United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Southwestern

Region

MB-R3-06-5

October 2010

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

Travel Management on 

the Gila National Forest

Silver City, New Mexico
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information,

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper – October 2010

Cover Photo: Forest road accessing Pine Flat, Silver City Ranger District, Gila National Forest
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest

Silver City, New Mexico

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Richard E. Markley, Forest Supervisor 

Gila National Forest

3005 E. Camino del Bosque

Silver City, NM 88061

For Information Contact: Lisa Mizuno, Travel Management Project Leader

Gila National Forest 

3005 E. Camino del Bosque

Silver City, NM 88061

(575) 388-8267

Abstract: The Gila National Forest (the forest) proposes to make changes to the current system 

of National Forest System roads, motorized trails, and areas. The result of these changes will be a 

system of roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use as required by the Travel 

Management Rule. Also proposed is an amendment to the “Gila National Forest Plan” to prohibit 

motor vehicle travel off the designated system once the motor vehicle use map is published. Some 

alternatives propose designated fixed-distance corridors solely for the purpose of motorized 

dispersed camping or motorized big game retrieval. Five action alternatives propose changes to 

National Forest System roads, trails, and areas in various combinations. The Gila National Forest 

has identified alternative G as the preferred alternative. A full description of the preferred 

alternative may be found in chapter 2 of this document.

Date Comments Must Be Received: The 60-day comment period begins the day after the notice 

of availability (NOA) is published in the Federal Register. Comments on this draft environmental 

impact statement must be received or postmarked before the end of the 60th calendar day 

following publication of the NOA to participate in the administrative appeal process (36 CFR 

215.6(4). We will post the Federal Register NOA on the forest Web site at 

http://fs.usda.gov/goto/gila/travel.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they 

are useful to the Agency’s preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior 

to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns and 

contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to 

participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. Comments received in 

response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part 

of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted 

and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to 

participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review.

Send Comments to: Gila National Forest

Attn: Travel Management

3005 E. Camino del Bosque

Silver City, NM 88061

Fax number: (575) 388-8222

Email address: r3_gila_travel@fs.fed.us 

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest i

Summary

To comply with the Travel Management Rule, the Gila National Forest (the forest) proposes to 

provide for a system of roads, trails, and areas designated for motorized use by making changes to 

the current travel system. The proposed changes will reduce the places where people can drive in 

the Gila National Forest. The proposed changes do not restrict where people’s nonmotorized

activities—such as hiking, camping, bicycling, hunting, and others—may take place.

Background

To address the concern about unmanaged off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, the Forest Service 

published final travel management regulations for use of motor vehicles on National Forest 

System lands on November 9, 2005. The new regulations amended Title 36 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, parts 212, 251, 261, and removed part 295. These regulations together are 

referred to as the Travel Management Rule throughout this document.

The Travel Management Rule requires that each national forest and grassland “provides for a 

system of National Forest System (NFS) roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands that are 

designated for motor vehicle use. After these roads, trails, and areas are designated, motor vehicle 

use, including the class of vehicle and time of year, not in accordance with these designations, is 

prohibited. Motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails and outside designated areas is 

prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13 (36 CFR 212.50 (a)).” Therefore, the Gila National Forest is 

presenting these alternatives to meet the Travel Management Rule requirements. The designated 

roads, trails, and areas will be published on a motor vehicle use map, which will be available free 

of charge to the public.

Motor vehicles will continue to be a legitimate and appropriate way for people to enjoy the Gila 

National Forest, and motor vehicle access opportunities are important. The Gila National Forest 

will continue to provide motor vehicle access to National Forest System lands for activities such 

as camping, fishing, hunting, hiking, mountain biking, wildlife viewing, horseback riding, and 

driving for pleasure on designated roads and trails.

Purpose and Need

● There is a need to comply with 36 CFR 212.51(a), which requires the forest to designate 

a system of roads, trails and areas for vehicle use by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by 

time of year.

● There is a need to manage motorized vehicle use on NFS lands on the Gila National 

Forest in accordance with the provisions of the Travel Management Rule and 36 CFR 

parts 212, 251, and 261.

● There is a need to comply with 36 CFR 261.13, which requires that forests prohibit motor 

vehicle use off the system of designated roads, trails, and areas (i.e., close the forest to 

motorized cross-country travel).

● There is a need to amend the forest plan to comply with the Travel Management Rule.

Public Involvement

From 2006 to 2007, Gila National Forest ranger districts held 46 public meetings and open houses 

across the national forest to introduce the Travel Management Rule and the forest travel 
Summary

ii DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

management process to over 900 participants. In the fall of 2008, more than 800 people attended 

an additional 18 workshops. These workshops generated over 2,000 public comments, and

provided the public an opportunity to review maps and provide input. Over 380 individuals, 

including landowners, range permittees, and outfitters or guides, were contacted, and the forest 

met with local motorized user groups, conservation groups, various local organized groups, 

Federal and State agencies, and local county officials. Public input provided issues, opinions, 

opportunities, and general comments, which are listed in the travel analysis process report (USDA 

Forest Service 2010).

The forest supervisor published the proposed action on September 11, 2009. Publishing the 

proposed action marked the start of the scoping comment period, during which we asked the 

public for comments on the proposal. We mailed the proposed action to approximately 4,000 

people and held 10 open houses. In response, we received almost 16,000 letters and emails. The 

content of the letters and emails formed the basis of the alternatives and environmental analysis.

Significant Issues

Significant issues form the basis of alternatives to the proposed action. These four significant 

issues were identified from the comment letters:

1. Motorized Routes: The proposed changes to motorized routes, specifically the type, 

extent, level of use, and location of motorized routes, may lead to resource, recreation, 

social, and economic effects.

2. Motorized Dispersed Recreation: The proposed change to motorized dispersed camping 

to limit it to proposed designated corridors and areas may lead to resource, recreation, 

social, and economic effects.

3. Motorized Big Game Retrieval: The proposed change to motorized big game retrieval 

may lead to resource, recreation, social, and economic effects.

4. Areas: The proposed change to designated areas specifically for OHV activities may lead 

to resource, recreation, social, and economic effects.

Alternatives

Alternative A is the proposed action alternative. This alternative has been modified as shown in 

alternative F. Alternative A was dropped from detailed analysis.

Alternative B is the no action alternative. It represents the existing condition, which is our best 

estimate of where people are driving now.

Alternative C provides the most motorized opportunities. Only those routes that are needed to 

meet laws, regulations, or policies would be closed.

Alternative D would provide for moderate motorized access with additional protection of 

sensitive resources, such as threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; high density cultural 

sites; riparian and wetland areas; low condition watersheds; and roadless areas.

Alternative E provides for the least motorized access, most resource protection, and emphasizes 

nonmotorized recreation.
Summary

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest iii

Alternative F emphasizes motorized recreation opportunities while considering sensitive 

resources such as threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; high density cultural sites; 

riparian and wetland areas; low condition watersheds; and roadless areas.

Alternative G combines elements from other alternatives to provide a mix of motorized and 

nonmotorized opportunities.

Figure 1, figure 2, and table 1 (p. v) compare the resultant motorized system and change from 

alternative B for each alternative.

Conclusions About the Effects of the Alternatives

The effects of this project can be split roughly into two types: (1) effects to people and how they 

use the forest, called “social effects,” and (2) effects to natural and cultural resources. Social 

effects include things like opportunities for motorized access and recreation and impacts on jobs 

and revenue associated with motorized use of the national forest. Natural and cultural resources 

include soil, water, fish, wildlife and plant species and habitat, nonnative invasive plants, cultural 

resource sites, and air quality. The draft environmental impact statement examines effects to these 

and other resources in detail in chapter 3. This summary highlights the change in motorized 

opportunities and effects to natural and cultural resources because the public indicated these 

things were the most important to them.

For motorized opportunities, choosing any of the action alternatives (C through G) reduces where 

people can drive in the Gila National Forest from the existing condition. The total amount of 

roads and trails open for motorized use would be reduced by 2 to 50 percent (table 1) depending 

on the alternative selected, and virtually no driving off roads or trails would be allowed. The 

ability to drive to a dispersed campsite or to retrieve game would be restricted to corridors 

designated for such use.

Figure 1. Summary of the roads and trails that would result from each 

alternative, and their overall change from alternative B, no action
Summary

iv DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Figure 2. Comparison of acres available for driving off road, by alternative. 

Percent change is not depicted because the acres overlap in use. For 

instance, the corridors for motorized dispersed camping (MDC) and 

motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) are the same in alternative B.

Limiting where people can drive may alter some ability to enjoy the national forest in the manner 

they are accustomed to. Being able to drive on fewer roads and trails means people may not be 

able to drive to their favorite recreational destination, which applies to both motorized and 

nonmotorized uses. Therefore, some destinations would thus be rendered inaccessible by motor 

vehicles. Exploring or touring by driving off roads or trails (e.g., cross country) would no longer 

be allowed. Some trails would not be open to motorcycles or ATV use. Many comments indicated 

that curtailing motorized use of the national forest unacceptably limits their freedom.

Fewer open routes and the elimination of motorized cross-country travel tends to be more 

protective of natural and cultural resources. As a result, alternatives D through G tend to increase 

the protection of natural and cultural resources compared to no action. By comparison, alternative 

C does not greatly decrease road and motorized trail miles, and allows the most authorized off 

road uses (i.e., big game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping) so it does not greatly change 

from alternative B, no action. By these criteria, alternative E would best protect natural and 

cultural resources because it provides the fewest motorized opportunities. The difference in 

effects between alternatives D, F, and G, however, is not exceptionally pronounced for most 

resources. 

Decision to Be Made

Based on the effects to social, natural, and cultural resources, the forest supervisor will decide 

what changes to make to the current motorized travel system. The “record of decision,” which we 

will publish after analyzing the public’s comments on this draft environmental impact statement, 

documents the decision and the rationale for it.
Summary

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest v

Table 1. Compariso n of motorized system resulting from changes to alternative B, no action (asterisk means item will not be shown on 

the motor vehicle use map)

Alternative B

(No Action) Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Alternative F

(Modified 

Proposed Action)

Alternative G

Miles of roads designated 

open to the public for motor 

vehicle use

4,604 4,266 2,977 2,332 3,343 3,323

Miles of motorized trails 

(less than 50 inches in 

width) 

16 204 125 0 182 182

Miles of single-track

motorcycle trails 

0 64 0 0 0 0

Miles of routes for 

administrative use or by 

written authorization only *

0 183 354 439 298 299

Total percent change in 

motorized roads and trails

0% -2% -33% -50% -24% -24%

Miles open for motorized

dispersed camping (300 feet 

on each side of the road) 

5,197 (no distance 

limit, forest is open)

1,538 1,183 0 1,447 1,327

Motorized big game 

retrieval 

No limit on distance 

or species. Forest is 

open.

1 mile from each 

side of designated 

open roads, county 

roads, and state and 

federal highways for 

retrieving elk, deer, 

bear, mountain lion, 

javelina, pronghorn

300 feet using 

same motorized 

dispersed camping 

corridors for 

retrieving elk and 

deer 

No motorized big 

game retrieval 

allowed

1/2 mile from each 

side of designated 

open roads, county 

roads, and state and 

federal highways 

for retrieving elk 

only

300 feet using 

same motorized 

dispersed camping 

corridors for 

retrieving elk and 

deer 

Number of areas (acres) 

open to all vehicles 

No limit, forest is 

open

38 (29) 0 (0) 0 (0) 38 (29) 38 (29)

Number of areas (acres) 

restricted to ATV and 

motorcycles only

No limit, forest is 

open

1 (8) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (8) 1 (8)

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest vii

Contents

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action.................................................................................1

Structure of this Document.....................................................................................................................1

Background ............................................................................................................................................1

Location ............................................................................................................................................2

Existing Transportation System..............................................................................................................2

Purpose of and Need for Action .............................................................................................................4

Previous Decisions .................................................................................................................................5

Modified Proposed Action, Briefly Described .......................................................................................5

Decision Framework...............................................................................................................................5

Public Involvement.................................................................................................................................6

Tribal Consultation .................................................................................................................................6

Comments ............................................................................................................................................7

General Concerns ...................................................................................................................................8

Issues ............................................................................................................................................9

Important Notes....................................................................................................................................10

What Happens Next..............................................................................................................................11

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action..........................................................13

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................13

Development of the Alternatives..........................................................................................................13

Alternatives Considered in Detail.........................................................................................................13

Features Common to Two or More Alternatives..................................................................................14

Forest Plan Amendments......................................................................................................................17

Mitigations ..........................................................................................................................................30

Cultural Resources................................................................................................................................30

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study.............................................................31

Comparison of Alternatives..................................................................................................................32

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences................................... 43

Notes on Effects Analysis.....................................................................................................................43

Forest Plan Amendments......................................................................................................................45

Roads ..........................................................................................................................................46

Recreation ..........................................................................................................................................50

Air Quality ..........................................................................................................................................70

Watershed and Soils .............................................................................................................................77

Aquatics ........................................................................................................................................100

Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................126

Sensitive Plants...................................................................................................................................212

Invasive Species .................................................................................................................................223

Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................................226

Social and Economic Analysis ...........................................................................................................247

Cultural and Traditional Practices – Tribes........................................................................................258

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity.....................................................................................259

Unavoidable Adverse Effects.............................................................................................................259

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.................................................................260

Other Required Disclosures................................................................................................................260

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination............................................................................. 261

List of Preparers and Contributors......................................................................................................261

List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the DEIS Were Sent...................264

Glossary...................................................................................................................................... 265

References.................................................................................................................................. 273

Index ........................................................................................................................................... 289
Contents

viii DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of motorized system resulting from changes to alternative B, 

no action (asterisk means item will not be shown on the motor vehicle use map)...... v

Table 2. List of roads and location descriptions to be open to highway legal vehicles only... 15

Table 3. Land management plan amendments 1 through 6 that would 

be implemented in all action alternatives................................................................... 17

Table 4. Proposed Forest Plan Amendment No. 7 to change recreation standards 

and guidelines related to the off-road vehicle policy (language to be 

removed is indicated by a strikethrough and language to be added is in italics)....... 18

Table 5. Changes to road system in miles................................................................................ 24

Table 6. The following road segments are proposed to be designated seasonally open.......... 25

Table 7. Road and trail miles for use as “periodic administrative use” or “by written 

authorization only” .................................................................................................... 25

Table 8. Changes to motorized trails in miles.......................................................................... 26

Table 9. Motorized dispersed camping – 300 feet on both sides of the road........................... 26

Table 10. Description of motorized big game retrieval by alternative ...................................... 26

Table 11. Estimated acreage of motorized dispersed 

camping and motorized big game retrieval................................................................ 27

Table 12. Areas open to all motor vehicles................................................................................ 27

Table 13. Areas open to all vehicle types.................................................................................. 28

Table 14. Areas restricted to ATV and motorcycles only .......................................................... 30

Table 15. Overview of the key elements of the alternatives...................................................... 32

Table 16. Summary of the effects described in detail in chapter 3 ............................................ 33

Table 17. Average width of roads and trails by maintenance level............................................ 43

Table 18. Acres of potential disturbance to wildlife from motorized big game retrieval.......... 45

Table 19. Existing Gila NFS road miles by operational maintenance level (OML) 

and general description of operational maintenance levels (specific 

definitions are located in FSH 7709.59, 62.32) ......................................................... 46

Table 20. Miles of roads maintained based on annual forest road budget allocations. 

Values are also displayed as percent maintained of the total road miles (table 19). .. 47

Table 21. Breakdown of road miles by operation maintenance level and 

alternatives and a comparison of the change of total open road 

miles (OML 2–5 roads) by alternative (MPA = modified proposed action) .............. 48

Table 22. Annual maintenance cost by alternative (miles of existing 

NFS roads by operational maintenance level) ........................................................... 49

Table 23. Gila National Forest acres within New Mexico airsheds........................................... 73

Table 24. Forestwide potential air quality impacts by alternative ............................................. 76

Table 25. Summary of soils conditions on Gila National Forest............................................... 79

Table 26. Summary of erosion hazard on Gila National Forest................................................. 79

Table 27. Mid-scale existing vegetation map units on Gila National Forest............................. 80

Table 28. Summary of forestwide watershed characteristics..................................................... 82

Table 29. Special status aquatic species occurring on the Gila National Forest...................... 100

Table 30. Miles of NFS motorized routes within 300 feet of 

perennial and intermittent streams and rivers.......................................................... 105

Table 31. Number of NFS road crossings on perennial 

and intermittent streams by crossing type................................................................ 106

Table 32. Miles and density of NFS routes existing on the forest........................................... 107

Table 33. Miles of NFS routes with no or reduced use............................................................ 108
Contents

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest ix

Table 34. Miles of perennial and intermittent streams 

within motorized dispersed camping corridors........................................................ 109

Table 35. Miles of perennial and intermittent stream 

within areas available for motorized big game retrieval.......................................... 109

Table 36. Miles of NFS motorized routes within 300 

feet of loach minnow designated critical habitat ......................................................110

Table 37. Number of stream crossings in loach minnow designated critical habitat................111

Table 38. Miles of National Forest System motorized 

routes within 300 feet of spikedace designated critical habitat.................................112

Table 39. Number of stream crossings in spikedace designated critical habitat.......................113

Table 40. Miles of NFS motorized routes within 300 feet 

of Gila chub designated critical habitat ....................................................................114

Table 41. Number of stream crossings in Gila chub designated critical habitat.......................115

Table 42. Miles of NFS motorized routes within 

300 feet of occupied Chihuahua chub habitat...........................................................116

Table 43. Number of NFS route stream crossings in occupied Chihuahua chub habitat..........117

Table 44. Miles of NFS motorized routes within 300 feet of occupied Gila trout habitat........118

Table 45. Number of stream crossings in occupied Gila trout habitat......................................118

Table 46. Gila National Forest threatened, endangered, 

and designated critical habitat effects determinations ..............................................119

Table 47. Gila National Forest, Southwestern Region 

sensitive aquatic species effects determinations by alternative ............................... 120

Table 48. Primary vegetation types on the forest..................................................................... 127

Table 49. Federally listed species (endangered, threatened, proposed 

and experimental) for Catron, Grant, Hidalgo, and Sierra 

Counties, New Mexico (accessed February 2010)................................................... 129

Table 50. Forest Service Southwestern Region sensitive species and Federal candidates...... 130

Table 51. New Mexico Partners in Flight high-priority 

migratory bird species by vegetation type ............................................................... 132

Table 52. Species and vegetation types for each management indicator species .................... 134

Table 53. Responses of wildlife to various disturbance factors............................................... 136

Table 54. Ungulate species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection...................... 138

Table 55. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance zone, and analysis area 

that is used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to ungulates............ 139

Table 56. Elk analysis area - existing condition and 

proposed change by issue and alternative................................................................ 139

Table 57. Pronghorn analysis area - existing condition 

and proposed change by issue and alternative ......................................................... 140

Table 58. Bighorn sheep analysis area - existing 

condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ......................................... 141

Table 59. Bighorn sheep Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative......... 142

Table 60. Mule deer analysis area - existing condition and 

proposed change table by issue and alternative ....................................................... 143

Table 61. Mule deer Gila National Forest management 

indicator species determination by alternative......................................................... 144

Table 62. Wide-ranging carnivore species selected to 

be analyzed and rationale for selection.................................................................... 145
Contents

x DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 63. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and 

analysis area that is used to analyze the effects of the different 

alternatives to wide-ranging carnivores................................................................... 145

Table 64. Mountain lion analysis area - existing condition and 

proposed change by issue and alternative................................................................ 146

Table 65. Black bear analysis area - existing condition and 

proposed change by issue and alternative................................................................ 147

Table 66. Mexican gray wolf analysis area - existing condition 

and proposed change by issue and alternative ......................................................... 148

Table 67. Mexican gray wolf federally listed species determination by alternative................ 150

Table 68. Small mammal species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection ............ 151

Table 69. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area 

used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to small mammals............. 152

Table 70. Hooded skunk - Botta's pocket gopher habitat (desert shrub, 

Piñon-juniper, and shrub oak woodland) analysis area - existing 

condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ......................................... 152

Table 71. Gunnison's prairie dog - White Mountain ground squirrel habitat (plains and 

mountain grassland) analysis area - existing condition and proposed 

change by issue and alternative................................................................................ 153

Table 72. Long-tailed vole - Arizona montane habitat (wet meadow, wetland, 

and high elevation riparian) analysis area - existing condition and 

proposed change by issue and alternative................................................................ 153

Table 73. White-nosed coati, western red bat, Arizona gray squirrel habitat 

(low and middle elevation) analysis area - existing condition and 

proposed change by issue and alternative................................................................ 154

Table 74. Beaver habitat (low-, middle-, and high-elevation riparian) analysis 

area - existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative.................. 154

Table 75. Small mammal Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative........ 156

Table 76. Long-tailed vole and beaver Gila National Forest management 

indicator species determination by alternative......................................................... 157

Table 77. Amphibian and reptile species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection. 157

Table 78. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area used 

to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to amphibians and reptiles......... 158

Table 79. Mexican gartersnake habitat (low-elevation riparian) analysis area - existing 

condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ......................................... 160

Table 80. Arizona toad – narrow-headed gartersnake habitat (low-, middle-, and 

high-elevation riparian) analysis area - existing condition and proposed 

change by issue and alternative................................................................................ 160

Table 81. Reticulate Gila monster habitat (desert shrub and grassland) 

analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative.... 161

Table 82. Amphibian and reptile Forest Service sensitive species 

determination by alternative .................................................................................... 162

Table 83. Chiricahua leopard frog reasonable dispersal analysis area -

existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ........................... 163

Table 84. Chiricahua leopard frog federally listed species determination by alternative........ 164

Table 85. Raptor species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection.......................... 167

Table 86. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis 

area used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to raptors ................... 168
Contents

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest xi

Table 87. Northern goshawk post-fledgling area analysis area –

existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ........................... 168

Table 88. Northern goshawk ponderosa pine analysis area –

existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ........................... 169

Table 89. Peregrine falcon analysis area – existing condition 

and proposed change by issue and alternative ......................................................... 169

Table 90. Bald eagle analysis area – existing condition and 

proposed change by issue and alternative................................................................ 170

Table 91. Golden Eagle analysis area – existing condition and 

proposed change by issue and alternative................................................................ 170

Table 92. Raptorial birds Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative ........ 172

Table 93. Northern goshawk Gila National Forest 

management indicator species determination by alternative ................................... 172

Table 94. Raptor New Mexico Partners in Flight (NMPIF) 

high-priority species determination by alternative................................................... 173

Table 95. Mexican spotted owl protected activity center analysis area –

existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ........................... 173

Table 96. Mexican spotted owl critical habitat analysis area – existing 

condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ......................................... 174

Table 97. Mexican spotted owl mixed conifer or restricted habitat analysis 

area – existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative................. 174

Table 98. Mexican spotted owl federally listed species and critical habitat 

determinations by alternative................................................................................... 176

Table 99. Mexican spotted owl Gila National Forest management indicator species 

determination by alternative .................................................................................... 177

Table 100. New Mexico Partners in Flight (NMPIF) high-priority 

species determination by alternative........................................................................ 177

Table 101. Primary cavity nester and excavator species selected 

to be analyzed and rationale for selection................................................................ 178

Table 102. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area 

that was used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to cavity nesters.. 178

Table 103. Hairy woodpecker habitat (ponderosa pine and mixed conifer) 

analysis area – existing condition and proposed change by alternative................... 179

Table 104. Hairy woodpecker Gila National Forest management 

indicator species determination by alternative......................................................... 180

Table 105. Riparian bird species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection ............... 182

Table 106. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area 

used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to riparian birds................. 182

Table 107. Northern gray hawk, yellow-billed cuckoo, Arizona Bell's vireo, Gila 

woodpecker, common ground dove, black hawk habitat (low-, middle-riparian) 

analysis area – existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ... 183

Table 108. Neotropic cormorant habitat (lakes) analysis area –

existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ........................... 183

Table 109. Red-naped sapsucker analysis area - existing condition 

and proposed change Table by issue and alternative ............................................... 184

Table 110. Wilson’s snipe analysis area – existing condition and 

proposed change by issue and alternative................................................................ 184

Table 111. Riparian bird Forest Service sensitive species determinations by alternative ......... 186
Contents

xii DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 112. Black hawk Gila National Forest management indicator 

species determinations by alternative ...................................................................... 186

Table 113. Riparian bird New Mexico Partners in Flight 

high-priority species determinations by alternative ................................................. 186

Table 114. Southwestern willow flycatcher occupied habitat analysis area -

existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ........................... 187

Table 115. Southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat analysis area - existing

condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ......................................... 188

Table 116. Southwestern willow flycatcher federally listed species and critical habitat 

determinations by alternative................................................................................... 190

Table 117. Southwestern willow flycatcher New Mexico Partners in Flight 

high-priority species determination by alternative................................................... 190

Table 118. Songbird species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection...................... 192

Table 119. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis 

area used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to songbirds............... 192

Table 120. Burrowing owl habitat (plains and mountain grassland) analysis area -

existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ........................... 193

Table 121. White-eared hummingbird habitat (ponderosa pine) analysis area -

existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ........................... 193

Table 122. Costa’s hummingbird habitat (desert shrub and grassland) analysis area -

existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ........................... 194

Table 123. Plains titmouse and gray vireo habitat (Piñon-juniper and shrub oak woodland) 

analysis area – existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ... 194

Table 124. Forest Service upland non-game and song birds 

sensitive species determination by alternative......................................................... 196

Table 125. Plain titmouse Gila National Forest management 

indicator species determination by alternative......................................................... 196

Table 126. Upland non-game and song birds New Mexico Partners 

in Flight high-priority species determination by alternative.................................... 197

Table 127. Game bird species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection: .................. 198

Table 128. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area 

that was used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to game birds...... 198

Table 129. Mearn’s quail habitat (plains and mountain grassland) analysis area -

existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ........................... 199

Table 130. Merriam's wild turkey habitat (ponderosa pine and mixed conifer) 

analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by alternative ................... 199

Table 131. Mearn’s quail Gila National Forest management 

indicator species determination by alternative......................................................... 201

Table 132. Merriam’s wild turkey determination by alternative................................................ 201

Table 133. Blue grouse New Mexico Partners in Flight 

high-priority species determination by alternative................................................... 201

Table 134. Insect species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection........................... 203

Table 135. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis 

area used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to insects.................... 203

Table 136. A May Fly habitat (low-elevation riparian) analysis area -

existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ........................... 203

Table 137. Nitocris fritillary habitat (wet meadow or wetland and high-elevation riparian) 

analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative.... 204
Contents

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest xiii

Table 138. Dashed ringtail habitat (wet meadow or wetland and high-, 

middle-, and low-elevation riparian) analysis area - existing 

condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ......................................... 204

Table 139. A Notodontide moth habitat (desert shrub or grassland, 

Piñon-juniper or shrub oak woodland, ponderosa pine) analysis area -

existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative ........................... 205

Table 140. Insect Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative....................... 207

Table 141. Comparison of 6th-code watershed road densities by alternative..............................211

Table 142. Southwestern Region sensitive plant species (USDA Forest 

Service 2007) known or have the potential to occur on the forest........................... 213

Table 143. Proposed total roads and trails displayed in miles for each alternative ................... 224

Table 144. Summary of miles, acres, and number of sites in motorized routes by alternative.. 231

Table 145. Motorized dispersed camping corridor acres available by alternative..................... 234

Table 146. National Register of Historic Places status of sites 

within motorized dispersed camping corridors by alternative ................................. 235

Table 147. Adequacy of site documentation by alternative for 

hard copy literature search of site records ............................................................... 236

Table 148. Sites with motorized dispersed camping impacts per alternative ............................ 237

Table 149. Comparison of acreage available for motorized big 

game retrieval, disturbance, and known sites by alternative.................................... 239

Table 150. Types of projects that have occurred on the forest 

with National Historic Preservation Act compliance since 1980............................. 244

Table 151. Number of sites per alternative that have at 

least one point in each of the impact categories....................................................... 246

Table 152. Population data for study area, New Mexico, and the United States....................... 248

Table 153. Median age trends, 1990–2000................................................................................ 249

Table 154. Racial and ethnic breakdown of study area and New Mexico................................. 249

Table 155. Per capita income and persons in poverty, 1989 and 1999 ...................................... 252

Table 156. County employment by industry.............................................................................. 253

Table 157. Median household income ....................................................................................... 254

Table 158. Share of labor and non-labor income....................................................................... 254

Table 159. Payments in lieu of taxes to the State and local counties for fiscal year 2010 ........ 255

Table 160. Secure Rural Schools Act, PL 110-343, projected FY 2009–2011 Forest Service 

payments to counties as of July 20, 2009 ................................................................ 256

List of Figures

Figure 1. Summary of the roads and trails that would result from each 

alternative, and their overall change from alternative B, no action ............................ iii

Figure 2. Comparison of acres available for driving off road, by alternative. Percent 

change is not depicted because the acres overlap in use. For instance, 

the corridors for motorized dispersed camping (MDC) and motorized big game 

retrieval (MBGR) are the same in alternative B. ........................................................ iv

Figure 3. Location of Gila National Forest ................................................................................. 3
Contents

xiv DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Acronyms

ARPA Archaeological Resource 

Protection Act

ATV all terrain vehicles

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

CDT Continental Divide Trail

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DEIS draft environmental impact 

statement

EIS environmental impact statement

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEIS final environmental impact 

statement

FOIA Freedom of Information Act

FS Forest Service

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

GIS geographical information system

GMU game management unit

GNFP Gila National Forest Plan

MBGR motorized big game retrieval

MDC motorized dispersed camping

MIS management indicator species

ML maintenance level

OML operational maintenance level

MOU memorandum of understanding

MVUM motor vehicle use map

NAGPRA Native American Graves 

Protection Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy 

Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System

NFSR National Forest System road

NFST National Forest System trail

NHD National Hydrological Database

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMDGF New Mexico Department of Game 

and Fish

NMED New Mexico Environment 

Department

NOA notice of availability

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

NVUM national visitor use monitoring

OHV off-highway vehicle

ORV off-road vehicle

P.L. Public Law

PILT Payments in Lieu of Taxes

RAC resource advisory committee

RASES Riparian Area Survey and 

Evaluation System

RNA research natural area

ROD record of decision

ROS recreation opportunity spectrum

SCS Soil Conservation Service

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SRS Secure Rural Schools

TAP travel analysis process

TCP traditional cultural property

TMR Travel Management Rule

U.S.C. United States Code

USDA United States Department of 

Agriculture

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service

UTV utility terrain vehicle

VQO visual quality objective
DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 1

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Structure of this Document

The Gila National Forest (the forest) has prepared this draft environmental impact statement 

(DEIS) to analyze different ways of implementing the Travel Management Rule. This report

describes the forest’s proposed alternatives and their environmental effects. The analysis complies 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal laws and 

regulations. The document consists of the following: 

● Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action: Chapter 1 briefly describes this project’s 

background, its purpose and need, and our initial proposal for achieving the purpose and 

need. It then describes how we informed the public of the proposal and how they 

responded. 

● Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter describes the 

proposed action and alternatives—including no action—in detail. These alternatives were 

developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. The 

chapter ends with a summary of the environmental consequences for each alternative. 

This chapter provides the most complete picture of the project and its effects.

● Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter 

describes the environmental effects of each alternative in detail. 

● Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter contains a list of preparers

and the agencies we consulted with during its development. It also contains a list of 

agencies, organizations and persons to whom copies of the DEIS were sent.

● Glossary

● References

● Index

In addition to this document, there are six separate documents of maps. These documents are by 

alternative and each contains an index and 18 maps displaying how each alternative affects use.

The project record is located at the Gila National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 3005 E. Camino del 

Bosque, Silver City, New Mexico 88061. Documents are available pursuant to the provisions of 

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Background

To address concerns about unmanaged off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, the Forest Service 

published final travel management regulations for use of motor vehicles on National Forest 

System lands on November 9, 2005. The new regulations amended Title 36 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, parts 212, 251, 261, and removed part 295. These regulations together are 

referred to as the Travel Management Rule throughout this document.

The Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212.50 (a)) requires that each national forest and 

grassland “provide for a system of National Forest System (NFS) roads, NFS trails, and areas on 

NFS lands that are designated for motor vehicle use. After these roads, trails, and areas are 

designated, motor vehicle use, including the class of vehicle and time of year, not in accordance 

with these designations, is prohibited. Motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails and 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

2 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

outside designated areas is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13.” Therefore, the Gila National Forest is 

presenting this proposal to meet the Travel Management Rule requirements.

The designated roads, trails, and areas will be published on a motor vehicle use map, which will 

be available to the public free of charge. In designating routes, the responsible official may 

include in the designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specific distance of certain 

designated routes, and if appropriate, within a specified time period, solely for the purposes of 

dispersed camping or retrieval of a downed big game animal by an individual who has legally 

taken the animal (36 CFR 212.51(b)). Designations will be reviewed annually and updates made 

to the motor vehicle use map as needed.

Exemptions from these designations include: (1) aircraft, (2) watercraft, (3) over-snow vehicles, 

(4) limited administrative use by the Forest Service, (5) use of any fire, military, emergency, or 

law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes, (6) authorized use of any combat or combat 

support vehicle for national defense purposes, (7) law enforcement response to violations of law, 

including pursuit; and (8) motor vehicle use specifically authorized under a written authorization

issued under Federal law or regulation (36 CFR 212.51).

Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization may include 

activities such as livestock operations, mining, logging, firewood collection, forest products, 

private land access, and maintenance of pipeline and utility corridors (36 CFR 212.51(a)(8) and 

261.13(h). Written authorizations allow for continued multiple-use management on the forest in a 

manner that does not result in unnecessary resource impacts, and that meets the intent and 

purpose of the Travel Management Rule.

Motor vehicles will continue to be a legitimate and appropriate way for people to enjoy the Gila 

National Forest, and motor vehicle access opportunities are important for many reasons. The Gila 

National Forest will continue to provide motor vehicle access to National Forest System lands for 

activities like camping, fishing, hunting, hiking, mountain biking, wildlife viewing, horseback 

riding, and driving for pleasure on designated roads and trails.

Location

The analysis area is the Gila National Forest, located in southwestern New Mexico as shown in 

figure 3. The Gila National Forest has over 3.3 million acres of public land within its boundary

with approximately 126,000 acres of other ownership, including private and National Park 

Service lands.

Existing Transportation System

In general terms, the existing direction includes the National Forest System roads, trails and areas 

currently managed for motor vehicle use, plus the restrictions, prohibitions and closures on motor 

vehicle use existing on a unit (Southwestern Region Travel Management Rule Guidelines, June 

2008). This direction describes the existing system as that shown in the INFRA databases.

It is helpful to display the forest’s current motorized system, because this project proposes to 

change it. The forest supervisor will use the effects analyses and public comments to decide what 

changes to make to the existing direction regarding motorized travel.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 3

Figure 3. Location of Gila National Forest
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

4 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Numerous sources depict the Gila National Forest’s motorized system, including the forest visitor 

map, forest plan, closure orders, and databases. Some of these sources are inconsistent. For 

instance, the forest visitor map does not display all of the roads and motorized trails shown in the 

INFRA database. Other non-Forest Service publications exist and may not include Forest Service 

maps and information, further confusing the situation.

Since 2006, the database for roads and motorized trails (INFRA) has been updated using 

information received from the public, field verification, and database corrections. Several 

iterations of existing direction maps have been produced since 2006. These are all in the project 

record. The most recent is included in the map packet. This is the map depicting alternative B (no 

action) and summarized in table 1.

Cross-Country Travel 

The Gila National Forest has approximately 3.3 million acres of National Forest System lands 

within its boundary. This acreage figure excludes land held privately, and includes all the acres of 

public land managed by the Gila National Forest.

Approximately 2.4 million acres are available for motorized cross-country travel. Even though 

these acres permit motorized cross-country travel, it may not be possible to drive on all of them 

due to slope, terrain, or thick vegetation. 

The Gila National Forest does not currently have limits on places where people can drive to go 

camping in the forest outside of wilderness research natural areas (RNA) including proposed 

RNAs, and other areas restricted to motor vehicle use as shown on the forest visitor map. The 

forest’s current direction allows people to drive and camp where off-road driving is allowed. 

Therefore, no special corridors are designated for motorized access to dispersed camping.

Under current direction, people can drive to retrieve downed game where off-road driving is 

allowed, on approximately 2.4 million acres. They can also scout for game by driving off roads 

except during the hunting season. More specifically, under New Mexico State Law, “It is illegal 

to drive a motor-driven vehicle off established roads or two-track roads in a hunting, trapping, or 

angling area if the vehicle bears a person licensed to hunt, trap, or fish for species on which 

season is open in that area” (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 2010).

Purpose of and Need for Action

The purpose of this project is to comply with the Travel Management Rule by providing a system 

of roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and time of year on 

the Gila National Forest (36 CFR 212.50). On the Gila National Forest:

● There is a need to comply with 36 CFR 212.51(a), which requires the forest to designate 

a system of roads, trails, and areas for vehicle use by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by 

time of year.

● There is a need to manage motorized vehicle use on National Forest System lands on the 

Gila National Forest in accordance with the provisions of the Travel Management Rule 

and 36 CFR parts 212, 251, and 261.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 5

● There is a need to comply with 36 CFR 261.13, which requires the forest to prohibit 

motor vehicle use off the system of designated roads, trails, and areas (close the forest to 

motorized cross-country travel).

● There is a need to amend the forest plan to comply with the Travel Management Rule.

Previous Decisions

The Travel Management Rule allows the responsible official to incorporate previous 

administrative decisions regarding travel management made under other authorities, including 

designations and prohibitions of motor vehicle use, in designating NFS roads, trails, and areas on 

NFS lands for motor vehicle use (36 CFR 212.50(b)). Therefore, the existing miles of designated 

road system that are not being closed or changed are not included in the proposed action; only the 

changes to the transportation system are included. The motor vehicle use map will include the 

resulting road system, those roads where motorized dispersed camping would be allowed within a 

specific distance, and areas open to motor vehicle use. The nonsystem roads (i.e., 

decommissioned, unauthorized, etc.) will not be shown on the motor vehicle use map and may 

not be used for motorized travel.

Modified Proposed Action, Briefly Described

The proposed action for managing motorized vehicle travel was published on September 11, 

2009. The proposed action has been modified. Alternative F is the modified proposed action. In it, 

we proposed adding approximately 7 miles to the open road system; adding approximately 166

miles to the motorized trail system; designating over 1,447 miles for motorized dispersed 

camping; allowing motorized big game retrieval up to 1⁄2 mile from open roads; and designating

approximately 36 acres as areas open to motorized activity. The forest would be closed to crosscountry motorized use. This proposal was based on analysis done in the “Travel Analysis 

Process” (USDA Forest Service 2010).

Decision Framework

The forest supervisor is the responsible official for this decision, which will apply only to NFS 

roads, trails and lands within the Gila National Forest. The forest supervisor will decide:

● Whether to select the modified proposed action or another alternative as described, or as 

modified in the final decision;

● What changes to make to the designated system of roads, trails, and areas;

● Whether to designate the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of 

certain routes solely for the purposes of motorized dispersed camping or retrieval of a 

downed big game animal by an individual who has legally taken that animal;

● Which amendments to include in the final decision.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

6 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Public Involvement

Scoping 

This project has been listed on the forest’s schedule of proposed actions since April 2008. 

Prior to scoping the proposed action, from 2006 to 2007, Gila National Forest ranger districts 

held 46 public meetings and open houses across the forest to introduce the Travel Management 

Rule and the forest travel management process to over 900 participants. In the fall of 2008, 

another 18 workshops were held and attended by more than 800 people. The workshops 

generated more than 2,000 public comments. These forums also provided an opportunity for the 

public to review maps and provide input. Over 380 individuals, including landowners, range 

permittees, outfitters, and guides were contacted, and we met with local motorized user groups, 

conservations groups, various local organized groups, Federal and State agencies, and local 

county officials.

Information from all of the public involvement meetings and comments were used to develop the 

proposed action. The forest supervisor published the proposed action on September 11, 2009. 

Publishing the proposed action marked the start of the scoping comment period, during which we 

asked the public for comments on the proposal. We mailed the proposed action to approximately 

4,000 people and held 10 open houses. In response, we received almost 16,000 letters and emails. 

The content of the letters and emails formed the basis of the alternatives and environmental 

analysis.

Tribal Consultation

The Gila National Forest recognizes that certain tribes and chapters have cultural and 

geographical ties and knowledge about the lands now managed by the forest. Tribal members 

sometimes visit the Gila National Forest to gather traditional resources, hold ceremonies, and 

visit special locations. For these reasons, tribes share an interest in the management and 

protection of natural and cultural resources, including effects from motorized vehicle use.

The Gila National Forest is committed to, and has conducted tribal consultation and NEPA 

scoping during the travel management process. These are carried out at the government-togovernment level under current laws, regulations and policies. This process is separate from other 

public scoping, due to the unique relationship between the U.S. Government and sovereign 

federally recognized tribes. It ensures that interested tribes are given the opportunity to participate 

in the planning process as required in NEPA and elsewhere. Prior to the Travel Management Rule 

in 2005, specific projects involving road access, obliteration, and maintenance were addressed 

with tribes on a case-by-case basis, as identified in the forest’s quarterly schedule of proposed 

actions or other NEPA scoping.

The Gila National Forest does not manage and is not located adjacent to any tribal lands (trust, 

reserved, or allotted), nor are there any treaty rights. Instead, tribes with an interest in the forest 

are those having cultural affiliation with prehistoric occupants of National Forest System lands 

(USDA–FS Southwestern Region 1996, pp. 119–121), those who historically occupied lands now 

comprising the Gila National Forest (prior to establishment of the forest in 1905), or both.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 7

The following 11 tribes or chapters were consulted regarding travel management:

● Pueblo of Acoma

● Alamo Navajo Chapter

● Ft. Sill Apache Tribe

● The Hopi Tribe

● Pueblo of Laguna

● Mescalero Apache

● The Navajo Nation

● Ramah Navajo Chapter

● San Carlos Apache

● Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo

● Pueblo of Zuni

Letters and face-to-face meetings at tribal offices were the primary methods of consultation. 

Tribes were provided with Travel Management Rule materials. These occurred in 2007 and 2008,

as well as during the scoping period in 2009. Although all tribes on this list were contacted, not 

all were available or expressed an interest in consulting with the Gila National Forest on travel 

management at the time. Additional government-to-government tribal consultation continues in 

2010.

Comments

We received over 16,000 emails and letters commenting on the proposed action during scoping. 

Of these, approximately 15,000 were “form letters,” and the other 1,000 were from individuals, 

organizations, and agencies. The project record contains all correspondence and the process used 

for evaluating comments.

The forest’s travel management interdisciplinary team (team) reviewed the general comments for 

significant issues about the effects of the proposed action. A significant issue is used to focus the 

analysis and develop alternatives to the proposed action.

We recognize that all comments provided by the public are important, however, some do not meet 

the definition of an issue or significant issue for a variety of reasons. The Council on 

Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations direct interdisciplinary teams to “...identify and 

eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by 

prior environmental review (40 CFR 1506.3)...” For example, a comment might suggest we 

analyze threatened species, which we are required to do by law. 

The comments were reviewed and sorted into two categories: general comments (forestwide) and 

road- or site-specific comments. The road- or site-specific comments were considered by staff on 

the ranger districts to see whether suggestions could be incorporated into an alternative. Some 

suggestions were incorporated into one or more alternatives. The comments not categorized as an 

issue or incorporated into an alternative fell into one of the following categories:

● Already part of the proposed action;

● Addressed through implementation of standards, guidelines, or best management 

practices in the forest plan;

● Already decided by law, regulation, or policy;

● Beyond the scope of the project; or

● Conjectural or not supported by scientific evidence.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

8 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

General Concerns

Many comments provided expressed concern about activities that are common on the forest that 

usually involve the use of a vehicle. These concerns are generally outside of the scope of the 

Travel Management Rule or addressed through existing law, regulation, and policy. These 

concerns include:

Aging and disabled populations—There is no legal requirement to allow people with 

disabilities to use motor vehicles on roads or trails, and in areas that are closed to motor 

vehicle use. Restrictions on motor vehicle use that are applied consistently to everyone are 

not discriminatory. Generally, granting an exemption from designations for people with 

disabilities would not be consistent with the resource protection and other management 

objectives of designation decisions and would fundamentally alter the nature of the Forest 

Service’s travel management program (29 U.S.C. 794; 7 CFR 15e.103).

Firewood gathering—Upon implementation of the Travel Management Rule, the use of 

motorized vehicles off of the designated road system (i.e., cross-country) for the purpose of 

gathering firewood (dead down, live, or green tree) would be allowed in designated firewood 

areas, and described within the permit. Dead and down firewood gathering may occur along 

any designated open road, however, vehicle use would be limited to roadside parking.

Other forest product gathering such as piñon nuts—Personal use forest product gathering 

will continue, however, motor vehicle access will be limited to roadside parking. 

Closing roads will make it difficult to get project work done—Project work will continue. 

If roads are needed, but are not designated, the opening or construction of the needed roads 

will be considered in the appropriate NEPA analysis at the time.

Enforcement—The motor vehicle use map is the source for determining what routes are 

open for vehicle use. It is the public’s responsibility to obtain that map and stay on the 

designated routes. We will continue to work with partners such as State Police, sheriff 

departments, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, and others to assist in enforcement.

Outreach, education, and time are fundamental for implementing change. Getting the proper 

message to the various audiences results in “buy in,” which in turn, motivates the users to 

help spread the word. “Peer pressure” or fellow users spreading the word can also help in 

better compliance, but it takes time. 

Decommissioning of routes to be closed—Decommissioning of routes may be considered in 

the future. These will be considered on a case-by-case basis with appropriate NEPA analysis 

at the time.

Access to private property—The Gila National Forest will continue to provide access to 

private inholdings, as required by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (P. L. 

96-487, Title XIII; 94 Stat. 2457; 16 U.S.C 3210).
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 9

Issues 

The forest supervisor approved the significant issues used to develop the alternatives. The 

significant issues follow.

Motorized Routes

The proposed changes to motorized routes, specifically the type, extent, level of use and 

location of motorized routes, may lead to resource, recreation, social, and economic effects.

This issue includes the following concerns:

● Increasing motorized routes and road densities may adversely affect watershed, fisheries, 

wildlife, air quality, invasive plant and animal species, sensitive plants, and cultural 

resources.

