Wildlife Specialist report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 50: Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat (Restricted/Mixed Conifer) Analysis Area on USFS = 163,916 Acres Motorized Routes Existing Effects Change in Effects Alt B (No Action) Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F Alt G Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5 Miles 102 -1 -40 -64 -24 -24 Acres 10,139 -153 -3,709 -6,051 -2,054 -2,051 Reopen Closed ML 1 Miles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acres 0 1 0 0 1 1 Administrative Route Miles 0 0 1 7 1 1 Acres 0 40 164 699 157 137 Add Unauthorized Route Miles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acres 0 3 3 3 3 3 Add Admin. Unauthorized Miles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seasonal - Resource Protection Miles 0 0 2 0 0 0 Motorized Trails Acres 0 0 183 0 0 0 Existing Road to OHV Trail Miles 0 0 1 0 0 0 Acres 0 1 199 0 19 28 Existing ATV Trail Miles 3 0 -2 -3 0 0 Acres 242 0 -175 -242 0 0 Closed Road to OHV Trail Miles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acres 0 40 0 0 40 40 Administrative Trail Miles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acres 0 0 0 0 0 0 Add Unauthorized Trail Miles 0 11 0 0 0 0 Acres 0 877 15 0 15 15 Total FS Routes and Trails Miles 105 115/+10 67/-38 45/-60 83/-22 83/-22 Percent in Miles of Alt. B (Existing) %Miles 10% -36% -57% -21% -21% Motorized Dispersed Camping Acres 84,101 -81,721 -82,278 -84,101 -81,869 -82,135 Percent in Acres of Alt. B (Existing) %Acres -97% -98% -100% -97% -98% Motorized Areas - All Vehicles Acres 0 NC NC NC NC NC Motorized Big Game Retrieval Acres 84,101 -13,631 -82,278 -84,101 -34,745 -82,135 Percent in Acres of Alt. B (Existing) %Acres -16% -98% -100% -41% -98% No Action Alternative (Alt. B): Under this alternative there are 244 miles of motorized routes in PACs, 1,308 miles in designated MSO critical habitat, and 105 miles in protected mixed conifer habitat. These routes continue to cause habitat loss. The potential for other types of direct effects to the MSO are relatively low. The potential for collision loss or poaching loss is relatively low on Forest Service motorized routes, because of lower traffic rates and travel speeds and the tendency for this species to be more active at night. On motorized routes with higher speeds and more traffic MSO collision losses have been documented. 78
The potential disturbance area in PACs (19,372 ac.), MSO critical habitat (100,904 ac.), and mixed conifer habitat (10,381 ac.) continues to cause the potential for indirect effects. The literature suggests that raptors are unlikely to be disturbed by routine use of roads, homes, and other facilities where such use pre-dates the species’ successful nesting activity in a given area. Therefore, in most cases ongoing existing uses may proceed with the same intensity with little risk of disturbing birds of prey (USF&W, 2007). 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. These two types of uses continue to have the potential to impact MSO PAC habitat (132,119 ac.); designated critical habitat (604,825 ac.), and yet to be identified PACs in un-surveyed mixed conifer 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 244 miles that are currently identified in PACs, 1,308 miles in designated MSO critical habitat, and 105 miles in mixed conifer 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 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. The authorization to allow disperse camp in these alternatives is reduced by 95% to 100% in areas with MSO habitat. No motorized areas are designated in MSO PACs or mixed conifer habitat. Under all action alternatives the change from the existing condition is a 100% reduction in motorized cross country travel. It is also important to note that Mexican spotted owls typically nest and roost in narrow/steep canyons with a dense canopy cover and a large amount of dead and down material. These nesting and roosting characteristics further limit the potential to cause direct and indirect effects to MSO and MSO habitat from dispersed camping. Under Alternatives C, F, and G our analysis shows that there is one acre of disturbance to MSO critical habitat. This disturbance does not affect any of the primary constituent elements in designated critical habitat. Since no motorized areas are located in PACs or mixed conifer habitat, and the one acre within the boundary of critical habitat does not affect the primary constituent elements none of these actions will have an effect to MSOs or MSO habitat. Differences among the Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat are reduced by 57% to 67% in all analysis areas under Alternative E; 33% to 48% under Alternative D; and 20% to 25% under Alternatives F and G (see MSO Analysis Tables for specific numbers). Additionally under Alternative E and D more of the routes are only open to administrative use which also reduces the potential for direct and indirect effects. Under Alternative D you also have a seasonal restriction in an area that has several established PACs adding more protection to nesting MSOs. The greater the reduction in miles and acres of potentially affected habitat in these analysis areas the less direct and indirect effects; 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. Miles of motorized routes and 79
