A Strategy for Maintaining Healthy
Populations of Western Coniferous
Forest Birds
Sallie J. Hejl
Abstract—Current knowledge of the distribution, habitat relations, and population trends of most birds inhabiting western
coniferous forests is rudimentary, and the quality of knowledge
varies among species and areas. Cumulatively, individual, correlative, research projects from the Rocky Mountains indicate that:
Habitat changes due to recent logging practices are detrimental for
most permanent residents and many migrants but are beneficial for
other migrants; some species are positively affected by silviculturally induced landscape changes and some are negatively affected;
and fire suppression negatively affects birds associated with habitats created by high- and low-intensity fires. Little is known,
however, about the impacts of management practices on the demographics of particular species. In addition, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS) point out 10 western forest species
that have declined in the past 24 years, but cannot indicate the
causes of these declines. BBS data also are limited in that substantive information has been obtained for only 50% of western coniferous forest birds, and many of the birds most likely to be negatively
affected by logging or fire management are not sampled well by
BBS. Until we have more concrete, specific information on the
effects of management on all species, I recommend a strategy to help
maintain western coniferous forest birds. The strategy is composed
of three stages: (1) to maintain, mimic, and restore natural vegetation patterns and processes, (2) to ensure that the specific habitat
components required by sensitive species are created and/or maintained, and (3) to monitor the habitats and individual sensitive
species in future years. This process is illustrated with an example
from managers of the Lolo National Forest. Both logging and
prescribed fire are used in this example to recreate natural vegetation patterns across a landscape which had been logged previously
in many different ways. The three-stage process would be the same
in other forest cover types elsewhere in the West, but the details of
the management treatments used would differ depending on the
natural vegetation, current condition, and the natural disturbance
processes for that particular area. Finally, while all species found in
western coniferous forests should be considered in the creation of
the North American Bird Conservation Plan, I suggest particular
attention be paid to declining species, uncommon species, and those
negatively affected by logging and fire suppression.
In: Bonney, Rick; Pashley, David N.; Cooper, Robert J.; Niles, Larry,
eds. 2000. Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners in Flight planning process; Proceedings of the 3rd Partners in Flight Workshop; 1995
October 1-5; Cape May, NJ. Proceedings RMRS-P-16. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station.
Sallie J. Hejl, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807. Current address: Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, 2258 TAMU, College Station, TX
77843-2258.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000
In developing a North American Bird Conservation Plan,
many western coniferous forest birds and habitats emerge
as high priority species and habitats based on particular
review criteria (e.g., population trend information for each
bird species; historic losses, current threats, and conservation potential for each habitat) and processes established by
each State Working Group of Partners in Flight. To ensure
the maintenance of healthy populations of forest birds,
managers would need to know: (1) the current distribution
of each species, (2) the current distribution of vegetation
characteristics important to each species (e.g., age classes of
each forest cover type, structural attributes such as snags
and downed logs), and (3) the effects of all disturbance
regimes—both human-induced and natural—on the distribution and demographics of each bird species within each
habitat and in various parts of its geographic range. Managers are not likely ever to have more than a small amount of
this information. This paper summarizes the current state
of knowledge about coniferous forest birds in western North
America and illustrates a management strategy that can
help forest managers maintain healthy populations of western coniferous forest birds.
Current Knowledge About Western
Coniferous Forest Birds __________
Knowledge of current distribution, habitat relations, and
population trends of most western coniferous birds is rudimentary, and the quality of knowledge varies among areas
(Hejl and others 1995). (I am not considering or reviewing
information on the more-studied, known, or suspected threatened and endangered species.) Key information sources are
individual research projects and the Biological Resource
Division Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS). Both sources are
valuable but both have limitations. Most research projects
have examined the effects of disturbance regimes on bird
species through correlative studies based on count data, not
through examination of demographics or causality. In contrast, BBS is a monitoring program that indicates population trends and is not habitat- or treatment-specific.
