BUCKS LAKE HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT

SUPPLEMENTAL WILDLIFE REPORT: Affected Environment and

Environmental Consequences NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS

Prepared By Gary W. Rotta, December 5, 2011

This report documents the effects of the proposed action (alternative A), No Action

(alternative B) and two other action alternatives (alternatives C and D) on selected

Neotropical Migrant Birds as a result of implementation of the Bucks Lake Hazardous Fuels

Reduction Project (Bucks Project). Description of the Bucks Project and all alternatives is

found in Chapter 2 of the Bucks Lake Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Environmental

Assessment. General effects of the proposed action and the action alternatives (in terms of

impacts to various CWHR types as a result of implementing fuel reduction, individual tree

selection, hand thinning, group selection and biomass removal has been described in detail in

the Bucks Project BA/BE (USDA 2011a). This report tiers to that document.

Migratory Landbird Conservation

Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Forest Service is directed to

“provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability

of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives.” (P.L. 94-588, Sec 6

(g) (3) (B)). The Bucks Project was designed with mitigations and silvicultural treatments to

maintain and enhance habitat for neotropical-migratory songbirds. Implementation of the

project is in accordance with the objectives of Executive Order 13186 and the 2008 MOU

between USFS and USFWS, regarding compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and

the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which outline responsibilities of federal land

management agencies relative to the conservation of migratory birds. The MOU highlights

that 1) it is important to focus on bird populations; 2) focus on habitat restoration and

enhancement where actions can benefit specific ecosystems and migratory birds dependent

upon them; 3) recognize that actions taken to benefit some migratory bird populations may

adversely affect other migratory bird populations; and 4) recognize that actions that may

provide long-term benefits to migratory birds may have short-term impacts on individual

birds.

The Plumas National Forest is proposing to manage lands on the Mt. Hough Ranger District

located in the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP)

Management Area #5 (Bucks). Proposed management is intended to implement direction

contained within the LRMP as amended (USFS 1988, HFQLGFEIS 1999, SNFPA 2004, MIS

FEIS 2007).

The January 2000 USDA Forest Service (FS) Landbird Conservation Strategic Plan, in

addition to the Partners in Flight (PIF) Conservation Plans for landbirds associated with

Riparian, Oak Woodlands, Sagebrush, Coastal Scrub and Chaparral habitats within California

2

and the January 2004 PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan all reference goals and

objectives for integrating bird conservation into forest management and planning.

Although most of the goals and objectives identified in the above plans are focused on actions

more appropriate for the national and regional office levels, many opportunities exist to

incorporate these bird conservation strategies into project level planning at the district and

forest levels. Project planning for the Bucks Project evaluated potential risks to resident and

migratory landbirds that could result from implementing the proposed action. In reference to

the above documents, the following conservation recommendations have been considered and

incorporated as practicable into action alternatives.

The FS Landbird Conservation Strategic Plan set forth goals and actions to assist meeting the

FS commitment to provide habitat for sustainable resident and migrant landbird populations

and monitor their populations through time. It also provides direction to assess and disclose

the effects of management actions on landbirds in NEPA documents.

Affected Environment

Neotropical Migratory birds (NTMB) are defined as species whose breeding area includes the

North American temperate zones and that migrate in many cases south of the continental

United States during non-breeding seasons (Hunter et al 1993). The Breeding Bird Survey

(BBS) coordinated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that certain populations of

NTMB species in California have been declining over the past 26 years (1996 data).

Although there appear to be multiple causes for declines, habitat fragmentation and decreases

in habitat quantity and quality, caused by changes in land use, seem to be largely responsible

(Sherry and Holmes 1993, Terborgh 1992).

Within the National Forest System, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a

diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is

addressed when planning for other land management activities. Within the NEPA process, the

Forest Service shall evaluate the effects of actions on migratory birds, focusing first on

species of management concern along with their priority habitats. The 2004 SNFPA SFEIS

(chapter 3, page 173) identified forty land bird species (not all neo-tropical migrants) that are

of particular concern and are a high priority for monitoring efforts in the Sierra Nevada

bioregion. The 2008 MOU between the USFS and USFWS recommends consulting the

current USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) (updated 2002 and further updated in

2008).

