Wildlife Specialist report

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