● Decreased motorized routes may adversely affect motorized access to the forest, leading 

to fewer motorized recreational opportunities.

● Motorized routes may lead to conflicts with nonmotorized users or, conversely, the 

concentration of motorized use.

● The type, extent, and location of motorized routes could have social and economic effects 

by impacting tourism, traditional uses, and other recreational pursuits, both motorized 

and nonmotorized.

Motorized Dispersed Camping

The proposed change to motorized dispersed camping to limit it to proposed designated 

corridors and areas may lead to resource, recreation, social, and economic effects.

This issue includes the following concerns:

● Motorized dispersed camping corridors may adversely affect watershed, fisheries, 

wildlife, air quality, invasive plant and animal species, sensitive plants, and cultural 

resources.

● Limiting motorized dispersed camping corridors may result in reduced motorized 

recreation opportunities.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval

The proposed change to motorized big game retrieval may lead to resource, recreation, 

social, and economic effects.

This issue includes the following concerns:

● Allowing motorized big game retrieval off designated roads and motorized trails may 

have adverse effects to watershed, fisheries, wildlife, air quality, invasive plant and 

animal species, sensitive plants, and cultural resources.

● Restricting motorized big game retrieval may have adverse effects on the tourism and 

related employment of local communities.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

10 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

● Motorized big game retrieval should be restricted to the same corridors as motorized 

dispersed camping to reduce creation of additional routes and potential habitat 

degradation.

Areas

The proposed change to designated areas specifically for OHV activities may lead to 

resource, recreation, social, and economic effects.

This issue includes the following concerns:

● Designating areas may adversely affect watershed, fisheries, wildlife, sensitive plants, 

invasive plant and animal species, and air quality.

● Designating areas may lead to uncontrolled OHV activity within the area, leading to 

conflicts with other users.

Important Notes 

The Decision Will Change Where People Can Drive in the Forest

Currently, the Gila National Forest is open to motorized use unless marked “restricted to motor 

vehicle use.” The Travel Management Rule switches that around: the forest is closed to motorized 

use unless specifically designated for motor vehicle use as displayed on the motor vehicle use 

map. Driving off of designated routes will no longer be allowed unless it is in a designated area or 

fixed-distance corridor solely for the purposes of motorized dispersed camping or motorized big 

game retrieval. Use of motor vehicles on roads, trails, and areas not shown on the motor vehicle 

use map would be illegal and subject to a fine.

The First Motor Vehicle Use Map

The first motor vehicle use map may not have all the roads, trails, and areas shown in the record 

of decision for two reasons. First, the cultural resource survey and clearance for routes and areas 

requiring review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act may not be finished 

at the time the decision is made. Second, the cultural resource survey and clearance may 

determine that some proposed routes and areas would cause adverse effects. In such cases, we 

would close the route or area to vehicles, and the routes and areas would not be shown on the map 

at all, or until an acceptable strategy for mitigating the adverse effects was developed as required 

by Section 106.

It could take the Forest Service up to 3 years to phase in all the cultural resource surveys and 

clearances needed to implement the decision. Until then, not all the routes and areas depicted in 

the record of decision would be on the motor vehicle use map.

Subsequent Motor Vehicle Use Maps

We emphasize that the motor vehicle use map will be published annually, even if there are no 

changes to the system. If a road, trail, or area is not included in the first map, it may be included 

in subsequent maps, as long as the proper environmental analysis and surveys are completed. The 

annual publication of the motor vehicle use map means the public can continue to work with 

forest staff to add or remove roads, trails, and areas as appropriate.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 11

What Happens Next

The interdisciplinary team will read and consider the comments received on this draft 

environmental impact statement. Based on comments received, the team may make changes to 

their analysis or modify alternatives as needed. For example, if a comment points out key facts—

such as landownership, presence of wildlife species, mapping errors, or relevant scientific 

evidence not considered—that were not considered in the analysis, the team could modify its 

analysis. Comments that “vote” for an alternative, or form letters that repeat the same comments, 

do not carry any more weight than a comment submitted only once.

We will publish these changes in a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The forest 

supervisor will make a decision that is documented in a record of decision (ROD). The FEIS and 

the ROD will be published at the same time. The ROD marks the beginning of the 45-day appeal 

period; the decision cannot be implemented until any appeals are resolved.

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 13

Chapter 2. Alternatives, 

Including the Proposed Action

Introduction

The interdisciplinary team used the significant issues listed in chapter 1 to develop alternatives to 

the proposed action, as modified. Summarized briefly, the four significant issues are: amount and 

type of motorized access, motorized access for retrieving big game, motorized access for 

dispersed camping, and motorized areas. The alternatives approach the purpose and need—to 

provide for a designated system of roads, trails, and areas—differently. The alternatives respond 

to the significant issues.

In addition to the issues raised during the scoping period, the public provided an alternative for 

the forest staff to consider. The alternative provided was for only one district and reflected no 

change to the current motorized system displayed in alternative B. The action alternatives 

presented in this draft environmental impact statement incorporate elements of the proposal as 

well as other comments made by the public. The interdisciplinary team also used information 

from other agencies to develop and refine the alternatives.

Some people requested that the alternatives provide loops and/or trail systems for both singletrack and ATV riding. Some of the alternatives incorporate aspects of this request, however, the 

purpose of this travel management plan is to designate a system of roads, trails, and areas open 

for motorized use, not to develop a comprehensive off-highway vehicle plan for ATV and singletrack recreational experiences. An effort could be considered in the future, with appropriate NEPA 

analysis that would consider a plan for those specific types of activities.

No alternative curtails any nonmotorized activities; the change is where people can drive to get to 

places in the forest to do these activities. System roads and motorized trails would also be open 

for people to walk, hike, bike, or ride horses.

Development of the Alternatives

The interdisciplinary team developed alternatives to the proposed action to address the significant 

issues identified from public comments. The range of alternatives includes the modified proposed 

action (alternative F), no action (alternative B), all action alternatives, and alternatives considered 

but eliminated from detailed study. A decision can be made anywhere within the range.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative B – No Action 

The no action alternative is required by 40 CFR 1502.14(d). No changes to the motorized system 

would occur and cross-country travel would continue to be permitted. This alternative would not 

meet the requirements of the Travel Management Rule to prohibit motor vehicle use off the 

designated system; however, it provides a baseline for comparison of effects of the alternatives. In 

this alternative the Gila National Forest would:

● remain open to cross-country motorized travel (except in off-road vehicle restricted areas

such as wilderness and research natural areas);

● continue to keep 4,604 miles of roads and 16 miles of motorized trails (less than 50 

inches wide) open to motorized vehicles and uses;
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

14 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

● continue to keep 3 miles of roads open seasonally from approximately April 1 to 

September 1 (table 5, p. 24);

● continue to allow motorized dispersed camping throughout the forest (except in off-road 

vehicle restricted areas such as wilderness and research natural areas (tables 9 and 11, p. 

27);

● continue to allow motorized big game retrieval throughout the forest, (except in off-road 

vehicle restricted areas such as wilderness and research natural areas (tables 10 and 11, p. 

27); and

● not amend the forest plan to prohibit motorized cross-country travel or to be made 

consistent with the Travel Management Rule.

Features Common to Two or More Alternatives

In alternatives that propose converting roads to motorized trails, reopening roads, changing roads 

from open to all vehicles to open to highway legal vehicles only, designating motorized dispersed 

camping corridors, or providing for motorized big game retrieval, the following definitions and 

methods would apply:

Converting roads to motorized trails: The conversion of roads to motorized trails would 

entail such things as signing or restricting access based on vehicle type.

Reopening roads: Reopening of roads includes both closed and decommissioned roads. Due 

to the forest being open to cross-country motorized travel, unauthorized motorized use has 

led to their continuous use. Most do not need any work to allow passage except for NFS Road 

3050 (0.2 mile) where existing berms would be removed or reworked to allow passage and 

maintain drainage features.

Changing roads from open to all vehicles to open to highway legal vehicles only: The 

prohibition of vehicle types would be displayed on the motor vehicle use map and through 

signing. For all action alternatives, this would apply to roads shown in table 2.

Designating Motorized Dispersed Camping Corridors: On the Gila National Forest, 

motorized dispersed camping is primarily characterized as vehicles towing travel trailers or 

other types of trailers and driving off of roads some distance and setting up camp. Activities 

or the makeup of the camp often center around the vehicle or trailers. The Travel 

Management Rule allows for the route designations to include the limited use of motor 

vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes, solely for the purposes of 

dispersed camping (36 CFR 212.51 (b)).
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 15

Table 2. List of roads and location descriptions to be open to highway legal vehicles only

Road 

No.

Mile 

Post 

Begin

Mile 

Post 

End

Location Description Ranger District

13 0.0 2.2 Within Quemado Lake Recreation Area boundary Quemado

13 B 0.0 0.4 Within Quemado Lake Recreation Area boundary Quemado

13 C 0.0 0.5 Within Quemado Lake Recreation Area boundary Quemado

13 E 0.0 0.2 Within Quemado Lake Recreation Area boundary Quemado

13 F 0.0 0.2 Within Quemado Lake Recreation Area boundary Quemado

13 G 0.0 0.2 Within Quemado Lake Recreation Area boundary Quemado

13 H 0.0 0.1 Within Quemado Lake Recreation Area boundary Quemado

13 I 0.0 0.1 Within Quemado Lake Recreation Area boundary Quemado

21 A 0.0 0.03 Ranger district office access Reserve

21 B 0.0 0.1 Ranger district and facilities access Reserve

40 D 0.0 0.2 Emory Pass Vista Point Black Range

59 0.0 0.1 Ranger district office parking Wilderness

95 0.0 0.1 Catwalk parking area Glenwood

129 0.0 0.2 Ranger district office parking Glenwood

141 0.0 19.0 State law prohibits off-highway (ATV) vehicles on 

paved roads

Reserve

319 0.0 0.2 Ranger district office parking Quemado

363 0.0 0.2 Campground Silver

506 A 0.0 0.3 Little Walnut Picnic Area Silver

610 0.0 0.7 Campground Wilderness

630 0.0 0.1 State law prohibits off-highway (ATV) vehicles on 

paved roads

Wilderness

819 0.0 0.8 Forest has right-of-way thru Oak Grove 

subdivision—no ATVs to reduce noise conflict

Silver

851 0.0 2.4 State law prohibits off-highway (ATV) vehicles on 

paved roads

Silver City

970 0.0 0.6 Gila Visitor Center access Wilderness

970 B 0.0 0.1 Gila Visitors Center parking area Wilderness

971 0.0 0.1 Vista Village Day Use and parking Wilderness

973 0.0 0.04 Campground Wilderness

973 A 0.0 0.1 Upper Scorpion Campground Wilderness

973 B 0.0 0.1 Parking lot for Gila Cliff Dwellings and West Fork 

Trail Head

Wilderness

974 0.0 0.3 Campground Wilderness

981 0.0 0.4 Aldo Leopold Picnic Area and Vista Point Glenwood

4246 J 0.0 1.5 Reduce noise conflict; adjacent to private land Silver

4318 K 0.0 0.04 Accesses airstrip Reserve
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

16 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

To continue this type of camping opportunity in the forest, motor vehicles may be driven a 

specified distance off of each side of certain roads designated for motorized dispersed camping 

and these designations would be displayed on the motor vehicle use map. The total number of 

miles of forest and county roads from which motorized dispersed camping would be available 

varies among the action alternatives (see detailed alternative descriptions). Motor vehicle use 

within these motorized dispersed camping corridors would be limited to what is needed to 

provide access to and from the campsite off of the road and does not include general driving.

Cultural resource surveys and clearances may not be completed by the time of decision for all of 

the motorized dispersed camping corridors along designated motorized roads. Until surveys and 

clearances are completed, these corridors will not be shown on the motor vehicle use map. These 

surveys will be phased in over 3 years. If sites are found during the surveys, the designated 

corridor may be modified or eliminated. As clearances are completed, motorized dispersed camp 

corridors will appear on the motor vehicle use map, which will be republished annually.

Dispersed camping, such as tent camping, may occur anywhere on the forest. Riding horses and 

hiking to access a campsite is allowed anywhere on the forest. Parking for this type of dispersed 

camping may occur along any designated open road. Parking would be limited to one vehicle 

length, including any towed trailer, from the side of the road. Parking should occur where it is 

safe to park, does not cause resource damage (e.g., ruts), or is not already restricted.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval: The Travel Management Rule allows for route designations to 

include “the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes, 

solely for the purposes of...retrieval of a downed big game animal by an individual who has 

legally taken that animal” (36 CFR 212.51 (b)).

Motorized big game retrieval would be implemented differently in each alternative (see detailed 

alternative descriptions). Hunters must possess a valid license for game management units within

the Gila National Forest.

Motorized big game retrieval only applies to those portions of game management units within the 

Gila National Forest boundary. Use of motorized vehicles to retrieve a legally harvested and 

tagged big game animal would be limited to certain species and the specified distance on either 

side of the routes indicated in the alternative. The distance applies only to Gila National Forest 

lands. Motorized vehicles are prohibited within:

● National forest wilderness areas (36 CFR 261.18)

● National forest primitive areas (36 CFR 261.21)

● Restricted roads, trails, or areas specified in forest orders (36 CFR 261.50)

Hunters must follow all applicable New Mexico big game hunting regulations. To protect forest 

resources on forest designated open roads or off the designated road system (cross country), 

applicable laws or regulations must be followed, such as:

● Roads should not be damaged and left in a damaged condition (36 CFR 261.12 (c))

● Retrieval of big game should take a relatively direct and safe route (USDA Forest Service 

Southwestern Region Travel Management Rule Guidelines, June 2008)

● Motor vehicle use off road should not damage or unreasonably disturb the land, wildlife, 

or vegetative resources (36 CFR 261.15 (h))
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 17

● Use the minimum number of trips to retrieve a downed animal (USDA Forest Service 

Southwestern Region Travel Management Rule Guidelines, June 2008)

● Only one vehicle would be allowed for game retrieval per harvested animal (USDA 

Forest Service Southwestern Region Travel Management Rule Guidelines, June 2008)

● Motor vehicle use should not damage any natural feature or other property of the United 

States (36 CFR 261.9 (a))

Forest Plan Amendments

Seven “Gila National Forest Plan” amendments are needed to bring the forest plan up to date with 

current management of the forest, and to comply with the Travel Management Rule and proposal. 

The forest plan amendments (numbers 1 through 6) listed in table 3 would be implemented in all

action alternatives.

Table 3. Land management plan amendments 1 through 6 that would be implemented in all 

action alternatives

Location and

Management Area Language to be Removed . . . Will be Replaced with . . .

Mule Creek 4B 

(p. 131, Lands J11)

“Manage the areas above Mule Creek to 

remain open to all entry year-round”

Use of motor vehicles is managed by the 

travel management plan and displayed 

on the motor vehicle use map.

Mule Creek 4C 

(p. 139, Lands J11)

“..., and the portion above Mule Creek 

will remain open year-round”

Use of motor vehicles is managed by the 

travel management plan and displayed 

on the motor vehicle use map.

Hells Hole 4C 

(p. 139, Lands J11)

“Hells Hole will remain open to vehicle 

use, but because of topography, vehicle 

use will not occur in most portions of 

the area.”

Hells Hole will be closed to all 

motorized use.

Gila Bird Area 7A 

(p. 201, Recreation A02) 

“Maintain ORV (off-road vehicle)

closure on the Gila River Bird Area.”

Use of motor vehicles is managed by the 

travel management plan and displayed 

on the motor vehicle use map.

Silver City Watershed 

7D 

(p. 216, Recreation A02) 

“Maintain current ORV restrictions.” Use of motor vehicles is managed by the 

travel management plan and displayed 

on the motor vehicle use map.

Fort Bayard 7C 

(p. 212, Recreation A02) 

“Maintain current ORV closure.” All alternatives: Motorized vehicle use 

access is limited to designated roads 

with parking allowed one vehicle length 

from the side of the road. No motorized 

big game retrieval is allowed.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

18 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Amendment No. 7

The “Gila National Forest Plan” needs to be amended to add and remove language from the 

recreation standards and guidelines related to the Off-Road Vehicle Policy (page 22 of the forest 

plan) so it is consistent with the Travel Management Rule and outdated schedules can be removed

(table 4). 

Table 4. Proposed Forest Plan Amendment No. 7 to change recreation standards and 

guidelines related to the off-road vehicle policy (language to be removed is indicated by a 

strikethrough and language to be added is in italics)

Management 

Prescription 

Applicable to 

all Areas 

except 

Wilderness

The Following Standards and Guidelines Will Apply Uniformly 

throughout the Gila National Forest

Resource Activity Standards and Guidelines

Recreation A01 ORV OHV Policy: Prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated 

system of roads, trails, and areas, except as displayed on the motor 

vehicle use map.

During the travel management process, forest personnel will 

determine which roads, trails and areas will be open to motorized 

vehicle use and which will be restricted or closed. The public will be 

involved in this process. Priority areas will be identified and 

scheduled within one year and the travel management process 

completed on these areas within three years.In general, the forest will 

be closed to motorized vehicle travel off the designated road and trail 

system and outside of designated areas. The following criteria below 

will be used. Exceptions to motorized vehicle restrictions can be 

granted by permit only written authorization only. These restrictions 

do not apply to emergency vehicle use. Restrictions and closures will 

be reviewed annually and the public will be notified of any change.

Restricted (definition): Road, trail or area could be closed to 

motorized vehicle use. Could be restricted to certain types of vehicle, 

motorized use could be restricted to specific periods, etc. 

Criteria to be used in designating open, closed or restricted roads, 

trails and areas are: 

Management emphasis of a specified area; 

Level of conflict between existing types of use; 

Required resource protection; 

Seasonal constraints; 

Special needs of users and management.

A01 Off-road vehicle Travel management implementation plan will be 

updated whenever changes occur as a result of travel management 

planning.

A01 Recreation use of riparian zones will be managed to minimize damage 

to riparian resources.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 19

Alternative C

The Gila National Forest proposes to close the forest to motorized cross-country travel as stated 

in proposed plan amendment No. 7, except as described below:

● Add 8 miles of unauthorized routes and designate these routes as National Forest System

(NFS) roads open to all vehicle types (table 5, p. 24).

● Reopen 4 miles of NFS maintenance level 1 roads and change to maintenance level 2 

roads open to all vehicle types (table 5, p. 24).

● Change vehicle type on 28 miles of NFS roads from open to all motorized vehicles to 

open to highway legal vehicles only (table 2, p. 15 and table 5, p. 24). Highway legal 

vehicles are motor vehicles licensed under State law for general operation on all public 

roads within the state.

● Designate 1 mile of NFS roads to be open seasonally for all vehicle types from April 1 

through September 1 (tables 5 and 6, p. 25).

● The following changes apply to motorized routes that will be open for the purpose of 

periodic administrative use or specific permitted uses only (table 7, p. 25):

○ Change the use on 170 miles of existing NFS roads currently open to all motorized 

uses.

○ Add 4 miles of unauthorized routes as roads. 

○ Reopen 5 miles of maintenance level 1 roads and change to maintenance level 2. 

○ Change 2 miles of NFS roads to NFS trails. 

○ Add 2 miles of unauthorized ATV routes to the National Forest System.

● Close 143 miles of open NFS roads to all motorized vehicle uses (table 5, p. 24).

● Close 1 mile of open NFS motorized trails to all motorized uses (table 8, p. 26).

● Add 61 miles of unauthorized routes and designate as NFS trails for motorized vehicles 

less than 50 inches in width (table 8, p. 26).

● Open and convert 30 miles of NFS maintenance level 1 roads as NFS trails and designate 

for motorized vehicles less than 50 inches in width (table 8, p. 26).

● Convert 35 miles of NFS roads to NFS trails and designate for motorized vehicles less 

than 50 inches in width (table 8, p. 26).

● Add 13 miles of unauthorized routes and designate as NFS trails for single-track vehicles 

only (table 8, p. 26).

● Allow single-track vehicles (motorcycles) on 51 miles of previously nonmotorized NFS

trails. Both motorized and nonmotorized uses would be allowed on the trails (table 8, p. 

26).

● For the purpose of motorized dispersed camping, designate a specified distance of 300 

feet on each side of (tables 9 and 11, p. 26):

○ 1,466 miles of specific designated open forest roads, 

○ 0.2 mile of reopened maintenance level 1 roads,

○ 1 mile of unauthorized roads proposed to be added to the system, and 

○ 71 miles of county roads.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

20 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

● For the purpose of motorized big game retrieval, designate a specified distance of 1 mile 

on each side of open forest roads, county roads, and State and Federal highways located 

on National Forest System lands. Motorized big game retrieval would be limited to elk, 

deer, pronghorn, bear, javelina, and mountain lion (tables 10 and 11, p. 26).

● Areas:

○ Designate 38 small areas distributed over 29 acres open to all motorized vehicles. 

These areas have been traditionally used for motorized dispersed camping (table 12, 

p. 25 and table 14, p. 30).

○ Designate an area of 8 acres open to ATV and motorcycle use only (table 14, p. 30).

Alternative D

The Gila National Forest proposes to close the forest to motorized cross-country travel as stated 

in proposed plan amendment No. 7, except as described below:

● Add 6 miles of unauthorized routes and designate these routes as NFS roads open to all 

vehicle types (table 5, p. 24).

● Reopen 1 mile of NFS maintenance level 1 and change to maintenance level 2 roads open

to all vehicle types (table 5, p. 24).

● Change vehicle type on 28 miles of NFS roads from open to all motorized vehicles to 

open to highway legal vehicles only (table 2, p. 15 and table 5, p. 24). Highway legal 

vehicles are motor vehicles licensed under State law for general operation on all public 

roads within the State.

● Designate 3 miles of NFS roads to be open seasonally for all vehicle types from April 1 

through September 1 (tables 5 and 6, p. 24).

● Designate 8 miles of NFS roads to be open seasonally to all vehicle types from 

September 1 through February 28 (tables 5 and 6, p. 25).

● The following changes apply to motorized routes that will be open only for the purpose 

of periodic administrative use or specific permitted uses (table 7, p. 25):

○ Change the use on 337 miles of existing NFS roads currently open to all motorized 

uses.

○ Add 5 miles of unauthorized routes as roads.

○ Reopen 5 miles of maintenance level 1 roads and change to maintenance level 2.

○ Change 4 miles of NFS roads to NFS trail.

○ Add 2 miles of unauthorized ATV routes to the National Forest System.

○ Change the use on 1 mile of existing motorized NFS trails.

● Close 1,225 miles of open NFS roads to all motorized vehicle uses (table 5, p. 24).

● Close 7 miles of open NFS motorized trails to all motorized uses (table 8, p. 26).

● Add 34 miles of unauthorized routes and designate these as NFS trails for motorized 

vehicles less than 50 inches in width (table 8, p. 26).

● Open and convert 15 miles of NFS maintenance level 1 roads to NFS trails and designate 

for motorized vehicles less than 50 inches in width (table 8, p. 26).
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 21

● Convert 67 miles of NFS roads to NFS trails and designate for motorized vehicles less 

than 50 inches in width (table 8, p. 26).

● For the purpose of motorized dispersed camping, designate a specified distance of 300 

feet on each side of (table 9 and table 11, p. 26):

○ 1,148 miles of specific designated open forest roads, 

○ 0.2 mile of reopened maintenance level 1 roads,

○ 1 mile of unauthorized roads proposed to be added to the system, and 

○ 34 miles of county roads.

● Motorized big game retrieval would be limited to the same corridors designated for 

motorized dispersed camping. Motorized big game retrieval would be limited to elk and 

deer (tables 10 and 11, p. 26).

Alternative E

The Gila National Forest proposes to close the forest to motorized cross-country travel, as stated 

in proposed plan amendment No. 7, except as described below:

● Add 2 miles of unauthorized routes and designate these routes as NFS roads open to all 

vehicle types (table 5, p. 24).

● Reopen 1 mile of NFS maintenance level 1 and change to maintenance level 2 roads open

to all vehicle types (table 5, p. 24).

● Change vehicle type on 28 miles of NFS roads from open to all motorized vehicles to 

open to highway legal vehicles only (table 2, p. 15 and table 5, p. 24). Highway legal 

vehicles are motor vehicles licensed under State law for general operation on all public 

roads within the State.

● Designate 3 miles of NFS roads to be open seasonally for all vehicle types from April 1 

through September 1 (tables 5 and 6, p. 24).

● The following changes apply to motorized routes that will open only for periodic 

administrative use or specific permitted uses only (table 7, p. 25):

○ Change the use on 423 miles of existing NFS roads currently open to all motorized 

uses.

○ Add 5 miles of unauthorized routes as roads.

○ Reopen 5 miles of maintenance level 1 roads and change to maintenance level 2.

○ Change 3 miles of NFS roads to NFS trails.

○ Add 2 miles of unauthorized ATV routes to the National Forest System.

○ Change the use on .6 mile of existing motorized NFS trails.

● Close 1,853 miles of open NFS roads to all motorized vehicle uses (table 5, p. 24).

● Close 15 miles of open NFS motorized trails to all motorized uses (table 8, p. 26).

● No motorized dispersed camping corridors would be designated (tables 9 and 11, p. 26).

● Motorized big game retrieval would not be allowed (tables 10 and 11, p. 26).
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

22 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Alternatives F – Modified Proposed Action

The Gila National Forest proposes to close the forest to motorized cross-country travel as stated 

in proposed plan amendment No. 7, except as described below:

● Add 6 miles of unauthorized routes and designate these routes as NFS roads open to all 

vehicle types (table 5, p. 24).

● Reopen 1 mile of NFS maintenance level 1 roads and change to maintenance level 2 

roads open to all vehicle types (table 5, p. 24).

● Change vehicle type on 28 miles of NFS roads from open to all motorized vehicles to 

open to highway legal vehicles only (table 2, p. 15 and table 5, p. 24). Highway legal 

vehicles are motor vehicles licensed under State law for general operation on all public 

roads within the State.

● Designate 3 miles of NFS roads to be open seasonally for all vehicle types from April 1 

through September 1 (tables 5 and 6, p. 24).

● The following changes apply to motorized routes that will open for periodic 

administrative use or specific permitted uses only (table 7, p. 25):

○ Change the use on 286 miles of existing NFS roads currently open to all motorized 

uses.

○ Add 3 miles of unauthorized routes as roads. 

○ Reopen 5 miles of maintenance level 1 roads and change to maintenance level 2.

○ Change 2 miles of NFS roads to NFS trails. 

○ Add 2 miles of unauthorized ATV routes to the National Forest System. 

● Close 889 miles of open NFS roads to all motorized vehicle uses (table 5, p. 24).

● Close 1 mile of open NFS motorized trails (table 8, p. 26).

● Add 53 miles of unauthorized routes and designate these routes as NFS trails open for 

motorized vehicles less than 50 inches in width (table 8, p. 26).

● Open and convert 23 miles of NFS maintenance level 1 roads to NFS trails and designate 

for motorized vehicles less than 50 inches in width (table 8, p. 26).

● Convert 90 miles of NFS roads to NFS trails and designate for motorized vehicles less 

than 50 inches in width (table 8, p. 26).

● For the purpose of motorized dispersed camping, designate a specified distance of 300 

feet on each side of (tables 9 and 11, p. 26): 

○ 1,383 miles of specific designated open forest roads, 

○ 0.2 mile of reopened maintenance level 1 roads,

○ 0.2 mile of unauthorized roads proposed to be added to the system, and 

○ 64 miles of county roads.

● Designate a specified distance of 1⁄2 mile on each side of open forest roads, county roads, 

and State and Federal highways on Gila NFS lands for motorized big game retrieval. 

Motorized big game retrieval would be limited to elk only (tables 10 and 11, p. 26).
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 23

● Areas:

○ Designate 38 small areas distributed over 28 acres open to all motorized vehicles. 

These areas have been traditionally used for motorized dispersed camping (table 12, 

p. 27 and table 13, p. 28).

○ Designate an area of 8 acres open to ATV and motorcycle use only (table 14, p. 30).

Alternative G – Preferred Alternative

The Gila National Forest proposes to close the forest to motorized cross-country travel as stated 

in proposed plan amendment No. 7, except as described below:

● Add 6 miles of unauthorized routes and designate these routes as NFS roads open to all 

vehicle types (table 5, p. 24).

● Reopen 1 mile of NFS maintenance level 1 roads and change to maintenance level 2 

roads open to all vehicle types (table 5, p. 24).

● Change vehicle type on 28 miles of NFS roads from open to all motorized vehicles to 

open to highway legal vehicles only (table 2, p. 15 and table 5, p. 24). Highway legal 

vehicles are motor vehicles licensed under State law for general operation on all public 

roads within the State.

● Designate 3 miles of NFS roads to be open seasonally for all vehicle types from April 1 

through September 1 (tables 5 and 6, p. 24).

● The following changes apply to motorized routes that will open for periodic 

administrative use or specific permitted uses only (table 7, p. 25):

○ Change the use on 286 miles of existing NFS roads currently open to all motorized 

uses.

○ Add 3 miles of unauthorized routes as roads. 

○ Reopen 5 miles of maintenance level 1 roads and change to maintenance level 2.

○ Change 2 miles of NFS roads to NFS trails. 

○ Add 2 miles of unauthorized ATV routes to the National Forest System.

● Close 909 miles of open NFS roads to all motorized vehicle uses (table 5, p. 24).

● Close 1 mile of open NFS motorized trails to all motorized uses (table 8, p. 26).

● Add 51 miles of unauthorized routes and designate these as NFS trails open to motorized 

vehicles less than 50 inches in width (table 8, p. 26).

● Open and convert 23 miles of NFS maintenance level 1 roads to NFS trails and designate 

for motorized vehicles less than 50 inches in width (table 8, p. 26).

● Convert 92 miles of NFS roads to NFS trails and designate for motorized vehicles less 

than 50 inches in width (table 8, p. 26).

● For the purpose of motorized dispersed camping, designate a specified distance of 300 

feet on each side of (tables 9 and 11, p. 26): 

○ 1,278 miles of specific designated open forest roads, 

○ 0.2 mile of maintenance level 1 roads,
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

24 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

○ 1 mile of unauthorized roads proposed to be added to the system, and

○ 48 miles of county roads.

● Motorized big game retrieval would be limited to the same corridors designated for 

motorized dispersed camping. Motorized big game retrieval would be limited to elk and 

deer (tables 10 and 11, p. 26).

● Areas:

○ Designate 38 small areas distributed over 28 acres open to all motorized vehicles. 

These areas have been traditionally used for motorized dispersed camping (table 12, 

p. 27 and table 13, p. 28).

○ Designate an area of 8 acres open to ATV and motorcycle use only (table 14, p. 30).

Table 5. Changes to road system in miles 

Features of the Alternatives Alt. B* Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F* Alt. G

Add unauthorized routes to NFS roads open to all 

vehicle types

0 8 6 2 6 6

Reopen NFS maintenance level 1 closed or 

decommissioned roads to all vehicle types

0 4 1 1 1 1

Change vehicle type on NFS roads to highway legal 

vehicles only

0 28 28 28 28 28

Change time of year on NFS roads to be designated 

seasonally open for all vehicle types, April 1 

through September 1

3 1 3 3 3 3

Change time of year on NFS roads to be designated 

seasonally open for all vehicle types, September 1 

through February 28

0 0 8 0 0 0

Close open NFS roads to all motorized vehicle uses 0 143 1,225 1,853 889 909

* Alternative B = no action, Alternative F = modified proposed action
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 25

Table 6. The following road segments are proposed to be designated seasonally open

Road 

No.

Begin 

MP

End 

MP

Total 

Miles Description Ranger District

Dates 

Seasonally 

Open

Alternative

B1 C D E F1 G

38 3.3 4.3 0.9 Eagle Peak 

Lookout

Reserve April 1 

through 

September 1

X2 X X X X

154 6.9 7.1 0.2 Signal Peak 

Lookout

Silver City April 1 

through 

September 1

X2 X X X X

770 5.3 5.6 0.3 Fox 

Mountain 

Lookout

Quemado April 1 

through 

September 1

X2 X X X X X

11 M 0.0 0.5 0.5 Mangas 

Mountain 

Lookout

Quemado April 1 

through 

September 1

X2 X X X X X

119 A 0.0 0.9 0.9 Bearwallow 

Lookout

Glenwood April 1 

through 

September 1

X2 X X X X

4043 J 0.0 6.1 6.1 Resource 

Protection

Reserve September 1 

through 

February 28

X

4172 O 0.0 1.1 1.1 Resource 

Protection

Reserve September 1 

through 

February 28

X

4307 K 0.0 0.9 0.9 Resource 

Protection

Reserve September 1 

through 

February 28

X

MP = milepost

1 Alternative B = no action, Alternative F = modified proposed action

2 Currently, these roads are seasonally open from approximately April 1 through September 1

Table 7. Road and trail miles for use as “periodic administrative use” or “by written 

authorization only”

Features of the Alternatives Alt. B* Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F* Alt. G

Change open NFS roads 0 170 337 423 286 286

Reopen closed or decommissioned 

NFS roads 0 5 5 5 5 5

Add unauthorized routes 0 4 5 5 3 3

Total road miles 0 179 341 433 294 294

Change open NFS roads to ATV 

only 0 2 4 3 2 2

Change open NFS motorized trail 0 0 1 1 0 0

Add unauthorized routes to NFS 

motorized trail system 0 2 2 2 2 2

Total motorized trail miles 0 4 7 6 4 4

* Alternative B = no action, Alternative F = modified proposed action
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

26 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 8. Changes to motorized trails in miles

Features of the Alternatives Alt. B* Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F* Alt. G

Add unauthorized routes as NFS trails and 

designate for motorized vehicles less than 50 

inches in width

0 61 34 0 53 51

Convert NFS closed or decommissioned 

roads to NFS trails for motorized vehicles 

less than 50 inches in width

0 30 15 0 23 23

Convert open NFS roads to NFS trails for 

motorized vehicles less than 50 inches in 

width

0 35 67 0 90 92

Shared use of NFS horse and foot trail by 

motorcycles (single track) 0 51 0 0 0 0

Add unauthorized routes as NFS trails and 

designate for motorcycles (single track) 0 13 0 0 0 0

Close open NFS motorized trails to 

motorized use 0 1 7 15 1 1

* Alternative B = no action, Alternative F = modified proposed action

Table 9. Motorized dispersed camping – 300 feet on both sides of the road

Features of the Alternatives Alt. B1 Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F* Alt. G

Open NFS roads 4,604 1,466 1,148 0 1,383 1,278

Unauthorized routes 0 1 1 0 0.2 1

Closed or decommissioned NFS roads 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0.2

County roads 593 71 35 0 34 48

Total miles motorized dispersed 

camping (300 feet both sides of road)

5,197 1,538 1,183 0 1,447 1,327

1. In alternative B, no action, the forest is open to cross-country travel, so no limit on distance except for wilderness and 

other restricted areas.

* Alternative F = modified proposed action

Table 10. Description of motorized big game retrieval by alternative

Alternative Motorized Big Game Retrieval Features of the Alternatives

B* No limit on distance or species. Forest is open to cross-country travel except for wilderness and 

other restricted areas.

C Allowed within 1 mile from each side of designated open roads, county roads, and State and 

Federal highways for retrieval of elk, deer, bear, mountain lion, javelina, and pronghorn.

D Allowed within 300 feet using same motorized dispersed camping corridors for retrieval of elk 

and deer.

E None allowed

F* Allowed within 1/2 mile from each side of designated open roads, county roads, and State and 

Federal highways for retrieval of elk only.

G Allowed within 300 feet using same motorized dispersed camping corridors. Retrieval limited to 

deer and elk.

* Alternative B = no action, Alternative F = modified proposed action
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 27

Table 11. Estimated acreage of motorized dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval

Motorized Activity in Acres Alt. B* Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F* Alt. G

Motorized dispersed camping 2,441,804 110,780 85,921 0 104,390 95,994

Motorized big game retrieval 2,441,804 2,076,414 85,921 0 1,501,870 95,994

* Alternative B = no action, Alternative F = modified proposed action

Table 12. Areas open to all motor vehicles

Features of the 

Alternatives Alt. B* Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F* Alt. G

Number No limit, forest is open to 

cross-country motorized 

vehicle travel

38 0 0 38 38

Acres 2,441,804 28 0 0 28 28

* Alternative B = no action, Alternative F = modified proposed action
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

28 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 13. Areas open to all vehicle types

Label ID Township Range Section Associated Road No. 

or Description

Ranger 

District Acres

Alternatives

BCDEFG

QA1 4S 21W 10, 15 NFSR 385Quemado 0.5XXX

QA2 4S 21W 14 NFSR 385 Quemado 0.7XXX

QA3 2S 15W7 NFSR 13 D Quemado 0.4XXX

QA4 3S 18W 24 NFSR 770 Quemado 2.4XXX

QA5 3S 18W 24, 25 Intersection of NFSR 93 

and U.S. 180

Quemado 2.1XXX

QA6 5S 20W3 Intersection of CAT-

B007 and B012

Quemado 1.2XXX

QA7 3S 17W 22 NFSR 93 Quemado 2.1XXX

QA8 5S 20W 20 Intersection of CAT-

B007 and B009

Quemado0.5XXX

QA9 3S 15W 25 Cat A095 Quemado 0.8XXX

QA10 4S 15W 28, 29 NFSR 4188 R - CDT 

South Trailhead

Quemado 2.1XXX

RA1 6S 19W 34 End of 4161 W Reserve 7.8XXX

WA1 15S 12W 8, 9, 16, 

17

Celebration Site 

(Intersection of 4202 W, 

4202 X, 4078 U, and

4078Y)

Wilderness 78.6

WA2 15S 11W 32 NFSR 4080 T Wilderness 0.4XXX

WA3 15S 11W 31 NFSR 4080 T; 2 Sites Wilderness 2.3XXX

WA4 14S 11W 29 End of NFSR 4201 M Wilderness 0.2XXX

WA5 14S 11W 30 End of NFSR 4204 E Wilderness 0.4XXX

WA6 14S 11W 20 Intersection of NFSR 

4204 E and NFSR 4204 D

Wilderness 0.5XXX

WA7 14S 11W 30 End of NFSR 4204 D Wilderness 0.2XXX
DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 29

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 13. Areas open to all vehicle types

Label ID Township Range Section Associated Road No. 

or Description

Ranger 

District Acres

Alternatives

BCDEFG

WA8 14S 11W 30 NFSR 4079 P Wilderness 0.4XXX

WA9 14S 11W 30 NFSR 4079 P Wilderness 0.1XXX

WA10 14S 11W 30 NFSR 4079 P Wilderness 0.4XXX

WA11 14S 12W 36 End of 4079 P Wilderness 0.7XXX

WA12 14S 12W 25 End of NFSR 4205 F Wilderness 0.5XXX

WA13 14S 12W 25 End of NFSR 4205 G Wilderness 0.6XXX

WA14 14S 12W 35, 36 End of NFSR 4203 A Wilderness 0.3XXX

WA15 14S 12W 35 NFSR 4203 A Wilderness 1.4XXX

WA16 14S 12W 35 NFSR 4203 A Wilderness 0.4XXX

WA17 15S 11W6 End of NFSR 4079 U Wilderness 1.5XXX

WA18 15S 12W 11, 12 NFSR 4079 T Wilderness 0.4XXX

WA19 15S 12W 14 NFSR 4079 T Wilderness 0.6XXX

WA20 15S 12W 14 NFSR 4079 T Wilderness 0.5XXX

WA21 15S 12W 14 NFSR 4079 T Wilderness 0.3XXX

WA22 15S 12W 14, 15 NFSR 4079 T and NFSR 

4085 Y

Wilderness 0.8XXX

WA23 15S 12W 15 NFSR 4079Tand NFSR 

4085 Z

Wilderness 0.7XXX

WA24 15S 12W 15 NFSR 4079 T Wilderness 0.6XXX

WA25 15S 11W 11 NFSR 4080 W Wilderness 0.2XXX

WA26 15S 11W 11 NFSR 4080 W Wilderness 0.2XXX

WA27 15S 11W 23 End of NFSR 4086 V Wilderness 0.2XXX

WA28 15S 11W 27 NFSR 4204 B Wilderness 0.7XXX

WA29 15S 11W 34 End of NFSR 4204 B Wilderness 0.4XXX

* Alternative B = no action, Alternative F = modified proposed action
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

30 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 14. Areas restricted to ATV and motorcycles only

Features of the 

Alternatives Alt. B* Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F* Alt. G

Number No limit, forest is open 

to cross-country travel

1 0 0 1 1

Acres 2,441,804.3 8 0 0 8 8

* Alternative B = no action, Alternative F = modified proposed action

Mitigations

The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA define a 

mitigation as being measures that avoid, minimize, reduce, rectify, or compensate for impacts to 

the physical environment resulting from Federal actions (40 CFR 1508.20). They are things the 

Forest Service will do as part of implementing the decision to lessen any potential damage to 

natural or cultural resources. The mitigation measures listed here apply to all of the action 

alternatives.

Cultural Resources 

Where we identify substantial impacts to cultural or historical resource sites from route 

designation, we will apply one of two mitigations:

1. The route, or a portion of the route, will be excluded from the motor vehicle use map.

2. The route, or a portion of the route, will be rerouted, reconstructed, or undergo another 

kind of physical mitigation. These activities would all require separate NEPA analysis 

and compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.

Where we identify substantial impacts to cultural or historical resources from fixed-distance 

corridors for motorized dispersed camping or areas, we may apply one of two mitigations:

1. The corridor, or portions of the corridor, will be excluded from the motor vehicle use map 

so that sites are excluded from a corridor. 

2. Other kinds of physical mitigation such as placement of fencing or barriers will be 

constructed to exclude sites from effects associated with designating the corridor.

Where we identify impacts to traditional cultural or historical properties from motorized access, 

we will apply two mitigations: 

1. Where motorized access to traditional cultural properties is reduced because of 

designation, we will grant special use or other authorizations to users.

2. Where traditional cultural properties have the potential to be physically impacted by 

routes, fixed-distance corridors, or areas, mitigation will consist of not designating or 

using other kinds of mitigation to reduce adverse effects. In some cases, consultation with 

appropriate or traditional communities or practitioners may develop other mitigation 

measures resulting in traditional cultural or historical properties being avoided or not 

adversely affected by designation.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 31

Alternatives Considered 

but Eliminated from Detailed Study

This section describes the alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study and the 

reasons why. These are presented in no particular order. The Forest Service and public both 

developed alternatives that have not been carried forward in detail. Most suggestions from the 

public were not fully developed alternatives. 

Alternative A – The Proposed Action

The proposed action was not studied in detail. The original proposed action (alternative A) has 

been eliminated from detailed analysis in this DEIS. Alternative F is the modified proposed action 

carried forward in the DEIS. Alternative A was eliminated for the following reasons:

● Technical errors were found in the data within this alternative. Errors included such 

things as: missing Forest Service constructed routes, wrong alignment, length errors, 

maintenance level identification, and incorrect jurisdiction identification. Technical errors 

have been corrected in the other action alternatives.

● Errors were found in the proposal (e.g., the proposed action originally proposed to close 

routes that were identified as a need by the public or forest staff for administrative uses or 

to access private inholdings).

● Approximately 100 miles of roads identified in the proposed action have been formally 

conveyed to counties and are no longer under Forest Service jurisdiction.

● A recent land exchange added new roads to the forest road system.

● There have been changes in route designations based on acquired rights-of-way. 

● This alternative is very similar to alternative F; distinctions are not clear enough to show 

a major difference between this and the other alternative.

● All of the elements of the proposed action can be found in the other action alternatives.

Public Alternative for Wilderness Ranger District

The alternative submitted concerned only the Wilderness Ranger District. The alternative 

recommended no changes to be made to the current road system. Reasons not analyzed in detail 

follow:

● It was not comprehensive for the whole forest.

● All roads suggested were considered individually and incorporated into alternatives as 

appropriate, except where resource concerns or other administrative needs were 

identified.

● Alternative C incorporates nearly all of the routes identified in the public’s alternative.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

32 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 15. Overview of the key elements of the alternatives

Key Elements

Alternative

B C D E F G

Miles of roads open 

to the public 

4,604 4,266 2,977 2,332 3,343 3,323

Miles of motorized 

trails (less than 50 

inches in width) 

16 204 125 0 182 182

Miles of singletrack (motorcycle) 

trails 

0 64 0 0 0 0

Miles of routes for 

administrative use 

or by written 

authorization only 

0 183 354 439 298 299

Total percent

change in 

motorized roads 

and trails

0% -2% -33% -50% -24% -24%

Miles open for 

motorized dispersed 

camping (300 feet 

on each side of 

road)

5,197

(no 

distance 

limit, 

forest is 

open

1,538 1,183 0 1,447 1,327

Motorized big game 

retrieval 

(description and 

acres open for 

MBGR)

No limit 

on 

distance or 

species.

Forest is 

open 

(approx. 

2,441,804 

acres).

1 mile from 

each side of 

designated 

open roads, 

county roads, 

and State and 

Federal 

highways for 

retrieving elk, 

deer, bear, 

mountain lion, 

javelina,

pronghorn 

(approx. 

2,076,414 

acres)

300 feet 

using 

same 

motorized 

dispersed 

camping 

corridors 

for 

retrieving

elk and 

deer 

(approx. 

86,023 

acres)

No 

motorized 

big game 

retrieval 

allowed (0 

acres)

1/2 mile 

from each 

side of 

designated 

open roads, 

county 

roads, and 

State and 

Federal 

highways 

for 

retrieving

elk only 

(approx. 

1,501,870 

acres)

300 feet 

using 

same 

motorized 

dispersed 

camping 

corridors 

for 

retrieving 

elk and 

deer 

(approx. 

96,492 

acres)

No. of areas (acres) 

open to all vehicles 

No limit, 

forest is 

open

38 (29) 0 (0) 0 (0) 38 (29) 38 (29)

* Alternative B = no action, Alternative F = modified proposed action
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 33

Table 16. Summary of the effects described in detail in chapter 3

Resource Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

Roads

Safety Currently some 

maintenance on 

majority of operation 

maintenance level 

(OML) 3–5 roads 

resulting in no 

reportable accidents.

No change from alt. B; 

there may be a minor 

redistribution of traffic 

due to a 3.5 percent

reduction of OML 2 

road miles.

No change from alt. B; 

there may be some 

redistribution of traffic 

due to a 28 percent

reduction of OML 2 

road miles.

No change from alt. 

B; anticipate more 

traffic on remaining 

OML 2 road miles.

No change from alt. B; 

there may be some 

redistribution of traffic 

due to a 21 percent

reduction of OML 2 

road miles.