This Landbird Report for the Bucks Project highlights 19 landbird species for effects analysis.

Criteria used in selecting the 19 species analyzed for the Bucks Project was based on 1) the

likelihood of the 11 BCC species present in the analysis area, 2) habitat components that

would likely be impacted by project activities (snag or hazard tree removal, reforestation), and

3) species associated with forest and/or brush habitats. Habitat suitability ratings for the

selected Sierra Mixed Conifer and White Fir CWHR seral stages within the Bucks Project

area are provided for these bird species and discussed in this report. These two conifer types

account for 83 percent of the terrestrial habitat on NF land within the analysis area. For each

3

habitat suitability rating listed for each species in this report, the rating is the sum of all high,

moderate and low quality habitat, using the composite index for reproduction, foraging, and

cover habitat combined.

Table 1: Selected Landbird Species with CWHR ratings considered for the Bucks Lake

Project HABITAT GROUP SPECIES KEY HABITAT FEATURES

1 CWHR Suitability Rating*

Flammulated

Owl

Requires open habitats with scattered

trees and snags with cavities. Cover

provided by cavities and foliage of trees

and shrubs. Suitable habitat includes

open, deciduous and conifer habitats

with brushy understory, and scattered

snags and live trees for nesting and

perching. Uses logged and burned areas.

Prefers oaks in winter.

SMC1 = 0.33

SMC2 = 0.44

SMC3P = 0.67

SMC4P = 1.0

SMC4M = 1.0

SMC4D = 0.77

SMC5P = 1.0

SMC5M = 1.0

SMC5D = 0.77

WFR1 =0.33

WFR2 = 0.44

WFR3P = 0.67

WFR4P = 1.0

WFR4M = 1.0

WFR4D = 0.77

WFR5P = 1.0

WFR5M = 1.0

WFR5D = 0.77

Calliope

Hummingbird

Found in a wide variety of habitats that

provide nectar-producing flowers.

Commonly feeds in montane chaparral

and wet meadow habitats. Breeds in

wooded habitats from ponderosa pine

and montane hardwood-conifer up

through lodgepole pine, favoring

montane riparian, aspen and other

forests near streams.

SMC1 = 0.55

SMC2 = 0.89

SMC3P = 1.0

SMC4P = 1.0

SMC4M = 0.33

SMC4D = 0

SMC5P = 1.0

SMC5M = 0.33

SMC5D = 0

WFR1 = 0.33

WFR2 = 0.89

WFR3P = 1.0

WFR4P = 1.0

WFR4M = 0.33

WFR4D = 0

WFR5P = 1.0

WFR5M = 0.33

WFR5D = 0

Lewis’

Woodpecker

Occurring in open oak savannahs,

broken deciduous and coniferous

habitats. Requires open habitats with

scattered trees and snags with cavities.

Cover provided by cavities and foliage

of trees and shrubs.

SMC1 = 0.33

SMC2 = 0.55

SMC3P = 0.67

SMC4P = 1.0

SMC4M = 0.66

SMC4D = 0.33

SMC5P = 1.0

SMC5M = 0.66

SMC5D = 0.33

WFR1 = 0.33

WFR2 = 0.55

WFR3P =0.67

WFR4P = 1.0

WFR4M = 0.66

WFR4D = 0.33

WFR5P = 1.0

WFR5M = 0.66

WFR5D = 0.33

Williamson’s

Sapsucker

Preferred nesting habitat is lodgepole

pine, but also nests in aspens adjacent to

stands of red fir, Jeffrey pine, and

eastside pine habitats. Requires snags or

live trees with rotted heartwood in

which to excavate nesting and roosting

cavities.

SMC1 = 0

SMC2 = 0

SMC3P = 0

SMC4P = 0.66

SMC4M = 0.66

SMC4D = 0.44

SMC5P = 0.89

SMC5M = 0.89

SMC5D = 0.55

WFR1 = 0

WFR2 = 0

WFR3P = 0

WFR4P = 0.66

WFR4M = 0.66

WFR4D = 0.44

WFR5P = 0.78

WFR5M = 0.78

WFR5D = 0.55

4

White-headed

Woodpecker

A resident of montane coniferous

forests up to lodgepole pine and red

fir habitats. Frequents montane pine and

fir forest habitats with large trees and

snags, and tree/shrub, and

tree/herbaceous ecotones.

