Wildlife Specialist report

of unauthorized routes in the A May Fly analysis area, 0 miles in the Nitocris Frtillary
analysis area, 2 miles in the Dashed Ringtail analysis areas, and 55 miles of unauthorized
routes in the A Notodontide Moth analysis area. Alternatives F and G adds 1 mile of
unauthorized routes in the A May Fly analysis area, 0 miles in the Nitocris Frtillary
analysis area, 2 miles in the Dashed Ringtail analysis areas, and 80 miles of unauthorized
routes in the A Notodontide Moth analysis area. Alternatives C adds 3 mile of
unauthorized routes in the A May Fly analysis area, 0 miles in the Nitocris Frtillary
analysis area, 12 miles in the Dashed Ringtail analysis areas, and 140 miles of
unauthorized routes in the A Notodontide Moth analysis area. Alternative C is the only
alternative that allows for an actual increase in miles of routes through the associated
analysis areas. All action alternatives allow use on routes that that have not previous
been recognized as a designated route. These new routes have the potential to cause new
disturbance.
Findings:
Table 106: Insect Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative
Sensitive Species
Alt. B
Existing
Condition
Determination by Alternative
Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G
A Notodontide moth *MI MI MI MI MI
Nitocris fritillary MI MI MI MI MI
A May fly MI MI MI MI MI
Dashed ringtail MI MI MI MI MI
Rationale for determination Under alternatives D, E, F, and G, the potential effects to insects are reduced,
particularly under alternatives E and D. Under alternative C, there is an increase
in motorized routes in both A May Fly and A Notodontide Moth analysis areas,
and a small decrease in the Nitocris Frtillary and Dashed Ringtail analysis areas.
The potential to affect individuals under all action alternatives still exists;
therefore, a determination of “may impact” is made for all action alternatives.
None of the alternatives would affect the viability of these species or the
viability of any other insect that occurs on the Gila National Forest. None of the
alternative would cause a trend toward Federal listing.
*MI – May impact
Wildlife Cumulative Affects
Cumulative wildlife assessments address the incremental impacts of an action when
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. This assessment
analyzes effects regardless of who has undertaken the action(s) (i.e. private roads within
or adjacent to a project area). Cumulative effects to wildlife are assessed by the area of
potentially affected habitat in relationship to the project(s); in this case the area of
potentially affected habitat is the entire Gila National Forest. Activities that influence
effects to wildlife can include timber harvest, grazing, roads, wildland fire, mining,
136