No change from alt. 

B; there may be 

some redistribution 

of traffic due to a 21

percent reduction of 

OML 2 road miles.

Cost and 

Maintenance

Currently maintains 

approx. 11 percent of 

NFS roads.

Maintains approx. 11.5

percent of NFS roads 

after a mileage 

reduction of 3.5

percent. The addition of 

unauthorized routes is 

offset by the removal of 

greater OML 2.

Maintains approx.15

percent of NFS roads 

after a mileage 

reduction of 28 percent.

Maintains approx. 18

percent of NFS roads 

after a mileage 

reduction of 40

percent.

Maintains approx. 14

percent of NFS roads 

after a mileage 

reduction of 21 percent.

Maintains approx. 14

percent of NFS roads 

after a mileage 

reduction of 21

percent.

Recreation

Roadless Currently 734,000 

acres with 894 miles 

of roads and trails.

Reduces 64 miles of 

roads and trails and 

adds 79 miles of 

motorized trails but 

does not alter 

characteristics of 

roadless areas due to 

dispersed, remote trail 

locations.

Reduces 311 miles of 

roads and trails and 

adds 22 miles of 

motorized trails.

Reduction in miles 

benefits and/or 

increases quality of 

roadless characteristics.

Addition of motorized 

trails has low potential 

to alter characteristics 

of roadless areas due to 

dispersed, remote trail 

locations.

Reduces 445 miles of 

roads and trails and 

adds no miles of 

motorized trails. 

Reduction in miles 

benefits and/or 

increases quality of 

roadless 

characteristics.

Reduces 219 miles of 

roads and trails and 

adds 51 miles of 

motorized trails.

Reduction in miles 

benefits and/or 

increases quality of 

roadless characteristics. 

Addition of motorized 

trails has low potential 

to alter characteristics 

of roadless areas due to 

dispersed, remote trail 

locations. 

Reduces 217 miles 

of roads and trails 

and adds 53 miles of 

motorized trails.

Reduction in miles 

benefits and/or 

increases quality of 

roadless 

characteristics.

Addition of 

motorized trails has 

low potential to alter 

characteristics of 

roadless areas due to 

dispersed, remote 

trail locations.
34

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 16. Summary of the effects described in detail in chapter 3

Resource Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

Noise and User 

Conflict

All action alternatives eliminate cross-country motorized travel, except as described for the purposes of MDC and MBGR.

Conflicts due to cross-country motorized travel will be eliminated or significantly reduced.

No change in short 

term – user conflicts 

and noise impacts will 

continue, with

potential to increase in 

the long term.

Least reduction of noise 

and user conflict with 

the least reduction of 

miles.

Moderate reduction of 

noise and user conflict.

Most potential for 

reduction of noise and 

user conflict 

corresponding with 

the most reduction of 

miles.

Moderate reduction of 

noise and user conflict.

Moderate reduction 

of noise and user 

conflict.

Recreational 

Opportunities

No change to roads or 

motorized trails and 

forest is open to 

motorized crosscountry travel. With 

the continuation of 

cross-country travel, a 

proliferation of 

unauthorized routes 

would occur. There 

would be a potential 

increase of conflicts 

between motorized an 

nonmotorized users.

Retains most miles of 

roads and trails open to 

motorized use, similar 

to alt. B except no 

cross-country travel.

Allows for most MDC 

and MBGR compared 

to all action 

alternatives. Provides 

broader range of 

motorized recreation

opportunities with 

inclusion of singletrack trails. Designates 

28 acres distributed 

among 39 areas that 

have been traditionally 

used for dispersed 

motorized camping as

open to all motorized 

vehicles. This type of 

use is expected to 

continue. A total of 8 

acres would be open on 

the Reserve Ranger 

District for motorcycle 

and ATV use.

Retains moderate level 

of miles of roads and 

trails open to motorized 

use, similar to alts. F 

and G. No crosscountry travel. Allows 

for moderate level of 

miles of MDC, similar 

to F and G. Low level 

of MBGR allowed.

Retains least level of 

miles of roads and no 

motorized trails open 

to motorized use 

compared to other 

action alternatives. No 

cross-country, MDC, 

or MBGR.

Retains moderate level 

of miles of roads and 

trails open to motorized 

use, similar to alts. D 

and G. No crosscountry travel. Allows 

for moderate level of 

miles of MDC, similar 

to D and G. Moderate 

level of MBGR 

allowed. Designates 28 

acres distributed among

39 areas that have been 

traditionally used for 

dispersed motorized 

camping as open to all 

motorized vehicles.

This type of use is 

expected to continue. A 

total of 8 acres would 

be open on the Reserve 

Ranger District for 

motorcycle and ATV 

use.

Retains moderate 

level of miles of 

roads and trails open 

to motorized use, 

similar to alts. D and 

F. No cross-country 

travel. Allows for 

moderate level of 

miles of MDC, 

similar to D and F.

Low level of MBGR 

allowed. Designates 

28 acres distributed 

among 39 areas that 

have been 

traditionally used for 

dispersed motorized 

camping as open to 

all motorized 

vehicles. This type of 

use is expected to 

continue. A total of 8 

acres would be open 

on the Reserve 

Ranger District for 

motorcycle and ATV 

use.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 35

Table 16. Summary of the effects described in detail in chapter 3

Resource Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

Air Quality

Visibility Overall good to 

excellent visibility; 

Gila Class I 

Wilderness area 

certified for visibility 

impairment.

Negligible 

improvement.

Negligible 

improvement.

Negligible 

improvement.

Negligible 

improvement.

Negligible 

improvement.

Air Quality Overall good to 

excellent air quality; 

currently meeting all 

State and Federal 

standards.

When compared to 

alternative B:

Negligible 

improvement.

When compared to 

alternative B:

Negligible 

improvement.

When compared to 

alternative B:

Negligible 

improvement.

When compared to 

alternative B:

Negligible 

improvement.

When compared to 

alternative B:

Negligible 

improvement.

Soils

Soils A total 7,682 acres of 

motorized routes having 

impacts to the soil 

resource and watershed 

condition. Unrestricted 

cross-country travel.

Of the action 

alternatives (i.e., not 

including the no action 

alternative), this 

alternative shows the 

least reduction in 

potential negative

effects from motorized 

big game retrieval. 

This alternative is 

similar to alternative G

in reducing potential 

negative effects from 

motorized big game 

retrieval.

This alternative does 

not allow motorized 

big game retrieval.

This alternative shows 

the second least 

reduction in potential 

negative effects from 

motorized big game 

retrieval.

This alternative is 

similar to 

alternative D in 

reducing potential 

negative effects 

from motorized 

big game retrieval.

For all action alternatives: No decommissioning of routes is proposed under the TMR, routes will continue to have an impact to 

the soil resource and subsequent watershed condition. Erosion will continue on some routes and some routes may re-vegetate 

slowly over time. For routes and route densities, all alternatives are similar. Eliminating cross-country travel reduces the 

potential for negative effects.
36

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 16. Summary of the effects described in detail in chapter 3

Resource Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

Water

Riparian and 

Wetlands

No limits on crosscountry travelWhen compared to 

alternative B:

When compared to 

alternative B:

When compared to 

alternative B:

When compared to 

alternative B:

When compared to 

alternative B:

Least opportunity for 

reducing negative 

impacts to riparian and 

wetland resources.

Second highest 

opportunity for 

reducing negative 

impacts to riparian and 

wetland resources.

Highest opportunity 

for reducing negative 

impacts to riparian 

and wetland 

resources.

Moderate opportunity 

for reducing negative 

impacts to riparian and 

wetland resources, 

similar to alt. G.

Moderate 

opportunity for 

reducing negative 

impacts to riparian 

and wetland

resources, similar to 

alt. F.

454 acres of 

motorized routes 

within riparian risk 

zone

18 fewer acres of 

motorized routes within 

riparian risk zone 

136 fewer acres of 

motorized routes within 

riparian risk zone

200 fewer acres of 

motorized routes 

within riparian risk 

zone

82 fewer acres of 

motorized routes within 

riparian risk zone 

88 fewer acres of 

motorized routes 

within riparian risk 

zone

63,018 acres of 

motorized dispersed 

camping available 

within riparian risk 

zone

58,790 fewer acres of 

motorized dispersed 

camping available 

within riparian risk 

zone 

60,756 fewer acres of 

motorized dispersed 

camping available 

within riparian risk 

zone 

63,018 fewer acres of 

motorized dispersed 

camping available 

within riparian risk 

zone

59,500 fewer acres of 

motorized dispersed 

camping available 

within riparian risk 

zone 

60,072 fewer acres 

of motorized 

dispersed camping 

available within 

riparian risk zone 

63,018 acres of 

motorized big game 

retrieval available 

within riparian risk 

zone

21,499 fewer acres of 

motorized big game 

retrieval available 

within riparian risk 

zone

60,756 fewer acres of 

motorized big game 

retrieval available 

within riparian risk 

zone

63,018 fewer acres of 

motorized big game 

retrieval available 

within riparian risk 

zone

33,115 fewer acres of 

motorized big game 

retrieval available 

within riparian risk 

zone

60,072 fewer acres 

of motorized big 

game retrieval 

available within 

riparian risk zone

63,018 acres of 

riparian risk zone 

available for 

motorized areas

Less than 1 acre of 

riparian risk zone 

available for motorized 

areas

Less than 1 acre of 

riparian risk zone 

available for motorized 

areas

Less than 1 acre of 

riparian risk zone 

available for 

motorized areas

Less than 1 acre of 

riparian risk zone 

available for motorized 

areas

Less than 1 acre of 

riparian risk zone 

available for 

motorized areas

1.33 acre of motorized 

routes within wetlands

0 fewer acres of 

motorized routes within 

wetlands

0.69 fewer acres of 

motorized routes within 

wetlands

0.77 fewer acres of 

motorized routes 

within wetlands

0.69 fewer acres of 

motorized routes within 

wetlands

0.69 fewer acres of 

motorized routes 

within wetlands
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 37

Table 16. Summary of the effects described in detail in chapter 3

Resource Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

Riparian and 

Wetlands 

(continued)

353 acres of 

motorized dispersed 

camping available 

within wetland

309 fewer acres of 

motorized dispersed 

camping available 

within wetlands

315 fewer acres of 

motorized dispersed 

camping available 

within wetlands

353 fewer acres of 

motorized dispersed 

camping available 

within wetlands

311 fewer acres of 

motorized dispersed 

camping available 

within wetlands

312 fewer acres of 

motorized dispersed 

camping available 

within wetlands

353 acres of 

motorized big game 

retrieval available 

within wetlands

8 fewer acres of 

motorized big game 

retrieval available 

within wetlands

314 fewer acres of 

motorized big game 

retrieval available 

within wetlands

353 fewer acres of 

motorized big game 

retrieval available 

within wetlands

25 fewer acres of 

motorized big game 

retrieval available 

within wetlands

312 fewer acres of 

motorized big game 

retrieval available 

within wetlands

353 acres of wetlands 

available for 

motorized areas

0 acres of wetlands 

available for motorized 

areas

0 acres of wetlands 

available for motorized 

areas

0 acres of wetlands 

available for 

motorized areas

0 acres of wetlands 

available for motorized 

areas

0 acres of wetlands 

available for 

motorized areas

Water Quality When compared to 

alternative B:

When compared to 

alternative B:

When compared to 

alternative B:

When compared to 

alternative:

When compared to 

alternative B:

No limits on crosscountry travel.Least opportunity for 

improvement of water 

quality.

Second highest 

opportunity for 

improvement to water 

quality.

Highest opportunity 

for improvement to 

water quality.

Moderate opportunity 

for improvement to 

water quality, similar to 

alt. G.

Moderate 

opportunity for 

improvement to 

water quality, similar 

to alt. F.

919 motorized route 

stream crossings on 

perennial and 

intermittent streams

69 fewer motorized 

route stream crossings 

on perennial and 

intermittent streams

342 fewer motorized 

route stream crossings 

on perennial and 

intermittent streams

491 fewer motorized 

route stream crossings 

on perennial and 

intermittent streams

158 fewer motorized 

route stream crossings 

on perennial and 

intermittent streams

176 fewer motorized 

route stream 

crossings on 

perennial and 

intermittent streams

within 300 ft.

291 miles of perennial

and intermittent 

streams impacted by 

motorized routes 

within 300 feet

2 fewer miles of 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

impacted by motorized 

routes within 300 feet

87 fewer miles of 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

impacted by motorized 

routes within 300 feet

129 fewer miles of 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

impacted by 

motorized routes 

within 300 feet

51 fewer miles of 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

impacted by motorized 

routes within 300 feet

56 fewer miles of 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

impacted by 

motorized routes
38

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 16. Summary of the effects described in detail in chapter 3

Resource Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

Water Quality

(continued)

862 miles of perennial

and intermittent 

streams potentially 

impacted by motorized 

dispersed camping 

798 fewer miles of 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

potentially impacted by 

motorized dispersed 

camping 

828 fewer miles of 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

potentially impacted by 

motorized dispersed 

camping 

862 fewer miles of 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

potentially impacted 

by motorized 

dispersed camping 

809 fewer miles of 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

potentially impacted by 

motorized dispersed 

camping 

818 fewer miles of 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

potentially impacted 

by motorized 

dispersed camping 

862 miles of perennial

and intermittent 

streams potentially 

impacted by motorized 

big game retrieval

190 fewer miles of 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

potentially impacted by 

motorized big game 

retrieval

828 fewer miles of 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

potentially impacted by 

motorized big game 

retrieval

862 fewer miles of 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

potentially impacted 

by motorized big game 

retrieval

393 fewer miles of 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

potentially impacted by 

motorized big game 

retrieval

818 fewer miles of 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

potentially impacted 

by motorized big 

game retrieval

862 miles of perennial

and intermittent stream 

potential impacted by 

motorized areas

No potential impacts to 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

from motorized areas.

No potential impacts to 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

from motorized area.

No potential impacts 

to perennial and 

intermittent streams 

from motorized area.

No potential impacts to 

perennial and 

intermittent streams 

from motorized area.

No potential impacts 

to perennial and 

intermittent streams 

from motorized area.

78 motorized route 

stream crossings on 

impaired waters

9 fewer motorized route 

stream crossings on 

impaired waters

16 fewer motorized 

route stream crossings

on impaired waters

16 fewer motorized 

route stream crossings

on impaired waters

16 fewer motorized 

route stream crossings

on impaired waters

16 fewer motorized 

route stream 

crossings on impaired 

waters

44 miles of impaired 

streams impacted by 

motorized routes

within 300 feet

3 fewer miles of 

impaired streams 

impacted by motorized 

routes within 300 feet

9 fewer miles of 

impaired streams 

impacted by motorized 

routes within 300 feet

11 fewer miles of 

impaired streams 

impacted by motorized 

routes with 300 feet

8 fewer miles of 

impaired streams 

impacted by motorized 

routes with 300 feet

8 fewer miles of 

impaired streams 

impacted by 

motorized routes with 

300 feet

126 miles of impaired 

streams potentially 

impacted by motorized

dispersed camping

119 fewer miles of 

impaired streams 

potentially impacted by 

motorized dispersed 

camping

122 fewer miles of 

impaired streams 

potentially impacted by 

motorized dispersed 

camping

126 fewer miles of 

impaired streams 

potentially impacted 

by motorized

dispersed camping

119 fewer miles of 

impaired streams 

potentially impacted by 

motorized dispersed 

camping

120 fewer miles of 

impaired streams 

potentially impacted 

by motorized

dispersed camping

126 miles of impaired 

streams potentially 

impacted by motorized

big game retrieval

25 fewer miles of 

impaired streams 

potentially impacted by 

motorized big game 

retrieval

122 fewer miles of 

impaired streams 

potentially impacted by 

motorized big game 

retrieval

126 fewer miles of 

impaired streams 

potentially impacted 

by motorized big game 

retrieval

62 fewer miles of 

impaired streams 

potentially impacted by 

motorized big game 

retrieval

120 fewer miles of 

impaired streams 

potentially impacted 

by motorized big 

game retrieval
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 39

Table 16. Summary of the effects described in detail in chapter 3

Resource Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

126 miles of impaired 

streams potentially 

impacted by motorized

big game retrieval

No potential impacts to 

impaired waters from 

motorized areas.

No potential impacts to 

impaired waters from 

motorized areas.

No potential impacts 

to impaired waters 

from motorized areas.

No potential impacts to 

impaired waters from 

motorized areas.

No potential impacts 

to impaired waters 

from motorized areas.

Road and Trail 

Condition

Impacts on 

Watershed 

Health

No limits on crosscountry travel which 

currently has minimal 

localized impacts on 

watershed condition 

overall; 7,682 acres of 

motorized routes 

impacting watershed 

health.

When compared to alternative B:

All action alternatives are similar. Localized negative impacts will occur with motorized dispersed camping corridors and 

motorized big game retrieval. Impacts associated with these activities are minimal forestwide with current use levels. Slight 

improvement to watershed condition will result from limiting cross-country travel; no change in route density or acres impacted 

by routes as no decommissioning proposed.

Fish Habitat

Aquatic Habitat When compared to 

alternative B:

When compared to 

alternative B:

When compared to 

alternative B:

When compared to 

alternative B:

When compared to 

alternative B:

Currently crosscountry travel is 

allowed and likely to 

contribute to 

additional 

unauthorized route 

development.

Slight decrease in 

relative risk to aquatic 

habitat and species.

Substantial decrease in 

level of relative risk to 

aquatic habitat and 

species.

Greatest reduction in 

level of relative risk to 

aquatic habitat and 

species.

Moderate reduction in 

level of relative risk to 

aquatic habitat and 

species.

Moderate reduction 

in level of relative 

risk to aquatic habitat 

and species. Similar 

to alt. F with slight 

decrease in relative 

risks.

862 miles of stream 

within area available 

for cross-country 

travel

126 fewer miles of 

stream in areas 

available for crosscountry travel 

associated with MBGR 

and MDC

829 fewer miles of 

stream in areas 

available for crosscountry travel 

associated with MBGR 

and MDC

No streams within 

cross-country travel

area associated with

MBGR and MDC.

341 fewer miles of 

stream in areas 

available for crosscountry travel 

associated with MBGR 

and MDC

818 fewer miles of 

stream in areas 

available for crosscountry travel 

associated with

MBGR and MDC
40

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 16. Summary of the effects described in detail in chapter 3

Resource Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

302 miles of 

motorized routes 

within 300 feet of 

streams and 919 

stream crossings 

contributing to risk of 

impacts to aquatic 

habitat and species

There is no change 

from alt. B in the 302 

miles of motorized 

route within 300 feet of 

streams. There are 69 

fewer stream crossings 

contributing to risk of 

impacts to aquatic 

habitat and species.

93 fewer miles of 

motorized route within 

300 feet of streams and 

342 fewer stream 

crossings contributing 

to risk of impacts to 

aquatic habitat and 

species

139 fewer miles of

motorized routes 

within 300 feet of 

streams and 491 fewer

stream crossings 

contributing to risk of 

impacts to aquatic 

habitat and species

56 fewer miles of 

motorized route within 

300 feet of streams and 

158 fewer stream 

crossings contributing 

to risk of impacts to 

aquatic habitat and 

species

60 fewer miles of 

motorized route 

within 300 feet of 

streams and 176 

fewer stream 

crossings 

contributing to risk 

of impacts to aquatic 

habitat and species

Wildlife Habitat

Wildlife Habitat Cross-country travel is 

allowed and likely to 

contribute to 

additional 

unauthorized route 

development, with the 

greatest potential to 

cause harvest and 

disturbance.

Allows a 1-mile 

distance for MBGR,

and increase in miles of 

motorized routes is 

similar to alternative B.

Depending on location, 

for certain focal groups 

there may be a slightly 

greater potential for 

harvest and disturbance 

than alt. B.

Except for alt. E, this 

alternative causes the 

least harvest and 

disturbance effects to 

most focal groups.

There still remains a 

fairly high potential to 

cause harvest effects to 

the Chiricahua leopard 

frog.

Most beneficial of the 

action alternatives for 

most wildlife focal 

groups, particularly 

for federally listed 

terrestrial wildlife 

species.

Compared with the five 

action alternatives, this 

alternative is better

than C, not as good for 

E and D, and slightly 

less than G.

Compared with the 

five action 

alternatives this 

alternative is better 

than C and F, but not 

as good as E and D 

for most focal 

groups.

Invasive Species

Plants Would allow for the 

largest potential for 

spread of invasive 

plant species with 

continued crosscountry motorized 

use.

Very similar to 

alternative B and, when 

compared to other 

alternatives, would 

have the second largest 

potential for spread of 

invasive plant species.

Moderate potential for 

spread of invasive plant 

species compared to 

alternative B and, when 

compared to other 

alternatives, would 

have the second 

smallest potential for 

spread of invasive plant 

species.

Least potential for 

spread of invasive 

plant species 

compared to 

alternative B and,

when compared to 

other alternatives,

would have the least 

amount of potential

for spread of invasive 

plant species.

Lower potential for 

spread of invasive plant 

species compared to 

alternatives B and C.

Lower potential for 

spread of invasive 

plant species 

compared to 

alternatives B, C and 

F.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 41

Table 16. Summary of the effects described in detail in chapter 3

Resource Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G

Cultural Resources

Cultural 

Resources

Maximum access to 

the most cultural sites 

due to cross-country 

travel; highest 

potential for effects to 

cultural sites.

Second highest 

potential for access and 

effects to cultural sites.

National Historic 

Preservation Act

compliance = No 

adverse effect.

Second lowest potential 

for effects to cultural 

sites due to less access 

to fewer sites. National 

Historic Preservation 

Act compliance = No 

adverse effect.

Least potential for 

effects to cultural 

resources; least access 

to fewest sites.

National Historic 

Preservation Act

compliance = No 

adverse effect.

Moderate access and 

effects to cultural 

resources; more effects 

than D, E, and G; fewer 

effects than B and C.

National Historic 

Preservation Act

compliance = No 

adverse effect.

Low to moderate 

access and effects to 

cultural resources; 

more effects than D 

and E; fewer effects 

than B, C, and F.

National Historic 

Preservation Act

compliance = No 

adverse effect.

Social and Economic

Motorized Uses No change from 

current motor vehicle 

use on the forest.

Most opportunity for 

motor vehicle use 

including routes, MDC, 

areas, and MBGR.

Moderate opportunity 

for motor vehicle use 

including routes and 

MDC. MBGR is 

limited to MDC 

corridors and is,

therefore, reduced 

greatly.

Least opportunity for 

motor vehicle use. No 

opportunities for 

MDC and MBGR.

Moderate opportunity 

for motor vehicle use 

including routes, 

MDC, and areas.

Greater opportunity for 

MBGR than alts. D and 

G with 1⁄2-mile 

corridor.

Moderate 

opportunity for 

motor vehicle use 

including routes, 

MDC, and areas.

MBGR is limited to 

MDC corridors and 

is, therefore, reduced 

greatly.

Employment 

and Income

The precise relationship between miles of road and economic impacts is unknown; however, using the Recreation Economic Contribution Analysis model, it 

is assumed that jobs and income increase with more miles of road and decrease with fewer miles of road. According to the economic impact analysis, none 

of the alternatives will significantly affect jobs and income.

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 43

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the 

project area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. The complete 

analysis documents are cited in each section and are part of the project record. It also presents the 

scientific and analytical basis for comparing the alternatives presented in the alternatives chapter.

Analyses looked at changes (i.e., increase, decrease, or changes from current uses) from the no

action alternative (alternative B).

Notes on Effects Analysis 

This draft environmental impact statement examines effects on a forestwide scale. Effects are 

discussed at the national forest level rather than the site-specific effect of each road, trail, or area.

Trends of effects are adequate because we don’t know everything, such as number of hunters who 

use motorized vehicles to retrieve big game species or locations of all invasive plant species.

There are variations in the miles of routes displayed by some of the resource areas for 

alternatives. For example, the “Roads” section displays alternative B open road miles as 4,613 

miles while the “Invasive Species” section shows 4,602 miles. The numbers may vary due to:

● Forest road management – Nine miles of National Forest System roads under Gila 

National Forest management are outside the forest boundary.

● Resource spatial data compared to road or route data – The two datasets may not extend 

over the same area. Some roads under Gila National Forest jurisdiction extend beyond the 

forest boundary or are on private lands (e.g., acquired road right-of-ways) and some 

resource data may extend beyond the forest boundary and onto private lands to include 

these roads, while other data sources may not and are limited to the forest boundary.

● Analysis measures – Depending on the question being analyzed, the miles of routes 

(roads or motorized trails) may include more than Forest Service jurisdiction, such as 

county, State, Federal, or private roads including roads outside the forest boundary.

For analysis purposes, the average width of roads and trails by maintenance level used were as 

shown in table 17.

Table 17. Average width of roads and trails by maintenance level

Existing and Proposed Roads and Trails Average Width (feet)

Open trails 5

Operation maintenance level 1 12

Operation maintenance level 2 12

Operation maintenance level 3 14

Operation maintenance level 4 20

Operation maintenance level 5 20

Unauthorized route (full-size vehicle) 12

ATV trails 8
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

44 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Assumptions and Limitations Common to All Resources 

The forest’s specialists didn’t have all the information they needed about all aspects of this 

project. In order for the effects analysis to make sense, the interdisciplinary team made 

assumptions to fill those gaps. These assumptions and limitations apply to all the resources 

analyzed. Some specialists made additional assumptions pertaining to their resource. 

● During analysis, the entire acreage (approximately 2.44 million acres) of National Forest 

System land outside of wilderness and other areas restricted to off-road vehicles was used 

for alternative B during assessment of motorized dispersed camping, motorized big game 

retrieval, and areas. We acknowledged that the entire 2.44 million acres is not available 

for motor vehicle use and that slope, topography, and vegetation may limit motor vehicle 

use and access.

● “Areas” are designated areas where any motorized vehicle activity may occur. Specific 

motor vehicle classes may be allowed or prohibited in designated areas. The “areas” are 

divided into two types for analytic purposes. One area is located on Reserve Ranger 

District and is open and restricted to ATV and motorcycle use only. The others have been 

traditionally used as dispersed camping areas and the assumption is that the traditional 

use of dispersed camping areas will continue.

● Corridors for the purpose of motorized dispersed camping are meant solely for the 

purpose of dispersed camping. Most of these corridors encompass traditional camping 

sites. Motorized access would be direct ingress and egress to the camping spot and the 

camp would be the base of activity. These corridors are not open to unrestrained motor 

vehicle use. For analysis purposes, the interdisciplinary team will assume compliance.

● Motorized big game retrieval fixed distances are meant solely for the purpose of 

retrieving game. They are not open areas to use motorized vehicles for hunting game.

Once the game is downed, a vehicle may be used to retrieve the game. For analysis 

purposes, the interdisciplinary team assumes compliance.

● Information on the number of hunters that use motor vehicles to retrieve downed game 

was lacking. The forest calculated potential acres of disturbance by motor vehicles for 

each big game species by alternative using harvest information, season of hunt, license 

sales from the Department of Game and Fish, and the following assumptions:

○ Every hunter harvests their game on the Gila National Forest, even when the game 

management unit (GMU) does not lie entirely within the forest.

○ Every hunter uses a vehicle to retrieve their game.

○ Every hunter makes one trip in and one trip out, using the full distance allowable.

○ Every hunter uses a full-size vehicle (6-foot width).

○ Harvest numbers are averaged from 2006–2009 New Mexico Department of Game 

and Fish harvest records and surveys, with the exception of javelina.

○ No harvest records are available for javelina, so an average harvest rate for other 

species (30 percent) was used to calculate the number of javelina harvested based on 

30 percent of 2,700 licenses issued throughout the state. Assuming that the vast 

majority of javelina are harvested in the southern half of the state, we used half of the 

potential harvest or 450 harvested.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 45

○ Vehicle use is allowed on approximately 2.2 million acres outside of wilderness and 

other areas.

Many hunters do not use a vehicle to retrieve their game, and it is unlikely that all will use the full 

distance allowed. Some may also need more than one trip in and out, and many will not use fullsize vehicles. Data are not available to calculate the potential area of disturbance to a more 

precise estimate. It is likely that these estimates are overestimated. The potential disturbance acres 

by alternative for motorized big game retrieval were calculated for action alternatives with 

motorized big game retrieval (table 18).

Table 18. Acres of potential disturbance to wildlife from motorized big game retrieval

Species

Number of 

Days Open for 

Hunt

Average 

Harvest per 

Year

Potential 

Acres of 

Disturbance

Percent Acres Potentially 

Disturbed within the 

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval Corridor 

Allowed

Alternative C corridor – 1 mile from each side of road (2,076,414 acres)

Deer and Elk 108 2,633 3,995 

Javelina 90 450 675 

Bear 91 71 107 

Mountain Lion 212 33 50 

Antelope 18 18 27 

Total 4,854 0.2%

Alternative D corridor – 300 feet same as motorized dispersed camping corridors (85,922 acres)

Deer and Elk 108 2,633 220 0.3%

Alternative F corridor – 1⁄2 mile from each side of road (1,501,870 acres)

Elk 89 1,311 954 0.06%

Alternative G corridor – 300 feet – same as motorized dispersed camping corridors (95,994 acres)

Deer and Elk 108 2,633 220 0.3%

Forest Plan Amendments

The proposed forest plan amendments are needed to bring the land management plan up-to-date 

with current management of the forest; remove outdated schedules; and to be in compliance with 

the Travel Management Rule.

The effect of allowing motorized use (parking and/or motorized dispersed camping) in some 

places where it was not previously allowed is analyzed in each of the alternatives by resources.

The effect of closing or restricting motor vehicle uses would be beneficial and improve conditions 

for all resources.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

46 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Roads

This section summarizes the roads specialist report (USDA Forest Service 2010a).

Affected Environment

National Forest System (NFS) roads are managed for the use and administration of NFS lands.

They provide access to multiple management activities of national forests including such things 

as: research, fish and wildlife habitat management, range management, timber harvesting, fire 

protection, and private land use. The transportation system on the Gila National Forest provides 

critical access needs for rural communities within or adjacent to the forest boundary. Also, the 

road system is used by more than 359,000 visitors (USDA Forest Service 2006) entering the 

forest to participate in the various recreational opportunities and other outdoor activities the Gila 

National Forest has to offer.

National Forest System roads are categorized by operational maintenance levels (OML) (table 

19). OML 2–5 roads are those that are open to travel, while OML 1 roads are closed to travel by 

the general public. Currently, the forest has approximately 4,613 miles of OML 2–5 NFS roads 

open to motor vehicle use. There are approximately 2,244 miles of roads under other jurisdiction 

that access the forest such as Federal, State, or county agencies and private. Highway 180 and 

New Mexico Highway 12 are examples of non-Forest Service travel routes through the forest.

Table 19. Existing Gila NFS road miles by operational maintenance level (OML) and 

general description of operational maintenance levels (specific definitions are located in 

FSH 7709.59, 62.32)

Operational Maintenance Level and General Description Miles

1 – Roads closed to motor vehicle use 1,169

2 – Roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles 4,196

3 – Roads open and maintained for travel by mindful drivers in standard passenger cars 262

4 – Roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds 131

5 – Roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience 24

Total miles 5,782

Miles open to motor vehicle use (OML 2–5) 4,613

Public Safety

The use of motor vehicles on NFS roads is subject to State traffic law where applicable, except 

when in conflict with motor vehicle designations (36 CFR 212.51) or with the rules at Title 36, 

Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261 (36 CFR 212.5(a)(1)). State traffic law includes laws 

pertaining to motor vehicle operation, as well as insurance and license requirements; motor 

vehicle registration; and motor vehicle length, height, width, and weight. The State of New 

Mexico prohibits the operation of off-highway motor vehicles on paved streets or highways.

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.59-41 requires roads “open to public travel,” i.e., passable 

by four-wheel standard passenger cars and open to the general public, meet certain standards of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 47

the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 402) associated with design, construction, 

maintenance, signing, and traffic accident surveillance. NFS roads managed as operational 

maintenance level 3, 4 or 5 are subject to the Highway Safety Act.

Cost of Maintenance 

The forest budget for road maintenance ranges between $880,000 and $1.2 million annually. This 

funding level allows the forest to complete basic custodial maintenance on level 3–5 roads as well 

as approximately 140 miles of level 2 roads on an annual basis. This level of maintenance occurs 

on approximately 500 miles or 10 percent of the existing open roads on an annual basis (table 20).

Basic custodial maintenance includes such things as grading road surfaces, maintaining ditch 

lines, and roadside vegetation brushing.

Table 20. Miles of roads maintained based on annual forest road budget allocations. 

Values are also displayed as percent maintained of the total road miles (table 19).

Year

Miles of Road Maintained 

Based on Road 

Accomplishment Reports

Percent of the Total 

Road Miles (5,782) 

Maintained

Forest Road 

Maintenance Budget

2006 560 11% $883,000

2007 498 10% $1,023,000

2008 525 10% $1,243,000

2009 510 10% $1,035,000

Environmental Consequences

Public Safety

The New Mexico Department of Transportation Programs and Infrastructure Traffic Safety 

Bureau Traffic Records Section collects data from the New Mexico Uniform Crash Reports from 

all law enforcement agencies (State police, municipal police, tribal police, campus police, and 

county sheriffs). In 2007, the Gila National Forest requested accident data for the previous 5

years and found no reportable accidents occurred on National Forest System roads between 2002 

and 2007. Forest law enforcement officers use a database called LEIMARS which tracks 

incidents, violations, and warnings. LEIMARS showed no reportable vehicle accidents on 

National Forest System roads managed by the Gila National Forest (USDA Forest Service 

2010k).

Based on both of these databases, the safety concerns are relatively low for the current road 

system under alternative B. The safety concern for all action alternatives (C through G) would be 

the same as alternative B. The designation process does not change the speed that vehicles travel 

on routes nor does the Gila National Forest expect the volume, composition, or traffic patterns to 

change after designation.

Cost of Maintenance

There is no change to OML 3–5 road mileage in any of the action alternatives compared to 

alternative B (table 21). These roads are the main travel ways through the forest or are associated 

with various forest facilities such as administrative offices or campgrounds. The change in open 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

48 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

road miles is associated with OML 2 roads (table 21). Since there is no change in the OML 3–5 

miles, which have the higher maintenance cost per mile, the overall maintenance costs do not 

vary greatly between alternatives when using the region’s economic assessment tool (USDA 

Forest Service 2006) (table 22). Alternative E has the largest percent reduction in cost (11

percent) when compared to alternative B costs. This reduction is not significant considering there 

is a 40 percent difference in open road miles between the alternatives. Alternative C has only a 1

percent reduction in cost compared to alternative B, because it has the smallest change in overall 

road miles. Alternatives D, F, and G are similar in cost reduction, averaging 6 percent when 

compared to alternative B.

Table 21. Breakdown of road miles by operation maintenance level and alternatives, and a 

comparison of the change of total open road miles (OML 2–5 roads) by alternative (MPA = 

modified proposed action)

Operation Maintenance 

Level (OML)

Alt. B

(No Action) Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F(MPA) Alt. G

Decommissioned 642 638 638 638 638 638

1 527 702 1,821 2,383 1,506 1,527

2 4,196 4,037 2,917 2,351 3,231 3,210

3 262 262 262 262 262 262

4 131 131 131 131 131 131

5 24 24 24 24 24 24

Total OML 2–5 Miles1 4,613 4,453 3,333 2,767 3,647 3,626

Percent change from alt.

B of OML 2–5 roads

-4% -28% -40% -21% -21%

1

The total OML 2–5 miles includes 9 miles of roads under Gila National Forest management that are outside the forest 

boundary.

None of the alternatives accommodates the current funding levels (table 22). Gila National Forest 

would continue to conduct the same basic custodial maintenance. Designating a road system that 

matches available funding levels would result in a system that would not meet the access needs

for public and administrative purposes.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 49

Table 22. Annual maintenance cost by alternative (miles of existing NFS roads by operational maintenance level)

OML

Annual 

Maintenance 

Cost $ per 

Mile

Alt. B 

Miles

Alt. B 

Annual 

Cost ($)

Alt. C

Miles

Alt. C 

Annual 

Cost ($)

Alt. .D

Miles

Alt. D 

Annual 

Cost ($)

Alt. E

Miles

Alt. E 

Annual 

Cost ($)

Alt. F 

Miles

Alt. F 

Annual 

Cost ($)

Alt. G

Miles

Alt. G 

Annual 

Cost ($)

1 55 527 29,002 702 38,627 1,821 100,144 2,383 131,082 1,506 82,803 1,527 84,002

2 350 4,196 1,468,705 4,037 1,412,775 2,917 1,021,020 2,351 822,850 3,231 1,130,710 3,210 1,123,535

3 8,282 262 2,167,399 262 2,167,399 262 2,167,399 262 2,167,399 262 2,167,399 262 2,167,399

4 10,294 131 1,345,426 131 1,345,426 131 1,345,426 131 1,345,426 131 1,345,426 131 1,345,426

5 6,597 24 159,647 24 159,647 24 159,647 24 159,647 24 159,647 24 159,647

Totals 5,140 5,170,179 5,155 5,123,874 5,155 4,793,637 5,151 4,626,404 5,153 4,885,985 5,154 4,880,009

Percent

Change 

from 

alt. B

-0.9% -7.3% -10.5% -5.5% -5.6%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

50 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Recreation

This section summarizes the recreation specialist report (USDA Forest Service 2010b).

Affected Environment

Background

The Gila National Forest is the sixth largest forest in the United States and offers spectacular 

scenery ranging from high cool mountains with aspen and Douglas-fir to warm semiarid lowlands 

with juniper, oak and cactus. It remains one of the more remote and least developed national 

forests in the Southwest. The administrative boundary encompasses 3,392,519 acres. Nearly 23

percent of the forest’s land mass is included in congressionally designated wilderness and is 

managed for primitive, nonmotorized use. These wilderness areas are the Gila Wilderness 

(559,688 acres), Blue Range Wilderness (29,099 acres), and Aldo Leopold Wilderness (203,797 

acres). 

Developed recreation is defined as recreation that requires facilities that result in concentrated use 

of an area (forest plan, p. 297). The Gila National Forest currently hosts 27 campgrounds (2 for 

groups), 7 picnic sites (3 for groups), a public shooting range, an observation site, and 4 

interpretive sites. Developed sites and areas receive most use during the summer and fall seasons 

and holidays, although several facilities, primarily on the south end of the forest, remain open and 

receive use year-round.

Other prominent or special features on the forest that contribute to its recreational resource 

diversity is a 230-mile segment of the Continental Divide Scenic Trail, the Catwalk Recreation 

Area and National Recreation Trail, and the Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument (a National 

Park Service area surrounded by lands managed by the Gila National Forest). Two scenic byways 

also travel through the forest; the Trail of the Mountain Spirits traces a circuit in the southern half 

of the forest, while the Geronimo Trail creates a longer loop encompassing the northern and 

eastern sections of the forest. 

Dispersed recreation activities occur in general forest areas outside of designated sites or 

developed facilities, and are practiced by motorized and nonmotorized users alike. Dispersed 

recreation activities many times involve a combination of motorized and nonmotorized activities, 

and occur throughout the year.

Nonmotorized opportunities include hiking, backpacking, mountain climbing, mountain biking, 

horseback riding, dispersed camping, fishing, hunting, boating, and viewing nature. Visitors 

seeking these forms of recreational experiences often use the forest’s single-track trail system.

There are 1,577 miles of trail opportunities on the forest, with 59 percent of these trails located 

within wilderness areas. There are currently few prohibitions on motorized use of the single-track 

system in the general forest area; however, evidence of motorized use of single-track trails is 

limited. This could be because most single-track trails are designed and maintained for hikers or 

pack and saddle stock. Many public comments on the matter expressed a desire to authorize 

motorcycle use of certain trails throughout the forest. Other comments recommended closing all 

single-track trails to motorized travel. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 51

Horseback riding and packing are also popular forms of nonmotorized recreation on the forest.

This type of use is primarily observed within wilderness and areas adjacent to communities.

Backcountry equestrians visiting wilderness areas use vehicles and stock trailers to access 

trailheads and areas throughout the forest. It is common for some of these users to pull stock 

trailers for 3 to 5 hours to reach a trailhead. Many of these trips are multiday backcountry trips 

using pack and saddle stock. Day trip equestrians more often use trails in areas of the forest 

immediately adjacent to local communities. 

Although the Gila National Forest is relatively dry, fishing and water based recreation 

opportunities can be found on approximately 1,770 miles of perennial creeks and rivers as well as 

on three engineered lakes: Quemado Lake (112 acres), Lake Roberts (68 acres), and Snow Lake 

(72 acres). Some of the more common sport fish found in these waters include rainbow and 

brown trout, large and small mouth bass, as well as channel and flathead catfish. Many native fish 

are also found in the streams on the forest, several of these—such as the Gila trout—are 

considered threatened or endangered. None of the streams or rivers on the Gila National Forest is 

designated as wild and scenic.

Motorized opportunities involve the use of both highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles 

such as motorcycles, ATVs, and 4-wheel drives of all varieties. Hunters and people who practice 

motorized recreation such as firewood gathering and motorized dispersed camping are specific 

user groups who benefit greatly from the Gila National Forest’s network of nearly 4,600 miles of 

open maintenance level 2–5 roads, since all motorized vehicle types, including non-highway legal 

OHVs, are allowed on them. Other motorized recreation activities include driving for pleasure, 

ATV, UTV, and motorcycle riding on roads and trails, and gathering forest products such as 

firewood. 

The Gila National Forest’s road system inventory includes an additional 1,194 miles of roads that 

are classified as either closed or decommissioned. Hunters are user groups that specifically 

benefit from closed and decommissioned roads since they allow for easier cross-country access to 

more remote areas of the forest from the open road system for hunting and big game retrieval. 

There are approximately 2,213 segments of these roads throughout the forest, with an average 

length of about 0.54 mile.

Issues Identified Through Outreach Efforts

Extensive public outreach concerning the motorized travel system occurred prior to publication of 

the proposed action. Outreach efforts consisted of open house meetings, workshops, and face-toface meetings. These outreach efforts generated over 2,000 public comments, which contributed 

to the development of the proposed action that was published September 11, 2009. The forest 

received almost 16,000 letters and emails in response to the proposed action. The content of the 

letters and emails formed the basis of the alternatives and environmental analysis. Four 

significant issues emerged as a result of scoping. These issues concern: motorized routes, 

motorized big game retrieval, motorized dispersed camping, and motorized areas. This report 

includes analysis of each of these issues in relation to the changes described in alternatives C

through G. This report will also analyze effects of the alternatives on the recreation opportunity 

spectrum, visual quality objectives, and roadless areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

52 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Motorized Routes

Motorized routes in the Gila National Forest include 4,607.3 miles of maintenance level 2–5 

National Forest System roads, and 15.8 miles of National Forest System trails. Nearly all forest 

visitors, regardless of the purpose for their visit, use the motorized transportation system to reach 

their destination. Many times, recreation activities involve a combination of motorized and 

nonmotorized activities. Therefore, making changes to the existing motorized transportation 

system by adding and/or removing roads and motorized trails has the potential to affect the 

diversity of recreation opportunities for both motorized and nonmotorized uses of the forest.

Many nonmotorized activities such as picnicking, hiking, viewing wildlife, biking, and fishing 

depend on motorized routes to access areas in which to perform these primary activities. These 

same nonmotorized activities, however, are among the most susceptible to the detrimental 

impacts of noise, emissions, and use conflicts associated with the proliferation of motorized 

routes. Public responses to scoping emphasize this dilemma. Many comments expressed a desire 

to protect and enhance opportunities for quiet recreation, while others expressed a desire for 

continued motorized access to special places in which to perform nonmotorized forms of 

recreation.

Motorized Dispersed Camping

Motorized dispersed camping occurs in undeveloped areas, usually adjacent to roads, trails, and 

water areas. Though not identified among the Gila National Forest’s geospatial inventory of 

features, there are numerous locations throughout the transportation system where motorized 

dispersed camping traditionally occurs (i.e., camping within direct proximity of a motorized 

vehicle). Such practice typically takes place where terrain is flat, and obstacles created by 

vegetation and rock features are sparse or few, allowing motorized vehicles to effectively exit the 

road system and park where they can have privacy. Many public comments regarding motorized 

dispersed camping emphasize the importance of this type of dispersed recreation opportunity.

Many comments expressed support for the continuation of motorized dispersed camping, but 

were also critical of the idea of having motorized dispersed camping corridors because of the 

possibility of increasing resource damage within the corridors. Other comments expressed 

concern that the corridors were too restrictive and would limit motorized camping opportunities 

on the forest.

Currently on the Gila National Forest, 2,441,804.3 acres are open to motorized dispersed 

camping; however, evidence of motorized dispersed camping, such as fire rings and ground 

disturbance, is rarely seen beyond 300 feet from the adjacent road. Use of most motorized 

dispersed camping areas is consistent and predictable. Many areas are used on an annual basis by 

large family gatherings and hunting parties. Rarely are new dispersed camping areas created, and 

when they are, they are likely to only be used once because the “good” spot was already taken.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval 

Of the 69 game management areas administered by the New Mexico Department of Game and 

Fish, 11 are located within the administrative boundary of the Gila National Forest. Motorized big 

game retrieval involves the use of full-size vehicles, ATVs, and UTVs and occurs throughout the 

nonwilderness portions of the forest. Motorized vehicles are used primarily to retrieve elk and 

deer, although some responses to scoping also expressed the desire to allow motorized retrieval of 

bear, mountain lion, and pronghorn. There is a wide diversity of opinion concerning motorized 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 53

big game retrieval within the sporting community, as well as in the public at large. Many scoping 

respondents report that motorized big game retrieval is essential to retrieving big game and 

protects against wanton waste, while others object to the noise and potential effects to adjacent 

hunters and recreationists. A separate issue for some respondents was the potential for the 

proliferation of unauthorized routes arising from motorized big game retrieval. Other comments 

emphasized the importance of motorized big game retrieval for elderly hunters or the mobility 

impaired.

There are currently no restrictions on motorized big game retrieval in areas outside of designated 

wilderness. Under the current forest plan, 2,441,804.3 acres are open to motorized big game 

retrieval. The actual number of acres used annually, or the total number of miles traveled, for 

motorized big game retrieval is quantitatively unknown. However, empirical knowledge coupled 

with game department harvest information, points to a limited and dispersed practice of 

motorized big game retrieval on the forest. 