Effects of Logging on Western Coniferous
Forest Birds
Cumulatively, individual research projects indicate that
some species are affected positively and some negatively by
logging. This information results primarily from correlation analyses between bird presence or abundance on
manipulated and non-manipulated habitats, primarily
97
forest stands. For example, reviewing literature on the
effects of silvicultural treatments on forest birds in the
Rocky Mountains, Hejl and others (1995) found that 26
species were less abundant in treated areas than in unlogged
areas, whereas 15 other species were generally more abundant in the treated areas. Not surprisingly, species that
were more abundant in unlogged areas were associated
with mature and old-growth forests; almost all resident
and about half the migrant species are in this category.
Most species associated with logged areas are migrants,
most of which are known to be associated with open conditions. In addition, in the Rocky Mountains, mature-forest
associates generally appear to be less affected by partial
logging than by clearcutting. The data to support this
conclusion are not very robust, however, because few studies have examined the effects of logging other than
clearcutting. Correlational studies in other areas, e.g.,
Raphael and others (1988) in northwestern Douglas-fir,
also suggest that many mature forest species, such as boleforagers, are negatively affected by logging, while openforest species, such as ground/brush foragers, are affected
positively. These results are consistent across habitats and
geographic areas for some species—for example, Whitebreasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) and Brown Creeper
(Certhia americana)—but not all, e.g., Townsend’s Solitaire (Myadestes townsendi) and Hermit Thrush (Catharus
guttatus) (Hejl 1994; Hejl and others 1995).
Knowledge of the effects of silviculturally induced landscape changes (e.g., from clearcutting, strip-cutting, and
partial logging) on bird populations is even more rudimentary, although some good correlative studies have been
conducted (Wetmore and others 1985; Rosenberg and Raphael
1986; Verner and Larson 1989; Lehmkuhl and others 1991;
Keller and Anderson 1992; Hejl and Paige 1994; McGarigal
and McComb 1995; Schmiegelow and others 1997). These
studies show that some species are more abundant in fragmented areas, whereas some are less abundant. For example, in Douglas-fir forests in California, bird species
richness increased significantly in more fragmented stands
and 20 species were associated with edges; 18 species,
however, avoided edges, and some species clearly showed
negative responses to fragmentation, e.g., Spotted Owl (Strix
occidentalis), Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus),
and Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) (Rosenberg and
Raphael 1986). Similarly to stand-based studies (Hejl and
others 1995), 35% of the residents were associated with
unfragmented forest interiors, whereas only 11% of migrants showed negative responses to fragmentation
(Rosenberg and Raphael 1986). In cedar/hemlock forests in
northern Idaho, 16 species were more abundant in areas
fragmented by clearcutting, and 3 species—Brown Creeper,
Winter Wren, and Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus
satrapa)—were more abundant in continuous areas (Hejl
and Paige 1994). In general, Brown Creeper (Keller and
Anderson 1992; Hejl and Paige 1994; but see Rosenberg and
Raphael 1986) and Winter Wren (Rosenberg and Raphael
1986; Lehmkuhl and others 1991; Hejl and Paige 1994;
McGarigal and McComb 1995) are negatively affected by
various types of fragmentation caused by logging, while
Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus borealis) (Rosenberg and
Raphael 1986; Hejl and Paige 1994; McGarigal and McComb
1995) and Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus) (Rosenberg and
98
Raphael 1986; Lehmkuhl and others 1991; Keller and Anderson 1992; Hejl and Paige 1994) are positively affected. These
generalizations stem from count data from landscapes modified in many different ways, and provide only an indication
of the importance of forest fragmentation to these species.
Indeed, in most cases, teasing apart the effects of fragmentation, or changes in landscape pattern, from the effects of
logging per se is difficult.