SMC1 = 0.22

SMC2 = 0.33

SMC3P = 0.44

SMC4P = 1.0

SMC4M = 1.0

SMC4D = 0.66

SMC5P = 1.0

SMC5M = 1.0

SMC5D = 0.66

WFR1 = 0.22

WFR2 = 0.33

WFR3P = 0.44

WFR4P = 1.0

WFR4M = 1.0

WFR4D = 0.66

WFR5P = 1.0

WFR5M = 1.0

WFR5D = 0.66

Swainson’s

Thrush

Rare in Sierras; prefers large tree (>24”

dbh), moderate to dense (>40% canopy

closure) stands; nest is an open cup in

willow or alder, 2-20 feet above ground;

eats mostly insects and spiders in litter

under shrubs or on forest floor; gleans

from shrubs; rarely flycatches¹

SMC1 = 0

SMC2 = 0

SMC3P = 0

SMC4P = 0

SMC4M = 0.55

SMC4D = 0.55

SMC5P = 0

SMC5M = 0.55

WFR1 = 0

WFR2 = 0.55

WFR3P = 0

WFR4P = 0

WFR4M = 0.55

WFR4D = 0.55

WFR5P = 0

WFR5M = 0.55

WFR5D = 0.55

Warbling

Vireo

Prefers small to large tree (>6” dbh),

sparse to moderately dense (<70%

canopy closure) stands; frequents

wooded areas with tall trees, open to

intermediate canopy, and a substantial

shrub understory; nest usually 4-12 feet

above ground; gleans insects and

spiders from foliage; sometimes eats

aerial insects¹, thus can be considered

an aerial insectivore.

SMC1 = 0

SMC2 = 0.33

SMC3P = 0.89

SMC4P = 0.89

SMC4M = 0.89

SMC4D = 0.33

SMC5P = 0.89

SMC5M = 0.89

SMC5D = 0.33

WFR1 = 0.33

WFR2 = 0.33

WFR3P = 0.55

WFR4P = 0.55

WFR4M = 0.55

WFR4D = 0.22

WFR5P = 0.55

WFR5M = 0.55

WFR5D = 0.22

White-

crowned

Sparrow

Breeds in montane meadows and along

stream courses with shrubs or conifers;

seed-eater; nest on ground or at base of

shrub or on limb, usually within 1.3 feet

of ground; winters in open areas near

shrubs or other cover; eats primarily

seeds; also eats insects; feeds on

ground¹

SMC1 = 0.22

SMC2 = 0.22

SMC3P = 0

SMC4P = 0

SMC4M = 0

SMC4D = 0

SMC5P = 0

SMC5M = 0

WFR1 = 0.22

WFR2 = 0.22

WFR3P = 0

WFR4P = 0

WFR4M = 0

WFR4D = 0

WFR5P = 0

WFR5M = 0

WFR5D = 0

Common

Poorwill

Inhabits all stages of shrub areas,

preferring clearings and open stages for

foraging; insects for prey; nest is a

scrape on the ground; feeds on insects

caught in the air (aerial insectivore),

also some on insects on the ground¹

SMC1 = 0.33

SMC2 = 0.33

SMC3P = 0.33

SMC4P = 0.33

SMC4M = 0.11

SMC4D = 0.11

SMC5P = 0.33

SMC5M = 0.11

SMC5D = 0.11

WFR1 = 0.33

WFR2 = 0.11

WFR3P = 0.33

WFR4P = 0.33

WFR4M = 0.11

WFR4D = 0.11

WFR5P =0.33

WFR5M = 0.11

WFR5D = 0.11

Lazuli

Bunting

Occupies open brush lands and thickets

of willows, other shrubs or trees, tall

weeds, or vines; eats insects and seeds

taken from foliage or ground;

