PRIORITY SPECIES POOL -- AREA 26
From among the breeding avifauna, a pool of species may be derived that represents priorities for conservation action within the physiographic area. Note that a species may be considered a priority for several different reasons, including global threats to the species, high concern for regional or local populations, or responsibility for conserving large or important populations of the species. The different reasons for priority status are represented by levels or tiers. Our primary means of prioritizing species is through the PIF prioritization scores generated by Colorado Bird Observatory (Hunter et al. 1993, Carter et al. 2000). This system ranks species according to seven measures of conservation vulnerability. These include four global measures (i.e., they do not change from area to area), as well as threats to breeding populations (TB), area importance (AI), and population trend (PT), which are specific to each physiographic area. A total rank score is then derived, which is a measure of overall conservation priority.
Explanations of the tiers, or entry levels into the Priority Species Pool are as follows:
- High overall (global) priority -- species scoring = 22 in the PIF prioritization system. Indicates high vulnerability of populations throughout the species range, irrespective of specific status in this physiographic area. Species without manageable populations in the area (peripheral) are omitted. High physiographic area priority -- species scoring 19-21 in the PIF system, with either (IIa) AI + PT = 8 or (IIb) a high percentage of the global population breeding in the physiographic area. Tier IIa indicates species that are of moderately high global vulnerability, and with relatively high abundance and/or declining or uncertain population trend in the physiographic area. Tier IIb signifies that the area shares in responsibility for long-term conservation of those species, even if they are not currently threatened. Percent of population is calculated from percent of range area, weighted by BBS relative abundance (see Rosenberg and Wells 1999). A disproportionately high percentage of global population is determined by considering the size of each physiographic area relative to the total land area of North America, south of the open boreal forest. Additional Watch List -- species on PIF’s national Watch List that did not already meet criteria I or II. Watch List species score = 20 (global scores only), or 18-19 with PT = 5. These species are considered to be of high conservation concern throughout their range, even in areas where local populations may be stable or not severely threatened. Additional listed -- species on federal, provincial, or state endangered, threatened, or special concern lists that did not meet any of above criteria. These are often rare or peripheral populations. Local concern -- species of justifiable local concern or interest. May represent a geographically variable population or be representative of a specific habitat of conservation concern.
Species that are federally or state listed are noted on the Priority Species Pool by country and/or state using the following codes: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, SC = Special Concern, V = Vulnerable.
Note: the Priority Species Pool and Priority Habitat-suites are excerpted from the associated Physiographic Area Plan. These tables are also available as a downloadable PDF file.
Priority species pool for Area 26, the Adirondack Mountains. Percent of population calculated from percent of range area, weighted by BBS relative abundance (see Rosenberg and Wells 1999). PIF scores from CBO (Carter et al. 2000).
| Entry level | Species |
Total score |
% of pop. |
AI |
PT |
Local statusa |
| I | ||||||
| Bicknell’s Thrush (NY - SC) | 25 |
?? |
5 |
3 |
B |
|
| Canada Warbler | 25 |
1.2 |
5 |
5 |
B |
|
| Golden-winged Warbler (NY - SC) | 25 |
< 1 |
2 |
3 |
B |
|
| Wood Thrush | 23 |
1.4 |
4 |
5 |
B |
|
| Black-throated Blue Warbler | 23 |
5.1 |
5 |
2 |
B |
|
| Bay-breasted Warbler | 23 |
< 1 |
2 |
4 |
B |
|
| Chestnut-sided Warbler | 23 |
1.7 |
5 |
5 |
B |
|
| American Woodcock | 22 |
< 1 |
3 |
5 |
B |
|
| Rose-breasted Grosbeak | 22 |
1.0 |
5 |
5 |
B |
|
| II | ||||||
| a. | Veery | 21 |
1.7 |
5 |
5 |
B |
| Scarlet Tanager | 20 |
1.1 |
3 |
5 |
B |
|
| Black-and-white Warbler | 20 |
1.0 |
5 |
4 |
B |
|
| Olive-sided Flycatcher | 20 |
< 1 |
3 |
5 |
B |
|
| American Bittern (NY - SC) | 20 |
< 1 |
5 |
3 |
B |
|
| American Redstart | 19 |
1.2 |
5 |
5 |
B |
|
| Great Crested Flycatcher | 19 |
< 1 |
3 |
5 |
B |
|
| Eastern Wood-pewee | 19 |
< 1 |
3 |
5 |
B |
|
| b. | Blackburnian Warbler | 21 |
2.6 |
5 |
2 |
B |
| III | ||||||
| American Black Duck | 20 |
< 1 |
3 |
3 |
B |
|
| Bobolink | 18 |
< 1 |
2 |
3 |
B |
|
| IV | ||||||
| Upland Sandpiper (NY - T) | 19 |
< 1 |
1 |
3 |
B |
|
| Common Loon (NY-SC) | 18 |
< 1 |
3 |
3 |
B |
|
| Northern Goshawk (NY - SC) | 18 |
< 1 |
3 |
3 |
R |
|
| Northern Harrier (NY-T) | 17 |
< 1 |
2 |
3 |
B |
|
| Sharp-shinned Hawk (NY - SC) | 17 |
< 1 |
5 |
3 |
B |
|
| Peregrine Falcon (NY-E) | 16 |
< 1 |
1 |
3 |
B |
|
| Spruce Grouse (NY-E) | 16 |
< 1 |
2 |
3 |
R |
|
| Bald Eagle (NY-E) | 15 |
< 1 |
1 |
3 |
B |
|
| Osprey (NY-SC) | 15 |
< 1 |
2 |
3 |
B |
|
| Golden Eagle (NY-E) | 14 |
< 1 |
1 |
3 |
B |
|
| Cooper’s Hawk (NY-SC) | 14 |
< 1 |
2 |
3 |
R |
|
| Pied-billed Grebe (NY - T) | 13 |
< 1 |
1 |
3 |
B |
|
| Vesper Sparrow (NY- SC) | 13 |
< 1 |
1 |
3 |
B |
a Local status: B = breeding population only; R = found year-round, although breeding population may differ from wintering population; ext = extirpated.
