991. The structure of natural, 

young, mature, and old-growth Douglas-fir forests in 

Oregon and Washington. Pp. 91-109 in L.F. Ruggerio, 

K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and M.H. Huff (technical 

coordinators), Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged 

Douglas-fir forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service General Technical Report PNWGTR-285.

Swanson, F.J. and J.F. Franklin. 1992. New forestry 

principles from ecosystem analysis of Pacific Northwest 

forests. Ecological Applications 2:262-274.

Thomas, J.W. (editor) 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed 

forests of the Blue Mountains of Oregon and 

Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service Agricultural Handbook 553.

Thomas, J.W., M.G. Raphael, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, 

A.G. Gunderson, R.S. Holthausen, B.G. Marcot, G.H. 

Reeves, J.R. Sedell, and D.M. Solis. 1993. Viability 

assessments and management considerations for species 

associated with late-successional and old-growth 

forests of the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 530 pp.

Thompson, F.R., T.M. Donovan, R.M. DeGraff, J. Faaborg, 

and S.K. Robinson. 2002. A multi-scale perspective 

of the effects of forest fragmentation on birds in eastern 

forests. Pp. 8-19 in T.L. George and D.S. Dobkin. 

(editors), Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds in 

western landscapes: contrasts with paradigms from the 

eastern U.S. Studies in Avian Biology 25. Cooper 

Ornithological Society.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service and U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land 

Management. 1994. Record of decision for 

amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management planning documents within the range of 

the northern spotted owl. U.S. Government Printing 

Office: 1994-589-111/00001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Level III 

ecoregions of the continental United States (revision of 

Omernik 1987). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

National Health and Environmental Effects Research 

Laboratory, Map M-1. Corvallis, Oregon.

VanHorne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of 

habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:893-

901.

Van Pelt, R. 2007. Identifying Mature and Old Forests in 

Western Washington. Washington State Department of 

Natural Resources, Olympia, WA, 40 pp.

Vega, R.M.S. 1993. Bird communities in managed conifer 

stands in the Oregon Cascades: habitat associations and 

nest predation. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis. 83 pp.

Wahl, T.R., B. Tweit, and S.G. Mlodinow (editors). 2005. 

Birds of Washington: Status and Distribution. Oregon 

State University Press, Corvallis. 436 pp.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1995. 

Priority habitat management recommendations: snags. 

Washington Department of. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 

137 pp.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2005. 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/cwcs.

Weikel, J. 1997. Habitat use by cavity-nesting birds in 

young thinned and unthinned Douglas-fir forests of 

western Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis. 102 pp.

Weikel, J.M. and Hayes, J.P. 1999. The foraging ecology 

of cavity-nesting birds in young forests of the northern 

Coast Range of Oregon. Condor 101(1):58-66.

Whitcomb, R.F., C.S. Robbins, J.F. Lynch, B.L. Whitcomb, 

M.K. Klimkiewicz, and D. Bystrak. 1981. Effects of 

forest fragmentation on avifauna of the eastern deciduous 

forest. Pp. 125-205 in R.L. Burgess and D.M. Sharpe 

(editors), Forest island dynamics in man-dominated 

landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.

Whittaker, R.H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou 

Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecological 

Monograph 30:279-338.
78—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Wiens, J.A. 1975. Avian communities, energetics, and 

functions in coniferous forest habitats. Pp. 226-265 in

D.R. Smith (technical coordinator), Proceedings of the 

symposium on management of forest and range habitats 

for nongame birds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service General Technical Report WO-1.

Will, T.C., J.M. Ruth, K.V. Rosenberg, D. Krueper, D. 

Hahn, J. Fitzgerald, R. Dettmers, and C.J. Beardmore. 

2005. The five elements process: designing optimal 

landscapes to meet bird conservation objectives. 

Partners in Flight Technical Series, No. 1. http:// www.

partnersinflight.org/pubs/ts/01-FiveElements.pdf.

