Wildlife Specialist report

numbers). Under Alternative C motorized routes are increased in 14 watersheds above
the not action alternative; none of the other action alternative increase route densities
above the existing condition. 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. The greater the reduction in miles in the analysis areas the less the
potential for 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 the analysis areas.
Compared to the no action alternative the authorization to allow disperse camp in
alternatives C to G is reduced by 89% to 100% within the analysis area.
Motorized areas are locations where we have had traditional uses like motorized camping
and OHV use. Under Alternatives E and D these activities are not allowed. Under
Alternative C, F, and G you have motorized vehicle areas in 5 watersheds and motorized
OHV areas in 2 watersheds. Under Alternatives E and D there would be less direct and
indirect effect to the MGW from this activity.
The area of potentially affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced on
average by 100% under Alternative E, 96% under Alternative D, 38% under Alternative
F, 96% under Alternative G, and 15% under Alternative C.
Findings:
Table 23: Mexican gray wolf federally listed species determination by alternative
Federally
Listed Species
Mexican gray
wolf
Rationale for
determination
Alt. B
Existing
Condition
*NLJ – Not likely to jeopardize determination
Determination by Alternative
Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G
*NLJ NLJ NLJ NLJ NLJ
Under alternative E, beneficial effects to the species and its habitat
are greater than the other action alternatives. Alternatives D, G, and
F also improve habitat conditions for the Mexican gray wolf, but to
lesser degree than alternative E. Alternative C eliminates crosscountry
travel, but the change related to route density is very small,
maintaining conditions that are very similar to the no-action
alternative. None of the action alternatives would have a significant
effect to the species or its habitat. A determination of “not likely to
jeopardize” is made for all action alternatives.
38