sometimes takes aerial insects; nest

usually 1.5-4 feet above ground¹

SMC1 = 0.11

SMC2 = 0.33

SMC3P = 0.33

SMC4S = 0.33

SMC4P = 0

SMC4M = 0

WFR1 = 0.11

WFR2 = 0.33

WFR3P = 0.33

WFR4P = 0

WFR4M = 0

WFR4D = 0

5

SMC4D = 0

SMC5S = 0.33

SMC5P = 0

SMC5M = 0

WFR5P = 0

WFR5M = 0

WFR5D = 0

Olive-sided

Flycatcher

Prefers large tree (>24” dbh) stands;

most numerous in montane conifer

forest where tall trees overlook canyons,

meadows, lakes, or other open terrain;

nests 5-70 feet above ground; feeds on

aerial insects, especially honey bees¹.

Has been shown to be strongly

associated with burned forest (Kotliar et

al 2002, USDA, PSW, 2006), especially

early post-fire conditions (Hutto 1995).

Relies on standing dead trees as perch

sites from which to launch into open air

space for prey (aerial insectivore).

SMC1 = 0.33

SMC2 = 0.33

SMC3P = 0.77

SMC4P = 0.77

SMC4M = 0.77

SMC4D = 0.77

SMC5P = 1.0

SMC5M = 1.0

SMC5D = 1.0

WFR1 = 0.33

WFR2 = 0.33

WFR3P = 0.55

WFR4P = 0.55

WFR4M = 0.77

WFR4D = 0.77

WFR5P = 1.0

WFR5M = 1.0

WFR5D = 1.0

Western

Wood-

peewee

Prefers medium to large tree (>12” dbh)

stands; most numerous in woodlands or

forests, with sparse to moderate canopy

cover, which border on meadows,

streams, lakes, and other moist, open

areas; nest usually 13-80 feet above

ground; feeds mostly on flying insects

(aerial insectivore); occasionally gleans

insects from foliage¹.

Typically abundant in burns. (Koltiar et

al, 2002).

SMC1 = 0.33

SMC2 = 0.44

SMC3P = 0.77

SMC4P = 1.0

SMC4M = 1.0

SMC4D = 1.0

SMC5P = 1.0

SMC5M = 1.0

SMC5D = 1.0

WFR1 = 0.33

WFR2 = 0.44

WFR3P = 0.77

WFR4P = 1.0

WFR4M = 1.0

WFR4D = 1.0

WFR5P = 1.0

WFR5M = 1.0

WFR5D = 1.0

Red Crossbill Prefers large tree (>24” dbh), open to

moderate (20-69% canopy closure)

stands; availability of mature conifer

seeds more important than kind of

conifer; in Sierra Nevada, most

numerous where conifer canopy with

open to moderate canopy border

meadows, lakes, or streams; nests 5-80

feet above ground, usually high up¹

SMC1 = 0

SMC2 = 0

SMC3P = 0.22

SMC4P = 0.44

SMC4M = 0.44

SMC4D = 0.44

SMC5P = 0.77

SMC5M = 0.77

SMC5D = 0.55

WFR1 = 0

WFR2 = 0

WFR3P = 0.22

WFR4P = 0.44

WFR4M = 0.44

WFR4D = 0.44

WFR5P = 0.77

WFR5M = 0.77

WFR5D = 0.55

Evening

Grosbeak

Prefers medium to large tree (>12”

dbh), moderate to dense (>40% canopy

closure) stands; usually nests in forests

dominated by firs; most important foods

are seeds of fir, pine, and other conifers,

and buds of hardwoods such as oak,

willow, and maple; usually nests more

than 35 feet above ground, but can nest

7-100 feet above ground¹

SMC1 = 0

SMC2 = 0.11

SMC3P = 0.22

SMC4P = 0.77

SMC4M = 1.0

SMC4D = 1.0

SMC5P = 0.77

SMC5M = 1.0

SMC5D = 1.0

WFR1 = 0

WFR2 = 0.11

WFR3P = 0.22

WFR4P = 0.77

WFR4M = 1.0

WFR4D = 1.0

WFR5P = 0.77

WFR5M = 1.0

WFR5D = 1.0

6

Western

Bluebird

Prefers medium to large tree (>12”

dbh), open (<40% canopy closure)

stands; usually nests in old woodpecker

cavity in snag, tree, or stump (secondary

cavity nester); availability of snags

frequently limits population density;

captures insects on ground or foliage;

occasionally eats aerial insects¹ (aerial

insectivore).