Zarnowitz, J. and D. Manuwal. 1985. The effects of forest 

management on cavity-nesting birds in northwestern 

Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:255-

263.
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—79 Forest Stage/ Habitat Attribute Large snags Large trees Decid trees Mid-story layers Closed canopy Open mid- story Decid shrub layer Forest floor complex Decid trees Residual trees Snags Decid shrub layer Old-Growth/ Mature PIWO BRCR CBCH NPOW RBSA VASW BRCR HEWA CBCH COHA GCKI NOGO NPOW RECR PSFL BGWA BGHR VATH CAVI PUFI RBSA VATH WIWA HUVI NSWO Mature/Young HEWA BRCR WIWR COHA GCKI NPOW STJA TOWA RECR HAFL PSFL COHA NOGO WIWA BLGR OCWA RUHU HUVI MGWA RUGR WIWR OCWA WIWA MGWA Young/Pole BGWA CAVI BHGR PSFL HUVI PUFI RBSA RUGR Sapling/Seedling OSFL WETA COHA NOGO RECR STJA NOFL PUMA WEBL OCWA BLGR HUVI RUHU DUFL FOSP MGWA MOQU RUGR SPTO WIFL WREN Appendix A. Priority species most likely to benefit from habitat management or restoration actions directed towards focal species and associated habitat attributes in westside conifer forests. 1, 2, 3 Continued Photos by Erik Ackerson
80—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington Forest Stage/ Habitat Attribute Nectar Plants Wet Meadows Alpine Waterfalls Large Hollow Snags Mineral Springs Landscape Mosaic Forest Inerior forest canopy subcanopy Dense understory Shrub-herb mix Open forest canopy edge Montane brushfields Post-Fire Unique Forest Habitats Klamath Mountains Mixed Conifer RUHU LISP AMPI BLSW AMDI VASW PIWO FLOW NPOW NSOW RBSA BTPI BLGR BTPI NOGO PUFI BRCR BGWA HAFL HEWA PSFL GCKI NSWO STJA NAWA BLGR OCWA WIWA HUVI MGWA RUHU HETH LABU MOQU SPTO WETA BHGR CAVI OSFL COHA NOGO PUFI GTTO DUFL FOSP MGWA MOQU RUGR RUHU WREN LABU OSFL PUMA

Appendix A. Priority species most likely to benefit from habitat management or restoration actions directed towards focal species and associated habitat attributes in westside conifer forests. 1, 2, 3— Continued

1 Includes only priority species listed in Table 6. Listed priority species have a strong breeding-season habitat association with the habitat attribute and would likely benefit greatly from conservation directed towards the 

focal species and the associated habitat attribute. The potential benefit is only appropriate if the site is within the range of the priority species to benefit, and the habitat type or condition is highly suitable for that priority species. 

2 The species to benefit list can provide a good source list for species to use as a surrogate when the focal species is not appropriate for a site due to range, habitat type, elevation, etc.3 Order of species listing:

Bold, larger font = Focal species as designated in the landbird conservation strategy for that habitat attribute (Table 5).

Bold italics = Focal species designated in the landbird conservation strategy for a different habitat attribute (Table 5).Regular font = Priority species (Table 6) not used as focal species elsewhere in the strategy.Species are listed alphabetically within the aforementioned order of status, and not by degree of potential benefit.

AMDI = American DipperAMPI = American PipitBGWA = Black-throated Gray WarblerBHGR = Black-headed GrosbeakBLGR = Blue (Sooty) GrouseBLSW = Black SwiftBRCR = Brown CreeperBTPI = Band-tailed PigeonCAVI = Cassin’s VireoCBCH = Chestnut-backed Chickadee

COHA = Coopers HawkDUFL = Dusky FlycatcherFLOW = Flammulated OwlFOSP = Fox SparrowGCKI = Golden-crowned KingletGTTO = Green-tailed TowheeHAFL = Hammond’s FlycatcherHETH = Hermit ThrushHEWA = Hermit WarblerHUVI = Hutton’s Vireo

LABU = Lazuli BuntingLISP = Lincoln’s SparrowMGWA = MacGillivray’s WarblerMOQU = Mountain QuailNAWA = Nashville WarblerNOFL = Northern FlickerNOGO = Northern GoshawkNPOW = Northern Pygmy-owlNSOW = Northern Saw-whet OwlOCWA = Orange-crowned Warbler

OSFL = Olive-sided FlycatcherPIWO = Pileated WoodpeckerPSFL = Pacific-slope FlycatcherPUFI = Purple FinchPUMA = Purple MartinRBSA = Red-breasted SapsuckerRECR = Red CrossbillRUGR = Ruffed GrouseRUHU = Rufous HummingbirdSPTO = Spotted Towhee

STJA – Steller’s JayTOWA = Townsend’s WarblerVASW = Vaux’s SwiftVATH = Varied ThrushWEBL = Western BluebirdWETA = Western TanagerWIFL = Willow FlycatcherWIWA = Wilson’s WarblerWIWR = Winter WrenWREN = Wrentit

Photo by Erik Ackerson

Photo by Pepper Trail
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—81

Appendix B. Relationships between thinning and breeding bird species abundance in conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5).

Species 1

Significantly 

Higher

Abundance

In Thinned 2

Similar

(Non-Significant)

Abundance Thinned 

and Unthinned 3

Significantly

Lower

Abundance in 

Thinned 2

Comments

American Robin B, D, E, F, J 4 G, H, K Thinning usually results in higher abundance in the short-term (1–5 years), with no change 

in abundance in the mid- to long-term (5–15 years). Heavier intensity thinning appears more likely to result in increased abundance in the short-term (1–5 years) than lighter intensity thinning.