PRIORITY HABITAT-SPECIES SUITES -- AREA 26
Priority habitat-species suites for Area 26. TB (threats breeding), AI (area importance), PT (population trend), and total PIF scores from CBO prioritization database (Carter et al. 2000). Focal species for each habitat are in all caps.
| Habitat | Species |
Total score |
TB |
AI |
PT |
PTDQ |
Action level a |
| Mountaintop -- stunted conifer woodland | |||||||
| BICKNELL'S THRUSH | 25 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
F |
II,V |
|
| Peregrine Falcon | 16 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
F |
III |
|
| Golden Eagle | 14 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
F |
III |
|
| Northern hardwood-mixed forest | |||||||
| CANADA WARBLER | 25 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
III,V |
||
| BLACK-THROATED BLUE WARBLER | 23 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
IV |
||
| Wood Thrush | 23 |
2 |
4 |
5 |
III |
||
| Rose-breasted Grosbeak | 22 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
III |
||
| Veery | 21 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
III |
||
| Scarlet Tanager | 20 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
III |
||
| Black-and-white Warbler | 20 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
III |
||
| Eastern Wood-Pewee | 19 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
III |
||
| American Redstart | 19 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
III |
||
| Great Crested Flycatcher | 19 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
III |
||
| Northern Goshawk | 18 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
IV |
||
| Cooper’s Hawk | 14 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
IV |
||
| Early successional forest/edge | |||||||
| GOLDEN-WINGED WARBLER | 25 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
II,V |
||
| Chestnut-sided Warbler | 23 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
III |
||
| AMERICAN WOODCOCK | 22 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
III |
||
| OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER | 20 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
III,V |
||
| Mature conifer (spruce-fir) forest | |||||||
| Bay-breasted Warbler | 23 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
IV |
||
| BLACKBURNIAN WARBLER | 21 |
3 |
5 |
2 |
IV |
||
| OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER | 20 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
III,V |
||
| SPRUCE GROUSE | 16 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
III,V |
||
| Sharp-shinned Hawk | 17 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
IV |
||
| Grassland/agricultural | |||||||
| BOBLINK | 19 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
IV |
||
| Upland Sandpiper | 19 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
IV |
||
| Northern Harrier | 17 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
IV |
||
| Vesper Sparrow | 13 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
IV |
||
| Boreal peatlands | |||||||
| OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER | 20 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
III,V |
||
| SPRUCE GROUSE | 16 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
III,V |
||
| Frrestwater wetland -- river/lake | |||||||
| AMERICAN BITTERN | 20 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
IV |
||
| AMERICAN BLACK DUCK | 19 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
III |
||
| Northern Harrier | 17 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
IV |
||
| Common Loon | 16 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
IV |
||
| Bald Eagle | 15 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
IV |
||
| Osprey | 14 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
IV |
||
| Pied-billed Grebe | 13 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
VI |
||
a Action levels: I = crisis; recovery needed; II = immediate management or policy needed rangewide; III = management to reverse or stabilize populations; IV = long-term planning to ensure stable populations; V = research needed to better define threats; VI = monitor population changes only.
Literature Cited
Carter, M. F., W. C. Hunter, D. N. Pashley, and K. V. Rosenberg. 2000. Setting conservation priorities for landbirds in the united states: the partners in flight approach. Auk 117:541-548.
Hunter, W. C., M. F. Carter, D. N. Pashley, and K. Barker. 1993. The Partners In Flight prioritization scheme. Pp. 109-119 in D. Finch and P Stangel (eds.), Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds. U.S.D.A. General Technical Report RM-229, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Rosenberg, K. V. and J. V. Wells. 1999. Global perspectives on Neotropical migrant conservation in the Northeast: Long-term responsibility vs. immediate concern. In R. E. Bonney, D. Pashley, R. J. Cooper, and L. Niles (Eds.). Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners in Flight planning process. Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
 View Area 26 Plan |
 Return to Area 26 Executive Summary |
 Download the Area 26 Priority Tables |