SMC1 = 0.22

SMC2 = 0.22

SMC3P = 0.33

SMC4P = 0.66

SMC4M = 0.44

SMC4D = 0

SMC5P = 0.66

SMC5M = 0.44

SMC5D = 0

WFR1 = 0.22

WFR2 = 0.22

WFR3P = 0.33

WFR4P = 0.66

WFR4M = 0.44

WFR4D = 0

WFR5P = 0.66

WFR5M = 0.44

WFR5D = 0

Band-tailed

Pigeon

Prefers medium to large tree (>12” dbh)

stands; prefers multi-layered forests

with a light understory; dense thickets

often used for breeding; feeds on acorns

and fruits of several species¹

SMC1 = 0

SMC2 = 0

SMC3P = 0.55

SMC4P = 0.77

SMC4M = 1.0

SMC4D = 1.0

SMC5P = 1.0

SMC5M = 1.0

SMC5D = 1.0

WFR1 = 0

WFR2 = 0

WFR3P = 0.55

WFR4P = 0.77

WFR4M = 1.0

WFR4D = 1.0

WFR5P = 1.0

WFR5M = 1.0

WFR5D = 1.0

Chipping

Sparrow

Prefers open (<40% canopy closure)

stands; frequents woodlands with sparse

herbaceous cover and few shrubs, if

any, for breeding; often forages in open

shrub or grassland habitat nearby;

gleans insects and seeds from ground

and foliage; usually nests 1-6 feet above

ground¹. More abundant in slightly

older burns (10-40 years after fire) than

in early post-fire conditions (Hutto

1995).

SMC1 = 0.55

SMC2 = 0.75

SMC3P = 0.89

SMC4P = 1.0

SMC4M = 0.66

SMC4D = 0.33

SMC5P = 0.66

SMC5M = 0.66

WFR1 = 0.33

WFR2 = 1.0

WFR3P = 1.0

WFR4P = 1.0

WFR4M = 0.66

WFR4D = 0

WFR5P = 0.66

WFR5M = 0

WFR5D = 0

Cassin’s

Finch

Prefers tall, open coniferous forests, in

lodgepole pine, red fir and subalpine

conifer habitats, particularly in breeding

season. Most numerous near wet

meadows and grassy openings;

frequents semi-arid forests.

SMC1 = 0.22

SMC2 = 0.22

SMC3P = 0.66

SMC4P = 0.66

SMC4M = 0.44

SMC4D = 0.33

SMC5P = 0.77

SMC5M = 0.44

SMC5D = 0.33

WFR1 = 0.33

WFR2 = 0.33

WFR3P = 0.44

WFR4P = 0.77

WFR4M = 0.55

WFR4D = 0

WFR5P = 1.0

WFR5M = 0.55

WFR5D = 0

Open water obligate

Osprey Uses large snags and trees near fish-

bearing river or lake¹

SMC1 = 0.11

SMC2 = 0.22

SMC3P = 0.55

SMC4P = 0.89

SMC4M = 0.89

SMC4D = 0.89

SMC5P = 0.89

SMC5M = 0.89

WFR1 = 0.11

WFR2 = 0.22

WFR3P = 0.55

WFR4P = 0.66

WFR4M = 0.89

WFR4D = 0.89

WFR5P = 0.89

WFR5M = 0.89

WFR5D = 0.89

*CWHR Suitability rating: 1.0 = high suitability, optimal for species occurrence, 0.66 = moderate suitability,

suitable for species occurrence, can support moderate population densities; 0.33 = low suitability, marginal for

species occurrence, can support low population densities; 0.00 = unsuitable for species occurrence.

¹California Department of Fish and Game 1999, and CWHR Version 8.0 ²Thomas et al. 1979.

7

The Plumas National Forest utilizes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008 Birds of

Conservation Concern for the Sierra Nevada as its framework for analyzing effects to

migratory birds. Of this list of eleven birds, the Bucks Project level reports (e.g. BA/BE,

MIS) address nine of the species either directly or by using a surrogate species that utilize the

same or similar habitat attributes. Table 2 highlights how and where these nine migratory

birds are addressed directly or by using a surrogate species.