Band-tailed Pigeon

H Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance in the mid-term (5–10 

years); short- and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Black-headed Grosbeak B, G, K Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance in the short-, mid-, or 

long-terms (1–15 years).

Black-throated Gray Warbler B, c, G D, K Mixed results suggest thinning results in lower abundance or no change in abundance in the 

short- and mid- to long-term (1–15 years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response.

Brown Creeper H, K F, G, L

C, D Mixed results suggest thinning usually results in lower abundance in the short-term (1–5 

years) and no change in abundance in the mid- and long-term (5–20 years) or higher abundance in the mid- to long-term (5–15 years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response.

Calliope Hummingbird

G Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance in the mid-term (5–10 

years); short- and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Cassin’s Vireo

G Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the mid-term (5–10 years); 

short- and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Chestnut-backed Chickadee F, H A, B, 

d, E, J, K, L

C Mixed results suggest thinning usually results in no change in abundance in the short- and 

mid- to long-term (1–20 years), or higher abundance in the mid-term (5–10 years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response.

Chipping Sparrow

G Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the mid-term (5–10 years); 

short- and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Dark-eyed Junco B, 

d, E, 

f, j, K c, G

H Thinning usually results in higher abundance in the short-term (1–5 years) and mid- to longterm (5–15 years); although local effects may result in no change or lower abundance in the 

short-term (1–5 years) or mid-term (5–10 years). Thinning intensity (light to heavy) does not appear to make much of a difference.

Dusky Flycatcher

G Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the mid-term (5–10 years); 

short- and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Evening Grosbeak D, H, K F, G Mixed results suggest thinning results in higher abundance or no change in abundance in the 

short- and mid- to long-terms (1–15 years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response.

Fox Sparrow E, G Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance in the short-term (1–5 years) 

or mid-term (5–10 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Continued
82—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington Species 1 Significantly Higher Abundance In Thinned 2 Similar (Non-Significant) Abundance Thinned and Unthinned 3 Significantly Lower Abundance in Thinned 2 Comments Golden-crowned Kinglet E, F, H, L B, 

C, D, J, K Mixed results suggest thinning usually results in lower abundance in the short-term (1–5 

years) and mid- to long-term (5–15 years) or no change in abundance in the mid- and long-term (5–20 years). Heavier intensity thinning appears more likely to result in reduced abundance than lighter intensity thinning.

Gray Jay

B D, H, K Limited data suggests thinning usually results in no change or an increase in abundance in the 

short-term (1–5 years) and no change in abundance in the mid- to long-term (5–15 years).

Hairy Woodpecker A, B, D, K, L

C, g, H Mixed results suggest thinning usually results in higher abundance in the short-, mid-, and 

long-terms (1–20 years); although local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in no change in abundance in the short-term (1– 5 years) or mid-term (5–10 years).

Hammond’s Flycatcher B, D, G, j, K, L

C

Consistent response that thinning usually results in higher abundance in the short-, mid-, and long-terms (1–20 years), although local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in no change in abundance in the short-term (1–5 years).

Hermit Thrush

G B, 

C, E, J Limited data suggests thinning results in lower abundance in the short- or mid-term (1–10 

years), or no change in abundance in the mid-term (5–10 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Hermit Warbler G, J

C, F, H, K, L B, D Mixed results suggest thinning usually results in lower abundance in the short- to mid-term 

(1–10 years), with local effects resulting in no change in abundance or higher abundance in the mid- to long-term (5–20 years). Heavier intensity thinning appears more likely to result in reduced abundance than lighter intensity thinning in the short-term (1–5 years).

Hutton’s Vireo

H B, 

C, L D, F, K Mixed results suggest thinning results in lower abundance or no change in abundance in the 

short-, mid- and long-terms (1–20 years) or higher abundance in the mid-term (5–10 years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response.

Lazuli Bunting

G Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance in the mid-term (5–10 

years); short- and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

MacGillivray’s Warbler B, H, J

G Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the short- and mid-term (1–10 

years) or no change or higher abundance in the mid-term (5–10 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Mountain Chickadee

G Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the mid-term (5–10 years); 

short- and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Mountain Quail

G Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance in the mid-term (5–10 

years); short- and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Nashville Warbler

G Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance in the mid-term (5–10 

years); short- and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Northern Flicker

G Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the mid-term (5–10 years); 

short- and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Orange-crowned Warbler

E Limited data suggests no change in abundance in the short-term (1–5 years); mid- and 

long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Appendix B. Relationships between thinning and breeding bird species abundance in conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5). — Continued
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—83 Species 1 Significantly Higher Abundance In Thinned 2 Similar (Non-Significant) Abundance Thinned and Unthinned 3 Significantly Lower Abundance in Thinned 2 Comments Pacific-slope Flycatcher B, E, F D, H, J, K, L Mixed results suggest thinning results in no change in abundance in the short-term (1–5 years) or lower abundance in the short-, mid-, and long-term (1–20 years). Heavier intensity thinning appears more likely to result in reduced abundance than lighter intensity thinning. Pileated Woodpecker

G Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance in the mid-term (5–10 

years); short- and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Purple Finch B, G Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance in the short- and mid-term 

(1-10 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Red-breasted Nuthatch F, G, H, K, L A, 

C, D, J Thinning usually results in no change in abundance in the short- or mid-term (1–10 years), 

but higher abundance in the mid- and long-term (5–20 years).

