Earlier this month, the United States Department of the Interior released the results of a large-scale, collaborative report on the status of bird populations across the country. The study, which announced that approximately one-third of the nation’s 800 bird species are endangered, threatened, or in significant decline, flew over the heads of most regional and local newspapers.

That is disappointing because the survey was a good opportunity to connect with local readers and show how science and the environment are relevant to their lives. Moreover, it was a chance for small papers to demonstrate their value in a declining market. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly difficult for them to do so and most did not (or were not able to) make more of the Interior Department’s report.

According to the survey, sixty-seven bird species are endangered or threatened, and approximately 184 species have provoked conservation concerns. Bird populations living in grasslands, coastal regions, and arid ecosystems are in the greatest danger of collapse. Not all of the survey’s results were negative, however. Several species, particularly and those living in wetland habitats and raptors (i.e. birds of prey)—which were previously imperiled by the now banned pesticide DDT—have recovered.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service coordinated the survey’s creation as part of the U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative, which includes partners from the American Bird Conservancy, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, the Klamath Bird Observatory, the National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Geological Survey. It was massive in scale, analyzing forty years of bird counts from three long-running censuses.

Within a day of the survey’s release, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Wall Street Journal, and NPR had all run stories about its findings. Most of the coverage examined the state of bird populations as an indicator of environmental health, and discussed the multiple threats facing bird populations, from climate change to suburban development. Many articles also discussed how successful conservation efforts for wetland species and raptors, like the bald eagle, could form the groundwork for future wildlife preservation legislation.

The survey was also stacked with opportunities for local papers to take a closer look at the condition of bird populations in their areas. Unfortunately, few did. Most, like the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal and Concord Monitor in New Hampshire, ran an Associated Press wire story. A few newspapers simply reworded the report’s press release, including The Denver Post, Baltimore Sun, Watertown Daily Times, and Duluth News Tribune, occasionally adding one sentence about local birding enthusiasts.

“Located near two exceptional spots to see rare and endangered birds at High Island and Aransas Pass, Houston has more than its share of the estimated one in four American adults devoted to avian viewing,” wrote the Houston Chronicle in the story’s lede. But not once did the piece mention the Houston region after the first few sentences. Overall, local coverage left the issue broad and national.

The survey is divided into ecosystems—arid lands, grasslands, urban, forests, arctic, wetlands, marshes, coasts, and oceans. From there, it takes just a few steps to localize the story: Find which habitats are encompassed in the news coverage area. Identify local birds mentioned in the “Birds in Trouble” section of each ecosystem chapter. Find which of the major threats against these populations—development, agriculture, energy, or resource use—are present in the community. Lastly, call local conservation groups, researchers, developers, and officials for context. With such details, a broad, national survey quickly becomes a well-focused story about the local ecosystem.

Katherine Bagley is a science, environment and health journalist based in New York City. She is currently working as a reporter for Audubon Magazine.