Table 2. Surrogate Analysis of Migratory Birds for the Bucks Project

Birds of Conservation

Concern (Sierra Nevada - BCR 15)

Forest Service Sensitive Species (S) or Management Indicator

Species (MIS)

Project Level Report

(BA/BE or MIS)

Critical Habitat component or threat as

defined by Sierra Nevada Bird Conservation Plan

(PIF)

Bald Eagle Bald Eagle (S) BA/BE Designated as a non-land bird

by DeSante

Flammulated Owl Mule Deer (MIS)

Hairy Woodpecker (MIS)

MIS

MIS

Depends critically on oaks or oak woodlands, Loss of snags

California Spotted Owl California Spotted Owl (S) BA/BE Depends critically on old

growth

Calliope Hummingbird

Sooty (Blue) Grouse (MIS)

Yellow Warbler (MIS)

Willow Flycatcher (S)

MIS

MIS

BA/BE

Open Forested habitats, and moist habitats on the East

Slope

Lewis’ Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker (MIS) MIS Loss of snags

Williamson’s Sapsucker

Hairy Woodpecker (MIS) MIS Loss of snags

Olive-sided Flycatcher California Spotted Owl (S)

Hairy Woodpecker (MIS)

BA/BE

MIS

Utilize late successional/old growth forest, but does not

depend on it critically, Loss of snags

Willow Flycatcher Willow Flycatcher (S) BA/BE Depends critically on montane

meadow habitat

Cassin’s Finch California Spotted Owl (S) BA/BE Depends critically on old

growth

The remaining two species on BCC list, the Peregrine Falcon and Black Swift, occur in

known established sites or have habitats that are very localized and limited in extent on the

Plumas NF.

Peregrine Falcon

PNF biologists have reviewed habitat for the Peregrine Falcon on the Plumas NF extensively

since the early 1980’s. Documented eyries for the Peregrine falcon consists of three rock cliff

sites on the Forest, located at Bald Rock (Feather River RD), Pulga (Feather River RD), and

North Fork of the Feather River (Mt. Hough RD), just west of Canyon Dam. Disturbance to

these habitats is limited, as most activities do not impact these rock cliff sites. All of these

known peregrine sites exist at least 10 miles away from the proposed Bucks Project

activities. No direct or indirect effects are expected to occur to any territory with

implementation of the Bucks Project and, consequently, no further analysis is required.

8

Black Swift

Based on surveys and work by the Plumas County Audubon Society the Black Swift is a rare

spring and fall migrant across the PNF and has not been confirmed as a resident on the PNF.

However suitable wet cliff/waterfall habitat does occur at selected sites on the Forest. Two

sites appear to be suitable for Black Swifts, Feather Falls on the Feather River RD and

Frazier Falls on the Beckwourth RD. Both sites fall within recreation areas or recreation

sites, and do not receive ground disturbing activities that would modify or alter habitat values

for the Black Swift. No known sites occur in or are within 10 miles of the Bucks Project area.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A – Proposed Action

Alternative C, D

Direct, Indirect & Cumulative effects

Actions that open up forest stands thru thinning, such as with the proposed thinning

prescriptions in DFPZs, would result in projected increases in habitat trends for several

species listed in Table 1 (warbling vireo, chipping sparrow, lazuli bunting, white-crowned

sparrow, western bluebird, common nighthawk and common poorwill). These species

respond favorably to opening up the forested canopy, allowing for increased understory plant

diversity. Of the birds listed in Table 1, Swainson’s thrush appears to be adversely affected

by thinning that converts closed forested stands to open forested stand. Olive-sided flycatcher

and evening grosbeak are also likely to have projected decreases in habitat suitability due to

thinning. Most of the rest of the species have changes in habitat suitability that are relatively

neutral. Alternative C would create less open stands across the analysis area and

subsequently would maintain more habitat for Swainson’s thrush, olive- sided flycatcher, and

evening grosbeak.