Red-breasted Sapsucker

B E, G Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the short-term (1–5 years) with 

no change in abundance in the mid-term (5–10 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Rufous Hummingbird B, 

C Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the short-term (1–5 years); 

mid- and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Song Sparrow

H

E Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance in the short-term (1–5 

years) and higher abundance in the mid-term (5–10 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Spotted Towhee

H

G Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance or no change in abundance in the 

mid-term (5–10 years); short- and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Steller’s Jay

C E, G, H, J, L

D Thinning usually results in no change in abundance in the short-, mid-, and long-term (1–20 

years), although local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in lower or higher abundance in the short-term (1–5 years).

Swainson’s Thrush H, J, L B, E, K

D Mixed results suggest thinning most often results in no change in abundance in the short- and 

mid- to long-terms (1–15 years), although local effects may result in lower abundance in the short-term (1–5 years) and higher abundance in the mid- and long-term (5–20 years). 

Townsend’s Solitaire B, D, G

C Limited data suggests thinning usually results in higher abundance in the short- and mid-term 

(1–10 years), although local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in no change in abundance in the short-term (1–5 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Townsend’s Warbler

H

E Limited data suggests thinning results in lower abundance in the short-term (1–5 years) and 

no change in abundance in the mid-term 5–10 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Varied Thrush E, F, L B, D Thinning usually results in lower abundance in the short-term (1–5 years) and no change in 

abundance in the mid-term (5–10 years) and long-term (10–20 years). Heavier intensity thinning appears more likely to result in reduced abundance than lighter intensity thinning.

Warbling Vireo D, G, K

B Mixed results suggest thinning results in higher abundance or no change in abundance in the 

short-term (1–5 years) with higher abundance in the mid- to long-term (5–15 years).

Appendix B. Relationships between thinning and breeding bird species abundance in conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5). — Continued

Continued
84—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington Species 1 Significantly Higher Abundance In Thinned 2 Similar (Non-Significant) Abundance Thinned and Unthinned 3 Significantly Lower Abundance in Thinned 2 Comments Western Tanager B, 

C, D, H, J, K G, L Thinning usually results in higher abundance in the short-term (1–5 years) and higher 

abundance or no change in abundance in the mid- to long-term (5–15 years).

White-headed Woodpecker

G Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the mid-term (5–10 years); 

short- and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Wilson’s Warbler H, L B, D, K

E Mixed results suggest thinning most often results in no change in abundance in the short- and 

mid- to long-term (1–15 years); although local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in lower abundance in the short-term (1–5 years) and higher abundance in the mid- and longterm (5–20 years).

Winter Wren F, K D, L B, H, J Mixed results suggest highly variable response; thinning can result in lower abundance in the 

short- and mid-term (1–10 years) or no change in abundance in the short-term (1–5 years) or long-term (10–20 years) and higher abundance in the mid- to long-term (5–15 years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response.

Western Wood-pewee

G Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance in the mid-term (5–10 

years); short- and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Yellow-rumped Warbler

C, G Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the short-term (1–5 years) and 

mid-term (5–10 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

1 Species listed here are those cited in the studies below that are considered to be associated with young conifer forests in the Guide.2 Higher and lower abundances in thinned stands reflect statistically significant differences as reported in the studies.3 Similar abundance between thinned and unthinned indicates there was no significant difference reported in the studies.4 Letters correspond to studies listed in the table below (ordered by years post-thin).

Reference Study Type 5 Years Post-Thin Level of thinning 6 Location

A Weikel (1997) experimental 1–2 Moderate to Heavy Northern 

Coast Range, OR

B Hagar et al. (2004) experimental 1–4 Moderate to Heavy West-central 

Cascades, OR

C Dillingham et al. (2007) experimental 2–3 Moderate to Heavy Southern 

Coast Range, OR

D Hayes et al. (2003) experimental 1–6 Moderate to Heavy Northern 

Coast Range, OR

E Dellasalla et al. (1996) observational 3–5 Light to Moderate Southeast AK (Prince of Wales Island)F Artman (1990) observational 4–6 Moderate to Heavy West-central 

Cascades, WA

G Siegel and DeSante (2003) observational 5–11 Light to Moderate Northwestern Sierra Nevada, 

