[birding] Marys Peak Landscape Management Project -- should birders comment?

[Joel Geier]

Hi folks,

Today's Corvallis Gazette-Times (www.gazettetimes.com) carries an
article about the Marys Peak Landscape Management Project. 

The gist is that Forest Service biologists would like to knock back some
of the noble firs that are encroaching on the summit meadows, at a rate
of just about a couple of acres per year (100 acres in the last 60
years). The meadows are home to a unique community of plant species,
some of which are thought to have been genetically isolated since the
later part of the last glacial epoch, so their botanical value is very
high.

I'm fully on board with the reasons for keeping the noble firs at bay
especially around the edges of the meadows. However I'm wondering about
one part of the proposal from a bird-habitat standpoint, and I'd like to
get opinions from those of you who have birded the peak on a regular
basis.

The forest service would like to remove most or all of the "tree
islands" in the meadows. According to the Gazette-Times article, the
main reason seems to be to simplify management, since the tree islands
function as sources for seed dispersal. Granted, this seems like the
kind of detail where a reporter could get it wrong (especially since the
guy who wrote the article usually covers a business/development beat
rather than ecological issues). 

I'd be interested in the answers to two questions, from those of you who
are more familiar with the issues:

(1) Are these "tree islands" are a natural feature of Coast range
meadows?

(2) Are these "tree islands" significant for bird habitat?

I assume the meadows were a fire-maintained feature, in the past, in
which case my first question becomes: Would they normally have had a few
unburned stringers of trees, like one sees in most other fire-maintained
landscapes?

As bird habitat, I'm sure the migrant/wintering Gray-crowned
Rosy-Finches, American Pipits, and Horned Larks will be perfectly happy
with more wide-open meadows, and probably migrant Savannah Sparrows too.
Some other sparrow & finch species, along with hummingbirds & bluebirds,
probably would do better to have a few trees remaining -- though I'm not
sure if any of those would be "critically" impacted by the plans being
discussed. 

Can any of you think of species that we should worry about being
negatively impacted by these plans? How about Sooty Grouse that use the
noble firs as winter habitat? Songbirds? Owls? etc.?

>From a purely recreational birding perspective, my hunch is that
removing these "tree islands" will make it harder to find vagrants from
more open-forest habitats that show up occasionally, such as Clark's
Nutcracker, Cassin's Finch, or Pine Grosbeak. Seems like when I've
encountered vagrants on the peak, they're mostly around these "tree
islands." Whether that's because these are unique microhabitats or just
that the birds are easier to see there, I'm not sure. Anyway, I'd be
interested to hear from the rest of you, if your experience would
support that hunch.

Impacts on vagrants aren't really a big ecological issue, so much as a
recreational issue. Birding the peak might lose some of its fun if
vagrants don't stick around as long or as frequently, but I doubt this
is going to be significant in terms of population biology. So the big
question for me boils down to this:

Is there an ecological/historical argument for maintaining some "tree
islands," even though they'll make management of noble firs more
expensive for the Forest Service, over the long run? 

If so, then I'd raise recreational birding as one of the cultural
benefits that we'd gain from keeping at least a few of the "tree
islands."

Thanks & happy birding,
Joel

--
Joel Geier
Camp Adair area north of Corvallis