Motorized Areas 

The forest is currently open to motorized cross-country travel, except in wilderness areas and 

where specified closed within certain management areas. Since there are currently no restrictions 

on motorized use within this area, the whole 2,441,804.3 acres of land can be considered a 

motorized area. Cross-country travel occurs on many parts of the forest; however, cross-country 

travel is rarely the primary activity for visitors. Cross-country travel is predominantly observed in 

combination with one or more recreation activity. Big game hunting, for example, often includes 

elements of nonmotorized and motorized activities, and sometimes includes cross-country travel 

to retrieve downed game. Route finding or “trail blazing” occurs in some areas, but often this is 

done in relation to firewood gathering or piñon nut gathering. In limited areas of the forest, crosscountry travel for its own sake has been observed. In most instances, this cross-country travel is 

for connecting existing routes or for access to points of interest.

In some places on the forest, motorized cross-country travel has been observed to lead to the 

proliferation of unauthorized routes. Some unauthorized routes have become established on 

remnant logging roads or other formerly managed roads that are no longer part of the National 

Forest System, but were never obliterated and remain on the landscape. Some routes have 

developed as a result of firewood harvest, while others have developed through recurring use. The 

unplanned nature of many of these unauthorized routes makes it difficult to manage the 

transportation system and sometimes leads to resource damage and user conflicts.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

The forest plan provides goals for the recreation resource and requires a broad range of developed 

and dispersed recreation opportunities in balance with existing and future demand. For 

management and conceptual convenience, possible mixes or combinations of activities, settings, 

and probable experience opportunities have been arranged along a spectrum, or continuum. This 

continuum is called the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS), and planning for recreation 

opportunities using the recreation opportunity spectrum is conducted as part of land and resource 

management planning. The recreation opportunity spectrum provides a framework for defining 

the types of outdoor recreation experience the public can expect in a certain area. A recreation 

opportunity inventory and assessment was conducted in 1980 for the Gila National Forest. This 

assessment, incorporated into the 1986 forest plan, identifies five recreation opportunity spectrum
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

54 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

classes: primitive, semiprimitive, semiprimitive motorized, roaded natural, and rural. The 

recreation opportunity spectrum as inventoried in 1980 forms the base for objectives in the forest 

plan. Guidelines for changes in inventory acreage throughout the recreation opportunity spectrum

classes are included in the forest plan standards and guidelines, p. 26.

● Primitive classification characterized by an essentially unmodified environment, where 

trails may be present but structures are rare, and where the probability of isolation from

the sights and sounds of man is extremely high. Primitive classification includes 526,611 

acres, or 16 percent of the forest.

● Semiprimitive classification describes an area characterized by moderate opportunity for 

solitude in a predominately unmodified natural environment, with a moderate degree of 

trail maintenance. Semiprimitive classification includes 787,063 acres, or 24 percent of 

the forest. 

● Semiprimitive motorized describes an area characterized by moderately dominant 

alterations by man, with strong evidence of primitive roads and/or trails. Semiprimitive 

motorized classification includes 240,940 acres, or 7 percent of the forest.

● Roaded natural describes areas characterized by a predominantly natural environment 

with evidence of moderate permanent alternate resources and resource utilization.

Evidence of the sights and sound of man is moderate, but in harmony with the general 

environment. Opportunities exist for both social interaction and moderate isolation from 

the sights and sounds of man. Roaded natural classification includes 1,768,071 acres, or 

53 percent of the forest.

● Rural classification describes areas in which the sights and sound of man are prevalent 

and the landscape has been considerably altered by the works of people. The rural 

classification includes 5,083 acres, or less than 1 percent of the forest.

For each management area identified in the forest plan, categories of recreation opportunity 

spectrum and inventoried acres for it are listed under management emphasis. The forest plan 

prescribes the following levels of acceptable change for each of these recreation opportunity 

spectrum classes:

● Primitive – no change

● Semiprimitive – no change in wilderness; change of plus or minus 10 percent in other 

areas

● Semiprimitive motorized – change of plus or minus 10 percent

● Roaded natural – change of plus or minus 10 percent

● Rural – no change

Visual Quality Objectives

The forest plan provides goals for visual quality and implements the visual management system 

as described on page 26 of the forest plan. Visual quality objectives were derived from a system 

that utilized a combination of land type, land characteristics, viewing distance, and viewer 

significance to arrive at a relative value scale. Like the recreation opportunity spectrum, visual 

quality objectives were inventoried in 1980, and serve as a base by which to compare the effects 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 55

of management activities. The “Gila National Forest Plan” identifies five visual quality objectives 

for management areas: preservation, retention, partial retention, modification, and maximum 

modification. The following descriptions of these visual quality objectives were taken from 

USDA Agriculture Handbook number 462, Volume 2.

● Preservation: Only ecological changes to visual qualities are allowed. Management 

activities, except for very low visual impact recreation facilities are prohibited. This 

objective applies to wilderness areas, primitive areas, and some unique management 

units. Approximately 25 percent of inventoried areas on the forest are in this 

classification.

● Retention: Activities may only repeat form, line, color, and texture, which are frequently 

found in the characteristic landscape. Changes in their size, amount, intensity, direction, 

pattern, etc., should not be evident. Approximately 1 percent of inventoried areas on the 

forest are in this classification.

● Partial retention: Activities must remain visually subordinate to the characteristic 

landscape. Associated visual impacts in form, line, color, and texture must be reduced as 

soon after project completion as possible. Approximately 19 percent of inventoried areas 

on the forest are in this classification.

● Modification: Activities may visually dominate the characteristic landscape. However, 

landform and vegetative alterations must borrow from naturally established form, line, 

color, and texture to blend in with the surrounding landscape character. Approximately 41

percent of inventoried areas on the forest are in this classification.

● Maximum modification: Activities may dominate the characteristic landscape. They may 

not appear to borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture.

Approximately 14 percent of inventoried areas on the forest are in this classification.

The forest plan prescribes the following levels of acceptable change for each of these visual 

quality objectives.

● Preservation – no change.

● Retention – plus or minus 2 percent in foreground; plus or minus 5 percent in middle 

ground and background.

● Partial retention – plus or minus 5 percent in foreground; plus or minus 10 percent in 

middle ground and background.

● Modification – plus or minus 10 percent in all areas.

● Maximum modification – the forest plan does not discuss limits of acceptable change for 

maximum modification.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried roadless areas were authorized by the 2001 Special Areas; Roadless Area 

Conservation Final Rule, 36 CFR Part 294. An inventoried roadless area is a large tract of land 

with characteristics similar to wilderness, but is usually not as pristine as wilderness, and may 

include existing roads and motorized trails. The “inventoried” part of the name comes from the 

fact that all national forests conducted an inventory in the 1970s and 1980s to find lands that 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

56 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

could potentially be recommended as wilderness. The characteristics that follow describe 

attributes considered when areas were inventoried for roadless area designation:

● Natural, being substantially free from the effect of modern civilization.

● Undeveloped, having little or no permanent improvements or human habitation.

● Outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation.

● Special features and values, or the potential to contribute to unique fish, wildlife and 

plant species and communities; outstanding landscape features; and significant cultural 

resource sites. 

● Manageability, meaning the area is at least 5,000 acres in size. 

Approximately 22 percent of the forest’s land mass is located within inventoried roadless areas.

Of the 4,619.5 miles of motorized routes (roads and trails) open to the public, 375.5 miles lie 

within these roadless areas. A few segments of county roads and State highways are also located 

within roadless areas; however, they are not included in this analysis. Of the 375.5 miles of roads 

and motorized trails currently open within roadless areas, 93 percent are low volume, 

maintenance level 2 roads.

Environmental Consequences

Short-term timeframe: 1 year

Long-term timeframe: 20 years

Spatial Boundary: The administrative forest boundary is the unit of spatial analysis when 

considering effects associated with changes in the NFS or season of use.

Motorized Routes

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Regarding Motorized Routes

● The prohibition on cross-country travel will be in place for all action alternatives. The 

effects of the prohibition on cross-country travel in the short and long term are expected 

to be the same for each action alternative. The perceived effects of motorized use such as 

noise, emissions, user conflicts, and impacts to wilderness, roadless areas, and private 

lands, will remain in predictable locations (within 1⁄2 mile of open roads), and will be 

minimized in areas beyond this 1⁄2-mile buffer. Unplanned proliferation of motorized 

routes resulting from unrestricted motorized access will be eliminated.

● Overall, user conflict on motorized routes is expected to be minimized by implementing 

the travel management rule under all action alternatives. Roads and motorized trails 

would be administratively defined and published on the motor vehicle use map. This 

would offer the public a means to better plan recreational pursuits based on the 

individual’s unique expectations. As a result, frequency of conflicts between 

nonmotorized and motorized recreation users should decrease in the short and long terms.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 57

Alternative B – No Action

The following are the direct and indirect effects of proposed actions relating to the issues 

presented by motorized routes. This includes the breakdown of any additions and/or changes to 

the NFS road and trail system for each alternative.

The effects of motorized routes in terms of noise, emissions, and user conflicts that could be 

experienced by people located within 1⁄2 mile from populated areas, neighboring private land, 

roadless areas, wilderness boundaries, developed recreation sites, and nonmotorized trails will 

remain unchanged in the short term. With no prohibition on cross-country travel, people around 

these boundaries can expect to experience an increase in motor vehicle related noise and 

emissions, along with a correlated increase in user conflict as the proliferation of unauthorized 

routes continues on its current, unpredictable, upward trend in the long term. 

The number of NFS motorized routes (roads and trails) and their mileage will remain unchanged. 

While there are 15.8 miles of National Forest System trails for ATVs and motorcycles, use of 

motor vehicles is essentially unrestricted outside of designated wilderness and areas closed by 

forest order, since the forest would continue to be open to motorized cross-country travel.

There would be no restrictions on motor vehicle use under this alternative (outside of designated 

wilderness and other areas closed by forest orders). Users who practice nonmotorized activities 

will continue to come into contact with those who are using motorized vehicles for recreation. To 

some nonmotorized users, such contact is not an issue. But for those seeking solitude for a variety 

of reasons (i.e., hunting, wildlife viewing, etc.), it can be an important issue. As a result, such user 

conflict is expected to increase over time under alternative B. 

As mentioned in the “Visual Quality” section, the proliferation of unauthorized routes, 

particularly in sparsely covered landscapes, has the potential to adversely affect the forest’s visual 

resources. In the long term, areas that have a more sensitive visual quality object (i.e., retention or 

partial retention) may take on characteristics of a more modified landscape and exceed their 

prescribed visual quality objective. The same is true regarding the effects to prescribed recreation 

opportunity spectrum classifications.

Alternative C

The effects of motorized routes in terms of noise, emissions, and user conflicts that could be 

experienced by people located within 1⁄2 mile from populated areas, neighboring private land, 

roadless areas, wilderness boundaries, developed recreation sites, and nonmotorized trails will be 

reduced by 19.3 percent when compared to the no action alternative. Alternative C ranks last in 

this regard among the five action alternatives proposed, offering the lowest reduction in miles for 

the elements for which this indicator measures. 

Alternative C proposes 4,265.6 miles of roads open to the public, 11.7 miles are a result of 

additions or re-opening of previously closed or decommissioned routes. The number of road 

miles will be reduced by 7.34 percent or 338.1 miles from the current mileage displayed under 

alternative B due to closure or change to periodic administrative use or by written authorization 

only (i.e., not open to the public for general use).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

58 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Under this alternative, the miles of road designated for motor vehicle use would be reduced by 

7.34 percent compared with alternative B. This alternative would result in the highest number of 

miles of road designated for motor vehicle use when compared to the other action alternatives.

National Forest System trails designated for motor vehicle use would increase from 15.8 miles to 

203.9 miles. However, since motorized cross-country travel is eliminated, this represents a 

substantial decrease in the amount of motorized access that would be available under alternative 

B. Alternative C would provide more motorized trail opportunities than the other action 

alternatives. 

NFS motorized trail mileage will experience an increase of 1,190.51 percent, up from its current 

level of 15.8 miles to 203.9 miles. The opportunity provided by this approximately 188.1-mile 

increase to the NFS trail inventory is still a substantial decrease from the amount of opportunity 

provided under open cross-country travel. However, alternative C ranks first in most opportunity 

for motorized trail access among the action alternatives proposed. 

Motorized users who will benefit most under alternative C are single-track motorcycle riders 

since it is the only alternative that considers this use, exclusive of other motorized vehicles. 

However, of the 63.5 miles of single-track trail proposed, 50.6 miles are located on an existing 

nonmotorized trail, shared by both hikers and equestrian riders. User conflicts are not anticipated 

in the short run, because the 50.6-mile trail section in question is considered remote, lightly used, 

and deemed suitable for motorcycles and nonmotorized uses. 

Alternative D

The effects of motorized routes in terms of noise, emissions, and user conflicts that could be 

experienced by people located within 1⁄2 mile from populated areas, neighboring private land, 

roadless areas, wilderness boundaries, developed recreation sites, and nonmotorized trails will be 

reduced by 48.2 percent when compared to the no action alternative. Alternative D offers the 

second largest reduction in miles for the elements this indicator measures for among the five 

action alternatives.

Alternative D proposes 2,977.2 miles of roads open to the public, 6.5 miles are a result of 

unauthorized route additions or re-opening of previously closed or decommissioned routes. The 

number of road miles will be reduced by 34.9 percent or 1,626.5 miles from the current mileage 

displayed under alternative B due to closure or change to periodic administrative use or by 

written authorization only (i.e., not open to the public for general use).

The short- and long-term effects regarding motorized access to opportunities on the general forest 

when compared to alternative B is that motorized and nonmotorized users alike (those who drive 

to the place of their nonmotorized activity) will experience a corresponding 34.9 percent 

reduction in road access. Of the five action alternatives proposed, alternative D ranks fourth in 

road miles available. 

NFS motorized trail mileage will experience an increase of 692.41percent, up from its current 

level of 15.8 miles to 125.2 miles. As in alternative C, the opportunity provided by this 

approximately 109.3-mile increase to the NFS trail inventory is still a substantial decrease from 

the amount of opportunity provided under open cross-country travel. Alternative D ranks number 

4 in opportunity for motorized trail access among the action alternatives proposed. Motorcycles 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 59

and ATVs would share the same designated motorized trail segments. None of the proposed 

segments are on nonmotorized shared-use segments either, so potential user conflicts among these 

groups are avoided in most cases.

Alternative E

The effects of motorized routes in terms of noise, emissions, and user conflicts that could be 

experienced by people located within 1⁄2 mile from populated areas, neighboring private land, 

roadless areas, wilderness boundaries, developed recreation sites, and nonmotorized trails will be

reduced by 59.2 percent when compared to the no action alternative. Alternative E offers the 

largest reduction in miles among the other action alternatives for the elements for which this 

indicator measures. 

Alternative E proposes 2,331.8 miles of roads open to the public. No additions or re-opening of 

closed or decommissioned roads are proposed. The road mileage will be reduced by 49.35 percent 

or 2,271.9 miles from the current mileage displayed under alternative B, due to closure or change 

to periodic administrative use or by written authorization only (i.e., not open to the public for 

general use).

The short- and long-term effects regarding motorized access to opportunities on the general forest 

when compared to alternative B is that, more than any alternative, motorized and nonmotorized 

users alike (those who drive to the place of their nonmotorized activity) will experience the most 

effects, a corresponding 49.35 percent reduction in road access. Of the five action alternatives 

proposed, alternative E ranks the lowest in road miles available. 

NFS motorized trail mileage will experience a decrease of 100 percent. All existing system 

motorized trails (15.8 miles) will be converted to nonmotorized trails, and no additional are 

proposed for use by the general public. Unlike any of the alternatives proposed, users of ATVs 

and motorcycles will be restricted to those NFS roads designated open to all vehicles. This 

alternative offers the least opportunity for motorized users, and conversely, offers the least chance 

of user conflict between motorized and nonmotorized users. User conflict could increase, 

however, among motorized users of different vehicle classes sharing the same roads.

Alternative F

The effects of motorized routes in terms of noise, emissions, and user conflicts that could be 

experienced by people located within 1⁄2 mile from populated areas, neighboring private land, 

roadless areas, wilderness boundaries, developed recreation sites, and nonmotorized trails will be 

reduced by 43 percent when compared to the no action alternative. Alternative F offers the third 

largest reduction in miles for the elements for which this indicator measures among the action 

alternatives.

Alternative F proposes 3,343.1 miles of roads open to the public, 6.7 miles are a result of 

unauthorized route additions or re-opening of previously closed or decommissioned routes. The 

road mileage will be reduced by 27.38 percent or 1,260.6 miles from the current mileage 

displayed under alternative B due to closure or change to periodic administrative use or by 

written authorization only (i.e., not open to the public for general use).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

60 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

The short- and long-term effects regarding motorized access to opportunities on the general forest 

when compared to alternative B is that motorized and nonmotorized users alike (those who drive 

to the place of their nonmotorized activity) will experience a corresponding 27.38 percent 

reduction in road access. Of the five action alternatives proposed, alternative F ranks second in 

road miles available. 

NFS motorized trail mileage will experience an increase of 1,048.73 percent, up from its current 

level of 15.8 miles to 181.5 miles. The opportunity provided by this approximately 165.7-mile 

increase to the NFS trail inventory is still a substantial decrease from the amount of opportunity 

provided under open cross-country travel. Alternative F ranks second in opportunity for 

motorized trail access among action alternatives proposed. None of the proposed segments are on 

nonmotorized shared-use segments, so potential user conflicts among these groups are avoided in 

most cases.

Alternative G

The effects of motorized routes in terms of noise, emissions, and user conflicts that could be 

experienced by people located within 1⁄2 mile from populated areas, neighboring private land, 

roadless areas, wilderness boundaries, developed recreation sites, and nonmotorized trails will be 

reduced by 42.9 percent when compared to the no action alternative. Alternative G offers the 

fourth largest reduction in miles for the elements for which this indicator measures among the 

action alternatives. 

Alternative G proposes 3,332.9 miles of roads open to the public, wherein 7.5 miles result from 

unauthorized route additions or re-opening of previously closed or decommissioned routes. The 

road mileage will be reduced by 27.82 percent or 1,280.8 miles from the current mileage 

displayed under alternative B due to closure or change to periodic administrative use or by 

written authorization only (i.e., not open to the public for general use).

The short- and long-term effects regarding motorized access to opportunities on the general forest 

when compared to alternative B is that motorized and nonmotorized users alike (those who drive 

to the place of their nonmotorized activity) will experience a corresponding 27.82 percent 

reduction in road access. Of the five action alternatives proposed, alternative G ranks third in road 

miles available.

NFS motorized trail mileage will experience an increase of 1,047.73 percent, up from its current 

level of 15.8 miles to 181.3 miles. The opportunity provided by this approximately 165.5-mile 

increase to the NFS trail inventory is still a substantial decrease from the amount of opportunity 

provided under open cross-country travel. Alternative G ranks third in opportunity for motorized 

trail access among action alternatives proposed, but only 0.2 mile behind alternative F. None of 

the proposed segments are on nonmotorized shared-use segments, so potential user conflicts 

among these groups are avoided in most cases.

Motorized Dispersed Camping

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Regarding Motorized Dispersed Camping

● Implementing the Travel Management Rule only affects motorized dispersed camping 

(i.e., traveling off the designated NFS road system with a vehicle to camp). Dispersed 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 61

camping by any other nonmotorized means, such as by parking alongside an open road 

and walking in to a dispersed campsite, is not affected.

● To accommodate motorized dispersed camping, all action alternatives consider 

designation of a motorized dispersed camping corridor that would include 300 feet along 

both sides of all designated roads, and would be identified on the motor vehicle use map.

Corridors were identified to incorporate areas where dispersed camping is currently 

occurring to the extent possible.

The following are the direct and indirect effects of proposed actions relating to the issues 

presented by motorized dispersed camping.

Alternative B

Under alternative B, all 4,603.7 miles of NFS roads are open to the public; people may park 

alongside any system road where it is safe to do so, and walk in to a dispersed campsite. In 

addition, because the forest is open to motorized cross-country travel (except for in wilderness 

and other areas closed by forest order), people may also drive off road for any distance and set up 

a campsite. This alternative affords the greatest opportunity for motorized dispersed camping and 

benefits those who use motor vehicles to access a camping spot that provides the desired level of 

privacy and solitude. Without restrictions on where and how far to travel off the roadway to 

camp, the range of camp distribution has potential to be greatest, and unintended contact among 

others is anticipated to be less. However, without the ability to predict where people may be, 

contact between user groups still has the potential to occur. Unintended consequences of this 

alternative include the proliferation of unauthorized routes through the establishment of new 

dispersed camping areas. This is due to the unrestricted cross-country travel associated with this 

alternative.

Though the public has the opportunity to practice motorized dispersed camping anywhere under 

alternative B, the reality is, they typically do not. Most motorized dispersed campsites on the 

forest have already been established due to terrain features such as gentle slopes, flat surfaces, 

and sparse vegetation types that provide for cover, all within proximity to places of interest like 

hunting grounds or natural features. Such favorable conditions do not exist along all 4,603.7 

miles of roads on the Gila National Forest. With these considerations, use levels of motorized 

dispersed camping are expected to remain level in the short and long terms.

Alternative C

This alternative would result in 1,538.1 miles of NFS roads designated for motorized dispersed 

camping, which represents a 67 percent reduction from what currently exists.

The effect of this reduction in opportunity is not likely to be significant. Most campers will not 

notice the change because corridors were identified to incorporate areas where dispersed camping 

is currently occurring to the extent possible. This alternative ranks first among the five action 

alternatives in terms of motorized dispersed camping opportunities. However, the change from 

open, cross-country travel to the use of designated motorized camping corridors has the potential 

to exclude limited places and areas where motorized dispersed camping has previously occurred. 

Conflicts between nonmotorized and motorized campers are not anticipated to increase under this 

alternative. Roads and motorized dispersed camping corridors would be defined and published on 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

62 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

the motor vehicle use map. This would offer the public a means to better plan recreational 

pursuits based on the individual’s unique expectations. As a result, frequency of conflicts between 

nonmotorized and motorized campers should decrease in the short and long terms.

Areas (as opposed to corridors) proposed for dispersed camping are analyzed under the motorized 

areas issue.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, 1,182.8 miles of NFS roads with corridors are available to the public for 

motorized dispersed camping—a 74 percent reduction in opportunity from what currently exists.

The effect of this reduction in opportunity is not likely to be significant. Most campers will not 

notice the change because corridors were identified to incorporate areas where dispersed camping 

is currently occurring to the extent possible. However, this alternative ranks fourth among the five 

action alternatives in terms of motorized dispersed camping opportunity, and it is possible that 

some traditional motorized dispersed camping areas will no longer be available for public use.

This could result in a concentration of use at desired camping areas within designated corridors, 

which could lead to user conflicts.

Conflicts between nonmotorized and motorized campers are not anticipated to increase under this 

alternative. Roads and motorized dispersed camping corridors would be defined and published on 

the motor vehicle use map. This would offer the public a means to better plan recreational 

pursuits based on the individual’s unique expectations. As a result, frequency of conflicts between 

nonmotorized and motorized campers should decrease in the short and long terms.

Alternative E

No motorized dispersed camping corridors are designated in this alternative—a 100 percent 

reduction in opportunity from what currently exists. Alternative E ranks last among the five 

action alternatives in terms of motorized dispersed camping opportunities.

The public will be restricted to parking within one vehicle length of either side of the road where 

it is safe and feasible to do so, and then walk in to find a place to camp. Nonmotorized dispersed 

campers are not likely to be affected since this is reflecting their current use. People who rely on 

the comfort and convenience of their motor vehicle, but still seek privacy or added safety gained 

by parking off the roadway, will be most affected by this alternative. Some campers may leave 

the forest to find motorized dispersed camping opportunities elsewhere. A few campers may be 

displaced to developed campgrounds. Using developed campgrounds, however, would not 

provide the same opportunity since fees are often charged, campgrounds may not be in desired 

locations, and campsite availability may be limited. Equally, using developed campgrounds does 

not provide for the privacy and solitude important to many motorized dispersed campers.

Alternative F

Under this alternative, 1,446.8 miles of NFS roads are available to the public from which to 

practice the activity of motorized dispersed camping—a 69 percent reduction in opportunity from 

what currently exists. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 63

The effect of this reduction in opportunity is not likely to be significant. Most campers will not 

notice the change because corridors were identified to incorporate areas where dispersed camping 

is currently occurring to the extent possible. This alternative ranks second among the five action 

alternatives in terms of motorized dispersed camping opportunities. It is anticipated that most 

motorized campers will be accommodated by this alternative; however, the change from open, 

cross-country travel to the use of designated motorized camping corridors has the potential to 

exclude places and areas where motorized dispersed camping has previously occurred. 

Conflicts between nonmotorized and motorized campers are not anticipated to increase under this 

alternative. Roads and motorized dispersed camping corridors would be defined and published on 

the motor vehicle use map. This would offer the public a means to better plan recreational 

pursuits based on the individual’s unique expectations. As a result, frequency of conflicts between 

nonmotorized and motorized campers should decrease in the short and long terms.

Alternative G

Under this alternative, 1,326.8 miles of NFS roads with corridors are available to the public for 

motorized dispersed camping—a 71 percent reduction in opportunity from what currently exists. 

The effect of this reduction in opportunity is not likely to be significant. Most campers will not 

notice the change because corridors were identified to incorporate areas where dispersed camping 

is currently occurring to the extent possible. This alternative ranks third among the five action 

alternatives in terms of motorized dispersed camping opportunities. It is anticipated that most 

motorized campers will be accommodated by this alternative. However, the reduction in 

designated corridors in relation to the other action alternatives, coupled with the restrictions on 

cross-country travel, have the potential to affect motorized camping experiences and 

opportunities for some campers by limiting choice and concentrating use.

Conflicts between nonmotorized and motorized campers are not anticipated to increase under this 

alternative. Roads and motorized dispersed camping corridors would be defined and published on 

the motor vehicle use map. This would offer the public a means to better plan recreational 

pursuits based on the individual’s unique expectations. As a result, frequency of conflicts between 

nonmotorized and motorized campers should decrease in the short and long terms. 

Motorized Big Game Retrieval

The following are the direct and indirect effects of proposed actions that relate to the issues 

presented by motorized big game retrieval. 

Alternative B

Under this alternative, 2,441,804.3 acres of forest lands are open to the public and available for 

all game retrieval by motorized means (designated wilderness and areas closed by forest order 

excluded). Access to these acres is from any road open to the public in the NFS roads inventory. 

Because of the open cross-country travel policy currently in place, distance from the roadway for 

hunters to retrieve legally downed animals is unrestricted.

Without restrictions on how far one can travel off the roadway for these purposes, there exists the 

potential for conflict between hunters who prefer solitude and an uninterrupted experience, and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

64 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

those for which the assistance and convenience afforded by motor vehicles is of more value. Nonhunters who practice nonmotorized activities will continue to come into contact with those who 

are using motorized vehicles to retrieve game. To some nonmotorized users, such contact is not 

an issue, but for those seeking solitude for a variety of reasons (i.e., hunting, wildlife viewing, 

etc.), it can be an important issue. As a result, such user conflict is expected to increase over time 

under alternative B. 

The proliferation of unauthorized routes is also a possible effect of this alternative. Cross-country 

travel to retrieve game has the possibility of creating travel ways, especially in cases where 

multiple trips are used to retrieve downed game. In the long term, the proliferation of these 

routes—particularly in sparsely covered landscapes—has the potential to adversely affect the 

forest’s visual resources. Areas that have a more sensitive visual quality objective (i.e., retention 

or partial retention) may take on characteristics of a more modified landscape and could exceed 

their prescribed visual quality objective.

Alternative C

Under this alternative, a 1-mile-wide corridor solely for the purpose of big game retrieval would 

be designated along both sides of 4,265.6 miles of road. This would amount to 2,076,413.63 

acres, representing a 14.96 percent reduction from what currently exists. Roads from which the 

public can access these open acres for this purpose would be from NFS roads open to the public 

under this alternative. Motorized trails are not included. Alternative C ranks first among the five 

action alternatives in terms of providing acreage available for motorized big game retrieval. 

Alternative C allows for retrieval of multiple game species identified through public scoping, and 

represents the most number of species among the action alternatives proposed. Species include 

elk, deer, pronghorn, bear, javelina, and mountain lion.

The 14.9 percent reduction in motorized big game retrieval opportunities from what currently 

exists is not likely to significantly impact hunters who retrieve big game with vehicles. It is 

anticipated that most hunters will not notice the change because most motorized game retrieval, 

and hunting in general, occurs within 1 mile of existing roads. This alternative ranks first among 

the five action alternatives in terms of motorized big game retrieval opportunities. The change 

from open, cross-country travel to the use of 1-mile-wide corridors represents a fundamental 

change in policy, but it is unlikely to have a significant effect on hunters who retrieve big game 

with vehicles. 

Use conflict is expected to be minimal as hunters and other nonmotorized users will still have the 

ability to disperse along the 4,265.6 miles of roads open to the public under alternative C, and the 

only time a vehicle will enter the forest is to retrieve game.

Alternative D

Under this alternative, a 300-foot-wide corridor for the purpose of big game retrieval would be 

designated along both sides of 1,182.8 miles of road. This would amount to 86,023 acres, 

representing a 96.48 percent reduction from what currently exists. The corridors proposed under 

this alternative correspond to the motorized dispersed camping corridors in the alternative. In 

response to the travel management rule, motorized cross-country travel would be prohibited, and 

these corridors would represent the only opportunity for motorized big game retrieval. Motorized 

trails are not included. Alternative D ranks fourth among the five action alternatives in terms of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 65

providing acreage available for motorized big game retrieval. Alternative D allows for the 

retrieval of elk and deer species only.

Users affected by the prohibition on cross-country travel element of the Travel Management Rule 

are the same stated in alternative C. However, those with a desire or need for using motorized 

vehicles to retrieve big game are restricted to the 1,182.8 miles of roads designated for motorized 

dispersed camping under this alternative.

The measures (recreation specialist report) used to analyze effects of motorized big game retrieval 

offer evidence to support that hunters typically travel within 0.28 to 0.35 mile from a road when 

hunting in a nonmotorized manner (excluding horses and pack animals). The 300-foot motorized 

camping corridor distance limit allowed for motorized big game retrieval under this alternative 

falls short of this range, so it is expected that hunters will not have the ability in most cases to 

travel the distance required to retrieve game. With this in mind, it is expected that other 

alternative or traditional nonmotorized methods such as the use of horses and pack animals can be 

expected to rise. In very limited cases, a hunter’s inability to use motor vehicles to retrieve big 

game may lead to wanton waste of the animal.

Alternative E

No motorized big game retrieval would be allowed in this alternative—a 100 percent reduction 

from what currently exists. In response to the Travel Management Rule, motorized cross-country

travel would be prohibited for all activities. Alternative E ranks last among the five action 

alternatives in terms of providing acreage or opportunity for motorized big game retrieval.

User conflict in general is expected to be minimal as the public will still have the ability to 

disperse along the 2,331.8 miles of roads open to the public under alternative E. However, those 

with a desire or need for using motorized vehicles to retrieve big game will not have that ability 

under this alternative. Because nonmotorized big game retrieval is an inherently physical activity, 

even with aid of pack and saddle stock, this alternative has the most potential to impact elderly 

and mobility impaired hunters. 

Alternative F

Under this alternative, a 1⁄2-mile-wide corridor solely for the purpose of big game retrieval would 

be designated along both sides of 3,343.1 miles of road. This would amount to 1,501,870.25

acres, representing a 38.49 percent reduction from what currently exists. In response to the Travel 

Management Rule, motorized cross-country travel would be prohibited, and these open acres 

would represent opportunity for motorized big game retrieval purposes only, restricted to a 1⁄2-

mile travel distance. Roads from which the public can access these open acres for this purpose 

would be from NFS road open to the public under this alternative. Motorized trails are not 

included. Alternative F ranks second among the five action alternatives in terms of providing 

acreage available for motorized big game retrieval, but allows for the retrieval of only elk. 

The measures (recreation specialist report) used to analyze effects of motorized big game retrieval 

offer evidence to support that hunters typically travel within 0.28 to 0.35 mile from a road when 

hunting in a nonmotorized manner (excluding horses and pack animals). Similar to alternative C, 

the distance given for big game retrieval under this alternative (1⁄2 mile) still exceeds this range, so 

it is expected that hunters will have the ability in most cases to travel the distance required to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

66 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

retrieve the game they take. As in alternative C, adopting alternative, nonmotorized means of big 

game retrieval is not anticipated for most hunters under this alternative.

Alternative G

Under this alternative, a 300-foot-wide corridor for the purpose of big game retrieval would be 

designated along both sides of 1,326.8 miles of road. This would amount to 96,492.3 acres, 

representing a 96.05 percent reduction from what currently exists. The corridors proposed under 

this alternative correspond to the motorized dispersed camping corridors in the alternative. In 

response to the Travel Management Rule, motorized cross-country travel would be prohibited, 

and these corridors would represent the only opportunity for motorized big game retrieval.

Motorized trails are not included. Alternative G ranks third among the five action alternatives in 

terms of providing acreage available for motorized big game retrieval, and allows for the retrieval 

of elk and deer species only. 

Users affected by the prohibition on cross-country travel element of the Travel Management Rule 

are the same as stated in alternative C. User conflict for hunting in general is expected to be 

minimal as the public will still have the ability to disperse along the 3,322.9 miles of roads open 

to the public under alternative G. However, those with a desire or need for using motorized 

vehicles to retrieve big game are restricted to the 1,326.8 miles of roads designated for motorized 

dispersed camping under this alternative.

The measures (recreation specialist report) used to analyze effects of motorized big game retrieval 

offer evidence to support that hunters typically travel within 0.28 to 0.35 mile from a road when 

hunting in a nonmotorized manner (excluding horses and pack animals). The 300-foot motorized 

camping corridor distance limit allowed for motorized big game retrieval under this alternative 

falls short of this range, so it is expected that hunters will not have the ability in most cases to 

travel the distance required to retrieve the game they take. With this in mind, it is expected that 

other alternative or traditional nonmotorized methods such as the use of horses and pack animals 

can be expected to rise. In very limited cases, a hunter’s inability to use motor vehicles to retrieve 

big game may lead to wanton waste of the animal.

Motorized Areas

The following are the direct and indirect effect of proposed actions that relate to the issues 

presented by added motorized areas. `

Alternative B

Under this alternative, 2,441,804.3 acres of land on the forest would remain open to motorized 

cross-country travel. Without restrictions, opportunities for motorized use are greatest, and benefit 

those who rely on or prefer to use motorized vehicles; however, no restriction on vehicle use has 

the most potential to create conflict between motorized and nonmotorized user groups.

Under this alternative, nonmotorized and motorized places of opportunity overlap (outside of 

designated wilderness and study areas) so users who prefer quieter nonmotorized activities will 

continue to come into contact, with those who are using motorized vehicles. To some 

nonmotorized users, such contact is not an issue, but for those seeking solitude for a variety of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 67

reasons (i.e., hunting, wildlife viewing, etc.) it can be. As a result, such user conflict is expected 

to increase over time under alternative B. 

In the long term, the proliferation of unauthorized routes—particularly in sparsely covered 

landscapes—has the potential to adversely affect the forest’s visual resources. Areas that have a 

more sensitive visual quality objective (i.e., retention or partial retention) may take on 

characteristics of a more modified landscape and exceed their prescribed visual quality objective. 

Alternatives C, F, and G

Alternative C proposes to designate 38 areas totaling 28.3 acres for use by all motor vehicle

classes, and one 7.8-acre area restricted to only ATV and motorcycle use.

The 38 areas proposed for use by all vehicle classes are comprised of traditional motorized 

recreation areas throughout the forest. Typically, these areas have already been disturbed and 

receive predictable use by forest visitors. These areas were also identified through public input.

The prohibition on cross-country motorized travel included in all action alternatives has the 

potential to significantly impact many motor vehicle users. The 38 motorized areas proposed in 

this alternative will do little to address this change; however, motorized designation of these areas 

may fulfill needs and desires of a limited number of motorized users.

The 7.8-acre area proposed for ATV and motorcycle use under this alternative is located in a 

previously disturbed area that currently receives substantial motorized use. User conflicts 

associated with this area are currently few, and are not expected to rise as a result of designation 

as a motorized area.

In addition, motorized and nonmotorized users alike will benefit from the published motor 

vehicle use map that displays the locations of these motorized areas so that they may plan their 

recreational pursuits appropriately.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Recreation opportunity spectrum class settings were determined using management prescriptions 

in the “Gila National Forest Plan.” The action alternatives do not propose motorized route 

additions in primitive or semiprimitive recreation (nonmotorized) settings, where such use is not 

compatible with the recreation opportunity spectrum setting. Route additions are proposed only in 

semiprimitive motorized and roaded natural settings where such use is characteristic. Therefore, 

the range of available recreation opportunity spectrum settings would remain the same in each 

alternative and no recreation opportunity spectrum plan amendments would be needed for any 

alternatives. Recreation opportunity spectrum requirements are described on page 26 of the “Gila 

National Forest Plan,” “Standards and Guidelines” section. 

Listed below are descriptions of the recreation opportunity spectrum classifications for areas 

where proposed motorized routes are located. The definitions given are from the glossary of the 

“Gila National Forest Plan.”

● Semiprimitive motorized: A classification of recreation opportunity spectrum

characterized by moderately dominant alterations by man with strong evidence of

primitive roads and/or trails.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

68 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

● Roaded natural: A classification of recreation opportunity spectrum that characterizes a 

predominantly natural environment with evidence of moderate, permanent alteration 

resources, and resource utilization. Evidence of sights and sounds of man is moderate, but 

in harmony with the general environment. Opportunities exist for social interaction and 

moderate isolation from the sights and sounds of man.

Unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the transportation system under any action 

alternative meet these expectations; therefore, it is concluded that there are no effects to the 

recreation opportunity spectrum settings and effects to recreation opportunity spectrum are not 

discussed in any of the action alternatives.

Visual Quality Objectives

Concern for visual quality impacts of national forest transportation system type road and trail 

features is generally low since such features are small in scale when compared to the overall 

landscape scenes where they exist, and when aspects of roads are seen, they generally do not 

visually dominate it to a degree that invokes a maximum modification visual quality objective.

Forest road and trail features typically consist of more natural surface materials, are narrower in 

widths, and exist with much less frequency or concentration than related highway or urban 

roadways with fewer natural characteristics. When forest system roads and trails are seen, they 

typically result in landscapes that meet the conditions of partial retention to modification visual 

quality objective, both acceptable in areas where route additions are planned.

As described on page 26 of the forest plan, the deviation of a certain percentage of an area’s 

visual quality objective and/or a change from a higher visual quality objective to a lower, is 

acceptable. None of the routes or areas under any of the proposed actions are expected to exceed 

partial retention to modification visual quality objective where planned. 

According to the Gila forest plan, the only visual quality objective that cannot experience change 

is preservation; however, no routes or areas are planned where the preservation visual quality 

objective is managed.

As with recreation opportunity spectrum, it is concluded that no effects to visual quality 

objectives are anticipated under any of the action alternatives, and the subject will not be 

discussed.

Alternative D and E

No areas are proposed. Nonmotorized users benefit the most, and the least amount of user conflict 

is expected.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

The Gila National Forest’s GIS inventory shows that there are 734,380 acres of inventoried 

roadless area on the forest. Of the 4,619.5 miles of motorized routes (roads and trails) open to the 

public, 375.5 miles are within boundaries of these roadless areas. Each action alternative, with the 

exception of alternative C, proposes a combination of changes to the motorized route system that 

results in a net reduction of mileage in these roadless areas. Alternative C proposes a reduction in 

motorized roads, but also proposes an increase in the number of motorized trails.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 69

The following list depicts the resulting change in motorized miles per alternative:

● Alternative C: Increase of 11.3 miles

● Alternative D: Reduction of 113.6 miles

● Alternative E: Reduction of 162.9 miles

● Alternative F: Reduction of 72.8 miles

● Alternative G: Reduction of 76.1 miles

It is concluded that the reduction of overall road mileage as proposed under any action alternative 

only serves to benefit or increase the quality of the roadless characteristics of the inventoried 

roadless areas the Gila National Forest manages. Therefore, the direct impact or effects of this 

will not be discussed further in this document. Indirect effects of motorized use, that is motorized 

associated impacts adjacent to roadless areas, may be found in the recreation specialist report 

(USDA Forest Service 2010b).

No alternative proposes adding new road segments to the system in these areas, but some 

motorized trails are added. The following lists the number of miles of motorized trails proposed 

under each alternative:

● Alternative B: 4.5 (existing)

● Alternative C: 52.6

● Alternative D: 7.4

● Alternative E: 0

● Alternative F: 20.4

● Alternative G: 21.9

Possible effects of adding motorized trails to the system in any of the action alternatives include 

increased conflicts between nonmotorized and motorized users and decreased capacity for quiet 

recreation opportunities. The dispersed and remote nature of these trails, however, could mitigate 

some of these possible effects. 

Cumulative Effects

All national forests in the Southwestern Region are either in the process of travel management 

planning or implementing existing travel management plans. The Bureau of Land Management 

has also made decisions to designate routes for OHV use. All of the new decisions and 

implementation of past land use and travel management decisions are generally resulting in fewer 

opportunities for cross-country OHV uses and fewer open routes for OHV use. These past 

decisions include the establishment of wilderness and other areas that prohibit motor vehicle 

recreation, reducing the motor vehicle access to the forest. Although these past decisions are not 

part of current planning for the “Gila National Forest Travel Management Plan,” they are relevant 

because they are part of the cumulative effects of the travel management plan. The selection of 

any of the action alternatives reduces cross-country access (as required by the Travel 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

70 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Management Rule). However, the range of alternatives provides a varying array of motorized 

recreation opportunities.

Air Quality

This section summarizes the air quality specialist report (USDA Forest Service 2010c).

Introduction

Air quality on National Forest System lands is potentially affected by land management and 

development activities both on and off the forest. Air pollution can affect human health, reduce 

visibility, and contribute to acidic deposition in sensitive, high elevation locations. This analysis 

reviews any potential effects for authorized motorized vehicle travel on the Gila National Forest 

to impact national and State ambient air quality standards, to degrade air quality by more than any 

applicable prevention of significant deterioration increment, to affect Class I wilderness areas, or 

to cause or contribute to visibility impairment beyond any existing conditions. Air pollutants 

related to travel management activities can include vehicle emissions and fine particulate matter 

created primarily by dust from vehicle travel over a dry and unpaved road surface. Local and 

regional air quality is discussed in the following sections as well as potential impacts to health 

(i.e., violating standards) and regional visibility. 

Affected Environment

Regulatory Setting

Air quality in New Mexico is governed by a series of Federal, State and local laws. These laws 

are designed to ensure that air quality in the State are in compliance with the Clean Air Act of 

1970. The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has set national ambient air quality 

standards for six principal pollutants, which are called “criteria” pollutants (USDA Forest Service

2010c). Units of measure for the standards are parts per million (ppm) by volume, milligrams per 

cubic meter of air (mg/m3

), and micrograms per cubic meter of air (μg/m3). These standards (1) 

identify a chemical compound, (2) describe a time period for measurement, and (3) define a 

maximum concentration. 

Ambient air quality standards in New Mexico are found in New Mexico Administrative Code 

20.2.3, and define the upper limit of a pollutant that can be present in outdoor air without harming

the public’s health. They are designed to protect even the most sensitive individuals in nearby 

communities. These standards represent objectives that will preserve air resources within the 

State, while recognizing that at certain times, due to unusual meteorological conditions, these 

standards may be exceeded for short periods of time without the addition of specific pollutants 

into the atmosphere. 

The Freeport-McMoRan Chino Copper Smelter in Grant County, near the Gila National Forest, is 

currently considered an SO2 maintenance area. The maintenance area is defined as a 3.5-mileradius region around the smelter. The maintenance area also includes high elevation areas within 

an 8-mile radius. The State submitted a State implementation plan to the regional EPA 

headquarters in 1978, and a redesignation plan to the EPA in 2003. The EPA approved the 

redesignation plan in 2003.

1 In 2008, the Hurley smelter stack was demolished, thus no further 

 1 http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/Control_Strat/sip/Grant_Text.pdf
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 71

point source emissions are tied to the Chino Copper Smelter. To date, however, the New Mexico 

Air Quality Bureau has not updated any requirements specific to this SO2 maintenance area.

All areas of the Gila National Forest outside of the Gila Wilderness are considered Class II areas 

for air quality. Although additional pollutants are limited in Class II areas, they are less protected 

than Class I areas. In Class II areas, State and Federal regulators set emission limits to meet or 

maintain the Federal criteria pollutant standards and State ambient air quality standards. These 

emission limits must be complied with to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Class II 

areas usually experience ambient pollution levels that limit visibility for many days of the year.

Despite this, the Air Quality Bureau of the New Mexico Environment Department has not 

designated any airsheds in or around the Gila National Forest as being in nonattainment of 

ambient air quality standards.

Gila Wilderness (Hoadley 2008)

The Gila Wilderness existed when the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 were passed, and thus, 

it was designated a Class I area and provided the highest level of protection from additional air 

pollution. The Aldo Leopold and Blue Range Wilderness areas were added to the Wilderness 

Preservation System in 1980, and are considered Class II areas for air quality because they were 

not designated until after 1977.

Air Quality Values at Risk

The Federal Land Managers Air Quality Values Related Workgroup identified in their 2000 

(FLAG 2000) report that the three areas of greatest concern for air quality in Class I and II areas 

under their jurisdiction include: (1) visibility impairment, (2) ozone effects on vegetation, and (3) 

effects of pollutant deposition. Air quality related values at risk from these threats include flora, 

fauna, odor, water, soils, geologic features, and cultural resources. For established air quality

related values (Blankenship 1990), the Gila Wilderness Class I airshed is certified for visibility 

impairment due to regional haze.

Pollution Sources

Prevailing winds on the Gila National Forest are generally from the southwest, though they may 

shift to easterly during the summer monsoon. Primary pollution sources are, therefore, most likely 

located in southeast Arizona, southwest New Mexico, and extreme west Texas. Pollutants are also 

likely being transported across the border from Mexico.

Visibility

Visibility impairment in this area results from regional haze caused by pollutants accumulated

from multiple sources in a region. Emissions from industrial and natural sources may undergo 

chemical changes in the atmosphere to form particles of a size that scatter or absorb light and 

result in reductions in visibility.

Smoke from wildland fire is a large contributor to increased visibility reduction on the worst days 

monitored in the area. In the early summer months, when wildland fire peaks in this area, the 

contribution of organic carbon (likely attributed to wildland fires) is dominant. The greatest 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

72 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

contributor to visibility reduction when fires are not prevalent is ammonium sulfate, which is 

formed from SO2 emissions from industrial sources.