C

A

H Manuwal and Palazotto (2004) observational 8–11 Light and Heavy Puget Lowlands, WAJ Hagar and Friesen (2009) experimental 10–12 Light to Heavy West-central 

Cascades, OR

K Hagar et al. (1996) observational 5–15 Light to Moderate

Central and Northern 

Coast Range, OR

L Muir et al. (2002) observational 10–24 Light to Moderate

Central 

Coast Range, OR

5 The summary includes both experimental studies (pre- and post-thinning in the same stand) and observational studies (comparing thinned and unthinned stands in two different places).6 The description of the level of thinning was taken from the study or modified slightly to be relative to the other studies. It is based generally on the volume removed and remaining tree densities, although data presented in 

Appendix B. Relationships between thinning and breeding bird species abundance in conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5). — Continuedthe studies were not always sufficient to apply consistent standards of light, moderate, and heavy thinning.
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—85

Appendix C. Birds in Mixed-Conifer Hardwood Forests: managing fire-adapted ecosystems in southwestern Oregon.

Mixed-conifer Hardwood Forest 

Ecological diversity is high in mixed-conifer hardwood forests of southwestern Oregon. 

Some of the dominant tree species in this habitat are Douglas-fir, true firs, ponderosa 

pine, oaks, and Pacific madrone. This forest type is found at elevations from sea level to 

~6,000 feet. Unlike the wetter climates in much of western Oregon, the climate conditions in 

parts of southwestern Oregon tend to be much milder and drier as characteristic of a 

Mediterranean Climate. 

Conservation Concerns 

Partners in Flight has developed a series of 

regional bird conservation plans that identify 

habitat conservation objectives for birds that are 

associated with specific habitat types. The OregonWashington Partners in Flight plan titled Habitat 

Conservation for Landbirds in Coniferous Forests of 

Western Oregon and Washington identifies important 

conservation issues and needs in the mixed-conifer 

hardwood forests of southwestern Oregon’s Klamath 

Mountains: 

 This habitat supports the highest coniferous forest 

bird diversity in all of western Oregon and 

Washington. 

 This biodiversity is associated with structural 

complexity and a high diversity and abundance of 

hardwood trees. 

 This diverse forest composition and structure, historically maintained by frequent mixedseverity fires, has been altered by a combination of timber and fire management. 

Conservation Focal Species and Habitat Objectives 

The Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight coniferous forest conservation plan identifies 

focal species that are associated with important habitat attributes in functioning coniferous 

forest ecosystems. By managing landscapes for habitat attributes that are important for 

these species, many other species and elements of biodiversity benefit. Habitat objectives 

for focal species that occur in mixed-conifer hardwood forests of southwestern Oregon 

include a mix of the following attributes.

Birds in Mixed-conifer Hardwood Forests 

Managing fire-adapted ecosystems 

in southwestern Oregon

 

Decision Support Tool 

DSTs present relevant 

information from 

regional research and 

monitoring efforts and 

applicable literature to 

inform land management 

decisions. 

DST Framework 

Klamath Bird 

Observatory DSTs 

convey science-based 

information to 

stakeholders who can 

implement strategies that 

benefit birds and their 

habitats. Our DSTs 

identify links between 

management challenges 

and bird conservation 

objectives. 

Why Birds? 

Birds are excellent 

ecological indicators. 

Their habitat associations 

are well known and they 

respond quickly to 

changes in habitat. 

Many species can be 

easily and inexpensively 

detected using standard 

monitoring methods. 

Partners in Flight has 

identified conservation 

focal species that are 

strongly associated with 

important habitat 

attributes. These focal 

species demonstrate 

measurable responses to 

management that alters 

their habitat attributes. 

Therefore bird 

monitoring can be used 

as a cost-effective tool 

for evaluating the 

effectiveness of 

management actions 

within an adaptive

management framework.

©Klamath Bird Observatory 2012 Decision Support Tool 

Mixed-conifer hardwood forest in the Klamath Mountains of southwestern Oregon. 

Mixed-conifer Hardwood Forests 

Version 1.6 

 Mature forest conditions including: 

 large snags 

 deciduous canopy trees 

 mid-story tree layers 

 Younger stands including: 

 closed canopy 

 open mid-story 

 deciduous understory 

 forest floor complexity 

 deciduous canopy trees 

 Sapling/seedling habitats including: 

 residual canopy trees 

 snags 

 deciduous vegetation 

 Mixed forests including: 

 pine-oak canopy/subcanopy 

 dense shrub understory 

 shrub-herbaceous interspersion 

 forest canopy edges 

 post-fire conditions 
86—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Land Management Challenges and Conservation Opportunities 

The mosaic of structurally diverse mixed-conifer hardwood forests in southwestern 

Oregon was historically maintained by frequent mixed-severity wildfires. A century of 

fire suppression has increased the risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfires. To address 

this management challenge various projects involving a variety of forest treatment 

prescriptions are being implemented to restore these fire adapted forest ecosystems and 

reduce risks associated with stand replacing fires. 