In contrast to these correlative studies, Schmiegelow and
others (1997) used an experimental approach to understanding changes in bird numbers in response to changes in
landscape patterns. Comparing pre- and post-harvest measurements of bird populations in old, boreal mixed-wood
forests, these researchers found that fragmentation had a
significant negative effect on seven species in isolated fragments (isolated by clearcutting on all four sides) and six
species in connected fragments (isolated on three sides by
clearcutting with the fourth side connected to a riparian
buffer strip). In contrast, fragmentation has a positive effect
on three species in isolated and two species in connected
fragments. Many species were temporarily crowded into
isolated fragments for one year after the treatment. Considering this, some of the species that seem positively affected
by fragmentation in many of the correlative studies mentioned above may also be exhibiting this initial crowding
effect, and may actually be negatively affected by fragmentation in the long-term (also suggested by Rosenberg and
Raphael 1986).
We are just beginning to understand the relationships
between western forest birds and silviculturally induced
changes in landscape patterns from these few correlative
studies and one experimental study. As McGarigal and
McComb (1995) and Schmiegelow and others (1997) acknowledged, all of these results must be interpreted within
the scope and limitations of each study. For example, in the
study of Schmiegelow and others, the fragmentation experiments were embedded in a landscape where large areas of
old, mixed forest are still available, potentially dampening
any local-scale impacts. Landscape studies conducted at
different landscape scales and embedded in different matrices are even harder to generalize from than stand-level
studies.
These generalizations about the effects of logging on birds
result from pooling data across coniferous forests and are
based on a relatively small number of correlative studies
measuring bird presence and abundance in various habitats
(e.g., 19 stand-level studies about logging in the Rocky
Mountains). Little is known about the specific relationships
between birds and logging. At best, correlative studies
provide an indication of how bird densities would be affected
by habitat manipulation, but such studies cannot reveal the
actual processes involved in any noted changes.
Indeed, if a species is consistently absent from manipulated areas that it occupied prior to the manipulation, for
example, when many studies are compared as in Hejl and
others 1995, then that species probably has been negatively
affected by that manipulation. But, on any one particular
study, an absent species also could have been affected by
another manipulation in the landscape, or affected cumulatively by several manipulations of which this manipulation was just one, or simply could be exhibiting natural
population fluctuations (Hejl and others 1988). We are
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000
even less certain if change in density reflects changes in its
demographics (via nesting success, overwinter survival,
and so forth; see Tobalske 1992; Hitchcox 1996; Hejl and
Holmes, this proceedings). It is clear, however, that a
substantial change in the distribution or habitat use of a
species in response to a treatment is just as important as its
demographics. We need all three sets of information (distribution, habitat use, and demographics) to know how to
maintain species, and we have little information on distribution and habitat use, and almost none on demographics,
for most western forest birds.
Effects of Fire on Western Coniferous
Forest Birds
Forest fires are the primary agent of natural disturbance
in the West; birds, therefore, evolved with forest fires.
Understanding the effects of fire on birds is difficult, because
fires vary in intensity, duration, frequency, location, shape,
and extent, and few studies have been conducted in burned
habitats (Hejl and others 1995). High-intensity fires often
create habitat for primary and secondary cavity nesters. In
the Rocky Mountains, woodpeckers (migrants and residents), flycatchers (migrants), and seed-eaters (migrants)
all benefit from the habitat created by high-intensity fires
one to two years after the fire (Hutto 1995). Moderate- and
low-intensity fires show less dramatic immediate effects
(Hejl 1994). Low-intensity fires may be most important in
maintenance of park-like forests, resulting in habitat for
birds that prefer open forest, e.g., Purple Martin (Progne
subis). Because overall acreage burned has declined—for
example, the acreage burned by low-intensity fires has
declined by at least an order of magnitude in many forest
systems (McKelvey and others 1996)—it is reasonable to
assume that bird species associated either directly with
fires, or with fire-maintained forest structures, have been
negatively affected by fire suppression.
Salvage logging of burned forests can further increase or
decrease the quality of burns for individual bird species.