Relative to other parts of the country, the Gila Wilderness has some of the least impacted 

visibility observed, even on the worst days. Visibility in the eastern states is generally more 

limited due to the presence of higher concentrations of water vapor. Visibility impact due to 

organic carbon in this region is primarily from wildfires. In 2004, the Gila showed more impact 

than surrounding areas, but less than either the east or west coast on the worst days.

Ozone

Ozone is considered a secondary pollutant because it forms on warm sunny days when the 

primary pollutants nitrogen oxide (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) are present. In 

addition to its impact on plant and human health, ozone also contributes to regional haze and its 

subsequent visibility impairment. While other air pollutants may negatively affect vegetation, 

ozone is recognized as the one most likely to cause damage. Visible damage to cells may appear 

as spots or dead areas. Decreased growth or altered carbon allocation may also occur. Ponderosa 

pine is one species that is known to be sensitive to ozone in the atmosphere (FLAG 2000).

In 2006, ozone monitors in the southwestern United States indicated that while high 

concentrations are not generally present in this area, cumulative impacts are in the moderate 

range and may be having some impact on ozone sensitive species such as ponderosa pine.

Deposition

Deposition of acidic pollutants through precipitation can result in acidification of water and soil 

resources in areas far removed from the source of the pollution. Work is ongoing to determine the 

sensitivity and critical loads that will cause impacts in some areas. A study in the 1980s found that 

based on the geology, soils and existing water chemistry, the Gila Wilderness had sufficient acidneutralizing capacity to merit a low sensitivity ranking with respect to acid deposition 

(Blankenship 1989).

A wet deposition monitor is maintained by the New Mexico Environment Department at the Gila 

Cliff Dwellings National Monument. Data are available from the National Acid Deposition Web

site: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/siteinfo.asp?id=NM01&net=NTN

Trend plots for SO4 and NO3 from the National Acid Deposition site indicate a decrease over the 

past few years.

Smoke Management 

The Gila National Forest has a memorandum of understanding with the New Mexico 

Environment Department Air Quality Bureau to follow the New Mexico Smoke Management 

Program (State of New Mexico 2004). The smoke management program was developed to protect 

the health and welfare of New Mexicans from the impacts of smoke from all sources of fire, and 

to meet the requirements of the Federal Regional Haze Rule. The objective of the memorandum 

of understanding between New Mexico Environment Department and the forest is to ensure that 

the forest has, and would use, all the tools and information necessary to manage impacts from 

smoke. Particulate monitors would be used to measure smoke concentrations. However, even 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 73

when heavy smoke blankets airsheds in and around the forest, monitoring indicates that National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards have not been exceeded.

Airsheds 

The Gila National Forest occupies portions of four designated airsheds in New Mexico. Table 23

outlines the number of Gila National Forest acres within each airshed.

Table 23. Gila National Forest acres within New Mexico airsheds

Airshed Total Acres in 

Airshed

GNF Acres 

within Airshed

Percent of 

Forest in 

Airshed

Percent of 

Airshed Occupied 

by GNF

Lower Rio Grande 3,613,983 290,744 9% 8%

Western Closed 1,997,830 137,191 4% 7%

Southwestern Closed 3,999,237 219,672 6% 5%

Lower Colorado River 8,679,673 2,744,899 81% 32%

In general, air quality conditions on the Gila National Forest—including the three wilderness 

areas—are very good and there are no violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

While there is room for improvement, visibility in this area is some of the least impaired in the 

Nation. Primary contributors to visibility reduction include organic carbon associated with 

wildland fire and sulfates from industrial sources such as copper smelting and electric power 

generation. While there is some indication of elevated ozone levels, they rarely exceed levels 

determined to be harmful to vegetation. A cumulative effects index indicates moderate conditions,

but values are lower than in neighboring areas. Deposition monitoring indicates a decreasing 

trend in some of the more harmful pollutants. This is likely a result of reduced activity in the 

copper smelting industry.

Climate Change

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has asserted that scientists know with virtual 

certainty that human activities are changing the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere. It is also 

documented that “greenhouse” gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous 

oxide (N2O), and hydrofluorocarbons have been increasing (EPA 2010). The atmospheric buildup 

of these gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

Greenhouse gases absorb infrared energy that would otherwise be reflected from the Earth. As the 

infrared energy is absorbed, air surrounding the Earth is heated (CARB 2007).

The Southwestern Region of the Forest Service recently released “Southwestern Region Climate 

Change – Trends and Forest Planning,” May 2010. The following information is summarized 

from excerpts of this publication:

“In the Southwest, climate modelers agree there is a drying trend that will continue well into 

the latter part of 21st century” (IPCC 2007 and Seager et al. 2007). The modelers predict 

increased precipitation, but believe that the overall balance between precipitation and 

evaporation would still likely result in an overall decrease in available moisture. Regional 

drying and warming trends have occurred twice during the 20th century (1930s Dust Bowl, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

74 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

and the 1950s Southwest Drought). The current drought conditions “may very well become 

the new climatology of the American Southwest within a timeframe of years to decades.” 

According to recent modeling, the slight warming trend observed in the last 100 years in the 

Southwest may continue into the next century, with the greatest warming to occur during 

winter. These climate models depict temperatures rising approximately 5 to 8 degrees 

Fahrenheit by the end of the century (IPCC 2007). This trend would increase pressures on the 

region’s already limited water supplies, as well as increase energy demand, alter fire regimes 

and ecosystems, create risks for human health, and affect agriculture (Sprigg and Hinkley

2000). 

Due to the limitations of climate models, as stated above, site-specific analysis of climate change 

at the forest level in regards to implementing the Travel Management Rule remains improbable.

Several unknowns further limit the discussion and analysis. These include lack of data regarding 

traffic numbers and projected increases or decreases in motorized visitors or passersby to the 

forest, limited data and knowledge of current effects to ecosystem resiliency within the forest as a 

result of motorized travel, and limited knowledge of surrounding areas’ contributions to current 

and future climate impacts to assess cumulative effects.

Projected future climate change may possibly affect New Mexico in a variety of ways. Public 

health can suffer with an increase in extreme temperatures and severe weather events resulting in 

escalating transmission of infections, disease, and air pollution. Agriculture is vulnerable to 

altered temperature and rainfall patterns, and new pest problems. Forest ecosystems could face 

increased fire hazards and may be more susceptible to pests and diseases. Snowpacks could 

shrink and winter runoff may start in midwinter, not spring, with rain falling on snow triggering 

flood events.

While the future of climate change and its effects across the Southwest remains uncertain, it is 

certain that climate variability will continue to occur across the Gila National Forest. Forest 

management activities should strive for promoting resilience and resistance of natural resources 

to impacts of climate change. Implementation should focus on maintenance and restoration of 

resilient native ecosystems, thus reducing the ecosystems’ vulnerability to variations in climate.

Diversity remains an integral component in these native ecosystems and synchronization should 

be avoided so that one failure does not lead to a domino effect. Projects must promote connected 

landscapes and endeavor to reset significantly disrupted animal and plant communities, thus 

restoring their flexibility to changes in climate. Management across the forest will have to 

respond accordingly to climate change to minimize negative impacts from any ongoing or 

proposed activity.

Fugitive Dust

Fugitive dust is primarily lightweight soil particles, including silt and clay that rise to the 

atmosphere in an unconfined flow stream and become suspended in the air. It typically is a result

of mechanical disturbance of granular material, but can also be a result of wind action on exposed 

soil. Fugitive road dust is a result of motor vehicle use on dry road surfaces.

Although a small amount of fugitive dust occurs naturally, the EPA lists road dust as the largest 

single source of particulate matter in the air (EPA 2005).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 75

Motorized use on dirt roads, in particular during windy weather conditions, can increase fugitive 

dust levels. Dust is created and raised into the air as motorized vehicles travel along the road 

surface and disturb soil crusts, break down soils, and generate wind currents. Once soil surfaces 

are disturbed, wind erosion may continue to perpetuate fugitive dust in the air (Lovich and 

Bainbridge 1999). Adjacent to roads, dust generated from motorized traffic can cover plants,

which can interfere with their growth by clogging pores and reducing light interception. In 

addition, fugitive dust can cause low visibility on unpaved roads. 

Vehicle Emissions

Vehicle emissions in the project area are most concentrated along secondary highways. The forest 

does not have jurisdiction on vehicle use levels or emissions in any of these concentrated 

motorized areas. Recreation motorized use and emissions in the project area are more localized to 

roads and motorized trails, with generally sufficient wind dispersion to avoid air quality concerns. 

The EPA has set standards for emissions of nonroad engines and vehicles (snowmobiles, ATVs, 

boats, etc.). The standards for emission of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), and 

carbon monoxide (CO) are to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act, and to regulate those 

emissions that contribute significantly to the formation of ozone and carbon monoxide. 

Compliance with these standards requires manufacturers to apply existing gasoline or diesel 

engine technologies to varying degrees, depending on the type of engine. OHV emissions also 

contain a variety of heavy metals, including zinc, copper, nickel, chromium, and lead.

Methodology and Assumptions

The analysis area under consideration for air quality impacts is the area within a radius of 62 

miles (100 km) from the edge of the project area. New Mexico Environmental Department’s air 

quality permitting system suggests that sources within a radius of 62 miles be considered, 

especially those located downwind of the project. Cumulative effects for air quality take into 

account the impacts of the alternatives when combined with past, present, and foreseeable future 

actions and events. Past actions may have no effect if the action is no longer contributing 

emissions to the air. Data sources and a comprehensive list of assumptions are listed in the 

specialist report. Several of the main assumptions are:

● Fugitive dust is the major air pollutant from native surface roads. Other pollutants from 

roads, such as trace metals and manmade chemicals may be attached to dust. Thus, the 

relative effects of the alternatives with regard to fugitive dust apply to trace metals and 

manmade chemicals.

● The designation of motorized routes does not translate to changes in emissions of 

vehicles that use the forest, just location of where emission may occur.

● Minimal fugitive dust emissions will be produced from motorized dispersed camping 

within designated corridors and areas. Acres associated with this activity will not be 

included in this analysis.

● Minimal fugitive dust emissions will be produced from motorized big game retrieval over 

vegetated surfaces. Acres associated with this activity will not be included in this 

analysis.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

76 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

● The majority of dust generated from roads is a direct result of motorized traffic on the 

roads. Wind erosion plays a minor role.

● Road miles are converted to acres of disturbance (miles of road x assumed road widths) 

based on road maintenance levels.

Environmental Consequences

Each alternative is analyzed to determine if there is potential for motorized vehicle travel on the 

Gila National Forest to degrade air quality, contribute to violations of National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards, contribute to visibility impairment, or affect the Gila Wilderness Class I 

airshed beyond its current condition. Direct effects to air quality by motorized use on native 

surface routes are directly related to the level of use the forest receives. While this project will not 

result in a change in the levels of use, it will result in a change in the locations of use and acres 

available for negative impacts. Table 24 provides a summary of potential acres of roaded areas 

that would be available for vehicular traffic to produce fugitive dust.

Under alternatives C, D, E, F, and G, fewer miles of roads and trails are open for motorized use as 

compared to alternative B (no action). Alternative B would not produce fugitive dust beyond the 

amount produced currently by routine forest management or user activities. The effects of 

alternatives C, D, E, F, and G would be similar to alternative B, except that impacts from fugitive 

dust and vehicle emissions may be reduced because fewer miles and acres of roaded disturbance 

would be available for motorized vehicle use. It is possible that the same amount of motorized 

use would occur across the forest, with users increasing their activities on the remaining open 

routes, if other routes are made unavailable (closed). Closed roads would continue to be a minor 

source of fugitive dust during wind events until the road has been decommissioned, or naturally 

returns to pre-road conditions. 

Roaded areas available for disturbance are displayed: (1) forestwide, (2) by each of the four 

airsheds occupied by the Gila National Forest, and (3) by the Gila Wilderness Class I airshed.

Analysis indicates that, forestwide, alternative E provides the greatest reduction in potential 

roaded acres (-39 percent) that may impact air quality and reduce visibility within a Class I 

airshed, followed by alternative D (-25 percent). Alternatives F (-17 percent) and G (-18 percent) 

reduce motorized routes by virtually the same amounts. Alternative C provides the least reduction 

in motorized routes (-1 percent), and would leave the most roaded acres available for potential 

disturbance.

Table 24. Forestwide potential air quality impacts by alternative

Miles and Acres with 

Potential to Contribute 

to Fugitive Dust and 

Add to Visibility 

Impairment Forestwide

Miles

Change 

in Miles 

from No 

Action

Percent

Increase or 

Decrease 

from No 

Action

Acres

Change 

in Acres 

from No 

Action

Percent

Increase or 

Decrease 

from No 

Action

Alternative B – No Action 4,686 6,894

Alternative C 4,633 -54 -1% 6,818 -77 -1%

Alternative D 3,441 -1,245 -27% 5,179 -1,715 -25%

Alternative E 2,756 -1,930 -41% 4,215 -2,679 -39%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 77

Miles and Acres with 

Potential to Contribute 

to Fugitive Dust and 

Add to Visibility 

Impairment Forestwide

Miles

Change 

in Miles 

from No 

Action

Percent

Increase or 

Decrease 

from No 

Action

Acres

Change 

in Acres 

from No 

Action

Percent

Increase or 

Decrease 

from No 

Action

Alternative F 3,817 -869 -19% 5,713 -1,181 -17%

Alternative G 3,785 -901 -19% 5,666 -1,228 -18%

Cumulative Effects

In all action alternatives, the cumulative effects of fugitive dust on air quality caused by the 

proposed change in motorized travel on designated routes—combined with all other activities—

would result in only negligible differences than those currently occurring. Fine particulate matter 

from road dust would combine with other particulates produced during implementation of forest 

projects such as prescribed burning and harvest operations. Future implementation of projects offforest (i.e., State, private, BLM lands) such as prescribed burns, harvest and mining operations, 

and travel on native surface roads, would also contribute particles.

No data support predictions of the amount of particulates contributed by all of these other 

sources. In addition, past impacts to air quality are not usually evident. Motorized travel 

emissions would only be combined with other localized sources. Due to low traffic volume, these 

emissions are fairly low across the Gila National Forest and disperse rather quickly. Actual 

cumulative effects would be relatively minor and should show little change in any alternative 

from the existing condition. Depending on timing with other projects, some combinations of 

fugitive dust from motorized routes and other particulates in the air could contribute to further 

reduce visibility for short time periods within the Gila Wilderness Class I airshed. Emissions 

produced by motorized vehicles in use across the forest would continue to contribute to 

greenhouse gases, as under current conditions. 

Conclusions about Alternative Effects

The Gila National Forest is meeting New Mexico Air Quality Standards and meeting forest plan 

standards and guidelines under the no action alternative, and would continue to meet all laws, 

regulations, and policies with implementation of any of the action alternatives.

Watershed and Soils

This section summarizes the watershed and soils specialist report (USDA Forest Service 2010d).

Affected Environment

Watershed

Lands managed by the Gila National Forest drain into seven major river basins within New 

Mexico. Within these river basins, 41 5th-code watersheds intersect portions of the forest. These 

5th-code watersheds can be further divided into 6th-code subwatersheds. These watersheds and 

subwatersheds are geographic areas of land, water, and biota within the confines of a drainage 

divide that define the aerial extent of surface water drainage to a point. Due to the landscape level 

scale of this project, the analysis will address effects at the 5th-code watershed level, which can 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

78 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

range in size from 70,000 acres to 250,000 acres on the forest. The 6th-code watershed level will 

be utilized during discussion of road densities and cumulative watershed effects.

A general assessment of watershed condition of the forest was completed as part of the “Gila 

National Forest Plan” (1986). This assessment was based on whether the existing effective 

ground cover was adequate to ensure long-term soil productivity (existing ground cover greater 

than tolerance ground cover), and whether ground cover was enough to provide for satisfactory 

hydrologic function. Acreage was classified as being in one of three condition classes—optimum, 

satisfactory or unsatisfactory—and then compiled by condition class for each 5th-code watershed.

Watershed conditions of satisfactory are considered to meet the satisfactory criteria as outlined in 

the forest plan. Watersheds are rated in unsatisfactory condition when optimum and satisfactory 

condition acres within the watershed are less than the number of acres classified as unsatisfactory.

Forestwide, four 5th-code watersheds (10 percent) are classified in optimum condition, twentytwo 5th-code watersheds (52 percent) are classified in satisfactory condition, and sixteen 5th-code 

watersheds (38 percent) are classified in unsatisfactory condition.

Vegetation and ground cover play a key role in keeping watersheds intact. In higher elevations 

where ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands are found, watershed conditions are typically 

satisfactory, with thick duff layers and deep soils contributing to stability. In lower elevations

where woodlands are present, soils are often shallow and may be coupled with less ground cover,

which can lead to more unstable watershed conditions, particularly when subjected to natural or 

man-caused disturbances.

Wildland fire is probably the most significant natural disturbance that impacts watersheds. Where 

high intensity wildland fires have occurred over large acreages, watershed conditions can rapidly 

deteriorate due to sudden lack of vegetative ground cover, lack of rainfall interception, and 

resultant poor hydrologic conditions. When severe fires create poor hydrologic conditions (less 

than 10 percent of the ground surface covered with plants and litter), surface runoff can increase 

over 70 percent, and erosion can increase by three orders of magnitude (DeBano et al. 1998).

Poor hydrologic conditions have resulted in areas of the forest that have had high, or even 

moderate, burn severity.

Anthropogenic disturbances are another key contributor of impacts to watershed conditions. The 

current transportation system across the forest is one of the more prominent, land-disturbing 

activities occurring. This system is comprised of open routes (road and trails), motorized crosscountry travel, and motorized dispersed camping use. The transportation system currently impacts 

both upland and valley bottom resources. The primary impacts to watershed condition include 

soil compaction, soil erosion, sedimentation, stream channel degradation, riparian degradation, 

and vegetation disturbance. High road densities can additionally contribute to unsatisfactory 

watershed conditions by increasing the connected disturbed areas associated with roads to the 

drainage network, or increasing the number of stream crossings within a watershed.

Soils 

Currently the Gila National Forest does not have a terrestrial ecosystem survey coverage and 

associated interpretations completed on the forest. It does have the general ecosystem survey, an 

ecological unit inventory, mapped at 1:250,000 scale. The general ecosystem survey identified 28 

distinct ecological map units and associated map unit components over the forest, which indicates 

high soil variability. The general ecosystem survey maps soils, climate, geology, potential natural 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 79

vegetation, and topography. It also provides various map unit interpretations such as soil 

condition and erosion hazard. Though the general ecosystem survey is a broad-scale inventory, it 

is the best available survey currently for the forest. Approximately 53 percent of the soil condition 

on the forest rated satisfactory (table 25) and 45 percent of the forest is categorized as having a 

rating of slight for erosion hazard (table 26).

Table 25. Summary of soils conditions on Gila National Forest

Soil Condition Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsuited

Acres 1,812,649 861,620 714,928

Percent 53% 25% 21%

Table 26. Summary of erosion hazard on Gila National Forest

Erosion Hazard Slight Moderate Severe

Acres 1,517,271 411,958 1,459,967

Percent 45% 12% 43%

The geology of the forest can be characterized as extremely variable. The Gila National Forest 

lies within the Mogollon Plateau of the Mogollon-Datil volcanic field. The area is highly variable 

as to its surface geology types and associated composition due to the undergoing basin and range 

extension and faulting, in conjunction with erosion. The geology of the forest is dominated by 

rhyolite, rhyolitic tuff and ash flow tuff, andesites, basalt, basaltic andesite, granite, and 

sedimentary rocks including limestone and gila conglomerate. It has been noted that soil erosion 

is higher on soils that were formed and underlain by granite, rhyolitic ashflow tuffs, gila 

conglomerate and volcanic sediments.

Vegetation

In 2009, the region and forest completed a mid-scale existing vegetation mapping project and 

associated accuracy assessment on the Gila National Forest. The map is a satellite remote sensing 

product that is polygon based and provides a mid-scale map at a scale of 1:100,000. The project 

incorporated satellite remote sensing and extensive vegetation plot training data that were 

collected in the field forestwide. The training data were used for modeling purposes. A total of 32 

dominance types were initially identified on the forest, and these dominance types were field 

sampled extensively. Dominance types were identified and named according to principal life form 

and most abundant species occurring within that life form. Life forms mapped include trees, 

shrubs, and grasses. Through the process of performing the accuracy assessment, the initial 32 

dominance types were aggregated into map units, for a total of 18 map units in the final product. 

Products from the mid-scale existing vegetation project were a map of vegetative cover type by 

life form (tree, shrub, herbaceous) and dominant species, map of vegetative canopy cover classes 

(10 to 29 percent, 30 to 59 percent, and greater than 60 percent) and vegetation structure 

(dominant tree diameter classes and shrub height). Table 27 displays this information.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

80 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 27. Mid-scale existing vegetation map units on Gila National Forest

Mid-Scale Existing Vegetation Map Unit Descriptions Acres Percent

Sparsely vegetated (less than 10 percent canopy cover of any one life form) 6,932 0.20

Grasslands 275,388 8.12

Deciduous shrub mix 19,625 0.58

Evergreen shrub mix 43,949 1.29

Alligator juniper 99,573 2.94

One seed juniper and piñon pine 327,368 9.66

Woodlands mixed (combinations of mixes of piñon, juniper and gray oak) 1,001,191 29.53

Evergreen oak (pure and mixed stands of gray oak, silverleaf oak, and netleaf oak) 245,027 7.23

Gambel oak 31,568 0.93

Ponderosa pine (pure ponderosa pine and pine stands with alligator juniper or gambel 

oak)

1,105,016 32.59

Ponderosa pine and gray oak 14,614 0.43

Aspen 8,738 0.26

Douglas-fir mixed (Douglas-fir and combinations of Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine, 

white pine, gambel oak)

103,844 3.06

White fir or white fir and Douglas-fir mixed. 33,521 0.99

Mixed conifer and gambel oak (mixed combinations of Douglas-fir, white fir, ponderosa 

pine, white pine with gambel oak)

51,475 1.52

Mixed conifer and aspen (mixed combinations of Douglas-fir, white fir, white pine, 

Engelmann spruce, corkbark fir with aspen)

8,200 0.24

Mixed conifer (mixed combinations of Engelmann spruce, corkbark fir, white fir, blue 

spruce, Douglas-fir)

11,764 0.35

Engelmann spruce and corkbark fir 2,540 0.07

Water 309 0.01

Total 3,390,642

Aquatic Resources

Water resources on the forest include streams, wetlands, riparian areas, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, 

and numerous stock ponds and tanks. There are approximately 1,171 miles of perennial streams 

and 541 miles (GIS NHD) of intermittent streams on the forest. The remaining drainages are 

considered ephemeral, of which there are approximately 12,821 miles of these systems across the 

forest. Open water comprises almost 300 surface acres when including Quemado Lake, Snow 

Lake, and Lake Roberts. In addition, approximately 1,200 surface acres of open water may be 

associated with stock ponds and other storage tanks, when filled to capacity. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 81

Riparian and Wetland

The forest has many perennial and intermittent streams and wetlands that provide riparian habitat 

for terrestrial wildlife, fisheries, avian fauna, and fauna. These unique areas also provide for 

aesthetic resources, natural water purification processes, flood control, and opportunities for 

agricultural and recreational uses. Riparian ecosystems essentially constitute the transition area 

between the aquatic ecosystem and the adjacent terrestrial system.

Vegetation types commonly associated with riparian areas on the Gila National Forest include 

both a woody component and herbaceous component. Woody species commonly found include 

narrowleaf and Fremont cottonwood, Arizona and thinleaf alder, baccharis, Arizona walnut, 

willow species, box elder, velvet ash, and others. Herbaceous species include sedges, rushes, 

Kentucky bluegrass, deer grass, and other water loving grasses and forbs.

In an effort to quantify acres and location of riparian areas that may be most at risk to negative 

impacts from motorized vehicles, a riparian risk zone was considered for this analysis. Using 

existing riparian width data from Riparian Area Survey and Evaluation System (RASES) data, the 

average width of forest riparian areas is 155 feet, with a median width of 90 feet. About 97

percent of all riparian areas assessed with RASES have a width of 500 feet or less. Four drainages 

have reaches measuring over 500 feet, including Mogollon Creek, Gallinas Canyon, Gila River, 

and South Diamond Creek. Very limited miles of roads are found within these drainages. 

Based on the above information, it was determined that a 300-foot buffer on either side of 

perennial and intermittent drainages would be suitable to use as a riparian risk zone, knowing that 

a few exceptions occur across the forest where the riparian zone goes beyond a 600 foot total 

width. Although still not quantifying acres of riparian areas found on the forest, the 300-foot

buffer captures the majority of riparian areas while at the same time providing some level of 

buffer protection beyond the true riparian zone. 

The 300-foot buffer for the riparian risk zone captures most wetland systems on the forest, in 

particular those associated with stream systems. Wetland conditions across the forest vary, with 

some wetlands being intact with limited disturbance, while others have experienced some level of 

dewatering or degradation due to ungulate grazing or anthropogenic activities. 

Upland Wet Meadows

Upland meadows across the forest range in elevation from 4,300 feet to 9,600 feet, however, the 

majority of these meadows are located at elevations averaging approximately 7,800 feet. They are 

typically associated with ponderosa pine and mixed conifer vegetation types. The upland wet 

meadows typically have bluegrass as one of the dominant herbaceous cover types. To date, the 

forest does not have an inventory of these systems, thus other methods were used to aid in their 

identification. Across the forest, 103 upland wet meadows were identified, totaling 432 acres and

ranging in size from 0.2 acre to 69 acres. The average size of these meadows is approximately 4 

acres.

Water Quality 

Potential adverse effects from forest management activities are nonpoint sources, as opposed to 

point sources of water pollution. To ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act, water quality 

standards are set by the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. New Mexico’s Surface 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

82 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Water Quality Standards define water quality goals by designating uses for waterbodies, setting 

criteria to protect those uses, and establishing provisions to preserve water quality. Under Section 

303(d)(1) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to develop a list of waters within a state that 

are not in compliance with water quality standards. Reaches of streams that are in some state of 

nonattainment are documented in “Draft 2010–2012 Integrated 303d)/305(b) List of Impaired 

Waters” (State of New Mexico 2010) which was approved in April 2010 by the Water Quality 

Control Commission. EPA final approval is still pending. 

Currently there are 29 waterbodies (streams and lakes) within or adjacent to National Forest 

System land that are not meeting State water quality standards. This list may be found in the 

watershed and soils specialist report (USDA Forest Service 2010d). Of these, 12 reaches have 

listed a probable source of impairment as off-road vehicles; highway, road, or bridge runoff; or 

surface or parking lot runoff. Five of the stream reaches document a probable cause of 

impairment as turbidity, which may be directly or indirectly linked to roads. Twenty of the stream 

reaches document a probable cause of impairment as water temperature, which may also be 

indirectly linked to roads if stream channel geometry has been altered due to road modified 

runoff.

The list includes only those waters assessed by the State of New Mexico on the Gila National 

Forest. However, all ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams carry storm water runoff that 

can contribute to water quality impairments. Routes found within or adjacent to these stream 

systems and/or wetland, riparian and aquatic habitats pose the most risk of contributing nonpoint 

source pollution to these resources. 

Table 28 summarizes watershed characteristics across the Gila National Forest.

Table 28. Summary of forestwide watershed characteristics

Feature Characteristics

Location · Southwest corner of New Mexico

· Mogollon Mountains in north-central portion of forest

· Black Range Mountains along southeastern portion of forest (Continental Divide)

· Approximately 150 miles southwest of Albuquerque

· Abuts the Arizona-New Mexico state line

Elevation · Low end approximately 4,160 feet where the Gila River exits the forest in the Burro 

Mountains

· High end approximately 10,770 feet at Mogollon Baldy in the central portion of the forest

Climate · Bi-modal precipitation pattern

· Majority of precipitation occurs from July through September (monsoon) 

· Winter precipitation occurs from December through February, with snowfall occurring 

above 6,500 feet

· Precipitation varies across forest from 11 inches per year at the northern end near 

Quemado and lower Black Range, to 35 inches per year at the higher elevations in the 

Mogollon Mountains

Aquatic Features · 1,171 miles of perennial streams

· 541 miles of intermittent streams

· 12,820 miles of ephemeral streams

· 13 miles of water pipeline

· 16 miles of ditches

· 289 surface acres of lakes

· 432 acres of upland wet meadows
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 83

Table 28. Summary of forestwide watershed characteristics

Major Drainage 

Basins or Rivers

· San Francisco River and its headwaters which flow into Arizona and eventually the Gila 

River 

· Upper Gila River and its headwaters which flow into Arizona and eventually into the 

Colorado River near Yuma

· Mimbres River and its headwaters which flow south of the forest into a closed basin within 

the Rio Grande region above the International U.S.-Mexico border

· Northernmost portion of forest flows northwest into Little Colorado River via tributaries

· Eastern portion of forest flows east, southeast into Rio Grande via tributaries

Watersheds · 41 5th-code watersheds that intersect the forest with average size of 210,000 acres

· 190 6th-code watersheds that intersect the forest with average size of 25,000 acres

Designated Uses of 

Water

Domestic water supply, coldwater aquatic life, fish culture, high quality coldwater aquatic 

life, irrigation, livestock watering, marginal coldwater aquatic life, marginal warmwater 

aquatic life, primary contact, secondary contact, warmwater aquatic life, wildlife habitat.

Water Quality · 29 waterbodies within or adjacent to forest not meeting State water quality standards 

· 12 of 29 list probable source of impairment as off-road vehicles, highway and road and 

bridge runoff, or surface and parking lot runoff.

· 5 of 29 listed for turbidity which may be linked indirectly to roads

Riparian Condition · 132 reaches assessed using proper functioning condition (PFC) assessment

· 54 percent of these in proper functioning condition

· 36 percent of these functional at risk (FAR)

· 10 percent of these nonfunctional

· 64 percent currently meeting forest plan standards of PFC or FAR - Upward Trend

· 326 reaches inventoried using RASES

· Average riparian width across forest is 155 feet

· Median riparian width across forest is 90 feet

Soil Conditions · satisfactory soil condition = 53 percent

· unsatisfactory soil condition = 25 percent

· unsuited soil condition = 21 percent

· slight erosion hazard = 45 percent

· moderate erosion hazard = 12 percent

· severe erosion hazard = 43 percent

Roads · More than 5,200 miles of roads and trails, a large portion of which are not paved

· A small portion of the unpaved roads are not system roads, they are created by recreational 

use.

Existing Forest 

Road Density in 

5th-code 

Watersheds

· 90 percent of the 5th-code watersheds have a road density of less than 1 mile of road per 

square mile of land (mi/mi2). 

· 10 percent of the 5th-code watersheds have road density of 1 to 2 mi/mi2.

· No 5th-code watersheds have a road density of greater than 2 mi/mi2

.

Existing Forest 

Road Density in 

6th-code 

Watersheds

· 76 percent of the 6th-code watersheds have a road density of less than 1 mile of road per 

square mile of land (mi/mi2).

· 20 percent of the 6th-code watersheds have a road density of 1 to 2 mi/mi2.

· 4 percent of the 6th-code watersheds have a road density of greater than 2 mi/mi2

)

Important Assumptions Pertinent to the Summary

The following assumptions were made for this analysis and are important to understanding the 

effects analysis. This is not a complete list of assumptions that were made for the analysis; see the 

watershed and soils specialist report (USDA Forest Service 2010d) for further information related

to other assumptions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

84 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

● The action alternatives involve the closure of routes to vehicle use by the public and not 

the physical removal (decommissioning) of roads. Removal of roads typically involves 

the extraction of culverts, the ripping of the road surface, and in some cases, the recontouring of the ground surface to blend in with the natural topography. It typically can 

take more than 20 years for closed roads to revegetate to background conditions, if traffic 

is successfully eliminated. 

● Closed routes without fixed barriers are expected to revegetate minimally. These routes 

will not disappear from the landscape until decommissioned, and will continue to be a 

source of sediment and erosion to some degree. 

● An undetermined number of unauthorized routes exist which are not included in any 

current inventory. 

● Sediment is the major pollutant from native surface roads. Most other pollutants from 

roads, such as trace metals and manmade chemicals are attached to sediment (Gucinski et 

al. 2001and Dissmeyer 2000). Thus, the relative effects of the alternatives with regard to 

sediment apply to trace metals and manmade chemicals. 

● Disturbance within 300 feet of streams has the greatest potential to impact water quality

via overland flow (Burroughs and King 1989 and Belt, O’Laughlin, and Merrill 1992).

● The most important factors influencing the risk of adverse effects to water quality from 

unpaved roads are related to the length (and associated acres) of unpaved roads near a 

stream, the distance of the unpaved roads from a stream, and the number of times that 

unpaved roads cross the stream. 

● Riparian risk zones are considered areas within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent 

streams. Average riparian width based on RASES data across the forest is 175 feet. This 

risk zone is assumed to be inclusive of more than 97 percent of all riparian areas across 

the forest, minus four of the larger riverine systems. 

● Existing road system has already committed soil resources to loss of productivity.

● Routes connected to the drainage network provide some level of sediment transport, 

regardless of whether drainage is perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral. These sediment 

inputs vary, based on duration and frequency of flow events. During short-duration, highintensity storm events, ephemeral drainages can carry a considerable amount of sediment, 

some of it generated by roads. 

Environmental Consequences

The alternatives are analyzed in the following sections to determine if there is potential for the 

changes proposed under each alternative to impact critical ecological functions that affect 

watershed condition and health. Components reviewed in this analysis include soil resources, 

riparian and wetland resources, and water quality. Other factors related to road and trail 

conditions were examined to evaluate the relative risk of motorized uses to disrupt hydrologic 

function and potentially impact watershed health. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 85

Effects to Soils

The effects to soils by motorized uses on native surface routes are directly related to the impact 

the road footprint has on the landscape, as well as the impact the vehicle has both directly, and 

indirectly, on the ground itself. This project will result in a change in the levels of use of a 

particular road, however, no alternative poses decommissioning or obliteration of any roads to 

return them to a more natural state. Tables that summarize acres of motorized routes that pose a 

relative risk of adverse impacts to soils, by alternative, as well as potential acres that may be 

impacted by motorized dispersed recreation, motorized areas, and motorized big game retrieval 

are found in the watershed and soils specialist report (USDA Forest Service 2010d).

General Direct and Indirect Effects 

of Motorized Routes Common to All Alternatives

Effects that carry through all alternatives are related to soil compaction, loss of soil productivity, 

concentrated runoff resulting in erosion and sediment production, and loss of vegetative ground 

cover of existing routes. The presence of roads across the Gila National Forest has already 

resulted in negative impacts to the soil resource. With the implementation of any of the action 

alternatives, there will be a continued commitment of the soil resource and associated negative 

impacts, with effects remaining the same, increasing, or decreasing. Impacts to the soil resource 

will vary to some degree by alternative, with the potential for negative impacts varying by the 

number of roads that will remain open for motorized use, acres available for motorized crosscountry travel, acres of motorized dispersed camping and motorized areas affected by parking one 

vehicle length off road in each proposal. Negative effects are not limited to the road prism alone, 

but include direct and indirect effects to areas adjacent to the motorized route. Roads are a major 

source of sediment and contribute more offsite sediment than any other land management activity 

(Gibbons and Salo 1973, Meehan 1991). 

Soil compaction is a direct result of the weight of a motor vehicle and its wheels contacting the 

ground surface. The heavier the vehicle, the more contact pressure (pounds per square inch) the 

tire exerts on the ground surface. As tire width increases in relation to the weight of the vehicle, 

less contact pressure (psi) is exerted by the tire on the ground surface. Soil compaction occurs 

when soil particles are pressed together, reducing the amount and size of pore spaces between soil 

particles. The higher the clay content of a soil, the more susceptible it is to compaction. When 

soils are wet, they are much more susceptible to compaction, and to a greater depth, than when 

dry. As a result of soil compaction, a series of additional direct impacts occur to soils including, 

but not limited to, decreased soil porosity, increased soil bulk density, reduced infiltration rates, 

increased surface runoff, increased surface erosion, reduced nutrient cycling, and reduced plant 

growth. 

Compacted soils can persist for many years, and variables such as how severely a soil was 

compacted and to what depth compaction occurred dictate time of recovery. Compaction of soils 

by motorized use results in a series of indirect effects that can be detrimental to soil productivity, 

watershed condition, and water quality. 

Loss of soil productivity occurred when the route was established, and is still occurring to 

varying degrees. In addition, loss of soil productivity to areas adjacent to motorized routes has 

and is still occurring. Factors contributing to the motorized route’s loss of soil productivity, or to 

areas adjacent to motorized routes include: inadequate maintenance, inadequate drainage, poor 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

86 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

route and or drainage design, and poor route location. Loss of soil productivity to areas adjacent 

to motorized routes occurs as sheet, rill and gully erosion.

Concentrated runoff resulting in soil erosion and sediment production is the primary agent of 

erosion and sediment production on native surface motorized routes and areas adjacent to—or 

connected to—the route. Factors influencing the degree of concentrated runoff include: drainage 

features, route design, route location, and maintenance levels. Though concentrated runoff is the 

primary source of soil loss and erosion from native road surfaces, soil loss also occurs in the form 

of dust from motorized routes. The release of dust into the air is a result of the interaction of tires 

on the native road surface and the mechanical displacement of soil particles. Wind is another 

agent that can remove soil particles from motorized routes. These are typically smaller soil 

particles, but as wind velocity increases, larger soil particles become more susceptible to being 

removed from the route.

Loss of vegetative ground cover has occurred on all motorized routes. Maintenance level 3 and 

4 roads are typically bladed every year or so, and are generally void of vegetative ground cover. 

Maintenance level 1 and 2 routes receive less frequent maintenance, have lower use levels, and 

have varying degrees of vegetative ground cover associated with the road prism. Vegetative 

ground cover assists in reducing the effects of erosion from concentrated flows and wind on 

motorized routes and areas adjacent to them.

General Direct and Indirect Effects of Motorized Off-Road 

Travel Common to All Alternatives Including the No Action Alternative

The effects described below will remain the same for any changes described in each alternative. 

However, the degree of effect will vary by alternative, based on the change in route miles and 

permitted cross-country travel. 

Effects of motorized off-road travel by all vehicle types (for the purpose of camping, parking, 

game retrieval, and recreational use) to soil productivity include soil compaction, loss of 

vegetative ground cover, decreased soil porosity, increased soil bulk density, displacement of 

litter or duff layer leaving bare soil exposed, soil displacement, reduced infiltration rates, 

decreased plant growth, disturbance to soil biotic crusts, and reduced nutrient cycling. All of these 

lead to increased and concentrated overland flow and sediment transport to downslope areas and

connected stream courses following storm events, which pose a risk to long-term soil 

productivity, downstream water quality, and overall watershed condition. Impacts from motorized 

off-road travel are most pronounced when soils are wet, and are minimized under dry soil 

conditions. 

Typically, a single one-time pass on a piece of ground has minimal effects to vegetation and the 

soil resource. It is when there are repeated passes, or when a new route is established, that 

negative effects start to occur to vegetation and the soil resource. Slope also plays a critical role 

on the magnitude of the effects that cross-country travel has on vegetation and soil productivity. 

As slope that a vehicle is traveling on increases, either parallel or perpendicular to, the greater the 

amount of ground disturbance that occurs. Due to wheel slip or churn and the forces of gravity, 

more vegetation, litter, and soil are displaced. This exposes bare soil that can potentially be 

moved offsite, and may lead to accelerated erosion, consequently reducing soil productivity, soil 

quality, and overall watershed condition. Off-road travel on soils with moderate or high erosion 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 87

hazard is more likely to induce accelerated erosion, runoff, and sediment delivery into connected 

stream courses.

On soils with slight erosion hazard, the direct impacts of cross-country travel activities are not 

expected to result in accelerated soil erosion, but will cause loss of soil productivity when 

vegetative ground cover is removed, soil is compacted, or rutting occurs. Cross-country travel on 

soils with unsatisfactory or unsuited soil condition ratings are more likely to realize negative 

impacts in the form of loss of soil productivity and erosion than travel on soils with satisfactory 

soil condition ratings. 

Following is a summary of potential effects to soils: 

● This project does not address decommissioning; all road scars will remain with the 

addition of a few roads added to the system (i.e., converting of decommissioned to 

motorized route or trail). Until decommissioned, the roads will remain in passive storage, 

still having compacted soils, loss of soil productivity, concentrated runoff resulting in 

erosion and sediment production, and lack of vegetative ground cover. Due to compaction 

and loss of soil productivity of roads, natural revegetation of the road will be a slow 

process. In areas of low freeze and thaw such as in the Southwest, research supports that 

it takes many years for compacted soils to begin to break up. 

● In reviewing only motorized routes and the reduction in relative risk to the soil resource, 

alternative E indicates the largest reduction in acres impacted on soils with moderate or 

severe erosion hazard and unsatisfactory or unsuited soils. Alternative D shows the next 

largest reduction, followed by alternatives F and G, which are virtually the same. 

Alternative C shows little change (+1 percent) from the no action alternative.

● Alternatives D (-98 percent), E (-100 percent) and G (-97 percent) show significant 

reduction in potential acres of soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings 

disturbed by motorized big game retrieval, followed by alternatives F (≈ -50 percent) and 

alternative C (≈ -22 percent). 

● Alternatives D (-97 percent), E (-100 percent) and G (-96 percent) show significant 

reduction in potential acres of soils with unsatisfactory or unsuited soil condition ratings 

disturbed by motorized big game retrieval, followed by alternatives F (≈ -42 percent) and 

alternative C (≈ -19 percent).

● All alternatives show significant reduction (greater than 94 percent) in potential acres of 

soils having moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings and soils with unsatisfactory or 

unsuited soil condition ratings disturbed by motorized dispersed camping. 

● Alternatives D and E completely removed the 38 areas from soils having moderate or 

severe erosion hazard ratings and soils with unsatisfactory or unsuited soil condition 

ratings, while alternatives G, F, and C show no change from the no action alternative. 

● The one ATV and motorcycle area does not impact soils having moderate or severe 

erosion hazard. However, the site is located within soils having unsatisfactory or unsuited 

soil condition ratings (alternatives C, F, and G).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

88 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Effects to Riparian and Wetland Vegetation

Each action alternative was analyzed to determine if there is potential for motorized vehicle travel 

on the Gila National Forest to impact riparian and wetland vegetation. The effects to riparian and 

wetland vegetation by motorized uses are related to the impacts of the road prism across wet 

surfaces, disturbance of riparian vegetation, compaction of soils and streambanks, and 

concentration of flows into these areas. The wet nature of these areas provides an increased level 

of resiliency to irreversible, adverse impacts, and often increases the opportunity for recovery, 

more so than drier, upland sites. These areas will often recover to a more natural state in a shorter 

period of time. Koury and Natharius (personal observations 2010) have observed on the Gila 

National Forest and other southwestern forests that once roads are closed in riparian areas and 

wetlands, many of these will naturally self-decommission through regrowth of vegetation, 

exposure to flood flows, and re-establishment of streambanks and flood plains, or a combination 

of these. Thus, closed roads were considered a net benefit to riparian and wetland areas, and the 

acres associated with roads proposed for closure within these sensitive areas were removed from 

the calculations of route impacts. This does not suggest, however, that all closed roads will no 

longer have adverse impacts on wetlands and riparian areas. Instead, while some closed roads will 

continue to negatively impact these areas, the level of impact is anticipated to be reduced across 

the forest due to natural recovery of many sites. 

The area in this analysis used a riparian risk zone that encompassed a 300-foot buffer on both 

sides of all identified perennial and intermittent drainages on the forest, as well as the areas 

identified as wetlands. The riparian risk zone does not constitute the true acres of riparian areas 

on the forest, but rather presents a conservative estimate of acres where riparian vegetation would 

be found within. 

Tables that summarize the proposed changes in acres of motorized routes by alternative that may 

impact riparian and wetlands areas—as well as the proposed changes in potential acres that may 

be impacted by motorized dispersed recreation, motorized big game retrieval, and motorized 

areas—are found in the watershed and soils specialist report (USDA Forest Service 2010d). 

General Direct and Indirect Effects Common to 

All Alternatives Including the No Action Alternative

The effects described below will remain the same for any changes described in each alternative. 

However, the degree of effect will vary by alternative, based on the change in route miles and 

permitted cross-country travel. 

Although riparian and wetland areas occupy less than 1 percent of the lands managed by the Gila 

National Forest, they are key to productive fisheries and wildlife habitat; they attenuate flooding; 

and they provide quality water for downstream users, continuous ground water recharge, and 

diverse scenery and recreation sites. 

Motorized uses can affect riparian and wetland areas directly or indirectly by inducing changes to 

natural hydrologic functions. These uses can result in modification of surface and subsurface 

drainage patterns, which can cause changes in moisture regimes of these areas. Routes can 

directly damage riparian vegetation within or near the stream channel. A reduction of riparian 

function may result by tires churning up and removing vegetation and causing streambank 

alteration. Soil rutting, compaction and detachment, and accelerated erosion may occur, as well as 

sediment transport and sediment deposition occurring into connected waters, reducing water 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 89

quality onsite and downstream. Roads adjacent to, or that intersect portions of, wetlands alter 

surface hydrology and waterflow, causing loss of water storage, vegetative productivity, and 

wetland function. Continued driving in stream channels would directly break down streambanks 

that provide for riparian function and aquatic habitat.

Many wetlands and upland meadows across the forest have road access and provide easy 

opportunity for motorized dispersed camping and motorized big game retrieval. Motorized uses 

in these areas pose the greatest threat to soil productivity, vegetation and wildlife, versus 

motorized uses in other vegetation types. Repeated motor vehicle use can cause soil compaction 

and rutting which can have a long-term adverse effect. Personal observations (Koury and 

Natharius 2010) indicate that it usually takes several motorized passes to remove or destroy 

vegetation. The size of vehicle also influences the level of disturbance in these sensitive areas, as 

larger and heavier vehicles most often leave more negative impacts than smaller ATVs. 