Bird monitoring efforts in southwestern Oregon have resulted in models that predict the 

occurrence of birds, including conservation focal species. Using simple forest 

characteristics, such as vegetation volume and conifer-hardwood composition, bird 

occurrence can be predicted across varying forest conditions. Forest characteristics can 

also be used to describe the diverse mosaics typically found in fire-adapted mixed-conifer 

hardwood forests, as well as forests that have become less diverse as a result of fire 

suppression. 

Without fire, high volume conifer stands become more abundant. A variety of restoration 

techniques are being designed to simulate the effects of mixed-severity fire and increase 

lower volume mixed-conifer hardwood conditions across the landscape. These changes in 

vegetation can cause bird species composition to shift from a high volume conifer 

community to a mixed-conifer hardwood community. Black-throated Gray Warblers are 

expected to benefit from treatments that result in recruitment of broadleaf hardwoods 

into the forest canopy, while Hermit Warblers are less likely to use this habitat. 

Combined with information from the Partners in Flight Oregon-Washington coniferous 

forest conservation plan, results from local bird monitoring efforts are being used to inform 

management planning associated with fuel reduction programs in southwestern Oregon. 

By predicting the response of focal species to management activities and then monitoring 

the results of various restoration techniques within an adaptive management framework, 

the ability of such projects to meet desired conditions and bird conservation objectives is 

being measured.

References (Abbreviated) 

Alexander. 2011. Integrating Conservation and Management Objectives. US Fish & Wildlife Service BTP-R1014-2011 

Alexander et al. 2009. Decision Support Tools: Bridging the Gap. Proceedings of the 4th PIF Conference: Tundra to Tropics 

Altman and Alexander. 2012. Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in Coniferous Forests. Oregon-Washington PIF 

Betts et al. 2010. Thresholds in Forest Bird Occurrence as a Function of Early-seral Broadleaf Forest. Ecological Applications 

Seavy and Alexander. 2011. Bird Habitat in Broadleaf-Conifer Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 

 

Monitoring 

As management in 

mixed-conifer 

hardwood forests is 

implemented, bird 

monitoring can be used 

to evaluate the ability 

to meet multiple land 

management objectives 

within an adaptive 

management 

framework. Bird 

monitoring provides 

information about 

species composition, 

abundance, and fitness 

(e.g., productivity). 

Monitoring the 

response of birds to 

land management 

allows us to evaluate 

its effectiveness. 

Results can be used to 

inform future 

management and 

identify opportunities 

to tie bird conservation 

objectives with priority 

management 

objectives, such as fuel 

reduction. 

Sponsors 

Joint Fire Sciences 

Program 

National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation 

Contact 

Klamath Bird Observatory 

KBO@KlamathBird.org 

PO Box 758 

Ashland, OR 97520 

(541) 201-0866 

www.KlamathBird.org

Partners in Flight is a 

voluntary coalition 

dedicated to “keeping 

common birds common.” 

www.partnersinflight.org

©Klamath Bird Observatory 2012 Decision Support Tool Mixed-conifer Hardwood Forests 