American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) and Lewis’ Woodpecker
(Melanerpes lewis) may benefit from partial logging (Saab
1997), and Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) may benefit
from clearcutting when a few snags are left behind (Caton
1996). Many cavity nesters, however, may be negatively
affected by logging, as demonstrated in the following studies: Eight species nested in partially logged but not in
clearcut post-fire forests (Caton 1996); few Black-backed
Woodpeckers (Picoides arcticus) and Three-toed Woodpeckers (P. tridactylus) nested in the partially logged portions of
burned forests, whereas many did in unlogged portions
(Hitchcox 1996; Saab 1997; Hejl, unpublished data); and
nesting success for Northern Flickers (Colaptes auratus)
was lower in logged than in unlogged burns (Hitchcox 1996).
Population Trends of Western Coniferous
Forest Birds
In contrast to habitat-relationship studies, population trend
data derived through BBS point out 10 forest species that
likely have declined in the past 24 years (e.g., Band-tailed
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000
Pigeon, Columba fasciata, and Olive- sided Flycatcher), but
do not indicate how or why these birds have declined (Hejl
1994). BBS data are limited also in that substantive information has been obtained for only 50% (57 of 113) of western
coniferous forest birds. Many of the species that are most
dramatically and negatively affected by many forms of
logging and/or the absence of fire, for example Black-backed
Woodpecker (Hutto 1995), Pileated Woodpecker (Bull 1987;
Raphael and others 1988), Purple Martin (Brawn and Balda
1988), and Brown Creeper (Keller and Anderson 1992) are
inadequately sampled by BBS and therefore not monitored
by this program. Unfortunately, simply adding more BBS
routes does not solve this problem for most of these species,
51 of which are found in such low densities, or have such low
detectabilities, that population trends cannot be derived
from BBS data (Hejl 1994). Current BBS statisticians recommend analyzing only those species whose average detections are greater than or equal to 1.00 detection/route (John
Sauer, personal communication), and these 51 species currently average less than this level. Sampling optimal habitat for these species may help us to determine trends for
some of them, but that approach is unlikely to determine this
information for all. While the continued existence of oldgrowth forests, snags, burns (especially unlogged burns),
and interior forests probably is very important for the
maintenance of many species (Hejl 1994), our current monitoring programs often do not adequately sample these habitats or the species about which we should be most concerned.
A Strategy for Maintaining Healthy
Populations of Western Coniferous
Forest Birds ____________________
This strategy is a three-stage management process for
maintaining western coniferous forest bird populations:
(1) Maintain, mimic, and restore natural vegetation patterns and processes, (2) ensure that the specific habitat
components required by sensitive species are created and/or
maintained, and (3) monitor the habitats and individual
sensitive species in future years. The process is based on the
idea that we do not know every habitat requirement for
every species, but we can assume that species present today
evolved under natural processes in natural habitats, and
that by preserving these processes and habitats, we should
be able to maintain healthy populations of the species that
are associated with them.
The first stage includes three steps: (a) Maintain all
habitats, for example forest cover types and successional
stages, and all habitat components, for example snags, (b)
strive to mimic presettlement (“natural”) proportions and
distributions of forest types, successional stages, and habitat components, either by retaining or restoring them within
their range of variation, and (c) allow or reintroduce natural
disturbance patterns, for example, let fires burn or use
prescribed fire, leaving many burned areas unlogged (Hejl
and others 1995). Sweden has recently begun using a similar
strategy in boreal forests (Fries and others 1997). The
second stage entails comparing the proposed future vegetation to the needs of each sensitive species (as determined by
an examination of the literature) that would potentially use
99
habitats in the area, and ensuring that an adequate amount
and kind of vegetation remains or is created. The third stage
is to use standardized methods to monitor the habitats and
sensitive species in an area, preferably before and at severalyear intervals after the treatments are applied.
A Case Study ___________________
The following description of the strategy in operation on
the Lolo National Forest (LNF) is an example for a forest in
which I have worked, and for which I know the ecosystems
well. Application of the strategy, however, should be the
same on any area. If the natural patterns in a given area
differ from my example, then the patterns in the target area
should be mimicked. The strategy does not imply that one
type of habitat is superior to another, for example, that old
growth is more important than early successional habitat.