Adverse impacts to riparian areas and wetlands related to motorized travel off of designated 

routes can range from high to low. Riparian areas tend to be a natural draw for concentration of 

motorized and nonmotorized recreation. In areas where travel off of designated routes is high, 

levels of negative impacts typically increase, while low concentration areas may show incidental 

impacts. Wetlands on the forest typically have low concentrations of motorized travel off of 

designated routes, however, the level of disturbance can be more severe due to the sensitive 

nature of soils in these areas to rutting and compaction. Personal observations (Koury and 

Natharius 2010) on the Gila National Forest indicate that adverse effects to riparian areas and 

wetlands from travel off of designated routes are minimal. Travel off of designated routes is 

mostly infrequent and/or a one-time occurrence, with little compaction occurring or permanent 

tracks created. In a few locations, motorized users have created visible routes that are repeatedly 

used for big game hunting, antler hunting, and unrestricted cross-country motorized travel. 

In summary, for riparian risk zones:

● Alternative E reduces acres of motorized routes within riparian risk zones by 40 percent, 

followed by alternative D (-30 percent). Alternatives F and G show similar reductions (-

18 percent) and alternative C shows little reduction (-4 percent) in motorized routes 

within riparian risk zones from the no action alternative. 

● All alternatives significantly (greater than 90 percent) reduce potential acres impacted by 

motorized dispersed camping and motorized areas within riparian risk zones. 

● Alternatives E, D, and G significantly (greater than 90 percent) reduce potential acres 

impacted by motorized big game retrieval within riparian risk zones. Alternatives F (-53

percent) and C (-34 percent) follow. 

In summary, for identified wetlands: 

● All alternatives except C significantly (greater than 50 percent) reduce acres of motorized 

routes within identified wetlands. Alternative C shows no change from the no action 

alternative. 

● All alternatives significantly (greater than 85 percent) reduce potential acres impacted by 

motorized dispersed camping and motorized areas within identified wetlands. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

90 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

● Alternatives E, D, and G significantly (greater than 85 percent) reduce potential acres 

impacted by motorized big game retrieval within wetlands. Alternatives F (-7 percent) 

and C (-2 percent) minimally reduce potential acres impacted by motorized big game

retrieval within wetlands and are similar to the no action alternative.

Effects to Water Quality

Each alternative was analyzed to determine if there is potential for motor vehicle travel on the 

Gila National Forest to impact water quality. Water quality was evaluated on all perennial, 

intermittent, and impaired (303d) waters. Analysis of effects to these waters was based on 

motorized uses and their proximity to drainages, concentration of flows into streams, and stream 

crossings that disturb stream bottom sediments. Impaired waters were analyzed separately to see 

how the action alternatives compared to the no action alternative regarding impacts to streams 

currently not meeting State water quality standards.

Literature supports that disturbance within 300 feet of streams has the greatest potential to impact 

water quality, via overland flow (Burroughs and King 1989; and Belt, O’Laughlin and Merrill 

1992). The analysis area for water quality was designed by buffering 300 feet on either side of 

perennial, intermittent, and impaired streams. Closed roads within this buffer were considered a 

net benefit to water quality because they limited the use on the road and restricted motorized 

stream crossings on these routes. Acres associated with roads proposed for closure were removed 

from calculations of route impacts on water quality. 

General Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives

The effects described below will remain the same for any changes described in each alternative. 

However, the degree of effect will vary by alternative, based on the change in route miles and 

permitted cross-country travel. 

The primary effect to water quality related to motorized uses is sedimentation originating from 

road erosion. Numerous researchers have established that roads are a major source of sediment 

delivered to streams in otherwise relatively undisturbed watersheds, such as forests and 

rangelands. In addition, research has concluded that sediment from roads can result in adverse 

effects to streams and aquatic habitat (MacDonald and Stednick 2003, Gucinski et al. 2001, 

Dissmeyer 2000, and Meehan 1991). Motorized uses can affect water quality both directly 

through the physical crossing of a route on a stream, and indirectly through the connectivity of 

the road system to the drainage network. The farther a road is from a stream channel, the less risk 

of direct deposits of sediment into the drainage. Roads constructed near a stream pose a higher 

relative risk to water quality and to modifying hydrologic response of streamflow from runoff 

events. When located close to a stream channel, there is less available vegetation and land surface 

to buffer or capture the transport of eroded material and other pollutants that may become 

mobilized during runoff events. In addition, because routes intercept and concentrate water, the 

closer they are to a drainage channel, the quicker water is delivered to the stream channel, 

potentially increasing runoff response. This can lead to higher peak flows, which may then lead to 

a higher risk of channel erosion. Parent material the roadbed is situated on can also influence 

effects that a road or trail has on erosion and sedimentation. On the Gila National Forest, roads 

situated on decomposing granite or rhyolite are highly susceptible to rutting and erosion. Water 

temperature issues may also arise if routes are located adjacent to stream channels where riparian 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 91

vegetation is removed to accommodate the route or where stream channel geometry has been 

altered, creating a wider, more shallow channel. 

Stream crossings create the most vulnerable point on the stream channel to adverse impacts from 

motorized use. Effects from stream crossings are twofold. They directly impact the stream by the 

action of vehicle tires disturbing and mobilizing stream bottom sediments. This effect is typically 

short lived, provided there is not continual traffic going across the stream. Crossings, additionally, 

indirectly affect water quality by providing a direct flow path from the route into the stream, 

without any vegetative buffer that might filter out suspended sediments in runoff events. This 

flow path, until hydrologically disconnected, will continue to funnel sediment laden runoff into 

the stream.

Motorized use adjacent to and within drier, ephemeral channels can also move large and small 

bedload material, which becomes further mobilized during large rain events. Disturbed 

streambanks in these dry channels are left with bare soil that has an increased potential for future 

erosion and bank destabilization. This can lead to lateral cutting, widening of channels, and 

increased sediment in the channel, which moves downstream. While ephemeral channels do not 

transport sediment most of the year, they still remain an integral part of the watershed’s conduit 

system to carry runoff and sediment during storm events. Ephemeral channels have proven to be 

very efficient transporters of muddy water, as evidenced during summer monsoon storms on the 

Gila National Forest. 

Research also indicates that sediment movement off of roads is related to levels of maintenance, 

road drainage, and amount of use (Clinton and Vose 2003, Maholland and Bullard 2005, and Reid 

and Dunne 1984). High traffic use typically delivers more sediment to stream courses than low 

traffic use. Successfully closed roads are assumed to deliver the lowest amount of sediment to 

stream courses compared to low or high traffic use on all road types. Native surfaced and 

unauthorized roads produce and deliver more sediment than improved, gravel roads. Insloped, bar 

ditched roads produce more sediment than all other roads types. Thus, reduction of miles of 

native surfaced maintenance level 2 roads is anticipated to decrease road erosion and 

sedimentation delivery more than restricting traffic on improved, graveled forest level 3, 4, and 5 

roads, however, this amount has not been quantified. These effects also apply to motorized trails, 

but may vary depending on level of use, size of trail, and location.

Cross-country travel impacts on water quality on the Gila National Forest can range from high to 

low, but in general are typically minimal. Short-lived negative impacts occur when motorists 

cross live streams attempting to retrieve big game animals or to reach a desired camping spot. 

These crossings are most often one-time passes that do not create a permanent route. Damage to 

riparian vegetation and streambanks may also occur, creating a nickpoint that may be vulnerable 

during higher flows. At current use levels, personal observations (Koury and Natharius 2010) 

across the forest indicate that motorized dispersed camping and motorized big game retrieval is 

infrequent enough that negligible adverse effects are occurring due to these activities. All action 

alternatives have significantly reduced the acreage available for motorized dispersed camping and 

motorized big game retrieval, thus having less opportunity for negative impacts to occur.

Tables summarizing stream crossings, as well as miles of stream that may be impacted by 

motorized routes, motorized dispersed recreation, motorized big game retrieval, and motorized 

areas may be found in the watershed and soils specialist report (USDA Forest Service 2010d).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

92 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

● Alternative E provides the most reduction (greater than 50 percent) of motorized 

crossings on perennial and intermittent streams, followed by alternatives D (-37 percent),

G (-19 percent), and F (-17 percent). Alternative C reduces motorized crossings at -8

percent, which is the least of any action alternative. 

● Alternatives D, E, F, and G are similar in reduction of motorized crossings on impaired 

streams (≈21 percent reduction from no action). Alternative C reduces motorized 

crossings on impaired streams by 12 percent. 

● Alternative E reduces miles of perennial and intermittent streams potentially impacted by 

motorized routes by 44 percent, and potentially reduces impacts to impaired streams by 

24 percent, which is the most of any action alternative. Alternative D provides the second 

largest reduction in potential effects: perennial and intermittent streams (-30 percent) and 

impaired streams (-21 percent). Alternatives F and G show similar reductions (-19

percent), followed by alternative C, which shows a reduction of 7 percent from the no

action alternative. 

● All alternatives almost completely remove motorized camping areas from perennial, 

intermittent, and impaired streams. All alternatives significantly (greater than 90 percent) 

reduce potential impacts from motorized dispersed recreation on perennial, intermittent, 

and impaired streams. Alternatives E, D, and G significantly (greater than 90 percent) 

reduce potential impacts from motorized big game retrieval on perennial, intermittent,

and impaired streams. Alternative F provides for the next largest reduction (≈45 percent),

followed by alternative C (≈20 percent). 

For all action alternatives, fewer motorized routes would be designated for motor vehicle use 

within 300 feet of perennial, intermittent, and impaired streams. Reducing the acres of roads and 

trails within this buffer strip is anticipated to improve water quality by reducing the relative risk 

of routes adjacent to the streams. In addition, less access to these areas would allow these routes 

to re-establish vegetation, reduce sediment yields, and improve channel and riparian conditions 

over time. 

It is important to note, however, that until hydrologically disconnected, closed routes will 

continue to be pathways for flow and sediment to enter the stream system to some extent, as 

recovery time can take decades. All of the action alternatives involve closing some system roads 

to motorized use rather than decommissioning (physical removal). In some instances, the relative 

risk of sedimentation may increase due to problems associated with lack of consistent 

maintenance, while in others the relative risk may decrease dramatically due to rapid recovery of 

a riparian area to more natural conditions. 

Effects to Watershed Health from Road and Trail Condition

Each of the alternatives was analyzed to determine if there is potential for motorized uses on the 

Gila National Forest to affect the integrity of a watershed. The indirect effects to watershed 

condition related to motorized routes are primarily related to the level of disturbance the road has 

created on the landscape and the ensuing hydrologic disruption created. This disruption can lead 

to concentration of flows, movement of sediment, and impacts to riparian areas, aquatic resources 

and water quality, all of which contribute to watershed health. While this project proposes to 

change the number of routes open for motorized use, it does not propose to decommission or 

obliterate any routes that will be closed. Decommissioning of a road is defined as “activities that 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 93

result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state” (36 CFR 

212.1, Forest Service Manual 7705-Transportation System (USDA Forest Service 2003)). The 

“Draft Implementation Guide for Assessing and Tracking Changes to Watershed Condition”

(USDA Forest Service 2010) states that “properly closed roads should be hydrologically 

disconnected from the stream network. If roads have a closure order, but are still contributing to 

hydrological damage, they should be considered open for the purposes of road density 

calculations.” 

For this portion of the analysis, closed roads are still considered land disturbance with the 

potential to impact watershed health across the forest. This approach is viewed from a landscape 

level and does not discount negative effects that may be more quickly reversed in riparian areas 

and wetlands, and water quality improvements that may occur from closed routes. It is just one of 

many factors that must be considered when assessing watershed condition. 

General Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives

Effects to watershed condition that will carry throughout all alternatives are related to the impact 

routes can have on watershed conditions across the landscape. Roads are a major source of 

sediment and contribute more offsite sediment than any other land management activity (Gibbons 

and Salo 1973 and Meehan 1991). Roads directly alter natural sediment and hydrologic regimes 

by changing streamflow patterns and amounts, sediment loading, transport, and deposition, 

channel morphology and stability, water quality, and riparian conditions within a watershed 

(Gibbons and Salo 1973, Dunne and Leopold 1978, and Copstead et al. 1997). Road maintenance 

can also increase sediment routing to streams by creating areas prone to surface runoff, altering 

slope stability in cut and fill areas, and altering drainage patterns (Reid and Dunne 1984, 

Megahan 1978, Burroughs and King, 1989, and Luce and Black 2001). Road density is known to 

play a dominant role in human induced augmentation of sediment supply by erosion and mass 

wasting in upland forested landscapes in the Pacific Northwest (Cederholm et al. 1981, Furniss et 

al. 1991) and it reasonable to assume that similar relationships exist elsewhere. Road related mass 

soil movements can continue for decades after roads have been constructed and long-term slope 

failures frequently occur following road construction and timber harvest (Megahan and Bohn 

1989).

Any road segment that has a continuous surface flow path between the road prism and a natural 

stream channel during a high runoff event is a hydrologically connected road segment. The 

proximity of roads to streams is a surrogate for identifying hydrologically connected roads to 

streams. Road closures do not immediately eliminate hydrologic impacts. Rather, the disturbed 

surface takes years to stabilize, which depends on the level of success in the closure, underlying 

soils, vegetative regrowth, and other such factors. Roads, including those behind gates and 

dropped from inventories, continue to produce sediment until they are totally revegetated. Proper 

road obliteration or decommissioning, which returns the roadbed and fill slope to the contours of 

the land and replaces culverts with natural stream channels, offers the best opportunity to restore 

health to heavily roaded watersheds and to aquatic habitat downstream. 

Across several million acres of the Gila National Forest, the combined total acres of motorized 

roads and trails can impact the integrity of a watershed. Unpaved roads, which are the majority of 

National Forest System roads, are particularly vulnerable to rainfall and the ensuing runoff that 

erodes the road surface. Both paved and unpaved roads concentrate and accelerate flow, which
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

94 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

can further erode unarmored surfaces including the roadbed, road fills, cut hillslopes, and 

unarmored outlets to drainage features. Without any means of detention such as vegetation or 

sediment basins, roads can efficiently convey sediment directly into the drainage network, 

including all ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams. Road widths on this forest range on 

average from 3 feet for motorcycle trails to 20+ feet on maintenance level 5 roads, at the expense 

of vegetation and ground cover. In addition, the road prism of cut, fill, and travel surface typically 

disturbs and occupies a wider area than trails primarily used for nonmotorized travel. Road 

widths on maintenance level 2 roads can become wider when traveled on during wet periods, as 

motorists often drive around large mud puddles creating a secondary route adjacent to the primary 

route.

Routes also disrupt a watershed’s natural hydrologic flow by capturing surface and subsurface 

runoff on hillslopes. This interrupts natural flow paths to the stream system. Unmitigated, the 

captured runoff can be delivered to stream systems more rapidly, at higher rates of flow, and can 

impact the timing and magnitude of natural streamflows. Stream channels will respond to 

significant increases in flow rates by widening or deepening to carry these greater flow rates. 

When a road is cut across a hillside, it often intercepts subsurface waterflow and runs it down 

ditches and through culverts. It then picks up sediment and is joined by sediment laden runoff 

from the roadbed and cut banks before running into a stream. Increased deposits of sediment into 

a watershed’s entire drainage network can come from roads and trails that are directly and 

indirectly connected to a channel. In addition, roads constructed on unstable slopes can add to 

structural instability of these areas, leading to landslides and greater sources of sediments. 

Road impacts can persist long after a travel way is closed unless measures are taken to disconnect 

runoff pathways into a stream channel and/or onto a road surface. Proper design and location of 

travel ways can significantly reduce the risk of flood flows, slope failures, sedimentation, and 

stream channel degradation. This includes avoidance of steep slopes, high erosion hazard areas, 

stream channels, riparian and wetland areas, and areas of high mass movement potential. When 

roads are properly planned, constructed, and maintained, their long-term impacts on watershed 

resources, whether or not they are open or closed to travel, are effectively reduced.

Watershed conservation practices and forest plan standards and guidelines prescribe extensive 

measures to protect soil, riparian, wetland, and aquatic resources. Generally, adverse impacts on 

these resources can be minimized when all applicable measures are applied and effective. 

However, there is always a risk that these protective measures will fail to be fully effective. 

Alternatives that propose lesser densities of roads may decrease the risk of adverse impacts on

aquatic and riparian resources and, ultimately, water quality.

Cross-country travel across the entire analysis area would potentially cause adverse impacts to a 

watershed, especially those with vulnerable resources such as sensitive soils, riparian areas, 

wetlands, and aquatic resources. Continued cross-country use may result in additional 

unauthorized trails simply from the continued act of riding over the same area several times. As 

this activity is not regulated or constructed to forest standards, it is difficult for the Forest Service 

to limit or control. As evidenced by existing unauthorized trails, these new trails will typically 

lack proper planning and design to limit the negative effects on soil and water resources. 

Currently, the Gila National Forest has seen minimal adverse impacts related to cross-country 

travel for dispersed camping and big game retrieval. Cross-country use on this forest is infrequent 

and dispersed enough that few permanent tracks are created, based on forest staff observations. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 95

Some situations do exist, however, where local residents have created an “undesignated” route 

based on a favorite destination off of a designated route.

In summary: 

● This project does not address decommissioning; all road scars will remain with the 

addition of a few roads added to the system (i.e., converting of decommissioned to 

motorized route or trail). For the majority of motorized routes in the uplands, the 

changing of designation of road will result in minor change on the landscape until the 

road is decommissioned or removed from passive storage. At a landscape level, there is 

little to no change from existing road and trail condition, as a result of changes in route 

designation under any alternative. There will be little to no change in road densities under 

any alternative, as routes will remain hydrologically connected until decommissioned. 

● Alternatives D, E, and G significantly (greater than 90 percent) reduce the acres of 

potential disturbance by motorized big game retrieval. Alternative F moderately (-38

percent) reduces potential disturbance by motorized big game retrieval. Alternative C 

reduces potential disturbance by motorized big game retrieval by 15 percent. 

● All alternatives significantly (90 percent) reduce acres of potential disturbance by 

motorized dispersed camping. Motorized camping areas are eliminated under alternatives

D and E, and almost eliminated under alternatives C, F and G, as only 31 acres would 

remain.

Conclusions About Alternative Effects

All action alternatives provide for some level of beneficial watershed and soil impacts by 

reducing acres available to motorized cross-country travel, including motorized dispersed 

recreation and motorized big game retrieval, across the forest. In addition, all alternatives reduce 

miles of motorized routes open to the public, which reduces the relative risk of negative impacts 

to riparian areas, wetlands, and water quality. No decommissioning of roads will occur as the 

result of implementation of any action alternative; thus, road densities and road and trail 

conditions will continue to impact overall watershed health similar to the existing condition.

In comparing alternatives, alternative E provides the greatest opportunity for beneficial impacts to 

the resource as a result of implementation of the Travel Management Rule. Alternative E has the 

greatest reduction in acres of disturbance related to motorized routes and the least available 

acreage to motorized cross-country travel that can disturb these resources. The only motorized 

cross-country travel available is within the 1-vehicle-length parking width available off of all 

motorized routes.

Alternative D provides the second greatest opportunity for beneficial impacts to watershed and 

soils resources. It has the second largest reduction in motorized routes, and similar to alternative 

E, does not allow for cross-country travel outside of the 1-vehicle parking width.

Alternatives F and G also would provide for beneficial impacts, however, not to the extent of 

alternatives D and E. Alternatives F and G are similar in almost all respects, with the exception of 

motorized big game retrieval, where alternative G further restricts this corridor to 1⁄2 mile, versus 

1 mile in alternative F. Observable differences between these two alternatives related to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

96 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

motorized big game retrieval would be slight, as current observable impacts from this activity are 

minimal on the Gila National Forest.

Alternative C provides for the least amount of beneficial impacts to watershed and soil resources, 

and a slight improvement over the no action alternative as it reduces the least amount of 

motorized routes. It does restrict motorized cross-country travel similar to alternative F, however, 

again this activity currently has minimal watershed and soil impacts on the forest.

All action alternatives are consistent with law, regulation, and policy.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are often assessed by watershed, or as a portion of a specific watershed. This 

type of assessment addresses the incremental impacts of an action when added to other past, 

present, and foreseeable future actions, regardless of what entity is or has undertaken the 

action(s). A watershed cumulative impact can be defined as the total impact, positive or negative, 

on runoff, erosion, water yield, floods, and/or water quality that results from the incremental 

impact of a proposed action, when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions occurring within the same natural drainage basin (watershed) (1978 CEQ definition of 

cumulative impacts). Cumulative watershed effects are defined as the impact of activities on 

surface runoff and erosion, water yield, peak flows and flooding, channel stability, sedimentation,

and water quality. Activities that influence these effects can include timber harvest, grazing, 

roads, fire, mining, recreational activities, and other land-disturbing actions that remove 

vegetation and litter, which can expose or compact soil. Loss of vegetation and exposed soil can 

result in reduced interception and transpiration rates, and increase surface runoff and erosion.

The Gila National Forest currently has 29 water bodies that are listed as not meeting New Mexico 

State Water Quality Standards. The majority of these streams originates on National Forest 

System lands, and flow through land managed by the Gila National Forest. It is only reasonable to 

consider that cumulative impacts of past forest activities, as well as ongoing forest activities, have 

played a role in some of these listings. While difficult to quantify or measure cumulative effects, 

it is possible to estimate acres of disturbance across a watershed and estimate which activities 

may have the greatest influence in cumulatively impacting watershed health.

To estimate cumulative effects for this project, a preliminary screening procedure (adapted from 

the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests’ cumulative watershed effects analysis procedure, 2004) 

was used that was designed to indicate the possibility of adverse effects occurring as a result of 

cumulative watershed impacts. The procedure looks at activities within Gila National Forest 

watersheds to assess if the amount of activities has resulted in land disturbance that has reached 

or exceeded a threshold of concern. This procedure is based on equivalent disturbed area within a 

watershed, which includes the area associated with land-disturbing activities, within the past 25 

years. A recovery factor is used to reflect dissipation of effects over a 2- to 25-year period, 

depending on the severity of the activity. Activities are then converted into equivalent disturbed 

area, using roads as an index. Equivalent disturbed area (EDA) is a means to display disturbed 

areas in a watershed on an equal basis. Roads can be assigned a rating of 1 (based on curve 

number rationale), and all other activities can be assigned a rating that is proportional to 1. The 

threshold level was set at 15 percent for this project, where cumulative impacts of a watershed 

area are in a disturbed condition. Meeting this threshold does not necessarily indicate that a level 

has been passed where cumulative effects are significantly adverse, however, it is used as an 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 97

indicator that land-disturbing activities may be approaching a level where a watershed may begin 

to lose its resiliency to change. If a threshold of concern is approached, then it may lead to 

development of a new alternative, modification of an existing alternative, or a more detailed 

hydrologic analysis to determine if cumulative effects are adverse and significant.

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the 5th-code watershed, which is reasonable for a landscapelevel project. One limitation of the procedure used, however, is that it was developed for 

watershed sizes comparative to a 6th-code watershed level. To compensate for this, where specific 

5th code watersheds indicated higher levels of disturbance, a closer look at the 6th-code level was 

examined to assess if activities were concentrated enough in one location to create concern for 

adverse impacts. While the large scale at which the 5th-code watershed is delineated is so large 

that it does not allow accurate determination of effects of a specific project proposal, it is still 

considered relevant in a broad look at cumulative impacts across the Gila National Forest. 

Another constraint of doing the analysis at this scale is that observable impacts (beneficial or 

detrimental) at the outlet of a 5th-code watershed would likely be diluted over such a large area. 

The factors and analysis tables for this analysis may be found in the watershed and soils specialist 

report (USDA Forest Service 2010d).

The EDA analysis was performed on all 5th-code watersheds that intersect the Gila National 

Forest, where forest ownership is 8 percent or greater. Thirty-three 5th-code watersheds met these 

criteria. The EDA analysis was performed for 2 years, 2010 and 2025, to assess change over a 15-

year period. Existing cumulative impacts were assessed for the no action alternative to determine 

if any of Gila National Forest’s watersheds were already approaching, or exceeding, a level of 

disturbance that would cause concern. Results of this analysis are available in the watershed and 

soils specialist report found in the project record.

In summary, none of the 5th-code watersheds approached the 15 percent disturbance threshold, 

which was expected due to the dilution effect of these large watersheds. Review of alternative B 

identifies three watersheds having disturbance levels above 3 percent: Corduroy Canyon at 8.6

percent, Negrito Creek at 5.7 percent, and Upper San Francisco at 3.4 percent. A closer look was 

taken at these three watersheds to see how large a role roads (all ownerships) are playing in 

watershed disturbance. A review of road densities at the 5th-code level indicates that the Upper 

San Francisco River 5th-code watershed has the second highest road density (1.83 mi/mi2

) of all 

forest watersheds. The Negrito Creek watershed has the fourth highest road density (1.73 mi/mi2

), 

and the Corduroy Canyon watershed has a density of 1.21 mi/mi2

, which is close to the forest 

average 5th-code watershed road density of 1.14 mi/mi2

. 

Breaking these densities down even further, 6th-code watershed densities were evaluated using the 

criteria established in the “Draft Implementation Guide for Assessing and Tracking Changes to 

Watershed Condition.” The guide uses a road and trail network indicator as 1 of 12 factors to 

consider in assessing 6th-code watershed condition. This indicator identifies the following three 

condition ratings for road densities:

● Less than 1 mi/mi2 = Good (Functioning Properly)

● 1 mi/mi2 – 2.4 mi/mi2 = Fair (Functioning at Risk)

● Greater than 2.4 mi/mi2 = Poor (Impaired)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

98 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Using these criteria, within the Corduroy Canyon 5th-code watershed, five 6th-code watersheds are 

rated “Fair” and two are rated “Good.” Within the Negrito Creek 5th-code watershed, two 6th-code 

watersheds are rated “Poor,” three are rated “Fair,” and three are rated “Good.” Within the Upper 

San Francisco River 5th-code watershed, two 6th-code watersheds are rated “Poor,” seven are rated 

“Fair,” and one is rated “Good.” Closed roads were still considered part of the road system for the 

density calculations, as decommissioning of closed roads is currently not scheduled or planned as 

part of this project. 

These results initiated a further look at the Negrito Creek and Upper San Francisco 5th-code 

watersheds, as road densities were high in four of the 6th-code watersheds. Neither of these two 

watersheds has any acres of wilderness, and activities appear to be well distributed across the 

watershed versus confined to smaller areas, such as one or two 6th-code watersheds. Under the 

existing condition, 7 percent of the disturbance acres in the Negrito Creek watershed are a result 

of motorized routes, while 14 percent of the disturbance acres in the Upper San Francisco 

watershed are a result of motorized routes. These two watersheds have hosted the majority of past 

and present timber harvesting activities on the forest, with roads having been constructed to 

accommodate this action. While timber harvesting activities are not as prevalent today as they 

were in the 1980s and 1990s, a majority of the timber related roads are still in use and continue to 

contribute to cumulative watershed impacts and high road densities. The majority of disturbance 

acres in both watersheds are a result of past and present vegetation treatment activities, including 

fire. In the 2025 equivalent disturbed area analysis, cumulative effects diminish; however, it is 

unforeseen what levels of disturbance that future activities may bring. While not currently 

approaching a threshold of concern at the 5th-code level, these two watersheds provide opportune 

locations to prioritize future decommissioning activities to further alleviate cumulative watershed 

impacts and reduce road densities.

Summary of Cumulative Effects

Past and ongoing activities on the Gila National Forest include a variety of actions such as 

firewood harvest, timber sale activities, mining, prescribed burns, fires, road and trail 

construction, rangeland grazing, hunting, camping, OHV use, other recreational uses, and water 

impoundments. Current timber sale activities have been minimal and small, and firewood cutting 

has been and would continue to be dispersed. Mining activities do occur within many of the 

watersheds, but to a minimal extent on the forest.

Existing National Forest System roads receive periodic maintenance designed to improve 

drainage and reduce excessive runoff and sediment into connected drainages. Future runoff and 

sediment are not expected to increase on existing improved forest roads.

Current road density within many watersheds is low, although roads are one of the larger 

contributors of sediment to the drainage network. As noted prior, 29 stream reaches are currently 

not attaining State water quality standards, having sedimentation and temperature issues. With 

many roads across the forest lacking adequate drainage features, roads have been identified by the 

State as being one probable source of impairment. Water quality issues would continue to be a 

concern in these watersheds for stream reaches that are impaired and for those that have 

designated or occupied habitat for threatened, endangered, and/or sensitive species. While other 

perennial streams are not listed as impaired, many of these stream reaches have not yet been 

assessed by the State of New Mexico. Sediment input would still remain a concern in all 

perennial and intermittent streams impacted by routes.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 99

Livestock grazing across the forest has seen reductions, with added measures taken to either 

exclude riparian areas or implement riparian specific management along streams. Future impacts 

should be consistent with current impacts. Fires managed for resource benefit and vegetation 

treatments would continue to play a role in these watersheds, when possible, in attempts to restore 

ecosystem health. Several localized areas across the forest are at high risk for current and/or 

future resource degradation without attention to best management practices. In particular, those 

areas having sensitive soils, riparian areas, and wetlands would be most vulnerable.

Reasonable foreseeable actions that are expected to occur include reauthorization of livestock 

grazing allotments, vegetation management projects, watershed, road and trail improvement 

projects, and development of recreational opportunities. In addition, the adjacent ApacheSitgreaves National Forests are conducting a similar travel management analysis, and are 

expected to reduce impacts from motorized routes, as well as pose some restrictions on crosscountry motorized travel. These neighboring forests share several 5th-code watersheds with the 

Gila National Forest, and improvements on its adjacent National Forest System lands would have 

beneficial cumulative impacts, watershedwide. 

Existing watershed and soil conditions that have been described in alternative B—no action—can 

be viewed as a collective assessment of all prior activities, both natural and human-caused, that 

have cumulatively impacted watershed and soil resources. Considering all natural and human 

impacts that have occurred and continue to occur on 5th-code watersheds across the Gila National

Forest, cumulative effects on these watersheds have not surpassed a threshold that threatens to 

undermine their resilience to change. This does not advocate that adverse effects have not 

occurred, or would not continue to occur due to land management activities; but simply, that the 

cumulative impacts of these activities have been moderated through natural processes and/or 

human-made mitigation measures. As noted in the above previous discussion, a few watersheds 

do have acres of disturbance that would be of concern if all activities were centrally located. 

Careful planning should occur in these watersheds to ensure that future projects are spread out 

over space and time. Some forestwide programs and activities may continue to have localized 

short-term adverse effects to watershed and soil resources, however, the cumulative effects of 

past, present and reasonable foreseeable future activities, including the reduction of open, 

motorized roads and trails and cross-country travel through designation under the Travel 

Management Rule, are generally beneficial. 

In comparison to alternative B (no action), all alternatives provide for a net decrease in adverse 

cumulative watershed impacts by reducing miles of motorized routes and limiting acreage 

available for cross-country travel. Closing of routes provides for the greatest benefit to riparian 

and wetland resources, and water quality improvement, which all alternatives accomplish to 

varying extents. Recovery, in particular, in the uplands will be slow until routes are returned to a 

more natural state, either through decommissioning or natural processes. Limiting cross-country 

travel will reduce adverse cumulative watershed impacts slightly, as this activity currently has 

minimal impacts across the forest. 

Implementation of alternative E provides the most reduction of adverse cumulative impacts to 

watershed and soil resources forestwide by eliminating motorized cross-country travel and 

reducing the most miles of open roads and use. Alternative D provides the second most reduction 

of cumulative impacts by eliminating motorized cross-country travel outside of the 300-foot

motorized camping corridor and providing for the second most reduction of motorized routes. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

100 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Alternatives F and G provide for reduction of adverse cumulative watershed impacts by reducing 

similar miles of open routes, although not as much as alternatives E and D. Alternative G, 

furthermore, eliminates cross-country travel outside of the 300-foot motorized dispersed camping 

corridors, similar to alternative D, while alternative F provides for cross-country travel within a 

1⁄2-mile corridor. Alternative C, while reducing motorized routes, provides for the least reduction 

of open routes of all alternatives, and allows the most cross-country travel of any action

alternative. Overall, no increase in adverse cumulative impacts to soil resources, riparian and 

wetland resources, and water quality or quantity would be expected with implementation of any 

of the action alternatives. 

Aquatics

This section summarizes the aquatics specialist report (USDA Forest Service 2010e).

Affected Environment

This section summarizes the environmental consequences of the travel management alternatives 

to aquatic resources. Aquatic features found on the Gila National Forest include both moving 

water and still water systems. The forest is situated within four river basins—the Gila-San 

Francisco, Mimbres, Little Colorado, and Rio Grande—with over 1,700 miles of perennial and 

intermittent stream habitat. These streams contain a variety of aquatic species, most significant of 

which are those native resident species that are key for aquatic habitat management. The species 

diversity, richness, and endemism are variable across these river basins, in part due to geologic 

history, relative proximity to more mesic and species-rich regions, climatic factors, and relative 

size and complexity of each drainage (Propst 1999). Species status as endangered, threatened, 

sensitive, and management indicator species (table 29) emphasize the need for not only 

conservation, but also recovery efforts as part of interagency management programs throughout 

the project area. The forest has three manmade lakes completely or partially on National Forest

System lands. Over the last 150 years, anthropogenic disturbances throughout the forest have 

altered water temperatures, water volume, streamflow patterns, and quantities of many streams. 

Additionally, introduction of nonnative fish into streams has altered many aquatic systems. 

Riparian and wetland areas have been damaged locally by roads, recreational activities, ungulate 

grazing, water diversion, and timber harvest.

Table 29. Special status aquatic species occurring on the Gila National Forest

Species (Common Name) Status Designated Critical Habitat

Threatened or Endangered Species

Loach minnow Threatened Yes

Spikedace Threatened Yes

Gila chub Endangered Yes

Chihuahua chub Threatened No

Gila trout Threatened, MIS No
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 101

Table 29. Special status aquatic species occurring on the Gila National Forest

Species (Common Name) Status Designated Critical Habitat

Southwestern Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (R3 sensitive) and 

Gila National Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Rio Grande cutthroat trout R3 sensitive, MIS N/A

Headwater chub R3 sensitive N/A

Roundtail chub R3 sensitive N/A

Longfin dace R3 sensitive N/A

Sonora sucker R3 sensitive N/A

Desert sucker R3 sensitive N/A

Rio Grande sucker R3 sensitive N/A

Rio Grande chub R3 sensitive N/A

Gila springsnail R3 sensitive N/A

New Mexico hot springsnail R3 sensitive N/A

Black Range Mountainsnails

Oreohelix swopei

Oreohelix metcalfei acutidiscus 

Oreohelix metcalfei metcalfei

Oreohelix pilsbryi

Oreohelixs metcalfei concentric

Bearded Mountainsnail

Oreohelix barbata

Subalpine Mountainsnail

Oreohelix subrudis

Whitewater Woodlandsnail

Ashmunella danielsi

Silver Creek Woodlandsnail

Ashmunella binneyi

Iron Creek Woodlandsnail

Ashmunella mendex

Dry Creek Woodlandsnails

Ashmunella tetradon inermis

Ashmunella tetradon mutator

Ashmunella tetradon tetradon

Ashmunella tetradon animorum

Black Range Woodlandsnails

Ashmunella cockerelli cockerelli

Ashmunella cockerilli argenticola

Ashmunella cockerelli perobtusa

R3 sensitive N/A
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

102 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Environmental Consequences

Effects to Aquatic Species and Habitat

The relative risk of the alternatives to aquatic species and their habitat were examined by 

analyzing three indicators: (1) total road and motorized trail miles or route density and use; (2)

total miles of roads within 300 feet of perennial or intermittent streams; and (3) number of 

motorized route crossings through perennial and intermittent streams. An important assumption 

that was made for this analysis is that habitats are considered occupied if the necessary life 

history elements are present. For this analysis, it was assumed that perennial and intermittent 

streams had the necessary life history elements present for aquatic species occupancy at least 

during some period. 

Important Assumptions Pertinent to the Summary

The follow assumptions were made for this analysis and are important to understanding the 

effects analysis for aquatic species. This list is not a complete list of assumptions that were made 

for the analysis; see the aquatic specialist report (USDA Forest Service 2010e) for further 

information related to other assumptions.

Habitats for the species being analyzed were assumed to be occupied if they contained the 

necessary life history elements.

● The overall effect of roads on aquatic habitat is related to the amount of sediment 

movement from road surfaces, and is highly variable within and among surface types. 

Sediment movement is related to levels of maintenance, road drainage (Clinton and Vose 

2003), and amount of use of the road (Maholland and Bullard 2005, Reid and Dunne 

1984).

● The reduction or elimination of vehicle traffic on a road near a stream will result in less 

sediment delivered from the road to the stream (Maholland and Bullard 2005, Reid and 

Dunne 1984).

● The density of roads and trails at the forest and watershed scale will not be substantially 

changed as a result of any of the action alternatives for at least the next 20 years because 

all of the action alternatives involve the closure of roads and unauthorized routes to 

vehicle use by the public rather than the physical removal of roads.

Because of the limitation posed by the assumptions described above and others in the aquatic 

specialist report (USDA Forest Service 2010e), the analysis provided here is a relative risk 

assessment of each of the action alternatives compared to the no action alternative.

Effects of the No Action Alternative 

The no action alternative represents no change from current management and consists of the 

system of roads, motorized trails, and areas open to motorized cross-country travel identified as 

the current travel system. The no action alternative includes 302 miles of National Forest System 

motorized routes within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent streams and rivers, and 918 stream 

crossings. Motorized routes include 5,221 miles of routes that are open to all users and vehicle 

types, and 16 miles of less than 50-inch trail that are open to all terrain vehicle uses. Stream 

crossings on perennial and intermittent streams and rivers consist of 882 low water crossings, 5 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 103

bridges, and 31 culverts. Under the no action alternative, the forest (2,441,804 acres) is open to 

motorized cross-country travel and motorized dispersed camping, although many areas are not 

actually available due to steep slopes, rocky conditions, and/or dense timber. In open areas, 

vehicles can legally travel to any place possible and, as a result, user routes are created, riparian 

areas are impacted by indiscriminate motor vehicle use, and streambanks are often directly 

impacted when vehicles cross streams. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

General Effects 

For this analysis, it is assumed that when a road is closed it will continue to have impacts on the 

aquatic system because all of the action alternatives involve the closure of roads and unauthorized 

routes to vehicle use by the public rather than the physical removal of roads. However, curtailing 

or reducing use on those routes that are closed or open only by written permit will decrease 

impacts. 

The effects of roads on aquatic organisms are well documented. Roads and trails disturb soils and 

increase the potential for erosion and sediment transport and deposition in streams. Likewise, 

motorized and nonmotorized uses (motorcycles, ATVs, horses, mountain bikes, and hikers) can 

further disturb soils and increase potential for erosion and sediment delivery. Surface erosion 

from forest roads affects the fine sediment budget and may impose a chronic condition of 

sediment inputs to streams, directly affecting the stream substrate and the health of aquatic life 

(Luce et al. 2001). Chronic erosion from roads can greatly reduce an aquatic system’s integrity

and, in some cases, can be the sole source of sediment input (Switalski et al. 2004). Sediment 

concerns are generally highest when roads and trails are not sufficiently drained. Water and 

sediment can concentrate on roads and trails during spring snowmelt runoff or periods of intense 

rain and be delivered to streams. With sufficient drainage, water and sediment from upland 

segments roads can be diverted, filtered through forest vegetation, and not routed to streams. As 

such, upland segments of roads can generally be designed to mitigate sediment delivery concerns. 

The primary concern is erosion and sediment delivery from roads that are near streams and that 

cross streams. Fine material, or sediment, is a key physical element to focus on when attempting 

to delineate land management effects on stream habitat and biota (Rinne 1990). Excessive fine 

sediment input to a stream can fill pool habitat and reduce both summer and winter rearing habitat 

for juvenile fish (Heede and Rinne 1990). Native, desert fish species such as the loach minnow 

require clean gravel-cobble substrates. Rinne (1989) found that loach minnow used shallow, 

moderately swift flow areas with gravel to cobble substrates. Rinne (1991) also found that 

spikedace were absent from areas where fine silt and sand had accumulated. Neary et al. (1996) 

documented that spikedace numbers increased almost threefold when the fine component of the 

substrate decreased from about 27 percent to 7 percent. 

A synthesis of road impact information can be found in “Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific 

Information” (Gucinski et al. 2001). Some of the key findings from this document that relate to 

travel management include both physical and biological effects.

Physical effects include: 

● “Roads affect geomorphic process by four primary mechanisms: Accelerating erosion 

from the road surface and prism itself by both mass and surface erosion processes; 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

104 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

directly affecting channel structure and geometry; altering surface flowpaths, leading to 

diversion or extension of channels onto previously unchannelized portions of the 

landscape; and causing interactions among water, sediment, and woody debris at 

engineered road-stream crossings.” 

● “Roads have three primary effects on water: they intercept rainfall directly on the road 

surface and road cutbanks and intercept subsurface water moving down the hillslope; 

they concentrate flow, either on the surface or in an adjacent ditch or channel; and they 

divert or reroute water from flowpaths that it would otherwise take if the road were not 

present.”

These physical effects lead to the following biological effects: 

● “Increased fine sediment composition in stream gravel has been linked to decreased fry 

emergence, decreased juvenile densities, loss of winter carrying capacity, and increased 

predation of fishes.” 

● “The effects of roads are not limited to those associated with increases in fine sediment 

delivery to streams; they can include barriers to migration, water temperature changes, 

and alterations to streamflow regimes.” 

● “Road-stream crossings have been shown to have effects on stream invertebrates. 

Hawkins and others found that the aquatic invertebrate species assemblages (observed 

versus expected based on reference sites) were related to the number of stream crossings 

above a site.” 

● “Several studies at broad scales document aquatic habitat or fish density changes 

associated with road density or indices of road density.” 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Direct and indirect effects to fisheries, aquatic, and riparian habitats as a result of designating 

motorized routes and use classes throughout non-wilderness watersheds of the Gila National 

Forest are essentially the same for all alternatives and differ primarily in relation to the indicators 

for number of motorized route miles within stream buffer zones (300 feet) and number of stream 

crossings. Indirect effects to aquatic and aquatic-dependent species resulting from roads and 

motorized vehicle use include habitat alteration due to elevated levels of in-channel sediment 

delivery, riparian habitat alteration, and to a lesser degree, collection (includes fishing and 

hunting). Common direct effects occurring in all alternatives include:

● The direct and indirect physical loss of riparian habitat and functions within the 100-year 

flood plain, as a result of uses in those areas destroying vegetation. 

● The direct and indirect creation of drainage pathways that follow route treads and alter 

surface water pathways of both the immediate stream, as well as its associated high water 

pathways, throughout the 100-year flood plain during periods of flooding. 

● The indirect conversion of dispersed surface runoff and sediment filtering throughout the 

riparian area, to direct (point source) deliveries of accumulated runoff and sediment,

following route tread pathways leading from both the intercepted adjacent watershed 

areas, as well as channelized runoff flowing directly down a route tread.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 105

● The creation of direct and indirect impact to streams, habitats, and aquatic species at 

route crossing points. The direct channel disturbances of streambank damage, leading to 

indirect effects of increased bank erosion and stream sedimentation. 

● The direct dislocation of fish spawning activity within ford crossings that can occur 

depending on fish species and spawning suitability of stream substrate and flows.

● Indirect decrease in fish egg hatching success and subsequent fish populations due to 

sedimentation.

Based on the natural history of U.S. Fish and Wildlife endangered, threatened, and candidate 

species, USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region sensitive species, and Gila National Forest 

management indicator species, and the potential for disturbance resulting from the change to 

route designations, the following analysis framework was developed to address the indicator 

measures.

Roads Within 300 Feet of Streams 

The closer a road is to a stream system, the greater the impacts on the stream and the organisms 

inhabiting it. Roads directly adjacent to streams can impact streams by channelizing the stream, 

eliminating streamside vegetation, and introducing sediment into the stream. Where roads are 

close to streams, they affect the stream more directly (Luce et al. 2001). Sediment transport from 

roads can exceed 300 feet (Burroughs and King 1989 and Belt et al. 1992). Road-stream 

crossings are addressed separately. Table 30 displays the total miles of National Forest System 

(NFS) motorized routes and the percent decrease or increase in miles of motorized routes within 

300 feet of streams and rivers for all alternatives.

Table 30. Miles of NFS motorized routes within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent 

streams and rivers

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Miles of NFS motorized roads 298 230 138 102 179 175

Miles of NFS administrative roads 0 42 61 58 52 52

Miles of NFS motorized trail <50 inches 4 14 7 0.32 14 14

Miles of NFS administrative motorized trail 

<50 inches

0 1 3 3 1 1

Motorized NFS 2-wheel vehicle trail 0 15 0 0 0 0

Total Miles of NFS Motorized Routes 302 302 209 163 246 242

Change in number of miles of NFS 

motorized routes expressed as a percent (+ or

-) of the no action alternative

0% -31% -46% -19% -20%

Alternative B, the no action alternative, has the greatest length of motorized routes within 300 

feet of streams and rivers, followed by alternative C, alternative F, and alternative G, respectively. 

When compared to alternative B, alternatives E and D reduce the miles of road within 300 feet of 

streams and rivers by 46 percent and 31 percent, respectively. Alternative E has the fewest miles 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

106 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

of motorized routes within 300 feet of streams and rivers of any alternative. Alternative E 

presents the lowest relative risk to aquatic species and habitat related to the impacts from 

motorized routes. The relative risk to aquatic habitat and species is greatest from alternatives B 

and C. Alternatives F and G are similar and moderately reduce the level of relative risk to aquatic 

species and habitat with alternative G having 6 fewer miles of motorized route than alternative F.

Road-stream Crossings 

Road-stream crossings are areas where the impacts of roads are the greatest in terms of channel 

impacts, sediment, and potential movement barriers. There is a high correlation between roadstream crossings and fine sediment (McCaffery et al. 2007). The number of crossings was 

obtained for the proposed action by visiting the crossings and collecting location data that was 

utilized to construct a spatial GIS layer. The number of road crossings for roads that were 

motorized in other alternatives and not the proposed action were obtained by utilizing GIS layers 

and intersecting roads and streams. The stream crossing number for roads not included in the 

proposed action may not be accurate due to inaccuracies in the GIS data layers. While absolute 

counts of stream crossings in this analysis are not reliable, the relative differences between 

alternatives is considered “very good” since the same datasets were used for each alternative and 

actual crossing locations have been collected for most roads. Table 31 displays the number of 

stream crossings by NFS motorized routes and the percent increase or decrease in that number, 

when compared to alternative B.

