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.