Rather, the strategy strives to maintain each type of habitat
in a proportion similar to its historical existence.
The LNF is using this strategy for a timber sale in the
Moccasin Ecosystem Management area (J. M. Hillis, personal communication, Lolo National Forest, Building 24,
Fort Missoula, Missoula, MT 59801). The area is composed
of three coniferous cover types. Much of the lower elevation
is covered with ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)/Douglasfir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests. These pine/fir forests
last underburned in 1919, and most of the largest trees were
cut in 1960. The existing forest is fairly young. The middle
elevation is covered by Douglas-fir/western larch (Larix
occidentalis) forests. These were underburned in some areas
and had stand-replacing fires in others, with the last fires in
1910 and 1919. Big trees were selectively logged out over the
years. Patches of young Douglas-fir and young western larch
remain, with some large larches spread in pockets throughout the area. The upper elevations are mainly lodgepole pine
(Pinus contorta), in which many fires occurred in the 1800s
and 1900s, until 1919. Much of the area was clearcut in 40acre patches in 1970.
Based on the literature and current and old (1937) aerial
photos, managers on the LNF compared the vegetation
patterns that exist today with patterns they believed to
occur historically. They determined that forest composition
and structure in all three areas likely varies from
presettlement times, and from what would exist today had
these areas been governed solely by natural processes.
Based upon presettlement patterns, the lower elevations
were covered primarily with large stands (hundreds to
thousands of acres) of old-growth ponderosa pine, which
underburned every 5 to 25 years (Arno 1976; Arno 1980;
Gruell and others 1982; Gruell 1983; Arno 1988; Hejl 1992;
Losensky 1993; Arno and others 1995a). The middle elevations consisted of a mixture of even-aged and uneven-aged
Douglas-fir and western larch, with scattered stands of large
larch throughout. Fire frequency varied from 15 to 80 years,
and from low to high intensity, with patch sizes varying from
fairly small to fairly large depending upon local topography
(Arno 1980; Barrett and others 1991; Hejl 1992; Losensky
1993; Barrett 1994). The upper elevations were composed of
a mosaic of primarily young lodgepole pine stands of varying
sizes and shapes. High-intensity fires most likely occurred
every 20 to 200 years and ranged from 100 to 1,000 acres
100
(Arno 1980; Barrett and others 1991; Losensky 1993; Barrett
1994). All of the areas would have more standing dead trees
(snags) and large downed logs than they do now had natural
processes been allowed to continue.
For the first stage of the strategy, the suggested treatments were: (1) Lower elevations: Remove much of the
Douglas-fir, but leave some large Douglas-fir; leave any
large- or medium-sized ponderosa pine; and underburn
periodically to encourage the recreation of parklike oldgrowth ponderosa pine stands. (2) Middle elevations: Remove some pole-sized Douglas-fir and thin the pole-sized
larch to encourage some patches of parklike old-growth
larch stands. (3) Upper elevations: Burn the entire area as
it stands without logging it.
For both economic and political reasons, a compromise
approach actually was employed for the upper elevations:
Log large lodgepole pine from the leave strips of highly
fragmented areas; leave the medium and small trees; and
then burn the entire landscape to recreate a large, early
seral community with much standing dead and downed
woody debris.
Restoring or recreating “old-growth” ponderosa pine in
the lower elevations requires manipulation (Arno and others 1995b; Arno and others 1995a)—both logging of understory trees and conducting periodic prescribed burns. Decades of fire suppression have changed the natural
disturbance patterns and have allowed the build-up of duff
and understory Douglas-fir. In general, historically and
currently, old-growth and younger ponderosa pine forests
require frequent, periodic underburns to favor ponderosa
pine over Douglas-fir. Not all old-growth or young forests
would require this level of manipulation to recreate
presettlement patterns. Other old-growth forests, for example western redcedar (Thuja plicata)/western hemlock
(Tsuga heterophylla), and some northern Pacific Northwest
Douglas-fir do not require the same frequency of underburns
to retain their character (Arno 1980; Hemstrom and
Franklin 1982; Agee 1991) and are not likely to require
logging of any sort. Also, as much or more early successional habitat exists now than did historically, so the
concern on the LNF was to increase old growth, not early
seral communities. That scenario may not always occur. If
early successional forests are less common than historically, then this strategy calls for increasing those habitats.