Table 31. Number of NFS road crossings on perennial and intermittent streams by 

crossing type

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Low water motorized road 883 635 352 237 518 500

Low water administrative road 0 141 182 153 160 160

Low water motorized trail <50 inches 0 34 1 0 44 44

Low water administrative motorized trail 

<50 inches

0 4 8 8 4 4

Bridge 5 5 5 5 5 5

Culvert 31 31 29 25 30 30

Total Number of Crossings 919 850 577 428 761 743

Change in number of stream crossings

expressed as a percent (+ or – ) of the no

action alternative

-8% -37% -53% -17% -19%

Alternative B, the no action alternative, has the greatest number of stream and river crossings, 

followed by alternative C, alternative F, and alternative G, respectively. When compared to 

alternative B, alternatives E and D reduce stream and river crossings by 50 percent and 33

percent, respectively. Alternative E has the fewest crossings of any alternative. Alternative E 

presents the lowest relative risk to aquatic species and habitat related to the impacts from NFS 

motorized road-stream crossings. The relative risk to aquatic habitat and species is greatest from 

alternatives B and C. Alternatives F and G are similar and moderately reduce the level of relative 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 107

risk to aquatic species and habitat with alternative G having 19 fewer stream crossings than 

alternative F.

Route Density and Use

An evaluation of road and motorized trail density indicates the potential for erosion, adverse 

water quality impacts, and modified hydrology. Roads and the trails used by motorized vehicles 

can intercept, concentrate, and divert water. Their impacts can be mitigated, but not completely 

eliminated, if they are to serve as travel routes. This analysis of road and motorized trail density is 

based on the general assumption that areas with greater road and motorized trail density generally 

have a greater relative risk of adverse impacts.

Route density is used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries) as one way to 

measure watershed condition. The joint agencies’ general recommendation is that a given 

watershed should have less than 2.5 miles per square mile of road system; if in excess, that factor 

is considered to be not properly functioning. While this recommendation is not a Regional 

standard, it was utilized to display effects on aquatic species in the biological assessment for the 

11 land and resource management plans (LRMP) of the national forests and grasslands in the 

Southwestern Region (USDA Forest Service 2004). That biological assessment was prepared in 

response to a need for re-initiation of Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation on the 11 

LRMPs, and in that analysis, the route density for each national forest was compared to this 

recommendation. Table 32 displays the route density, at the landscape scale, for each of the 

alternatives. 

Because all of the action alternatives involve the closure of routes to vehicle use by the public 

rather than the physical removal of roads, the miles of NFS routes on the forest will not 

substantially change. Miles of NFS routes in all action alternatives, except alternative E, slightly 

increase from the no action alternative. The miles of routes in alternative E and the no action 

alternative are essentially the same. The miles of NFS routes and, therefore, densities will not 

decrease until routes are physically removed, or naturally decommission as vegetation establishes 

on them over time. 

Table 32. Miles and density of NFS routes existing on the forest

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Miles of NFS routes* 5,221 5,290 5,233 5,222 5,234 5,234

Change in miles of NFS routes +69 +12 +1 +13 +13

Density of NFS routes* (mi/mi2) 1.30 1.32 1.31 1.30 1.31 1.31

Change in density of NFS routes 

expressed as a percent (+ or – ) of the no 

action alternative

+1.5% +0.7% 0% +0.7% +0.7%

*Includes all NFS routes except those that have been previously decommissioned and that will remain so. For density 

calculations, wilderness, research natural areas, and areas presently closed to off-highway vehicles were excluded from 

the area of the forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

108 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

However, use of NFS routes by motorized vehicles differs in each of the action alternatives. The 

miles of NFS routes that are open to motorized use decreases in each of the action alternatives 

and routes that are open only to motorized use through a written permit and/or for administrative 

use increase, when compared to the no action alternative. Since, to some degree, sediment 

production by routes is related to motorized use of the route, both of these route designations will 

reduce the relative risk to aquatic species and habitat by suspending use on nonmotorized routes 

and reducing use on routes that are designated administrative. Table 33 displays the miles of 

routes that will be nonmotorized or designated as administrative for each of the alternatives.

Table 33. Miles of NFS routes with no or reduced use

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. E Alt. F

Miles of routes proposed to be nonmotorized1 0 151 1,261 1,915 898 919

Miles of routes proposed to be administrative 

routes2

0 182 354 432 298 299

Miles of routes with no or reduced use 0 333 1,615 2,347 1,196 1,218

1 Currently motorized routes that will be nonmotorized. 2 Currently motorized, closed, decommissioned or user-created routes proposed to be open for use by written 

permission and/or administrative use.

Alternative B will not nonmotorize or place any routes in administrative status and presents the 

greatest relative risk to aquatic species and habitat. Alternative E presents the greatest reduction 

in relative risk to aquatic species and habitat by designating the most miles of nonmotorized and 

administrative routes. Alternative D reduces the relative risk to aquatic species and habitat less 

than alternative E, but significantly more that alternatives C, F, and G. Alternatives F and G are 

similar and present substantial decreases in the relative risk to aquatic species and habitat, 

alternative G presents a slight decrease in the relative risk when compared to alternative F. When 

the action alternatives are compared, alternative C presents the greatest relative risk to aquatic 

species and habitat. 

Motorized Dispersed Camping 

Motorized dispersed camping currently occurs across the entire forest landscape excluding areas 

within wilderness, research natural areas (RNA), and off-highway vehicle restricted (OHV) areas. 

Motorized dispersed camping is currently limited by terrain features, vegetation, and other 

conditions that limit accessibility with motorized vehicles. Motorized dispersed camping may 

impact aquatic habitat and species in areas that are available for the activity and where streams 

are within the corridors. Riparian areas along streams are favored camping areas and the potential 

exists for motorized dispersed camping to impact riparian vegetation, increase available sediment, 

and cause streambank disturbance in camping corridors. Table 34 displays the miles of perennial 

and intermittent streams that are within areas available for motorized dispersed camping. The 

miles of streams potentially affected are significantly reduced in all of the action alternatives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 109

Table 34. Miles of perennial and intermittent streams within motorized dispersed camping 

corridors

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Miles of stream within motorized camping 

corridors

862* 64 33 0 52 44

Change in miles of stream within 

motorized camping corridors

-798 -829 -862 -810 -818

*Includes all miles of perennial and intermittent streams that are not located within wilderness, RNAs, OHVs, and 

because the forest is currently open to cross-country travel, could be impacted assuming they are accessible by 

motorized dispersed camping.

Alternative E does not include motorized dispersed camping corridors and presents the lowest 

relative risk from motorized dispersed camping to aquatic species and habitat. Alternative B 

includes the highest relative risk because the entire forest, excluding wilderness, RNAs, and 

OHVs, is open to motorized cross-country travel which allows dispersed camping anywhere that 

is accessible. Alternatives F and G are similar and present less relative risk to aquatic species and 

habitat than alternatives B and C, but more than alternatives E and D. 

Motorized Big Game Retrieval

Motorized big game retrieval currently occurs across the entire forest landscape excluding areas 

within wilderness, RNAs, and off-road vehicle restricted areas. Motorized big game retrieval is 

currently limited in some areas by terrain features, vegetation, and other conditions that limit 

accessibility with motorized vehicles. Table 35 displays the miles of perennial and intermittent 

streams that are within areas available for motorized big game retrieval. The miles of streams 

potentially affected are significantly reduced in all of the action alternatives.

Table 35. Miles of perennial and intermittent stream within areas available for motorized 

big game retrieval

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Miles of perennial and intermittent stream 

in areas available for motorized big game 

retrieval

862 672 33 0 469 44

Change in miles of stream in areas 

available for motorized big game retrieval

-190 -829 -862 -393 -818

Alternative E presents the lowest relative risk to aquatic habitat and species from motorized big 

game retrieval. Alternative B includes the most miles of perennial and intermittent streams that 

could potentially be affected by motorized big game retrieval and presents the highest relative 

risk. Alternative C presents reduced relative risk when compared to alternative B. However, 

alternative C presents the highest level of relative risk of any action alternative. Alternatives D, E, 

and G are similar, with alternative D presenting a greater reduction in relative risk when the three 

are compared. Alternative F presents a greater relative risk to aquatic habitat and species than 

alternatives D, E, and G.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

110 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Motorized Areas

Motorized areas include 38 traditional camping sites located along or at the terminus of forest 

roads and one area (3.31 acres) on the Reserve Ranger District that is proposed as an all-terrain 

vehicle play area. Alternatives D and E do not include any of the areas. Alternatives C, F, and G 

include all of the areas. These areas are already being utilized for motorized camping or 

recreation under alternative B, which also allows cross-country motorized travel across the entire 

forest excluding wilderness, RNAs, and OHV areas. Alternative B presents the highest level of 

relative risk due to the potential for cross-country travel to affect aquatic habitat and species. 

Alternatives D and E present the lowest level of relative risk due to no areas being proposed as 

open to motorized use. Alternatives C, F, and G include 0.03 mile of perennial or intermittent 

stream within one of these areas that may be impacted by motorized use.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Loach Minnow (Threatened)

In New Mexico, the loach minnow historically occupied about 330 stream km (205 miles); now it 

is found in about 258 stream km (160 miles). The loach minnow has become very rare in 

substantial portions of this remaining range. The species is extant in the upper Gila River, 

including the East, Middle, and West Forks, the San Francisco and Tularosa Rivers, Negrito 

Creek, and Dry Blue Creek.

The status of loach minnow during the last century—both in distribution and abundance—has 

been greatly reduced throughout the species’ range (Propst et al. 1986). Both historic and present 

landscapes surrounding loach minnow habitats have been impacted to varying degrees by 

domestic livestock grazing, mining, agriculture, timber harvest, recreation, development, or 

impoundments (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1990). These activities degrade loach minnow habitats by 

altering flow regimes, increasing watershed and channel erosion and thus sedimentation, and 

adding contaminants to streams and rivers. As a result, these activities may affect loach minnow 

through direct mortality, interference with reproduction, and reduction of invertebrate food 

supplies. Competition for food and space with nonnative fishes is often cited as a major factor in 

the decline of loach minnow (Propst 1999).

Comparison of Alternatives

Motorized routes can have both direct and indirect effects on loach minnow and designated 

critical habitat. Motorized routes cause the physical loss of riparian habitat and functions, create 

drainage pathways that follow route treads and alter surface water pathways, and convert 

dispersed surface runoff and sediment filtering throughout the riparian area to direct (point 

source) deliveries of accumulated runoff and sediment. Table 36 displays the miles of NFS 

motorized routes within 300 feet of loach minnow critical habitat for each alternative.

Alternative B, the no action alternative, has the greatest length of motorized routes within 300 

feet of loach minnow critical habitat, followed by alternatives E, D, and G, respectively. When 

compared to alternative B, alternatives E, D, and G reduce the miles of road within 300 feet of 

loach minnow critical habitat by 38 percent, 31 percent, and 31 percent, respectively. Alternative 

E has the fewest miles of motorized routes within 300 feet of critical habitat of any alternative,

and presents the lowest relative risk to loach minnow and critical habitat related to the impacts 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 111

from motorized routes. The relative risk to aquatic habitat and species is greatest from 

alternatives B, C, and F. 

Table 36. Miles of NFS motorized routes within 300 feet of loach minnow designated 

critical habitat

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Miles of motorized road 24 14 5 4 13 6

Miles of administrative road 0 10 12 12 11 11

Motorized trail <50 inches 2 2 1 0 1 1

Total miles of motorized routes 26 26 18 16 25 18

Change in number of miles of motorized 

routes expressed as a percent (+ or -) of 

the no action alternative

0% -31% -38% -4% -31%

Motorized routes create direct and indirect impact to streams, habitats, and aquatic species at 

route crossing points. Motorized route crossings can: (1) indirectly decrease fish egg hatching 

success and subsequent fish populations due to sedimentation; (2) directly dislocate fish spawning 

activity within ford crossings, depending on fish species and spawning suitability of stream 

substrate and flows; and (3) cause direct disturbances including streambank damage, leading to 

indirect effects of increased bank erosion and stream sedimentation. Table 37 displays the number 

of motorized route crossings within designated critical habitat for the loach minnow. 

Table 37. Number of stream crossings in loach minnow designated critical habitat

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Low water motorized road 75 44 5 5 41 8

Low water administrative road 0 31 39 39 37 37

Low water motorized trail <50 inches 4 4 0 0 1 1

Bridge 1 1 1 1 1 1

Culvert 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total number of crossings 81 81 46 46 81 48

Change in number of stream crossings

expressed as a percent (+ or – ) of the no 

action alternative

0% -43% -43% 0% -41%

Alternatives B, C, and F have the greatest number of stream and river crossings in loach minnow 

critical habitat. There is no change in the number of crossings in alternatives C and F from the no 

action alternative. However, both alternatives C and F substantially reduce the number of 

motorized crossings that are open to the public and all vehicle types. When compared to 

alternative B, alternatives E and D both reduce stream and river crossings by 43 percent and 

present the lowest relative risk to aquatic species and habitat related to the impacts from NFS 

motorized road-stream crossings. The relative risk to aquatic habitat and species is greatest from 

alternatives B, C, and F. Alternative G is similar to alternatives D and E, but includes more route 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

112 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

crossings in loach minnow critical habitat that are motorized to all users and vehicle types. 

Alternatives D and E do not include any motorized trail crossings and alternatives F and G 

substantially decrease the number of motorized trail crossings. 

Spikedace (Threatened)

The spikedace is native to the Gila River drainage, including the San Francisco drainage, except 

in the extreme headwaters (Propst et al. 1986). The spikedace currently persists only in the upper 

Verde River and Aravaipa Creek in Arizona and portions of the Gila River in New Mexico 

(Minckley 1973, Bestgen 1985, and Sublette et al. 1990). The species is generally absent from the 

Gila River from the confluence of the West and East Forks downstream to the mouth of Turkey 

Creek, and occurs irregularly downstream from the mouth of the Middle Box of the Gila River to 

the Arizona-New Mexico state line (Propst et al. 1986).

Since the 1800s, the spikedace has declined markedly in distribution and abundance throughout 

its range (Propst et al. 1986, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). By 1996, the spikedace had 

been eliminated from over 85 percent of its historic range (New Mexico Department of Game and 

Fish 1996). Distribution and abundance of spikedace has declined due to riparian degradation, 

water diversion, and ground water pumping. Introduction and spread of nonnative predatory and 

competitive fishes also contributed to its decline. Resource activities that affect water quality, 

such as removal of riparian vegetation, sedimentation, or control of water levels, can affect 

spikedace habitat quality.

Comparison of Alternatives

Motorized routes can have both direct and indirect effects on spikedace and designated critical 

habitat. Motorized routes cause the physical loss of riparian habitat and functions, create drainage 

pathways that follow route treads and alter surface water pathways, and convert dispersed surface 

runoff and sediment filtering throughout the riparian area to direct (point source) deliveries of 

accumulated runoff and sediment. Table 38 displays the miles of NFS motorized routes within 

300 feet of spikedace critical habitat for each alternative. 

Table 38. Miles of National Forest System motorized routes within 300 feet of spikedace 

designated critical habitat

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Miles of motorized road 5 3 2 2 2 2

Miles of administrative road 0 2 2 2 2 2

Motorized trail <50 inches 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total miles of motorized routes 5 5 4 4 4 4

Change in number of miles of motorized 

routes expressed as a percent (+ or -) of the 

no action alternative

0% -20% -20% -20% -20%

Alternatives B and C have the greatest number of miles of NFS motorized routes within 300 feet 

of spikedace critical habitat. All of the action alternatives, except alternative C, decrease the miles 

of motorized routes within critical habitat for the spikedace. The miles of motorized routes within 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 113

300 feet of spikedace critical habitat is relatively the same for all action alternatives. Alternatives 

D, E, F, and G are similar. Alternative C presents slightly less relative risk to spikedace and 

designated critical habitat than alternative B due to 2 miles becoming administrative roads and 

subsequent reduced use. 

Motorized routes create direct and indirect impact to streams, habitats, and aquatic species at 

route crossing points. Motorized route crossings can: (1) indirectly decrease fish egg hatching 

success and subsequent fish populations due to sedimentation; (2) directly dislocate fish spawning 

activity within ford crossings, depending on fish species and spawning suitability of stream 

substrate and flows; and (3) cause direct disturbances including streambank damage, leading to 

indirect effects of increased bank erosion and stream sedimentation. Table 39 displays the number 

of motorized route crossings within designated critical habitat for the spikedace.

The number of crossings within spikedace critical habitat is the same for all alternatives. 

Alternative E presents the lowest relative risk to spikedace and designated critical habitat due to 

eight stream crossings on routes that are proposed to become administrative routes. Alternatives 

C, D, F, and G are identical and present increased relative risk when compared to alternative E, 

but decreased relative risk when compared to alternative B. The decreased relative risk is due to 

some routes being proposed as administrative routes and the reduced use associated with this 

status. 

Table 39. Number of stream crossings in spikedace designated critical habitat

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Low water motorized road 11 3 3 1 3 3

Low water administrative road 0 8 8 10 8 8

Low water motorized trail <50 inches 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bridge 1 1 1 1 1 1

Culvert 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total number of crossings 13 13 13 13 13 13

Change in number of stream crossing 

expressed as a percent (+ or – ) of the no 

action alternative

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Gila Chub (Endangered)

Historically, the Gila chub was found in approximately 30 headwater streams of the Gila River 

basin in Arizona and New Mexico, and within the Santa Cruz and San Pedro River systems of 

Arizona and Sonora, Mexico (Miller and Lowe 1967, Rinne 1994, Minckley 1973, and Bestgen 

and Propst 1989). The Gila chub is currently restricted to small isolated populations scattered 

throughout its historical range. It is thought to occur in Turkey Creek on the Gila National Forest 

in New Mexico. In Sonora, it was recently found in two cienegas near the headwaters of the San 

Pedro River. In Arizona, populations have been extirpated from Monkey Spring; Arnett, Cave, 

Fish, and Queen Creeks; San Simon, San Pedro, and Santa Cruz Rivers; and Post Canyon. Gila 

Chub are found in fewer than 15 streams in central and southern Arizona, and are abundant at no 

more than 10 of these locations.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

114 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Eighty-five to 90 percent of Gila chub habitat has been degraded or destroyed, and much of it is 

unrecoverable (USFWS 2005). Only 29 extant populations of Gila chub remain; all but one is 

small, isolated, and threatened. Fifty-nine percent of the land supporting all of the extant 

populations occurs on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands. 

Where Gila chub is still present, populations are often small, scattered, and at risk from known 

and potential threats and random events. Continued degradation of habitat and nonnative species 

are considered the major threats to Gila chub. The decline of this fish is due to habitat loss and 

invasion of nonindigenous fish species. Habitat loss has included past and current dewatering of 

rivers, springs, and cienegas; diversion of water channels; impoundments; regulation of flow; and 

land management practices. All of these activities have promoted erosion and arroyo formation,

and the introduction of predacious and competing nonindigenous fish species (Miller 1961).

Comparison of Alternatives

Motorized routes can have both direct and indirect effects on Gila chub and designated critical 

habitat. Motorized routes cause the physical loss of riparian habitat and functions, create drainage 

pathways that follow route treads and alter surface water pathways, and convert dispersed surface 

runoff and sediment filtering throughout the riparian area to direct (point source) deliveries of 

accumulated runoff and sediment. Table 40 displays the miles of NFS motorized routes within 

300 feet of Gila chub critical habitat for each alternative.

Table 40. Miles of NFS motorized routes within 300 feet of Gila chub designated critical 

habitat

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Miles of motorized road 4 4 2 2 2 2

Miles of administrative road 0 0 1 1 1 1

Motorized trail < 50 inches 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total miles of motorized routes 4 4 3 3 3 3

Change in number of miles of motorized 

routes expressed as a percent (+ or -) of 

the no action alternative

0% -25% -25% -25% -25%

Primary constituent elements of critical habitat include perennial water that is of the correct 

temperature for all life stages, water quality that supports the species, sufficient food base and 

cover, and is devoid of nonnative species that are detrimental to Gila chub. All alternatives 

include motorized routes that are within 300 feet of Gila chub critical habitat in Harden Cienega 

and Turkey Creeks. However, the majority of designated critical habitat on the Gila National 

Forest lacks most of these primary constituent elements, including perennial water. Designated 

critical habitat on the forest that does have these elements present is located in the Gila 

Wilderness where there are no roads.

Alternatives B and C have the greatest miles of motorized routes within 300 feet of Gila chub 

critical habitat, and present the greatest relative risk to the species. The miles of motorized routes 

within 300 feet of Gila chub critical habitat are the same for alternatives D, E, F, and G. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 115

Motorized routes create direct and indirect impacts to streams, habitats, and aquatic species at 

route crossing points. Motorized route crossings can: (1) indirectly decrease fish egg hatching 

success and subsequent fish populations due to sedimentation; (2) directly dislocate fish spawning 

activity within ford crossings, depending on fish species and spawning suitability of stream 

substrate and flows; and (3) cause direct disturbances including streambank damage, leading to 

indirect effects of increased bank erosion and stream sedimentation. Table 41 displays the number 

of motorized route crossings within designated critical habitat for the Gila chub.

The number of crossings within Gila chub critical habitat is the same for alternatives D, F, and G, 

and when compared to the no action alternative, they all present a slight decrease in the relative 

risk to Gila chub. Alternative C includes the greatest number of crossings and presents the 

greatest relative risk to the Gila chub. Alternative E has the fewest number of crossings and 

presents the lowest relative risk to Gila chub.

Table 41. Number of stream crossings in Gila chub designated critical habitat

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Low water motorized road 5 5 3 2 3 3

Low water administrative road 0 1 1 1 1 1

Low water motorized trail <50 inches 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bridge 0 0 0 0 0 0

Culvert 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total number of crossings 5 6 4 3 4 4

Change in number of stream crossing 

expressed as a percent (+ or – ) of the no

action alternative

+20% -20% -40% -20% -20%

Chihuahua Chub (Threatened)

In New Mexico, Chihuahua chub is only native to the Mimbres River drainage (Sublette et al. 

1990). In 1975, a small reproducing population was found in Moreno Spring (Propst 1999). 

Moreno Spring is located off NFS lands along the Mimbres River, Grant County, New Mexico. 

Chihuahua chub are reported to occur regularly at Moreno Spring, and irregularly along an 

approximate 15 km (9.3 mi) reach of the Mimbres River from Allie Canyon southward to the 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish property south of Mimbres, New Mexico (Propst 

1999). Chihuahua chub were stocked in McKnight Creek, a Mimbres River tributary, by New 

Mexico Department of Game and Fish, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service. 

Reproduction in McKnight Creek was not confirmed, and recent surveys indicate that the species 

is no longer present in the creek. During 2008 stream surveys, Chihuahua chub were collected 

from a reach of Mimbres River within the Gila National Forest (J. Monzingo, personal 

observation). This site is approximately 11 miles upstream of known occupied habitat.

Populations rangewide appear to be decreasing, particularly in Mexico (Propst 1994). Propst 

(1999) reports Chihuahua chub numbers are typically less than 300 around Moreno Spring. 

Sublette et al. (1990) report the status of the population as “diminishing.” However, D. Propst (D. 

Propst personal communication) believes the population has remained stable at 200 to 300 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

116 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

individuals in the recent past. Historically, Chihuahua chub probably occupied all of the 

warmwater reaches of the Mimbres River drainage (Propst 1999).

Habitat modification or loss appears to have played a major role in the decline of Chihuahua 

chub. Improper grazing, irrigation diversion, stream modification (e.g., channelization, levees, 

etc.), and degraded watershed conditions that caused severe flooding and loss of riparian 

vegetation have been identified as causes for the loss of habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1986). 

Introduced nonnative species have been reported to prey on Chihuahua chub and/or have been 

reported to take over preferred habitats (Sublette et al. 1990 and Propst 1999).

Comparison of Alternatives

Motorized routes can have both direct and indirect effects on Chihuahua chub and its habitat. 

Motorized routes cause the physical loss of riparian habitat and functions, create drainage 

pathways that follow route treads and alter surface water pathways, and convert dispersed surface 

runoff and sediment filtering throughout the riparian area to direct (point source) deliveries of 

accumulated runoff and sediment. Table 42 displays the miles of NFS motorized routes within 

300 feet of Chihuahua chub occupied habitat.

Alternative B includes the highest number of miles of motorized routes in occupied Chihuahua 

chub habitat and, therefore, presents the greatest relative risk to the species. All of the action 

alternatives reduce the miles of routes in occupied habitat. However, alternative E reduces the 

relative risk further by designating the routes that are within occupied habitat as administrative, 

therefore reducing use.

Table 42. Miles of NFS motorized routes within 300 feet of occupied Chihuahua chub 

habitat

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Miles of motorized roads 2 1 1 0 1 1

Miles of administrative roads 0 0 0 1 0 0

Motorized trail <50 inches 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total miles of motorized routes 2 1 1 1 1 1

Change in number of miles of motorized

routes expressed as a percent (+or-) of the 

no action alternative

-50% -50% -50% -50% -50%

Motorized routes create direct and indirect impact to streams, habitats, and aquatic species at 

route crossing points. Motorized route crossings can: (1) indirectly decrease fish egg hatching 

success and subsequent fish populations due to sedimentation; (2) directly dislocate fish spawning 

activity within ford crossings, depending on fish species and spawning suitability of stream 

substrate and flows; and (3) cause direct disturbances including streambank damage, leading to 

indirect effects of increased bank erosion and stream sedimentation. Table 43 displays the number 

of motorized route crossings within occupied Chihuahua chub habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 117

Table 43. Number of NFS route stream crossings in occupied Chihuahua chub habitat

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Low water motorized road 17 2 2 0 2 2

Low water administrative road 0 0 0 2 0 0

Total number of crossings 17 2 2 2 2 2

Change in number of stream crossings

expressed as a percent (+ or – ) of the no 

action alternative

-88% -88% -88% -88% -88%

Alternative B includes the highest number of stream crossings in occupied Chihuahua chub 

habitat and, therefore, presents the greatest relative risk to the species. All of the action 

alternatives reduce the number of stream crossings in occupied habitat. However, alternative E 

reduces the relative risk further by designating as administrative the routes and, thus, the 

crossings that are within occupied habitat, therefore reducing use.

Gila Trout (Threatened)

Historically, Gila trout were believed to occupy the upper Gila in New Mexico and parts of the 

San Francisco systems of Arizona and New Mexico (Behnke 2002). The Arizona populations 

were believed to be extirpated around the turn of the 20th century (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1993). The New Mexico populations were depleted to five populations in the headwaters of the 

Gila drainage by the 1960s (Minckley 1973, Propst and Stefferud 1997). Distribution of both Gila 

and Apache trout is not known for certain, but Behnke (2002) theorizes that Gila and Apache 

trout may have come together in the Verde River during the last glacial period to hybridize and 

produce a form intermediate to the two still existing trout. By the 1960s, the Gila trout range had 

been severely fragmented into small isolated populations in five headwater streams: Main 

Diamond, South Diamond, McKenna, Spruce, and Iron Creeks (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1993). Beginning in 1970, Gila trout from each of the five relict populations were translocated 

into other streams. Iron Creek and McKenna fish were later found to be hybridized with rainbow 

trout. In 1992, a relict population in Whiskey Creek was discovered. There are now four relict 

lineages: Main Diamond, South Diamond, Spruce Creek, and Whiskey Creek.

Currently there are 15 populations of Gila trout in the wild. Of the four relict populations (Main 

Diamond, South Diamond, Spruce, and Whiskey Creek), only Main Diamond, South Diamond,

and Spruce are secure. Whiskey Creek is no longer considered a viable replicated population due 

to the fires of 2003. The total population size in 1998 was estimated to be approximately 37,000 

fish (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003) and approximately 62 miles (100 km) of stream were 

occupied in June 2000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003).

Major threats to this species include habitat alterations, competition, hybridization and predation 

by nonindigenous fish. 

Comparison of Alternatives

Motorized routes can have both direct and indirect effects on Gila trout and its habitat. Motorized 

routes cause the physical loss of riparian habitat and functions, create drainage pathways that 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

118 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

follow route treads and alter surface water pathways, and convert dispersed surface runoff and 

sediment filtering throughout the riparian area to direct (point source) deliveries of accumulated 

runoff and sediment. Table 44 displays the miles of NFS motorized routes within 300 feet of 

occupied Gila trout habitat.

Alternative B includes the highest number of miles of motorized routes open to all users in 

occupied Gila trout habitat and, therefore, presents the greatest relative risk to the species. 

Alternative E is the only action alternative that reduces the miles of routes within occupied 

habitat and presents the lowest relative risk. Alternatives C, D, F, and G are the same and reduce 

relative risk when compared to alternative B due to reduced use on 0.20 mile of route proposed as 

administrative. These alternatives present a slightly higher relative risk than alternative E due to 

0.1 mile more motorized route. 

Table 44. Miles of NFS motorized routes within 300 feet of occupied Gila trout habitat

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Miles of motorized road 1.30 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.10

Miles of administrative road 0 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

Motorized trail <50 inches 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total miles of motorized routes 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.20 1.30 1.30

Change in number of miles of motorized 

routes expressed as a percent (+ or -) of 

the no action alternative

0% 0% 0% -8% 0% 0%

Motorized routes create direct and indirect impact to streams, habitats, and aquatic species at 

route crossing points. Motorized route crossings can: (1) indirectly decrease fish egg hatching 

success and subsequent fish populations due to sedimentation; (2) directly dislocate fish spawning 

activity within ford crossings, depending on fish species and spawning suitability of stream 

substrate and flows; and (3) cause direct disturbances including streambank damage, leading to 

indirect effects of increased bank erosion and stream sedimentation. Table 45 displays the number 

of motorized route crossings within occupied Gila trout habitat.

Table 45. Number of stream crossings in occupied Gila trout habitat

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Low water motorized road 2 1 1 1 1 1

Low water administrative road 0 1 1 1 1 1

Low water motorized trail <50 inches 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bridge 1 1 1 1 1 1

Culvert 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total number of crossings 3 3 3 3 3 3

Change in number of stream crossings

expressed as a percent (+ or – ) of the no 

action alternative

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 119

All of the action alternatives are the same and present a decrease in relative risk to occupied Gila 

trout habitat when compared to alternative B due to one stream crossing being proposed as 

administrative, thus reducing use. Alternative B presents the highest relative risk to Gila trout.

Endangered Species Act, Section 7 

Consultation Effects Determinations

All action alternatives reduce the relative risk to listed species by: (1) prohibiting motorized 

cross-country travel; (2) reducing use levels by closing some motorized routes across the forest 

(the effects of the road on the landscape will continue until decommissioned); (3) reducing or 

eliminating the area that may be impacted by motorized big game retrieval and motorized 

dispersed camping; (4) reducing the number of motorized route stream crossings; and (5) 

reducing motorized use levels on some routes and at associated stream crossings by designating 

routes for administrative use only. Table 46 displays the effects determination for federally listed 

aquatic species that occur on the Gila National Forest and critical habitat for those species for 

which it has been designated. However, the changes proposed in each of the action alternatives 

will present some continued level of relative risk and have direct and indirect effects on listed 

species. The level of relative risk is different for each of the action alternatives and is dependent 

upon proposed changes to the above elements.

Table 46. Gila National Forest threatened, endangered, and designated critical habitat 

effects determinations

Species 

(Common 

Name)

Status Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Loach 

minnow

T with DCH MALAA MALAA MALAA MALAA MALAA

Spikedace T with DCH MALAA MALAA MALAA MALAA MALAA

Gila chub E with DCH MANLAA MANLAA MANLAA MANLAA MANLAA

Chihuahua 

chub

T MALAA MALAA MALAA MALAA MALAA

Gila trout T MALAA MALAA MALAA MALAA MALAA

Key: T=threatened; E=endangered; DCH=designated critical habitat; NE= no effect; MANLAA=may affect, not likely 

to adversely affect; MALAA=may affect likely to adversely affect

Southwestern Region Sensitive Aquatic Species 

Sensitive species are those animal species identified by a regional forester for which population 

viability is a concern as evidenced by a significant current or predicted downward trend in 

population numbers, density, or in habitat capability that will reduce a species’ existing 

distribution (FSM 2670.5.19). Protection of sensitive species and their habitats is a response to 

the mandate of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) to maintain viable populations of 

all native and desired nonnative vertebrate species (36 CFR 219.19). The sensitive species 

program is intended to be proactive by identifying potentially vulnerable species and taking 

positive action to prevent declines that will result in listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

Effects to aquatic sensitive species are summarized in table 47.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

120 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 47. Gila National Forest, Southwestern Region sensitive aquatic species effects determinations by alternative

Species Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G Effects Summary

Rio Grande 

cutthroat trout

NI NI NI NI NI No impact to Rio Grande cutthroat trout. Currently there are no populations 

on the forest, but suitable habitat exists. All action alternatives reduce the 

potential risk through reduction of motorized use from open to all vehicles 

to motorized for administrative use only on the single road located in the 

species habitat.

Headwater chub MI MI MI MI MI Headwater chub occur in the three forks of the Gila River. Alternatives D 

and E reduce the miles of motorized route within 300 feet of occupied 

habitat when compared to the no action alternative; alternatives C, F, and G 

do not. The number of stream crossings in occupied habitat is the same for 

all alternatives. However, most of the crossings and miles of motorized 

route will have reduced use levels because of designation as administrative 

use only.

Roundtail chub MI MI MI MI MI Roundtail chub occur in the mainstem Gila River. All action alternatives, 

except alternative C reduce the miles of motorized route within 300 feet of 

stream occupied by the species. There is no change in the number of stream 

crossings between any of the alternatives. However, most of the crossings 

and miles of motorized route will have reduced use levels because of 

designation as administrative use only.

Gila springsnail NI NI NI NI NI Alternative B includes 0.05 mile of motorized route within 300 feet of one 

population. All action alternatives propose to nonmotorize this route.

New Mexico hot 

springsnail

NI NI NI NI NI There are no motorized routes currently or proposed in any of the action 

alternatives that will impact the species.

Longfin dace MI MI MI MI MI Longfin dace are common and widespread in streams on the forest. All 

action alternatives reduce the direct and indirect effects to the species by 

reducing the number of stream crossings and miles of motorized (except 

alternative C) routes within 300 feet of stream habitat. However, the 

changes proposed in all action alternatives include motorized routes that are 

within 300 feet or have crossings that may impact streams where the species 

occurs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 121

Table 47. Gila National Forest, Southwestern Region sensitive aquatic species effects determinations by alternative

Species Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G Effects Summary

Sonora sucker MI MI MI MI MI The Sonora sucker is common and widespread in streams on the forest. All 

action alternatives reduce the direct and indirect effects to the species by 

reducing the number of stream crossings and miles of motorized (except 

alternative C) routes within 300 feet of stream habitat. However, the 

changes proposed in all action alternatives include motorized routes that are 

within 300 feet or have crossings that may impact streams where the species 

occurs.

Desert sucker MI MI MI MI MI The desert sucker is common and widespread in streams on the forest. All 

action alternatives reduce the direct and indirect effects to the species by 

reducing the number of stream crossings and miles of motorized (except 

alternative C) routes within 300 feet of stream habitat. However, the 

changes proposed in all action alternatives include motorized routes that are 

within 300 feet or have crossings that may impact streams where the species 

occurs.

Rio Grande chub MI MI MI MI MI All alternatives propose no change in the total miles of motorized route 

within 300 feet of streams or the number of stream crossings that may be 

occupied by the species. Motorized use levels may be reduced due to 

designation of some of these routes and associated stream crossings as 

administrative use only. There may be continued impacts to the species by 

the changes proposed in each alternative.

Rio Grande sucker MI MI MI MI MI The Rio Grande sucker is common and widespread in streams on the forest. 

All action alternatives reduce the direct and indirect effects to the species by 

reducing the number of stream crossings and miles of motorized (except 

alternative C) routes within 300 feet of stream habitat. However, the 

changes proposed in all action alternatives include motorized routes that are 

within 300 feet or have crossings that may impact streams where the species 

occurs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

122 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 47. Gila National Forest, Southwestern Region sensitive aquatic species effects determinations by alternative

Species Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G Effects Summary

Black Range 

Mountainsnails

Oreohelix swopei 

Oreohelix 

metcalfei 

acutidiscus

Oreohelix 

metcalfei 

metcalfei

Oreohelix pilsbryi

Oreohelixs 

metcalfei 

concentric

Bearded 

Mountainsnail

Oreohelix barbata

Subalpine 

Mountainsnail

Oreohelix 

subrudis

Whitewater 

Woodlandsnail

Ashmunella 

danielsi

MI MI MI MI MI Most of the occurrence records for these snails are historic and based on 

general localities rather than exact locations of populations (i.e., the bearded 

mountainsnail is known to occur in canyons between Dry Creek and Willow 

Creek). Many of the localities are within wilderness and are not susceptible 

to disturbance from motorized uses. All of the action alternatives reduce the 

relative risk to these species by eliminating cross-country travel, reducing or 

eliminating off-road use associated with motorized big game retrieval and 

motorized dispersed camping, reducing the miles of routes open for 

motorized use, and reducing use on some routes.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 123

Table 47. Gila National Forest, Southwestern Region sensitive aquatic species effects determinations by alternative

Species Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G Effects Summary

Silver Creek 

Woodlandsnail

Ashmunella 

binneyi

Iron Creek 

Woodlandsnail

Ashmunella 

mendex

Dry Creek 

Woodlandsnails

Ashmunella 

tetradon inermis

Ashmunella 

tetradon mutator

Ashmunella 

tetradon tetradon

Ashmunella 

tetradon 

animorum

Black Range 

Woodlandsnails

Ashmunella 

cockerelli 

cockerelli

Ashmunella 

cockerilli 

argenticola

Ashmunella 

cockerelli 

perobtusa

Most of the occurrence records for these snails are historic and based on 

general localities rather than exact locations of populations (i.e., the bearded 

mountainsnail is known to occur in canyons between Dry Creek and Willow 

Creek). Many of the localities are within wilderness and are not susceptible 

to disturbance from motorized uses. All of the action alternatives reduce the 

relative risk to these species by eliminating cross-country travel, reducing or 

eliminating off-road use associated with motorized big game retrieval and 

motorized dispersed camping, reducing the miles of routes open for 

motorized use, and reducing use on some routes.

Key: NI= no impact; MI= may impact, but will not result in loss of species viability or create significant trend toward Federal listing
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

124 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Gila National Forest Management Indicator Species

Gila and Rio Grande cutthroat trout are identified as Gila National Forest management indicator 

species. One stream, Black Canyon, occupied by Gila trout, has two motorized routes within 300 

feet with a bridge and two low water stream crossings associated with them. Black Canyon is 

seasonally open to fishing and is stocked with Gila trout on occasion. All of the action 

alternatives reduce the length of motorized route within 300 feet of the stream that is open to all 

users by designating a portion of the route as an administrative road for access to private property.

One stream crossing along this portion of the route will also see reduced use as a result of this

designation. The relative risk to Gila trout from motorized routes will be slightly reduced in all 

action alternatives. Gila trout population trends will not be affected by any of the action 

alternatives. There currently are no Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations on the forest. 

However, one stream, Animas Creek, is considered historical habitat for the species. There are 3

miles of motorized route within 300 feet of the stream and 15 stream crossings associated with 

the route. All action alternatives will reduce the motorized use on the route by designating it as an 

administrative route. Relative risk to Rio Grande cutthroat trout habitat will be reduced in all 

action alternatives. Habitat suitability for the species will not be affected by any of the action 

alternatives.

Conclusions

● At the forestwide scale, alternative B (no action) would be expected to have the greatest 

potential to adversely affect aquatic habitats and species because alternative B includes 

the greatest overall length of motorized route, has the most miles of motorized route 

within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent streams, has the highest number of stream 

crossings, and permits motorized cross-country travel.

● All action alternatives propose to prohibit motorized cross-country travel except where, 

in some alternatives, it is allowed for motorized dispersed camping and/or motorized big 

game retrieval. All action alternatives decrease and/or remove the level of relative risk to 

aquatic habitat and species from motorized cross-country travel. 

● At the forestwide scale, when compared to the other action alternatives, alternative C 

would be expected to present the greatest relative risk of adversely affecting aquatic 

habitats and aquatic species. Alternative C includes the greatest number of miles of 

motorized routes, the greatest number of miles of motorized route within 300 feet of 

perennial and intermittent streams, and the greatest number of stream crossings. 

Alternative C proposes to convert the greatest length of current National Forest System

nonmotorized trails and reopen closed and decommissioned routes to motorized use. 

Alternative C includes the greatest number of acres across the forest landscape where 

motorized dispersed camping and motorized big game retrieval activities could occur.

● At the forestwide scale, alternative D presents the second lowest level of relative risk to 

aquatic habitat and species. This alternative includes fewer miles of motorized routes, 

motorized routes within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent streams, and stream 

crossings than alternatives B, C, F, and G, but greater numbers of these indicators than 

alternative E. This alternative also reduces the relative risk to aquatic habitat and species 

greater than alternatives B, C, G, and F by proposing less area on the forest that would be 

subject to motorized cross-country travel associated with motorized dispersed camping 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 125

and motorized big game retrieval. However, alternative D does propose more area that 

would be subject to these activities than alternative E.

● At the forestwide scale, alternative E would be expected to present the lowest relative 

risk of adversely affecting aquatic habitats and species of all alternatives. Alternative E 

proposes the fewest miles of motorized routes, the fewest miles of motorized routes 

within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent streams, and the fewest stream crossings. 

Alternative E proposes to reopen the fewest miles of closed and/or decommissioned 

routes and eliminates relative risk associated with motorized dispersed camping and 

motorized big game retrieval. Alternative E also reduces use on the most miles of 

motorized routes by proposing the most miles of routes that would only be available for 

use by written permit and/or for administrative use.

● At the forestwide scale, alternatives F and G present similar levels of relative risk to 

aquatic habitat and species. Both alternatives present lower levels of risk than alternatives 

B and C, and increased levels of relative risk when compared to alternatives D and E. 

Alternative G proposes fewer miles of motorized routes, motorized routes within 300 feet 

of perennial and intermittent streams, and stream crossing than alternative F. Alternative 

G also proposes a reduction in the area that is subject to motorized dispersed camping 

and motorized big game retrieval. Both alternatives F and G propose the same miles of 

closed and decommissioned routes to be reopened.

● At the special status aquatic species and habitat level, the relative risk of each alternative 

generally follows the same trend as the level of risk at the forestwide scale. Alternative B 

presents the greatest relative risk and alternative E presents the lowest relative risk.

Alternatives F and G are similar and present lower relative risk levels than alternatives B 

and C. Alternative D presents a lower level of relative risk than alternatives B, C, F, and 

G, but a higher level than alternative E.

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are the combined impacts of past, present and reasonably foreseeable events 

on the indicators that were identified and utilized to determine the relative risk of effects to 

aquatic species and habitats. Activities considered include those directly modifying aquatic 

habitat and those indirectly affecting sediment delivery. See the hydrology report for activities 

that directly and indirectly affect water quality, riparian vegetation, and watershed condition.

These habitats have been altered in many cases by past road and trail construction, vegetation 

management, domestic livestock grazing, recreation activities, motorized cross-country travel, 

and other factors. The following analysis was derived by reviewing the compilation of past and 

present programs and activities presented in the watershed and soils specialist report (USDA 

Forest Service 2010d). 

The net effect of past programs and activities was a reduction in aquatic habitat quantity and 

quality from pristine conditions. However, these effects are highly variable and localized. In 

general, present programs and activities are at best reducing impacts or not increasing impacts at 

worst, with the net effects combining to reduce negative effects to aquatic resources. Most 

important among these activities, in terms of magnitude of beneficial effects, are projects to 

restore fish populations and aquatic habitat, modification of range management methods 

including exclusion of livestock from major drainages, vegetation management, and reduced road 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

126 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

construction related to timber harvest. Although localized degraded habitats continue to be 

present, the overall forest trend for aquatic habitat and species is positive. 

Although some programs and activities will maintain existing effects on aquatic biota and their 

habitats, and others may have localized short-term negative effects, the net combined effects of 

reasonably foreseeable programs and activities are also beneficial with regard to aquatic species 

and habitat. Reasonably foreseeable actions that are expected to occur include reauthorization of 

grazing permits, vegetation management projects (mechanical thinning and prescribed fire), 

firewood gathering, road and trail improvement, aquatic habitat improvement projects, native fish 

restoration projects, and development of recreational opportunities.

Alternative B, the no action alternative, has the highest potential to result in adverse cumulative 

impacts to aquatic resources. This is primarily related to the continuation of open cross-country 

travel across the forest, including sensitive riparian areas, streams occupied by rare aquatic 

resources, and other stream corridors. This alternative also allows all unauthorized routes 

currently identified as part of the forest travel system to continue to be utilized and the risk of 

additional unauthorized routes to develop.

Cumulative effects related to sediment delivery decrease from alternative B in all action 

alternatives, with alternative E presenting the lowest level of relative risk and alternative C 

presenting the greatest. However, the decrease in sediment is likely to be small because the routes 

that are being nonmotorized will remain on the landscape and continue to produce sediment. The 

relative risk of negative cumulative effects related to the direct effect of motorized routes at 

stream crossings also decreases in all action alternatives when compared to the no action 

alternative. Again, alternative E presents the lowest level of cumulative effects risk and 

alternative C the greatest. All of the action alternatives prohibit cross-country travel, reduce the 

miles of motorized routes, reduce motorized use levels on some routes, and limit or prohibit 

activities such as motorized big game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping. Cumulative 

effects will increase, from alternative E with the lowest level, in order from D, G, F, and C. 

Wildlife 

This section summarizes the wildlife specialist report (USDA Forest Service 2010f).

Affected Environment

Vegetation on the forest is diverse and complex. Tree, shrub, grass and forb species from the 

Rocky Mountains and Mogollon Plateau are integrated with species from the Chihuahuan Desert. 

The highest zone encompasses Engelmann and corkbark fir communities, followed by the 

Engelmann spruce and Douglas-fir community. Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, white fir, and 

southwestern white pine are dominant members of the next lower community. Aspen is 

commonly intermixed in portions of these higher elevations. Ponderosa pine is typically 

intermixed with either Gambel oak or alligator juniper, and then piñon-juniper woodlands are the 

next community down on the elevation gradient. The semidesert zones at lower elevations include 

mesquite, yucca, cacti, desert ceanothus, beargrass, and black grama in the various communities. 

Riparian zones range from the alder-narrowleaf cottonwood zones in higher elevations to 

sycamore-walnut-boxelder and Fremont cottonwood zones at the lower elevations. Data from a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 127

recent mid-scale vegetation mapping project was used to summarize the acres of the different 

vegetation types on the forest (table 48).