Page 1 and 2:
Gila National Forest Travel Managem
Page 3 and 4:
that are on the Regional Forester S
Page 5 and 6:
ALTERNATIVES and MITIGATION MEASURE
Page 7 and 8:
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Gila Natio
Page 9 and 10:
In 1977, a study was published by a
Page 11 and 12:
Regional Forester Sensitive Species
Page 13 and 14:
MacGillivray’s Warbler HP Painted
Page 15 and 16:
Barriers to Animal Travel or Moveme
Page 17 and 18:
occupied sites, etc.). For habitat
Page 19 and 20:
Issues identified during scoping re
Page 21 and 22:
Elk (Game Species identified as spe
Page 23 and 24:
Table 12 summarizes the harvest ind
Page 25 and 26:
Table 14: Pronghorn Analysis Area -
Page 27 and 28: Bighorn Sheep (Forest Service Sensi
Page 29 and 30: Mule Deer (Gila Management Indicato
Page 31 and 32: Wide Ranging Carnivores Table19: Wi
Page 33 and 34: from a road, except when feeding. K
Page 35 and 36: HUC 1303020202 Hot/Cold Springs 195
Page 37 and 38: Percent Change -0.17% -20.66% -45.4
Page 39 and 40: Mountain Lion and Black Bear (game
Page 41 and 42: So under this alternative through t
Page 43 and 44: microhabitat in the desert landscap
Page 45 and 46: Southern red-backed vole (Forest Se
Page 47 and 48: largely unknown, but it is thought
Page 49 and 50: Small Mammals-Effects by Alternativ
Page 51 and 52: Beaver (Gila Management Indicator S
Page 53 and 54: White-nosed Coati, Western Red Bat,
Page 55 and 56: 2% in the Hooded Skunk and Botta’
Page 57 and 58: The literature documents that a lar
Page 59 and 60: iparian (cottonwood/sycamore), and
Page 61 and 62: Reptiles and Amphibians-Effects by
Page 63 and 64: effects to the species and its habi
Page 65 and 66: Arizona Toad and Narrow Headed Gart
Page 67 and 68: Under this alternative you continue
Page 69 and 70: from grassland areas, and game bird
Page 71 and 72: Spotted Owl and determined that roa
Page 73 and 74: and Miller, 1997, Hamann et al, 199
Page 75 and 76: Shrub/Grassland vegetation types, a
Page 77: Table 49: Mexican Spotted Owl Criti
Page 81 and 82: Table 51: Mexican spotted owl feder
Page 83 and 84: Northern Goshawk (Gila MIS Species,
Page 85 and 86: Peregrine Falcon (Forest Service Se
Page 87 and 88: dates the species’ successful nes
Page 89 and 90: NMPIF High-Priority Species Alt. B
Page 91 and 92: Cavity Nesting Birds-Effects by Alt
Page 93 and 94: Findings: Table66: Hairy woodpecker
Page 95 and 96: 2008). The GBMA is primarily manage
Page 97 and 98: trees, and succulents dominated by
Page 99 and 100: New Mexico, where it is resident in
Page 101 and 102: Table 71: Analysis Area - Existing
Page 103 and 104: In these analysis areas the area of
Page 105 and 106: Neotropic Cormorant (Forest Service
Page 107 and 108: the Wilson’s phalarope analysis a
Page 109 and 110: NMPIF High Priority Species Common
Page 111 and 112: Gray Vireo (Forest Service Sensitiv
Page 113 and 114: Song Bird Summary: Table 82 list ro
Page 115 and 116: Costa’s Hummingbird (Forest Servi
Page 117 and 118: Plains Titmouse (Forest Service Sen
Page 119 and 120: For the focal species and their ass
Page 121 and 122: the forest edge (New Mexico Partner
Page 123 and 124: conifers with dense foliage. Limiti
Page 125 and 126: Merriam’s Wild Turkey (Ponderosa
Page 127 and 128: Findings: Table 96: Mearn’s quail
Page 129 and 130:
showed an increase in numbers from
Page 131 and 132:
Insect - Effects by Alternative A M
Page 133 and 134:
Dashed Ringtail (Forest Service Sen
Page 135 and 136:
area. These routes continue to caus
Page 137 and 138:
ecreational activities, game manage
Page 139 and 140:
6 th codes remains between 1.5 to 2
Page 141 and 142:
Table 107: 5th Code 6th Code Waters
Page 143 and 144:
MSO PACs Analysis Area 187,083 Acre
Page 145 and 146:
HUC 1302020804 Alamocito Canyon Tot
Page 147 and 148:
6th Code Watershed Alt B Alt C Alt
Page 149 and 150:
Forest Plan and Other Laws and Regu
Page 151 and 152:
Topic Threatened & Endangered Speci
Page 153 and 154:
Appendix A Gila National Forest Neo
Page 155 and 156:
Oak-Juniper Acorn Woodpecker Dark-e
Page 157 and 158:
Ponderosa Pine Acorn Woodpecker Chi
Page 159:
Marsh/Open American Avocet Clark’
show all

Wildlife Specialist report

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?