Variation in treatment is an important concept in the
mimicking of natural disturbance patterns and processes.
While the maintenance of variation needs to be included in
the treatment of each of these habitats, the maintenance of
variation in stand age, stand structure, and patch size
probably is particularly important in the middle-elevation
larch/fir habitat in this case study.
For the second stage in this case study, the needs of three
sensitive species were considered. Flammulated Owls (Otus
flammeolus) require large ponderosa pine trees, large snags,
pockets of Douglas-fir, and a fairly open stand (McCallum
1994a,b). Recreating old-growth ponderosa pine stands
should meet these needs. Pileated Woodpeckers need large
snags (especially ponderosa pine and larch in this area)
(McClelland 1977; Bull 1987). Some snags exist but more are
needed in the future at lower and middle elevations. Recruiting older stands of ponderosa pine and larch will meet this
need in the long-term. Black-backed Woodpeckers may be
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000
dependent on stand-replacing fires in the Rocky Mountains
(Hutto 1995). Appropriate habitat will be created in the
upper elevations by the large, landscape level fires, which
will recruit fire-killed dead stands, as long as enough medium and large trees (for snag recruitment) or medium and
large snags in suitable densities and patch sizes are left for
nesting and foraging in the area.
For the final stage of the strategy, all habitats and the
three sensitive bird species will be monitored in future
years. Optimally, these animals would be sampled for presence/absence and abundance before the treatment, then,
using the same methods, every few years after the treatment. The vegetation also should be monitored to see if the
management methods used can successfully recreate
presettlement patterns of forest types, successional stages,
and habitat components.
In this example, based on information available at the
time this management plan was created, mimicking natural
vegetation patterns and processes appears to meet the
known needs of the sensitive species in this area, some in the
short-term, others in the long-term. In other cases, such
mimicking may not meet the needs for specific sensitive
species. Then, compromise prescriptions may be needed, in
which natural disturbance patterns are modified to ensure
that the specific requirements of sensitive species are provided. These modifications may be required if humans have
recently created new habitats or microhabitats that are
solely or preferentially used by some sensitive species, and
which would not exist if the landscape were managed only to
mimic presettlement patterns. Another issue would be if
habitats are so greatly changed that natural conditions or
proportions cannot be restored quickly or at all.
The proposed strategy is most applicable in relatively
natural areas (where land use has not changed the land base
to alternative uses, e.g., housing and agricultural land) and
where adjoining landowners agree with the principles discussed above. It may be most applicable to western forests
because they are extensive and publicly owned. In areas of
alternative uses or where landowners do not agree with
these suggestions, one alternate strategy is to learn the
needs of each species and to try to maintain appropriate
habitat for each. A second alternate strategy is to modify my
suggestions and use just a portion of them (e.g., learn the
needs of known sensitive species and maintain appropriate
habitat for these species, or maintain a certain number of
natural structures per unit area), resulting in less certain
effects (e.g., potentially missing the needs of those species
that are sensitive, but which we do not recognize yet, or
maintaining the appropriate distribution of a structure for
one species, but not for others).
The principles of the strategy can be used on any land base.
They are easiest to use at a large landscape scale, for example
the basin level, depending on the natural scale of the patterns
and processes involved. Plans could be made at the basin
level, with individual projects being treated so they fit into the
“big picture” of the desired landscape. Public and private
landowners could form partnerships and work together using
this strategy. Landowners could work together to decide how
each could help to create the optimal landscape. In this
process, each landowner could help provide a certain portion
of each successional stage for each habitat, depending on what
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000
currently exists in their land base, what historically existed,
and the economic needs of that landowner.