Version 1.6 

Chapparal and 

Oak woodland 

Bewick's Wren

Bullock's Oriole

California Towhee 

Lesser Goldfinch

Western Scrub-Jay

Western Wood-pewee

White-breasted Nuthatch

Broadleaf-conifer mix

Bushtit

Lazuli Bunting

Spotted Towhee 

Black-headed Grosbeak

Black-throated Gray Warbler 

Nashville Warbler

High volume conifer

Golden-crowned Kinglet

Townsend's Solitaire

Brown Creeper

Hermit Warbler

Pacific-slope Flycatcher

Winter Wren

Low volume conifer

Mountain Chickadee

Green-tailed Towhee

Conifer generalists

Red-breasted Nuthatch

Yellow-rumped Warbler

Chapparal and 

Oak woodland 

Bewick's Wren

Bullock's Oriole

California Towhee 

Lesser Goldfinch

Western Scrub-Jay

Western Wood-pewee

White-breasted Nuthatch

Broadleaf-conifer mix

Bushtit

Lazuli Bunting

Spotted Towhee 

Black-headed Grosbeak

Black-throated Gray Warbler 

Nashville Warbler

High volume conifer

Golden-crowned Kinglet

Townsend's Solitaire

Brown Creeper

Hermit Warbler

Pacific-slope Flycatcher

Winter Wren

Low volume conifer

Mountain Chickadee

Green-tailed Towhee

Conifer generalists

Red-breasted Nuthatch

Yellow-rumped Warbler

Chapparal and 

Oak woodland 

Bewick's Wren

Bullock's Oriole

California Towhee 

Lesser Goldfinch

Western Scrub-Jay

Western Wood-pewee

White-breasted Nuthatch

Broadleaf-conifer mix

Bushtit

Lazuli Bunting

Spotted Towhee 

Black-headed Grosbeak

Black-throated Gray Warbler 

Nashville Warbler

High volume conifer

Golden-crowned Kinglet

Townsend's Solitaire

Brown Creeper

Hermit Warbler

Pacific-slope Flycatcher

Winter Wren

Low volume conifer

Mountain Chickadee

Green-tailed Towhee

Conifer generalists

Red-breasted Nuthatch

Yellow-rumped Warbler

Appendix C. Birds in Mixed-Conifer Hardwood Forests: managing fire-adapted ecosystems in southwestern Oregon. — Continued 
Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington—87

www.blm.gov

A COLLABORATION IN BIRD CONSERVATION BETWEEN 

THE INSTITUTE FOR BIRD POPULATIONS, POINT REYES STATION, CALIFORNIA AND

KLAMATH BIRD OBSERVATORY, ASHLAND, OREGON,

WITH SUPPORT FROM THE USDA FOREST SERVICE REGION SIX, THE NATIONAL FISH AND 

WILDIFE FEDERATION, AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT. www.fs.fed.us

www.birdpop.org

LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR BREEDING 

LANDBIRDS OF PACIFIC NORTHWEST FORESTS

“WESTERN” FLYCATCHER (Empidonax difficilis)

Author: Phil Nott, The Institute for Bird Populations, California.

INTRODUCTION:

"Western" Flycatcher is a 

medium-small (14-17cm, 9-

12g) insectivore that prefers 

to breed in a variety of 

mixed, coniferous and 

broadleaf forested habitats, 

where they are associated 

with streams, and open 

understory that benefit 

foraging. The Pacific-slope 

Flycatcher of the Pacific 

Northwest winters in scrubby 

forests of western Mexico, whereas the Cordilleran 

Flycatcher (eastern slope) winters in the montane forests 

of central Mexico.

CONSERVATION STATUS:

Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data collected in the 

Dissected Rockies showed a non-significant increase, 

but no MAPS data were available for this province.

Fig 1. Active MAPS stations and Forest Service (FS), Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 

and National Park Service (NPS) lands in the northwestern 

United States. The hatched area represents “Western”

Flycatcher breeding range within the mapped extent.

Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data collected in the 

Cascade Mountains (Table 1) showed a significant 

decline. Similarly, MAPS data from Mount Baker, 

Wenatchee, and Willamette national forests (Fig. 1), 

within the Cascade Mountains province, showed 

significantly declining numbers of adults, stable 

numbers of young, and high survival rate. 

Table 1. Summary of "Western" Flycatcher BBS (1992-2007) 

and MAPS data (1992-2007) for the Dissected Rockies (DR), 

Cascade Mountains (CM), Southern Pacific Rainforests 

(SPR), and Pitt-Klamath (P-K) physiographic provinces.

DR CM SPR P-K

BBS Adult Trend +0.71 -2.68 -2.31 -1.73

MAPS Results

# Stations 13 6 7

Adult Trend -1.05 -2.89 -1.37

Young Trend -7.65 +1.61 -5.25

Productivity Index 0.223 0.113 0.176

Survival Rate 0.488 0.535 0.464

MAPS data from Siuslaw national forest (in SPR 

province) showed non-significantly declining numbers of 

adults and young and low survival rate consistent with 

the declining BBS trend.

MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES:

Managers should maintain a variously-aged coniferous 

and mixed forest dominating 60-90% (median 75%) of 

the 1250 hectares that lie within a 2-kilometer radius 

landscape. Preferred characteristics include ~1% 

successional habitat. ,2-10% coverage of deciduous 

forest, including up to ten hectares of riparian habitat 

(using 15m buffer around perennial streams). Coniferous

and mixed forest coverage should approach 90% (~1100 

hectares) which ensures some 900 hectares of core 

habitat. 

Numbers of adult “Western” flycatchers correlated 

negatively with the core area of shrub-successional 

habitat, whereby the lowest numbers were associated 

with forests containing ~10-15 hectares of such habitat. 

Adult numbers were also lower in areas with more 

extensive deciduous forest. 

