Wildlife Specialist report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

and Whitman 2000a, Hayes et al. 2002). Roads invite human activity of all sorts, and can lead to poaching, over-hunting and over-fishing (Strittholt etal. 2006). Elk vulnerability is highest in areas with open roads, reduced in areas with closed roads, and lowest in roadless areas. Watson (2005) <strong>report</strong>ed that roads facilitate poaching of pronghorn. Localized 6 th code watersheds with higher road densities will continue to maintain higher exposure rates between humans and wild ungulates facilitating the potential for additional harvest of these species. Alternatives that maintain higher road densities levels will continue to facilitate this exposure; Table 107 identifies the alternatives of concern in dark grey. These localized areas of higher road densities would not cause a significant effect to wild ungulates on the Gila National Forest. Carnivores: Claar et al. (1999) documents that research related to recreational impacts on carnivores are lacking. They go on to state that increased access into remote habitats is a concern, particularly to carnivore species that usually seek secluded areas. Claar et al. (1999), state that wolves are habitat generalists and are a very resilient species that can coexist with people if they are tolerated by humans. They are an intelligent species, which allows individuals to adapt to different levels of disturbance. Individuals may be very sensitive to human disturbance, but others tolerate disturbance. These traits between different individuals make it difficult to evaluate the overall affects of recreational activities (Claar et al. 1999). Much of the literature shows a strong negative relationship between wolves and increased road densities (Claar et al. 1999, Thiel 1985, and Mech et al. 1988). Researchers have found that when road densities exceed about 1 mile/mi² (1.6 km/0.9 km radius circle) wolves were displaced or avoided the area (Mech et al. 1988 and 1985). However, Claar et al. (1999) states that findings from many of these studies that looked at large well established wolf populations may not be applicable to fragmented, recovering populations in western states. Wolf populations in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Montana have become more habituated to humans through time since recolonization has occurred in these recovering populations (Claar et al. 1999, and Thiel et al. 1998). The Mexican Wolf Reintroduction EIS did not recognize road densities on the Gila National Forest as problem; however since the start of the reintroduction project in 1998, within the recovery area in Arizona and New Mexico illegal shootings and vehicle collisions have been the greatest source of wolf mortality. Of the 68 wolf deaths, between 1998 and June 1, 2009, 31 are associated with shooting and 12 with vehicle collision (U.S. Fish and <strong>Wildlife</strong> Service 2010). Localized 6 th code watersheds with higher road densities will continue to maintain higher exposure rates between humans and wide ranging carnivores facilitating the potential for additional harvest of these species. Alternatives that maintain higher road densities levels will continue to facilitate this exposure; Table 107 identifies the alternatives of concern in dark gray. The potential to adversely affect wild ranging carnivores like the wolf would be expected to continue under the alternatives that maintain higher road densities in the localized areas, as identified in Table 107. 140
Table 107: 5th Code 6th Code Watershed Watershed within Each 5 th Road Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Code Density B C D E F G Negrito Creek 150400040602 mi/mi² 2.85 2.85 1.79 0.99 2.31 2.31 Upr SFR 150400040106 mi/mi² 2.52 2.51 1.97 1.79 2.03 2.07 150400040109 mi/mi² 1.98 1.99 1.65 1.38 1.79 1.79 150400040102 mi/mi² 1.90 1.90 1.84 1.80 1.84 1.84 150400040107 mi/mi² 1.78 1.77 1.56 1.34 1.61 1.57 Tularosa River 150400040207 mi/mi² 2.38 2.34 2.03 1.85 2.09 2.03 150400040201 mi/mi² 2.01 2.01 1.54 1.54 1.73 1.54 150400040203 mi/mi² 1.89 1.88 1.66 1.58 1.69 1.66 Alamocito 130202080401 mi/mi² 2.25 2.25 1.53 1.22 1.99 1.92 130202080404 mi/mi² 2.14 2.13 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 130202080403 mi/mi² 1.91 1.84 1.38 1.16 1.35 1.35 Middle Fork 150400010302 mi/mi² Gila River 2.13 2.13 1.30 0.84 1.55 1.81 150400010301 mi/mi² 2.05 2.05 1.43 1.09 1.55 1.55 150400010303 mi/mi² 1.93 1.93 1.36 0.71 1.69 1.69 Mangas Creek 150200030701 mi/mi² 1.98 1.91 1.50 1.31 1.50 1.50 Chiricahua Leopard Frog: The literature documents that amphibians are killed on roadways. Fharig et al (1995) documented that the higher the traffic intensity the greater the number of dead frogs and toads. Vos and Chardon (1998) documented that Moor Frog populations were negatively affected by density of roads within 250 meters of riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats. On the Gila National Forest there are 15 occupied sites in 2009. Compared to many of the other federally listed species in the Region the concern for this species within its historic range is relatively high. The low number of occupied sites on the Gila adds to this concern. Movement patterns by Chiricahua leopard frogs are not well understood. Based on observations of various ranids in Arizona and New Mexico (USFWS 2007: 14-15), reasonable dispersal distances for the species are (1) one mile overland, (2) three miles along intermittent drainages, and (3) five miles along permanent water courses (USFWS 2007: D- 2,3), or some combination thereof. For this species the miles of road and number of road crossings (all ownership) within the reasonable dispersal distance from occupied sites where looked at for this cumulative effect analysis (see Table 108). The higher road density and number of stream crossings the greater the exposure rates between vehicles and the Chiricahua leopard frog, which facilitates the potential for harvest of this species. Alternatives C, D, F, and G maintain higher road density levels and a high number of stream crossings which continue to facilitate the potential for harvest. The potential to have a higher level of adverse affects to the Chiricahua leopard frog would be expected to continue under Alternatives C, D, F, and G, as identified in Table 108. 141
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 and 78:
Table 49: Mexican Spotted Owl Criti
Page 79 and 80:
The potential disturbance area in P
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: 6 th codes remains between 1.5 to 2
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?