Because neither vegetative complexes nor the requirements of species are static (Hejl 1992), I suggest revising this
strategy after habitats have been restored to more natural
conditions. Managing for presettlement patterns provides
for a short-term restoration of “natural” conditions, but it
does not allow for the evolution of these habitats or species.
Managing for process would allow for perpetuating patterns, but we cannot restore natural patterns via natural
processes in many cases. Because we are constrained in our
use of natural process, we need steps two and three to help
us provide for the species most likely to be sensitive to our
human-induced disturbances, and to make sure that this
strategy is working. The concern of creating a static situation will have to be addressed in the future, once habitats are
restored.
Finally, I advise moderation in following these recommendations. My suggestions are based on discussions with (and
therefore often the intuition of) many naturalists, managers, and scientists, but they are not substantiated by
data from designed experiments. I suggest manipulating
only a portion of a habitat at a time, and then monitoring
to see if desired outcomes are actually achieved (adaptive
management). If the desired outcomes are not achieved,
future management activities in these habitats should be
designed differently.
Final Thoughts _________________
Lubchenco (1995) suggested ingredients for useful communication of scientific information for constructing good
policy to maintain biodiversity: What is known; the certainty with which it is known; what is not known; what is
suspected; the limits of the science; probable outcomes of
different policy options; key areas where new information
is needed; and recommended mechanisms for obtaining
high-priority information, for example, research or adaptive management. In the body of this paper, I have generally described what we currently know about the relationships between western coniferous forest birds and logging,
fire, and fire suppression, and the limits of what we know.
Additionally, I have suggested a management strategy, for
implementation at the project level, that can be used until
we find out more specifics on the effects of each management and natural process on each species, especially potentially sensitive species. I have not yet described the probable outcomes of different policy options; key areas where
new information is needed; and recommended mechanisms
for obtaining high-priority information, for example, research or adaptive management. Too many different policy
options exist to enumerate all of the probable outcomes.
Key areas where new information is needed include more
information on the distribution, habitat use, and demographics of any species suspected to be sensitive to a
particular logging practice or fire suppression, including
knowledge at the landscape scale. We also need comparisons between the effects of land management practices
(including the treatments used to mimic presettlement
patterns) and natural disturbance patterns and processes
101
on forest birds. Information could be obtained either through
research or adaptive management. Well-designed monitoring of management practices (adaptive management) can
give us useful information; carefully constructed experimental studies (research), however, will be required to
address many questions.
Besides the potentially declining species indicated by BBS
(Hejl 1994), all of the knowledge described herein points to
particular concern for two groups of western coniferous
forest birds: Uncommon species, and species most likely to
be negatively affected by logging and fire suppression (most
resident species and many migrants). Both sets of species
should be emphasized in the North American Bird Conservation Plan. Uncommon species are a concern because neither BBS nor individual research projects have good data on
whether these species are declining and/or are affected by
particular land management processes. Resident species as
a group are of special concern because in general, they are
negatively affected by many types of past logging and by fire
suppression—the two most common practices by which
humans have affected western coniferous forests. Resident
102
species also may use these habitats year-round, and therefore may be more affected by our management treatments in
the winter (potential population “crunch” time) than during
summer. Therefore, I suggest that the plan carefully consider guidelines for uncommon and potentially sensitive
species, especially residents. Further, while the monitoring
of sensitive species on the project level was suggested in the
three-step management strategy for individual projects, I
also highly recommend large-scale, Westwide monitoring
for all species, especially uncommon and potentially sensitive species, which would necessitate new emphases for rare,
nocturnal, or otherwise poorly monitored species or habitats—50% of all forest birds—being included in the plan.
Acknowledgments ______________
J. M. Hillis, J. A. Holmes, K. McKelvey, and D. Pashley
reviewed the manuscript. I appreciate their comments and
those of the participants at the Cape May Partners in Flight
workshop.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000