Appendix D. Decision support tool fact sheet for the landscape-level conservation and management of the Pacific-slope 

Flycatcher in Pacific Northwest Forests.
88—Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington 

Appendix D. Decision support tool fact sheet for the landscape-level conservation and management of the Pacific-slope 

Flycatcher in Pacific Northwest Forests. — Continued

We suggest that managers maintain or restore large 

patches of thin-canopy coniferous and mixed forests, 

including large core areas, within more densely canopied 

forest to benefit the reproductive success of “western” 

flycatchers. Our data also suggest that the maintenance 

of riparian buffer zones, especially deciduous 

components, should help support healthy productive 

populations. It appears that relatively undisturbed, 

closed-canopy forests may not be beneficial to this 

species; however, a mosaic of large (>1000 hectares) 

different-aged stands were associated with increasing 

numbers of both young and adults. The 1,250 hectare 

landscape shown in Fig. 2a provides excellent breeding 

habitat in mixed coniferous-deciduous forest. 

Fig. 2. a) Two-kilometer radius National Land Cover Dataset 

(NLCD) image centered on the 

Mary’s Creek MAPS station on 

Siuslaw National Forest, OR (left). 

The station recorded high numbers 

of adult and young flycatchers, and 

high reproductive success. The 

landscape is at ~300 meters 

elevation and mostly covered in 

mature mixed forest (dark green) 

and more open canopy forest (light 

green). Especially note the high 

forest cover percentage and lack of edges or patches of shrub 

or regenerating forest (brown and tan).

b) Conversely, the landscape 

around Crab Creek MAPS station 

at ~200m elevation on Siuslaw 

National Forest, OR (right) exhibits 

a widespread high level of 

fragmentation caused by clearcuts 

and other disturbances resulting in 

a low percentage of “core” forest, 

and larger patches of thinned 

forest (lighter green), shrub habitat 

(tan), and grassland (pale yellow). 

Consequently, this area supported low numbers of adult and 

young “Western” Flycatcher, and poor reproductive success.

A habitat conservation plan for breeding landbirds of 

coniferous forests in Oregon and Washington (Altman 

1999) recommends that management to maintain late 

successional forest, and riparian corridors (especially 

deciduous shade trees) would be beneficial to breeding 

populations. Altman specifically recommends that 

managers “provide late-successional forest with ~20% 

deciduous canopy cover, particularly where associated 

with riparian zone or wet site deciduous trees such as 

red alder and big leaf maple. In harvest units with 

hardwood site potential, retain deciduous canopy trees 

and/or western hemlock and western red cedar trees in

small residual clumps (retention aggregates) near or 

adjacent to the riparian zone to provide suitable nesting 

and foraging habitat. Riparian buffer zones within 

harvest units should be >40 meters wide, and meet 

stand-level habitat conditions described above.”

Forest pests and future climate

Predicted milder winters and hotter, drier summers in 

Washington and Oregon may result in more frequent, 

widespread, and intense forest pest outbreaks. Nott et 

al. (2002) showed a strong relationship between the 

winter activity of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and 

the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the 

subsequent productivity of “Western” Flycatcher. High 

reproductive success was associated with wet winter 

and spring conditions across the non-breeding range 

and mild winters across the breeding range. 

Extensive outbreaks of forest pests may provide ample 

food for breeding birds but they also thin the canopy 

cover, thereby changing the micro-climate and leading to 

a more developed mid-story and understory. Thus, the 

predicted drier, open canopy conditions may increase 

the availability of quality flycatcher breeding habitat, but 

drier summers may decrease the deciduous component 

of the forest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

We thank the Forest Service Region 6, National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation, the Pacific Coast Joint Venture, 

and USFS/BLM Service First for funding and logistical 

support. We wish to acknowledge Barb Bresson (USFS), 

Bob Altman of the American Bird Conservancy, and 

various reviewers for comments, information, and 

advice. The range map was provided by.“Birds of North 

America Online” maintained by the Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology” (http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna).

REFERENCES:

Nott, M. P. and D. R. Kaschube. 2007. Managing Landbird 

Populations in Forests of the Pacific Northwest Region. 

Web-based decision-support tools for Pacific Northwest 

forest managers. A report to the Pacific Joint Venture. 

http://birdpop.org/usfsr6/usfspnwr6.htm

Nott, M.P., DeSante, D.F., Siegel, R.B., and P. Pyle. 2002. 

Influences of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the North 

Atlantic Oscillation on avian productivity in forests of the 

Pacific Northwest of North America. Global Ecology and 

Biogeography 11:333-342.

Altman, B. 1999. Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous 

forests of western Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. Prepared 

by the American Bird Conservancy for Oregon-Washington 

Partners in Flight. (http://www.orwapif.org)

www.blm.gov

The Institute for Bird Populations is a California 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to the 

research and dissemination of information on changes in the abundance, distribution, and ecology of 

bird populations. For further information contact The Institute for Bird Populations, Box 1346, Point 

Reyes Station, CA, USA. Tel: (415) 663 1436 or visit http://www.birdpop.org

This project was funded by Service First which provides legal authority for the Forest Service, 

National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management to carry out 

shared or joint management activities to achieve mutually beneficial resource management goals.

www.fs.fed.us