The cumulative effect of area thinning, group selection, hazard tree removal, and DFPZ

construction on forested conditions supporting neotropical birds listed in Table 1 would be

that habitat capability would overall be improved for birds that prefer shrubs, and open-

canopied habitat across the landscape. Based on the CWHR model Swainson’s thrush,

evening grosbeak, and red crossbill would have decreased habitat suitability. The remainder

of the listed birds are relatively unaffected by the proposed action. If DFPZ treatments

remove shrubs and are managed to minimize shrub regeneration through maintenance

activities, it would be expected that the benefits of creating an open forest with a shrub

understory component would be minimized and that there would be a decline in shrub

nesting species (USDA< PSW, 2006). Burnett et al. 2011, states that the results of the

Plumas-Lassen Administrative Study (PLAS) green forest study “suggests the use of

prescribed fire has far more positive effects on the avian community compared to the use of

mechanical mastication in shrub habitats”.

Allowing group selection treatments to naturally regenerate would ensure that shrub habitat

would remain on the landscape longer than with intensive regeneration efforts. Actions that

result in regeneration of existing shrublands (prescribed fire, mastication) as well as improve

9

vigor of aspen components, would improve long-term habitat availability for early seral and

riparian species.

In addition to habitat modification and its affect on neotropical migratory birds, direct effects

on nesting birds can occur as a result of tree removal, mastication, and prescribed burning,

killing young birds in the nest that cannot fly. It is recognized that the proposed project, when

implemented during the breeding season (June-September) could directly impact nesting

birds. This would affect individual birds. Conservation measures for landbirds, such as

snag/down woody retention, use of LOP’s for TES species, avoidance of riparian vegetation,

retention of trees greater than 30 inches, which are incorporated into project design, as well

as large tracts of forested land not treated with proposed management actions, would

alleviate the overall effect on Neotropical migratory bird populations within the Analysis

Area.

Increasing the amount of open forest and associated edge may increase the risk of brood

parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds on various bird species that nest in riparian habitat.

Very little brown-headed cowbird presence within the National Forest portion of the analysis

area has been documented, although they are present on private land in Haskins Valley.

Because cowbirds are present in Haskins Valley there is some risk that brood parasitism

could increase above existing levels within the project area as cowbirds respond to increased

open habitat and edges. The Bucks Project is within an active National Forest livestock

grazing allotment; this increases the potential for an increase in cowbirds in the analysis area.

With alternatives A & D, stumps created within campgrounds and developed recreation

areas, along roadsides and within thinning units without annosus root rot present may be

treated with the chemical borax to minimize spread of the disease; however thinning units

with the disease already present would not have the stumps treated. With alternatives A and

D, Sporax (Borax) would be applied to all cut stumps greater than 14” dbh in fuel treatment

areas and all cut stumps greater than 3” dbh in campground areas to minimize the

susceptibility to Heterobasidion rood disease. Use rates would be one pound to 50 square feet

of stump surface. Based on the Pesticide Fact Sheet prepared by Information Ventures, Inc.

(1995), this rate is considered non-toxic to vertebrate species, including birds. Borax does not

build up (bioaccumulate) in fish, inferring no build up occurs in other vertebrate species.

Thus sporax applied to stumps should not affect neotropical migratory birds.

Alternative B – No Action

Direct, Indirect & Cumulative effects

There would be no direct effect to neotropical birds with this alternative.

Indirect effects of the No Action alternative include the potential for future wildfire and its

impact on habitat maintenance and development. The high fuel loads that would be left by

this alternative would make potential wildfires in the area difficult to suppress and create a

more intense burn, which could lead to increased rates of spread resulting in additional acres

10

burnt. Given the mean fire return interval of 15-30 years for this area, it is likely that

National Forest system lands would burn again, resulting in the loss of the largest trees and

snags, an increase in large scale fragmentation of forested landscapes, loss of large riparian

structures, and simplification of habitat diversity.

Some neotropical migrants utilize early successional habitats that develop following wildfire.

Burned forest, including stand replacing burns, provide important bird habitat, specifically in

terms of abundance and diversity of woodpecker species; the olive-sided flycatcher has been

shown to be strongly associated with burned forest as well (USDA, PSW, 2006). These early

successional habitats would be at a much larger, homogenous pattern across landscapes as a

result of wildfire; smaller, more heterogeneous patterns and patch sizes of this habitat would

be created with the action alternatives, which should improve the distribution of this habitat

type within the landscape (SNFPA SFEIS 2004).

