Wildlife Specialist report

activity for songbirds and other avian species (Hamann et al, 1999). Increases in the
level of use on these routes through time would increase the potential for indirect effects.
Under this alternative you continue to have motorized cross country travel and dispersed
camping allowed across the Gila National Forest outside of designated wilderness areas
and other special management areas. These two types of uses continue to have the
potential to impact the 62 acres of occupied sites; and 413 acres of designated critical
habitat. Additionally these two types of uses perpetuate the development of additional
roads and OHV routes; potentially allowing for the development of more routes than the
0.7 miles that are currently identified in occupied sites, and 2.8 miles in designated
SWWF critical habitat. So under this alternative through time the potential for the direct
loss of individuals and habitat would increase, as would the potential for disturbance
effects to the species and its habitat.
Effect Common to all Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Under these
alternatives motorized cross country travel (see assumption) is no longer allowed. Under
all action alternatives the change from the existing condition is a 100% reduction in
motorized cross country travel. Under these alternatives no motorized areas have been
designated. The authorization to allow disperse camping in occupied sites is reduced by
93 to 100% and 83 to 100% in designated critical habitat. The effects from these changes
will be beneficial to the species under all alternatives.
In occupied sites miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected
habitat remain the same under all action alternatives as the no action alternative (0.7
miles of motorized routes and 0 stream crossings). The change between the no action
alternative and Alternatives D, E, F, and G is that the 0.7 miles in occupied sites is now
only available to administrative use. In Alternative C the change is a conversion of 0.6
miles of the 0.7 miles to administrative use. Again, administrative route have less use
than routes open to the public so the level of direct and indirect effects would be reduced
in all action alternative. Under Alternative C the reduction in effects would be less than
the other action alternative.
Differences among the Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G):
In SWWF critical habitat miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially
affected habitat are reduced by 20% in Alternative E; 18.5% under Alternatives D, F, and
G; and 0.9% under Alternatives C. The four alternatives also reduce the use within
portions of each of the analysis areas by proposing administrative use. Under
Alternatives D, E, F, and G 1.4 miles of the existing routes go from open to the public to
administrative use only. Under Alternative C 1.1 miles go to administrative use only.
Under the existing condition you have 5 stream crossings open to the public, and under
each of the action alternatives these 5 crossings go to administrative use only. The
reduction in direct and indirect effects to the species and its habitat is relative to the
amount of miles reduced in these analysis areas. No alternatives propose adding closed
routes or unauthorized routes to these analysis areas.
102