Two of the identified purpose and needs for the Bucks Project addressed the need to reduce

hazardous fuels to modify fire behavior within 1) Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) of Bucks

Lake, and 2) protect key fish and wildlife habitat and habitat connectivity from stand-

replacing wildfire. The Plumas Lassen Administrative Study, avian module, has provided

some insight into landbird abundance, diversity, and species richness in burned forest

compared to green Forest (Burnett et al. 2011). In this study (2009-2010), the data indicated

that 10 species of landbird were significantly more abundant in fire areas and 11 were

significantly more abundant in green forest; index of diversity, species richness, and total

bird abundance were significantly higher in the PLAS green forest in 2010 than any of the

three fire areas surveyed. Burnett stated that whether green forest or post-fire habitat supports

greater avian diversity depends on the spatial scale that green forest and burned forest

structural diversity or heterogeneity are providing on a landscape scale.

11

REFERENCES

Burnett, R. D., P.Taillie, N. Seavy. 2011. Plumas-Lassen Administrative Study 2010

Post-fire Avian Monitoring Report, PRBO Conservation Science, Contribution Number

1781. January 2011.

California Department of Fish & Game, 1999.

Graber, D. 1996. Status of terrestrial vertebrates. Pages 709-734 IN: Sierra Nevada

ecosystem project: Final report to Congress. Volume II: Assessments and scientific basis

for management options. Wildland Resource Center Report No. 37. 1,528 p.

Hunter, W.C., M.E. Cartes, D.N. Pashley, and K.Barker. 1993. “The Partners In Flight

Species Prioritization Scheme.” In Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory

Birds, edited by D.M Finch and P.W. Stangel. Proceedings of Estes Park Workshop, Sep

21-25. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest & Range Experimental Station, Ft.

Collins, CO (GTR RM-229)

Information Ventures, 1995. Borax Pesticide Fact Sheet, http//infoventures.com/e-

hlth/pesticide/borax.html.

PNF (Plumas National Forest). 2002. Wildlife species database.

Saab, V.A., and Dudley, Jonathan, 1997. Bird responses to stand-replacement fire and

salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas fir forests of Southwestern Idaho. Progress

Report 94-96, US Forest Service, Boise, Idaho.

Sherry, E.W. and R.T. Homes. 1993. “Are Populations of Neotropical Migrant Birds

Limited in Summer or Winter? Implications for Management.” .” In Status and

Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds, edited by D.M Finch and P.W. Stangel.

Proceedings of Estes Park Workshop, Sep 21-25. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest & Range Experimental Station, Ft. Collins, CO (GTR RM-229)

SNEP. 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress. 3 vols. Centers

for Water and Wildland Resources Report No. 37, University California, Davis.

SNFPA, USDA Forest Service 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA)

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD). January

2001.

SNFPA, USDA Forest Service 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA)

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision

(ROD). January 2004.

12

Terborgh, J. 1992. “Perspectives on the Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds.”

In Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds edited by J.M. Hagan III

and D.W. Johnston. Proceedings of a Symposium on Ecology and Conservation of

Neotropical Migrant Landbirds, Dec 6-9, 1989, Woods Hole, MA. Smithsonian Press,

Washington D.C.

Thomas, J.W. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests, the Blue Mountains of

Oregon and Washington, USDA, USFS, Agriculture Handbook No. 553.

USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest. 1988. Land and Resource Management

Plan.

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Land bird monitoring implementation plan. USDA Forest

Service Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 13pp., unpublished.

USDA Forest Service, 1999. Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe National Forests. Herger-Feinstein

Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Final Environmental Impact Statement

(HFQLG EIS), August 1999.

USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW). Plumas Lassen Study

2005 Annual Report, March 2006.

USDA Forest Service, 2011 a. Bucks Lake Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project, Biological

Assessment/Biological Evaluation Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife, December 2011.

USDA Forest Service 2011 b. Bucks Lake Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project: Affected

Environment and Environmental Consequences –Management Indicator Species,

December 2011.