The diverse topography, elevations, and climatic conditions on the Gila National Forest create a 

diversity of landforms and plant and animal habitats.

Several federally listed threatened and endangered species occur on the forest. Federally listed 

terrestrial species include the Mexican spotted owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, Chiricahua 

leopard frog, and Mexican gray wolf. 

Table 48. Primary vegetation types on the forest

Vegetation Type NFS Acres Non-Wilderness 

Acres

Wilderness 

Acres

Spruce-fir 2,540.41 0.00 2,540.41

Mixed conifer 163,916.45 84,337.23 79,579.22

Ponderosa pine 1,177,746.00 905,500.46 272,245.55

Piñon-juniper and shrub oak woodland 1,643,096.46 1,228,044.12 415,052.35

Plains grassland and mountain grassland 227,231.69 217,998.45 9,233.24

Desert shrub and grassland 18,138.20 17,446.93 691.27

Sparsely vegetated 5,744.84 3,874.06 1,870.78

Lake 269.00 269.00 0.00

Wet meadow and wetland 423.29 384.51 38.78

High riparian 6,387.25 3,474.78 2,912.47

Mid riparian 10,870.67 6,918.44 3,952.23

Low riparian 10,862.33 6,672.37 4,189.96

Sum 3,267,226.59 2,474,920.36 792,306.24

In January 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published the final rule that allowed for the 

establishment of a nonessential experimental population of Mexican gray wolf on the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests in Arizona and the Gila National Forest. As part of the Mexican Gray 

Wolf Reintroduction Program, the wolf has been translocated onto the Gila National Forest. 

Biological study of the Gila National Forest first started in October 1846 when Emory (1848) 

made observations and collected specimens there en route between the Rio Grande and San 

Diego, California (Hubbard 1977). Hubbard 1977 reports that various biologists visited the area 

to collect specimens and carry out research, including members of the U.S. Biological Survey in 

the period 1906 to 1913. Hubbard (1977) documents that the first attempt to summarize this 

biological information appears by said author in 1968. Zimmerman (1968) expanded considerably 

on the available information related to the bird fauna of the Gila River Valley. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

128 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

In 1977, a study was published by an interagency group that used available literature and some 

inventory work to identify the fauna of the Gila River in New Mexico. The interagency group 

consisted of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Soil Conservation Service, Bureau 

of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. John P. Hubbard of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish compiled and edited 

this study; therefore, it will be referenced as Hubbard 1977. Since Hubbard (1977) there have 

been a few more studies on the birds of the Gila River, but aside from birds, work on other 

terrestrial vertebrates has been very limited. 

The Gila National Forest supports a diverse mammalian fauna. Several biotic regions contribute 

species to the fauna, and several species reach their distributional limits in or near the forest 

(Hubbard 1977). The Gila National Forest mammalian checklist documents the occurrence of 84 

mammals on the forest. Important game species that are part of the mammalian group include 

mule deer, Coues deer, elk, bighorn sheep, pronghorn, mountain lions, and black bears.

The Gila Valley in New Mexico supports a diverse avifauna, drawing species from several 

distinct biotic areas (Hubbard 1977). Species from the following biotic areas are represented in 

the project area: Sonoran Desert, Chihuahuan Desert, Rocky Mountain, and Sierra Madrean. The 

“Birds of the Gila National Forest: A Checklist” documents the occurrence of 337 species of birds 

that use the forest; 166 known to breed on the Gila, 114 others that are more or less regular 

nonbreeders, and 57 species considered casual or accidental. Hubbard (1977) reports that about 

half of the breeding species depend on riparian habitats and many others make use of them.

The forest supports a diverse amphibian and reptile (herpetofauna) community within its 

boundaries. Species from several biotic regions are represented. One of the most important 

features is that several species reach their distributional limits in or near the forest, especially 

from the Sonoran Desert herpetofauna. The breakdown of species from the most current literature 

reports 1 salamander, 4 toads, 6 frogs, 3 turtles, 21 lizards, and 20 snakes. Ecologically, most of 

the amphibian species use the riparian habitats; however, only the tiger salamander, Woodhouse’s 

toad, canyon treefrog, bullfrog, Chiricahua leopard frog, and lowland leopard frog appear closely 

dependent on mesic environments. 

Species Considered

Species analyzed include those occurring on the Gila National Forest that are:

1. Federally listed endangered, threatened, or proposed (FSM 2672.4), and designated 

critical habitat for these species.

2. Region 3 Regional Forester Sensitive Species (FSM 2670.5).

3. Migratory bird species that may occur on the Gila National Forest.

4. Gila National Forest management indicator species (MIS) as listed by the “Gila National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.”

5. Species identified through scoping, and species or species groups that occur on the Gila 

National Forest that have the potential to be impacted by implementation of an 

alternative, but not covered by the species listed above. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 129

Threatened, Endangered and Proposed 

Species, and Designated Critical Habitat

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service county list of endangered, threatened, and proposed species, 

and species of concern was reviewed to determine the federally listed species that would need to 

be considered in this evaluation.

Table 49 identifies the federally listed species and respective designated critical habitat 

considered in this evaluation, and the species dropped from additional evaluation.

Table 49. Federally listed species (endangered, threatened, proposed and experimental) 

for Catron, Grant, Hidalgo, and Sierra Counties, New Mexico (accessed February 2010)

Scientific Name Common Name Status County

Species Dropped 

from Additional 

Analysis and 

Rationale

Strix occidentalis 

lucida

Mexican spotted owl Threatened and

Critical Habitat

Catron, Grant, 

Hidalgo, Sierra

Sterna antillarum Least tern (interior 

population

Endangered Catron No habitat on the Gila. 

No effect determination

Empidonax 

traillii extimus

Southwestern 

willow flycatcher

Endangered and

Critical Habitat

Catron, Grant, 

Hidalgo, Sierra

Charadrius 

montanus

Mountain plover Proposed Catron, Hidalgo, 

Sierra

No habitat on the Gila. 

No effect determination

Mustela nigripes Black-footed ferret Endangered Catron, Grant, Sierra Extirpated from Gila. No 

effect determination

Falco femoralis 

septentrionalis

Northern aplomado 

falcon

Endangered Grant, Hidalgo, Sierra No habitat on the Gila. 

No effect determination.

Leptonycteris 

curasoae 

yerbabuenae

Lesser long-nosed 

bat

Endangered Hidalgo No habitat on the Gila. 

No effect determination.

Leptonycteris 

nivalis

Mexican long-nosed 

bat

Endangered Hidalgo No habitat on the Gila. 

No effect determination.

Rana 

chiricahuensis

Chiricahua leopard 

frog

Threatened Catron, Grant, 

Hidalgo, Sierra

Crotalus willardi 

obscurus

New Mexico 

ridgenose 

rattlesnake

Threatened Hidalgo No habitat on the Gila. 

No effect determination.

Canis lupus 

baileyi

Mexican gray wolf Endangered 

Experimental

Catron, Grant, 

Hidalgo, Sierra

Panthera onca 

arizonensis

Jaguar Endangered Hidalgo No recent occurance 

records on the Gila. No 

effect determination.

Erigeron 

rhizomatus

Zuni fleabane Threatened Catron No habitat on the Gila. 

No effect determination.

Hedeoma 

todsenii

Todsen’s 

pennyroyal

Endangered Sierra No habitat on the Gila. 

No effect determination.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

130 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Regional Forester Sensitive Species and Federal Candidates

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service candidate species and Forest Service sensitive species list for 

the Southwestern Region were reviewed to determine the species that would need to be 

considered in evaluating this project. Table 50 identifies the sensitive species considered for this 

evaluation, and the species dropped from additional evaluation.

Table 50. Forest Service Southwestern Region sensitive species and Federal candidates

Scientific Name Common Name Status

Species Dropped from 

Additional Analysis and 

Rationale

Mammals

Sorex merriami leucogenys Merriam’s shrew Sensitive Not found on the Gila. No impact.

Sorex nanus Dwarf shrew Sensitive Not found on the Gila. No impact.

Lasiurus blossevilli Western red bat Sensitive

Euderma maculatum Spotted bat Sensitive Bat mortality due to major highways 

is less than 0.5 percent. Along forest 

roads with lower speeds and 

significantly less volumes of traffic 

there would be no adverse effects to 

cliff-dwelling bats. Implementation 

of this project will have no impact to 

these bats.

Idionycteris phyllotis Allen’s lappet-browed 

bat

Sensitive

Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s big-eared 

bat

Sensitive

Spermophilus 

tridecemlineatus monticola

White Mountains ground 

squirrel

Sensitive

Cynomys gunnisoni Gunnison’s prairie dog Sensitive

Sciurus arizonensis 

arizonensis

Arizona gray squirrel Sensitive

Thomomys bottae aureus Botta’s pocket gopher Sensitive

Sigmodon ochrognathus Yellow-nosed cotton rat Sensitive Not found on the Gila. No impact.

Clethrionomys gapperi Southern red-backed vole Sensitive

Microtus montanus 

arizonensis

Arizona montane vole Sensitive

Microtus longicaudus Long-tailed vole Sensitive

Nasua narica White-nosed Coati Sensitive

Mephitis macroura milleri Hooded skunk Sensitive

Ovis canadensis canadensis Rocky Mountain bighorn 

sheep

Sensitive

Birds

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Sensitive

Phalacrocorax brasilianus Neotropic cormorant Sensitive

Accipiter gentilis apache Apache northern 

goshawk

Sensitive
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 131

Table 50. Forest Service Southwestern Region sensitive species and Federal candidates

Scientific Name Common Name Status

Species Dropped from 

Additional Analysis and 

Rationale

Asturina nitida maximus Northern gray hawk Sensitive

Buteogallus anthracinus Common blackhawk Sensitive

Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine 

falcon

Sensitive

Columbina passerina Common ground dove Sensitive

Coccyzus americanus 

occidentalis

Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo

Candidate

or Sensitive

Athene cunicularia hypugaea Burrowing owl Sensitive

Hylocharis leucotis White-eared 

hummingbird

Sensitive

Calypte costae Costa’s hummingbird Sensitive

Melanerpes uropygialis Gila woodpecker Sensitive

Vireo bellii Bell’s vireo Sensitive

Vireo vicinior Gray vireo Sensitive

Pipilo aberti Abert’s towhee Sensitive

Amphibians

Bufo microscaphus 

microscaphus

Southwestern (Arizona) 

toad

Sensitive

Rana yavapaiensis Lowland leopard frog Sensitive Extensive surveys on FS land for 

leopard frogs over the last 15 to 25 

years have failed to document this 

species. No impact.

Reptiles

Thamnophis rufipunctatus Narrow-headed 

gartersnake

Sensitive

Thamnophis eques megalops Mexican gartersnake Sensitive

Heloderma suspectum 

suspectum

Reticulate Gila monster Sensitive

Insects

Erpetogomphus heterodon Dashed ringtail Sensitive

Lachiania dencyannae A May fly Sensitive

Speyeria nokomis nitocris Nitocris fritillary Sensitive

Euhyparpax rosea A notodontid moth Sensitive
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

132 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Migratory Bird Species

The Gila National Forest migratory bird assessment identified migratory bird species that occur 

or have the potential to occur on the forest by reviewing information from the “Birds of the Gila 

National Forest: A Checklist,” New Mexico Partners in Flight, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and the National Audubon Society. This information has been compiled to serve as a guide in 

local project and landscape planning and analysis. The forest level migratory bird analysis is 

incorporated by reference into this analysis. The Forest Service memorandum of understanding 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies specific activities for bird conservation, 

pursuant to Executive Order 13186, including striving to protect, restore, enhance, and manage 

habitat of migratory birds, and prevent the further loss or degradation of remaining habitats on 

National Forest System lands. This includes identifying management practices that impact 

populations of high priority migratory bird species on National Forest System lands. The Gila 

National Forest used New Mexico Partners in Flight information to identify high priority species 

by vegetation types on the forest. Table 51 identifies the high priority species considered.

Table 51. New Mexico Partners in Flight high priority migratory bird species by 

vegetation type

Habitat Type Species

Chihuahuan desert grassland Prairie falcon

Long-billed curlew

Wet meadow Wilson’s phalarope

Southwestern riparian woodland (low to moderate elevation riparian) Common black hawk

Common ground dove

Elf owl

Gila woodpecker

Southwestern willow flycatcher

Bell’s vireo

Lucy’s warbler

Summer tanager

Abert’s towhee

High elevation (montane) riparian woodland Black swift

Red-naped sapsucker

Hammond’s flycatcher

American dipper

MacGillivray’s warbler

Painted redstart

Chihuahuan desert shrub Crissal thrasher

Scott’s oriole
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 133

Table 51. New Mexico Partners in Flight high priority migratory bird species by 

vegetation type

Habitat Type Species

Montane shrub MacGillivray’s warbler

Green-tailed towhee 

Black-chinned sparrow

Piñon–juniper woodland Ferruginous hawk

Gray flycatcher

Gray vireo

Black-throated gray warbler

Ponderosa pine Northern goshawk

Mexican spotted owl

Flammulated owl

Greater pewee

Olive warbler

Virginia’s warbler

Grace’s warbler

Mixed conifer Northern goshawk

Mexican spotted owl

Williamson’s sapsucker

Olive-sided flycatcher

Dusky flycatcher

Red-faced warbler

Spruce-fir Blue grouse

Cliff, cave, or rock Prairie falcon

Peregrine falcon

Black swift

Management Indicator Species

Gila National Forest management indicator species are listed in the “Gila National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan.” The forest level management indicator species analysis is 

incorporated by reference into this analysis where all 11 management indicator species and their 

associated habitats are considered. Table 52 identifies the management indicator species 

considered for this evaluation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

134 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 52. Species and vegetation types for each management indicator species

Management Indicator Species Vegetation Type

Mule deer Desert shrub

Mearns’ quail Plains grassland or mountain grassland

Plain titmouse, mule deer Piñon-juniper or shrub oak woodland

Northern goshawk Ponderosa pine

Mexican spotted owl Mixed conifer

Hairy woodpecker Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer snag component

Black hawk, beaver Low or middle riparian

Beaver High riparian

Long-tailed vole Wet meadow or wetlands

Other Species Considered in this Analysis

Species identified through scoping that occur on the Gila National Forest which have the potential 

to be impacted by the implementation of an alternative, but are not covered by a Federal list, 

Southwestern Sensitive Species list, the Gila migratory bird list, and/or the Gila management 

indicator species list. 

Analysis Process

For over 80 years, biologists have recognized roads as a potential threat to wildlife species 

(Gagnon et al. 2007). Not all species are negatively impacted by motorized use (Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000), but the majority of the literature does support the general conclusion that road and 

motor vehicle use negatively affects the biotic integrity of both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems 

(Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Wisdom et al. (2000) found that of 91 species analyzed, greater 

than 70 percent were negatively affected by one or more factors associated with roads. 

For this analysis, motorized travel includes motorized travel on roads, motorized travel on trails 

or OHV use, cross-country motorized travel (including motorized big game retrieval), and 

motorized dispersed camping. The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the potential effects of 

the different alternatives to different wildlife species or groups of wildlife species known or likely 

to occur on the Gila National Forest within the context of specific road and travel conditions that 

exist on the forest.

Potential effects of motorized travel and recreation (camping) on wildlife can be categorized in 

many ways; the following road associated factors and effects are condensed and summarized 

from a review of Wisdom et al. (2000):

● Habitat Loss and Fragmentation Including Negative Edge Effects – Roads can have the 

direct impact of converting large areas of habitat into nonhabitat, while the indirect 

effects of noise and exhaust can further reduce habitat quality and create avoidance of 

additional habitat in the surrounding area. In addition, species that respond negatively to 

openings or linear edges, such as habitat interior species, avoid areas near roads. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 135

● Disturbance, Displacement, Avoidance, Harassment (i.e., chronic negative interactions 

with humans) – Roads can directly interfere with life functions at specific use sites (e.g., 

increased disturbance of nest sites, breeding leks, or communal roost sites). This can 

result in spatial shifts of individuals and populations away from a road in relation to 

human activities on or near a road.

● Collisions – Death or injury resulting from a motorized vehicle running over or hitting an 

animal on a road.

● Harvest or Collection Facilitated by Motorized Travel – Roads can facilitate greater 

access into areas used for hunting and trapping, and result in legal and illegal overharvest 

or collection of wildlife resources.

● Snag and Downed Log Reductions – Roads facilitate firewood collection, which can 

result in a loss of snags and downed logs. Larger snags are typically desired by 

woodcutters and are also the most beneficial to many wildlife species such as 

flammulated owls.

● Barriers to Animal Travel or Movement – Preclusion of dispersal, migration, or other 

movements as posed by a road itself or by human activities on or near a road or road 

network.

● Route for Competitors and Predators – Human-induced change in the environment 

providing access for competitors or predators that would not have existed otherwise.

● Physiological Response – Changes in levels of stress hormones and heart rate as a result 

of proximity to roads or trails.

Analysis Factors

Knights and Cole (1995) developed a conceptual model of the responses of wildlife to 

recreational activities. They grouped recreational impacts into four groups: harvest, habitat 

modification, disturbance, and pollution. Liddle (1997) grouped road impacts into three groups: 

disturbance type 1 occurs when an animal sees, smells, hears, or perceives the presence of a 

human, but no contact is made, and it may or may not alter behavior; disturbance type 2 is when 

habitat is changed in some way; and disturbance type 3 involves human actions in which there is 

direct damaging contact with the animal. Gaines et al. (2003) grouped Wisdom et al. (2000), 

Knight and Cole (1991), and Liddle (1997) classification schemes as described in table 53. We’ve 

further grouped the two analysis factors into harvest/direct effects and disturbance/indirect effects 

in table 53.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

136 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 53. Responses of wildlife to various disturbance factors

Road and Trail Associated 

Factors

Knight and Cole

Recreation Activity Liddle Combined Analysis Factors

Disturbance, displacement, 

avoidance, harassment

Disturbance Disturbance type 1 Disturbance

Physiological response Disturbance Disturbance type 1 Disturbance

Habitat loss and fragmentation Habitat modification Disturbance type 2 Disturbance

Negative edge effects Habitat modification Disturbance type 2 Disturbance

Snag and downed log reductions Habitat modification Disturbance type 2 Disturbance

Barriers to animal travel or 

movement

Habitat modification Disturbance type 2 Disturbance

Route for competitors and 

predators

Habitat modification Disturbance type 2 Disturbance

Collisions Harvest Disturbance type 3 Harvest

Harvest or collection facilitated 

by motorized travel

Harvest Disturbance type 3 Harvest

Focal Species

Ecologists have used different systems to evaluate potential effects of an activity on species 

(Lambeck 1997 and Millsap et al. 1990). The focal species approach is one of these systems 

(Lambeck 1997). Focal species are species that are used to represent a group of species because 

they are sensitive to a particular activity. Carroll et al. (2001) and Watson et al. (2001) recently 

tested this approach for wide ranging carnivores and birds, respectively, with favorable results.

Research related to road effects to federally listed and Southwestern Region sensitive species in 

this region of the Forest Service is limited; the focal species approach uses information related to 

different groups of species to help evaluate the potential effects of motorized use to similar 

species in the group.

Analysis Indicators

For this analysis, two separate analysis indicators were typically used to analyze the potential 

effects (harvest and disturbance) of motorized travel and recreation on terrestrial wildlife on the 

Gila National Forest. These indicators were: (1) total miles of routes within an analysis area and 

(2) the potential “Acres of Influence” for a species or group of species (focal species). Indicators 

were selected for project effects based on an extensive review of literature on the interaction 

between wildlife and motorized routes. Disturbance from motorized routes affect wildlife beyond 

the immediate road prism, into an area that can be referred to as a disturbance zone. This zone 

differs for each species, based on its tolerance to disturbance (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, 

Gaines et al. 2003). Literature related to this area is not available for some species or groups of 

species. For these focal species, route miles will be the only indicator used to analyze the 

potential for harvest and disturbance. Number of road crossings will also be used as a potential 

harvest indicator for occupied Chiricahua leopard frog sites, occupied southwestern willow 

flycatcher sites, and designated southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 137

Analysis Area

The effects were determined using an approach that analyzes changes to analysis indicators 

within an analysis area. The analysis area is typically based on habitat that focal species are 

associated with. For elk, bighorn sheep, pronghorn, black bear, and mountain lion, the New 

Mexico Department of Game and Fish has mapped core habitat areas on the forest; the analysis 

indicators analyze the change in these areas from the existing condition by alternative. For small 

mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians, the analysis indicators analyze the change in 

habitat/vegetation communities; vegetation communities as identified in the management 

indicator species analysis for the Gila National Forest, or by Partners in Flight for migratory bird 

species. The acreage of these vegetative/habitat types on the Gila National Forest are identified in 

table 48. The “Gila National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” identified 13 habitat 

associations for management indicator species, and Partners in Flight identified 3 additional 

habitat types for priority species. Selected species (focal species) reflect general habitat 

conditions needed by other species with similar habitats. Since little research has been completed 

on the effects of roads to many of the species that occur or are listed on the Gila National Forest, 

this habitat association approach was used. This approach follows a method similar to that of a 

management indicator or focal species approach to assess impacts of the proposed project and 

associated alternatives. 

There is an exception to this approach of using habitat association for the analysis area. For 

federally listed species and some Southwestern Region sensitive species, the analysis indicators 

also analyze the change in identified management areas by alternative from the existing condition 

(i.e., critical habitat, protected activity centers, post-fledgling areas, occupied sites, etc.). For 

habitat generalists like the wolf, the analysis indicators analyzed the change in 5th-code 

watersheds by alternative compared to the existing condition. 

Analysis Questions

1. Wildlife standard or guideline in the Gila National Forest plan related to species, groups 

of species, or wildlife emphasis areas in the Gila National Forest plan that relate to 

implementation of this project.

2. Issues identified during scoping related to terrestrial wildlife species.

Issues Identified During Scoping Related to Terrestrial Wildlife Species

Motorized Routes

The proposed motorized routes, specifically the type, extent, level of use and location of 

motorized routes may lead to resource, recreation, social, and economic impacts.

Motorized Dispersed Recreation

Motorized dispersed camping within proposed designated corridors and areas may lead to 

resource, recreation, social, and economic impacts.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval

The proposed motorized big game retrieval may lead to resource, recreation, social, and economic 

impacts.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

138 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Area

The proposed designated area specifically for OHV activities may lead to resource, recreation, 

social, and economic impacts.

Environmental Consequences

Ungulates

The Arizona Game and Fish Department document that research related to road effects on 

ungulates did not begin until the 1970s (Gagnon et al. 2007). Gagnon et al. (2007) literature 

review concentrated on traffic levels or road type effects on ungulates. Of the 53 sources 

reviewed, 47 percent of the papers suggested deer were affected by traffic or road type, 84

percent elk, 80 percent bighorn sheep, and 100 percent pronghorn (Gagnon et al. 2007). Their 

findings suggest that wild ungulates do not always respond to the same level (table 54).

Table 54. Ungulate species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection

Species Analyzed Rationale for Selection

Elk Game species identified as species of concern during scoping

Pronghorn Game species identified as species of concern during scoping

Bighorn sheep Forest Service Sensitive Species

Deer Management indicator species representative of desert shrub and piñonjuniper and shrub oak woodland vegetation cover types.

As described in the analysis factor section, motorized and recreation effects to ungulates can be 

grouped into two analysis factors:

1. A greater potential for harvest or direct effects, and/or 

2. Disturbance or indirect effects, avoiding or changing behavior in the area adjacent to 

where these type activities are occurring. 

Increases in ungulate harvest are associated with increased access. Rowland et al. (2005) states 

that elk vulnerability to harvest increases as open road density increases. This statement is 

supported by the literature (Unsworth et al. 1993, Gratson and Whitman 2000, and Hayes et al. 

2002). Diefenbach et al. (2005) reported that deer hunters are almost three times less likely to 

hunt in an area for every 500-meter increase in distance from a road. Watson (2005) reported that 

roads facilitate poaching of pronghorn. Change in road miles from the existing condition is the 

indicator that analyzes the potential for harvest effects under the different alternatives.

The literature also documents that ungulates typically respond to recreation activities by avoiding 

areas near roads (Gaines et al. 2003). Elk avoid or move away from areas with motorized use 

(Gaines et al. 2003, Johnson et al. 2000, Rowland et al. 2000, and Wisdom et al. 2000). 

MacArthur et al. (1982) generally found that bighorn sheep avoid areas of high vehicle use more 

than areas of lower vehicle use (see table 55).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 139

Table 55. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance zone, and analysis area that is 

used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to ungulates

Focal 

Species Motorized Activity HarvestIndicator

Disturbance 

Zone Analysis Area

Elk Motorized trail or OHV 

use 

Route Miles 300 m Core elk habitat mapped by 

NMDGF*

Elk Motorized roads Route Miles 650 m Core elk habitat mapped by 

NMDGF

Pronghorn Motorized trail or OHV 

and roads

Route Miles 200 m Core pronghorn habitat mapped 

by NMDGF

Bighorn 

sheep

Motorized trail or OHV 

and roads

Route Miles 200 m Core bighorn sheep habitat 

mapped by NMDGF

Deer Motorized trail or OHV 

and roads

Route Miles 200 m Desert shrub and piñon-juniper 

and shrub oak woodland

*New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

Ungulates – Effects by Alternative

Rocky Mountain Elk and Pronghorn 

(Game Species Identified as a Species of Concern 

During Scoping and Ungulate Focal Species)

No Action Alternative (Alternative B): Under this alternative, there would be 3,898 miles of 

motorized routes in the elk analysis area and 315 miles of motorized routes in the pronghorn 

analysis area (table 56 and table 57). Habitat associated with these routes has been lost. The 

potential for collision loss exists on Forest Service routes; however, lower traffic rates and travel 

speeds on forest routes reduce this potential. Increases in road density increase the potential for 

take associated with poaching. The potential disturbance zone in the elk analysis area (1,297,441 

acres) and pronghorn analysis area (43,320 acres) along motorized routes continues to cause the 

potential for indirect effects. Under this alternative, motorized cross-country travel, motorized 

dispersed camping, and motorized big game retrieval will continue to be allowed across the Gila 

National Forest. These three types of use continue to have potential effects to elk and pronghorn. 

Additionally, these three types of use may perpetuate the development of additional roads and 

motorized trails; potentially allowing for the development of greater road density. 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 its habitat. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Under all action alternatives, motorized cross-country 

travel (see assumption) is no longer allowed. The change from the existing condition is a 100 

percent reduction in motorized cross-country travel. In the elk analysis area, motorized dispersed 

camping is reduced by 96 to 100 percent under all action alternatives; and in the pronghorn 

analysis area, it is reduced by 92 to 100 percent. For elk, the area of potentially affected habitat 

for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100 percent under alternative E, 97 percent under 

alternative D, 96 percent under alternative G, 37 percent under alternative F, and 14 percent under 

alternative C. For pronghorn, the area of potentially affected habitat for motorized big game 

retrieval is reduced by 100 percent under alternative E, 93 percent under alternative D, 93 percent 

under alternative G, 20 percent under alternative F, and 3 percent under alternative C.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

140 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 56. Elk analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by issue and 

alternative

Total NMGF Core Elk 

Habitat on NFS Land

= 2,894,880 Acres

Existing 

Effects Alt.

B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and 

trails in miles

3,914 3,898 2,930 2,352 3,260 3,247

Percent in miles of alt. B 

(Existing)

-0.40% -25.14% -39.91% -16.70% -17.03%

Motorized dispersed 

camping in acres

2,102,340 -2,008,043 -2,029,136 -2,102,340 -2,012,753 -2,020,239

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-95.51% -96.52% -100.00% -95.74% -96.09%

Motorized area in 

acres

28 NC -28 -28 NC NC

Motorized area in 

acres - all vehicles

Motorized area in 

acres - OHV only

3 NC -3 -3 NC NC

Motorized big game 

retrieval acres

2,102,340 -300,730 -2,029,136 -2,102,340 -781,140 -2,020,239

Percent in acres of alt.

B (Existing)

-14.30% -96.52% -100.00% -37.16% -96.09%

Table 57. Pronghorn analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by issue and 

alternative

Total NMGF Core 

Pronghorn Habitat on 

NFS Land = 58,426 

Acres

Existing 

Effects Alt.

B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails

in miles

315 310 242 213 254 250

Percent in miles of alt. B 

(Existing)

-1.55% -23.18% -32.48% -19.36% -20.71%

Motorized dispersed 

camping acres

126,017 -116,401 -117,712 -126,017 -116,566 -116,972

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-92.37% -93.41% -100.00% -92.50% -92.82%

Motorized areas in acres 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game 

retrieval acres

126,017 -3,589 -117,712 -126,017 -25,572 -116,972

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-2.85% -93.41% -100.00% -20.29% -92.82%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 141

Motorized areas are locations where there have been traditional uses like motorized dispersed 

camping and OHV use. No motorized areas currently occur or are proposed in the pronghorn 

analysis area. In the elk analysis area, there is a reduction of 31 acres of potentially affected 

habitat under alternatives D and E, and under the remaining action alternative, there is no change 

from the existing condition (31 acres of habitat will continue to be affected).

Miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat within the elk 

analysis area are reduced by approximately 40 percent under alternative E; 25 percent under 

alternative D; 17 percent under alternatives F and G; and by less than 0.5 percent under 

alternative C. Within the pronghorn analysis area, these effects are reduced by approximately 32

percent under alternative E; 23 percent under alternative D; 21 percent under alternative G; 19

percent under F, and 2 percent under alternative C. 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.

Findings: Under all action alternatives, the potential effects to elk and pronghorn are reduced, 

particularly under alternative E. The potential to affect individuals under all action alternatives 

still exists, but none will affect the overall population levels of these species or any other wild 

ungulate on the Gila National Forest.

Bighorn Sheep (Forest Service Sensitive Species)

No Action Alternative (Alternative B): Under this alternative, there are 34 miles of motorized 

routes in bighorn sheep habitat (table 58 and table 59). Habitat associated with these routes has 

been lost. The potential for collision loss exists on Forest Service motorized routes; however, 

lower traffic rates and travel speeds on forest routes reduce this potential. Increases in road 

density increases the potential for take associated with poaching. The potential disturbance zone 

(5,734 acres) along motorized routes in this analysis area continues to cause the potential for 

indirect effects. Pappouchis et al. (2001) reported that their findings were consistent with other 

research that shows that roads cause a zone of influence larger than the road itself. In high use 

areas, some sheep may habituate to road traffic, but more typically, the closer to a road the more 

likely sheep will flee. Increases in the level of use on these routes through time would increase 

the potential for direct and indirect effects. 

Under this alternative, motorized cross-country travel, motorized dispersed camping, and 

motorized big game retrieval will continue to be allowed across the Gila National Forest. These 

three types of uses continue to have potential effects to bighorn sheep. Additionally, these three 

types of use may perpetuate the development of additional roads and motorized trails; potentially 

allowing for the development of greater road density. 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. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Under all action alternatives, motorized cross-country 

travel (see assumption) is no longer allowed. The change from the existing condition is a 100 

percent reduction in motorized cross-country travel. Motorized dispersed camping is reduced by 

97 to 100 percent under all action alternatives. The area of potentially affected habitat for 

motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100 percent under alternative E, 99 percent under 

alternatives D and G, 50 percent under alternative F, and 19 percent under alternative C.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

142 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 58. Bighorn sheep analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by issue 

and alternative

Total NMGF Core Bighorn 

Habitat on NFS Land = 68,737 

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 34 35 24 16 33 26

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) 3.41% -27.16% -51.34% -0.29% -21.80%

Motorized dispersed camping

acres

46,160 -44,615 -45,676 -46,160 -45,262 -45,700

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -96.65% -98.95% -100.00% -98.05% -99.00%

Motorized areas in acres 0 NC NC NC NC NC

Motorized big game retrieval

acres

46,160 -8,712 -45,676 -46,160 -23,094 -45,700

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -18.87% -98.95% -100.00% -50.03% -99.00%

Motorized areas are locations where there have been traditional uses like motorized dispersed 

camping and OHV use. Under all action alternatives, this type of use is not allowed in this 

analysis area. There would be no direct or indirect effects to bighorn sheep from motorized areas 

in the action alternatives.

Miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat within the analysis 

area are reduced by approximately 51 percent under alternative E, 27 percent under alternative D,

26 percent under alternative G, and 0 percent under alternative F. Under alternative C, motorized 

routes are increased by 3 percent. 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.

Table 59. Bighorn sheep Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative

Sensitive 

Species

Determination by Alternative

B

Existing Condition C D E F G

Bighorn Sheep MI MI MI MI MI

Rationale for 

Determination

Under all action alternatives, the potential effects to bighorn sheep are reduced, particularly 

under alternatives E, D, and G. The potential to affect individuals still exists; therefore, a 

determination of may impact individuals is made. None of the action alternatives will impact 

the viability of this species or cause a trend toward Federal listing.

*MI – may impact
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 143

Mule Deer (Gila Management Indicator Species Representative of 

Desert Shrub, and Piñon-juniper/Shrub Oak Woodland Vegetation Cover Types)

No Action Alternative (Alternative B): Under this alternative, there are 1,667 miles of 

motorized routes in deer habitat (table 60 and table 61). Habitat associated with these routes has 

been lost and will not recover unless the route is closed and possibly decommissioned. The 

potential for collision loss exists on Forest Service routes; however, lower traffic rates and travel 

speeds on forest routes reduce this potential. Increases in road density increase the potential for 

take associated with poaching. The potential disturbance zone (253,756 acres) along motorized 

routes in this analysis area continues to cause the potential for indirect effects.

Table 60. Mule deer analysis area - existing condition and proposed change table by issue 

and alternative

Mule Deer Habitat (Desert 

Shrub and Piñon-juniper and 

Shrub Oak Woodland) 

Analysis Area on NFS Land = 

1,661,235 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B 

(No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in 

miles

1,671 1,698 1,309 1,066 1,412 1,410

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) 1.64% -21.64% -36.19% -15.51% -15.63%

Motorized dispersed camping

acres

1,214,150 -1,169,975 -1,179,425 -1,214,150 -1,173,508 -1,175,921

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -96.36% -97.14% -100.00% -96.65% -96.85%

Motorized areas in acres - all 

vehicles

17 NC -17 -17 NC NC

Motorized big game retrieval

acres

1,214,150 -235,751 -1,179,425 -1,214,150 -553,078 -1,175,921

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -19.42% -97.14% -100.00% -45.55% -96.85%

Under this alternative, motorized cross-country travel, motorized dispersed camping, and 

motorized big game retrieval would continue to be allowed across the Gila National Forest. These 

three types of use continue to have potential effects to deer. Additionally, these three types of uses 

may perpetuate the development of additional roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing for 

the development of greater road densities. 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. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Under all action alternatives, motorized cross-country 

travel (see assumption) is no longer allowed. The change from the existing condition is a 100

percent reduction in motorized cross-country travel. Motorized dispersed camping is reduced by 

96 to 100 percent under all action alternatives. The area of potentially affected habitat for 

motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100 percent under alternative E, 97 percent under 

alternatives D and G, 46 percent under alternative F, and 19 percent under alternative C.

Motorized areas are locations where there have been traditional uses like motorized dispersed 

camping and OHV use. Under alternatives D and E, there is a reduction of 17 acres of potentially 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

144 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

affected habitat, and under the remaining action alternative, there is no change from the existing 

condition.

Miles of motorized routes and trails, and acres of potentially affected habitat within the analysis 

area are reduced by approximately 36 percent under alternative E; 22 percent under alternative D; 

and 16 percent under alternatives F and G. Under alternative C, motorized routes are increased by 

2 percent. 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. 

Table 61. Mule deer Gila National Forest management indicator species determination by 

alternative

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Determination by Alternative

B

Existing Condition C D E F G

Mule deer NA NA NA NA NA

Rationale for 

Determination

Under all action alternatives, the potential effects to deer are reduced, particularly under 

alternative E. The potential to affect individuals under all action alternatives still exists, but 

none will adversely affect the population levels or habitat trends. All action alternatives 

reduce effects to this species and its habitat on the Gila.

*NA – not adversely affecting the population or habitat trend of this species

Wide Ranging Carnivores

Claar et al. (1999) document that research related to recreational impacts to carnivores is lacking. 

They do go on to state that increased access into remote habitats is a concern, particularly to 

carnivore species that usually seek secluded areas. As with ungulates, motorized/recreation effects 

to wide ranging carnivores can be grouped into two analysis factors: 

1. A greater potential for harvest/direct effects, and/or 

2. Disturbance/indirect effects, avoiding or changing behavior in the area adjacent to where 

these type of activities are occurring. 

The literature documenting potential disturbance distances from different road types or traffic 

levels to wide ranging carnivores is lacking. Some literature exists for potential disturbance 

distances for black bears. For wolves and mountain lions, the literature related to 

recreation/motorized use effects is associated with road densities. Road density is the indicator 

that is used to analyze the potential for harvest under the different alternatives. Road density is 

used to analyze the potential for disturbance to wolves and mountain lions. To analyze 

disturbance effects of motorized activities to black bears, this analysis uses potential disturbance 

zone (see p. 145). For habitat generalists like wide ranging wolves, the analysis indicators 

analyzed the change in 5th-code watersheds by alternative compared to the existing condition. For 

black bear and mountain lion, the analysis indicators analyze the change in core habitats as 

mapped by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (Table 62 and Table 63).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 145

Table 62. Wide ranging carnivore species selected to be analyzed and rationale for 

selection

Species Analyzed Rationale for Selection

Mountain lion Game species identified as species of concern during scoping

Black bear Game species identified as species of concern during scoping

Mexican gray wolf Federally listed as endangered with a designation of experimental population

Table 63. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area that 

is used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to wide ranging carnivores

Focal 

Species Motorized Activity HarvestIndicator

Disturbance 

Zone Analysis Area

Mountain 

lion

Motorized trail or OHV 

and roads

Route Miles Route Miles Core mountain lion habitat 

mapped by NMDGF

Black bear Motorized trail or OHV 

and roads

Route Miles 200 m Core black bear habitat 

mapped by NMDGF

Mexican 

gray wolf

Motorized trail and OHV 

use 

Route Density Route Density 5th-code watersheds outside of 

wilderness

Mexican Gray Wolf (Federally Listed as Endangered with a Designation of Experimental 

Population) – 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 in different 

individuals make it difficult to evaluate the overall effects of recreational activities (Claar et al. 

1999). Much of the literature shows a strong negative relationship between wolves and increased 

road density (Claar et al. 1999, Thiel 1985, and Mech et al. 1988). Researchers have found that 

when road density exceeds about 1 mile/mi2 (1.6 km/0.9 km radius circle), wolves were displaced 

or avoided the area (Mech et al. 1988 and Thiel 1985). However, Claar et al. (1999) state 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 

re-colonization has occurred in these recovering populations (Claar et al. 1999 and Thiel et al. 

1998). 

On January 12, 1998, the Fish and Wildlife Service published an Endangered Species Act, section 

10(j) rule for the Mexican gray wolf. The section 10(j) rule provides for the designation of 

specific populations of listed species in the United States as “experimental populations.” The Fish 

and Wildlife Service is in the process of reintroducing the Mexican gray wolf on the entire 3.3 

million acres of the Gila National Forest in New Mexico and on the Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests in Arizona. These wolves have been designated as a nonessential experimental 

population, pursuant to section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended.

The “Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Environmental Impact Statement” (EIS) did not recognize 

road density on the Gila National Forest as a problem. The EIS did recognize roads adjacent to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

146 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

dens as a concern. To mitigate the potential for motor vehicle use to affect wolf dens, the Gila 

National Forest will continue to issue closure orders adjacent to these areas as recommended by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service (see design criteria). Again, road density changes are the indicator 

used to analyze potential harvest and disturbance effects under the different alternatives, and the 

analysis area is be the 5th-code watershed.

Wide Ranging Carnivores – Effects by Alternative

Mountain Lion and Black Bear 

(Game Species Identified as Species of Concern During Scoping)

No Action Alternative (Alternative B): Under this alternative, there are 3,764 miles of 

motorized routes in the black bear analysis area and 2,918 miles of motorized routes in the 

mountain lion analysis area (table 64 and table 65). Habitat associated with these routes has been 

lost and will not recover unless the route is closed and possibly decommissioned. Lower traffic 

rates and travel speeds on forest routes reduce the potential for collision loss; however, increases 

in road density increases the potential for take associated with hunting and poaching. In the black 

bear analysis area, the potential disturbance zone of 522,626 acres along motorized routes 

continues to cause the potential for indirect effects. The literature related to disturbance zones 

related to mountain lions is lacking, but one can assume that as the road density increases so does 

the potential to cause indirect effects to mountain lions adjacent to motorized routes. 

Table 64. Mountain lion analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by issue 

and alternative

Total NMDGF Core Mtn. 

Lion

Habitat on NFS Land = 

2,806,314 Acres

Existing 

Effects 

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in 

miles

2,934 2,990 2,149 1,641 2,420 2,409

Percent in miles of alt. B 

(Existing)

1.90% -26.77% -44.07% -17.53% -17.91%

Motorized dispersed 

camping acres

1,994,180 -1,924,754 -1,942,682 -1,994,180 -1,930,497 -1,936,656

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-96.52% -97.42% -100.00% -96.81% -97.12%

Motorized area in acres - all 

vehicles

11 0 -11 -11 0 0

Motorized area in acres -

OHV only

2 0 -2 -2 0 0

Motorized big game 

retrieval acres

1,994,180 -357,650 -1,942,682 -1,994,180 -889,550 -1,936,656

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-17.93% -97.42% -100.00% -44.61% -97.12%

Under this alternative, motorized cross-country travel, motorized dispersed camping, and 

motorized big game retrieval would continue to be allowed across the Gila National Forest. These 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 147

three types of use would continue to have potential effects to black bears and mountain lions. 

Additionally, these three types of use may perpetuate the development of additional roads and 

motorized trails, potentially allowing for the development of greater road density. 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 these species.

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Under all action alternatives, motorized cross-country 

travel (see assumption) is no longer allowed. The change from the existing condition is a 100 

percent reduction in motorized cross-country travel. In the black bear analysis area, motorized 

dispersed camping is reduced by 96 to 100 percent under all action alternatives; and in the 

mountain lion analysis area, it is reduced by 97 to 100 percent. For black bears, the area of 

potentially affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100 percent under 

alternative E, 97 percent under alternative D, 96 percent under alternative G, 40 percent under 

alternative F, and 16 percent under alternative C. For mountain lions, the area of potentially 

affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100 percent under alternative E, 

97 percent under alternatives D and G, 45 percent under alternative F, and 18 percent under 

alternative C.

Motorized areas are locations where there have been traditional uses like motorized dispersed 

camping and OHV use. In the bear analysis area under alternatives D and E, there is a reduction 

of 26 acres of potentially affected habitat, and under the remaining action alternative there is no 

change from the existing condition. In the mountain lion analysis area, under alternatives D and E 

there is a reduction of 13 acres of potentially affected habitat, and under the remaining action 

alternative, there is no change from the existing condition.

Table 65. Black bear analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by issue and 

alternative

Total NMDGF Core Black 

Bear Habitat on NFS Land = 

2,823,904 Acres

Existing 

Effects 

Alt. B 

(No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in 

miles

3,780 3,819 2,777 2,167 3,100 3,081

Percent in miles of alt. B 

(Existing)

1.03% -26.54% -42.67% -18.00% -18.49%

Motorized dispersed camping

acres

2,042,920 -1,951,453 -1,973,320 -2,042,920 -1,957,667 -1,964,683

Percent in acres of alt. B

(Existing)

-95.52% -96.59% -100.00% -95.83% -96.17%

Motorized areas in acres - all 

vehicles

26 0 -26 -26 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval

acres

2,042,920 -321,850 -1,973,320 -2,042,920 -819,910 -1,964,683

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-15.75% -96.59% -100.00% -40.13% -96.17%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

148 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat within the bear 

analysis area are reduced by approximately 43 percent under alternative E, 27 percent under 

alternative D, and 18 percent under alternatives F and G. Under alternative C, motorized routes 

are increased by 2 percent. Within the lion analysis area, these effects are reduced by 

approximately 44 percent under alternative E, 27 percent under alternative D, and 18 percent

under alternatives F and G. Under alternative C, motorized routes are increased by 2 percent. 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. Under alternative C, increases in road miles above 

the existing condition increase the amount of direct and indirect effects.

Findings: Under all action alternatives, the potential effects to black bears and mountain lions 

are reduced, particularly under alternative E. The potential to affect individuals under all action 

alternatives still exists, but none will affect the viability of these species or the viability of any 

other wide-ranging carnivore on the Gila National Forest.

Mexican Gray Wolf (Federally Listed as 

Endangered with a Designation of Experimental Population)

No Action Alternative (Alternative B): Under the existing condition, the average road density 

across the Gila National Forest is approximately 1 mile per square mile (table 66 and table 67). 

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. The Mexican wolf reintroduction EIS did not identify 

road density on the Gila National Forest as a problem. The potential for collision loss does exist 

on Forest Service motorized routes; however, lower traffic rates and travel speeds on forest routes 

reduces this potential. Increases in road density increases the potential for take associated with 

poaching. Poaching on the Gila National Forest has been a problem for this species. Increases in 

the level of use on these routes through time would increase the potential for direct and indirect 

effects. 

Table 66. Mexican gray wolf analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by 

issue and alternative

Summary of Miles of NFS

Routes and Trails per 

Square Mile of USFS 

Jurisdiction in 5th-Code 

Watersheds

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B 

(No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Avg. of FS routes and trails 

on FS portion of all 

hydrologic unit codes in 

Mi/Mi2

0.99 -0.02 -0.29 -0.40 -0.22 -0.23

Average Percent Change in 

% Mi/Mi2

-2.09% -29.03% -40.45% -22.63% -22.86%

Motorized dispersed 

camping acres

2,441,806 -2,331,025 -2,355,884 -

2,441,806

-

2,337,416

-2,345,812
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 149

Table 66. Mexican gray wolf analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by 

issue and alternative

Summary of Miles of NFS

Routes and Trails per 

Square Mile of USFS 

Jurisdiction in 5th-Code 

Watersheds

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B 

(No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-95.46% -96.48% -100% -95.72% -96.07%

Motorized area in acres -

all vehicles

28.02 0.00 -28.02 -28.02 0.00 0.00

Motorized area in acres -

OHV only

3.31 0.00 -3.31 -3.31 0.00 0.00

Motorized big game 

retrieval acres

2,441,806 -365,391.16 -2,355,884 -

2,441,806

-939,936 -2,345,812

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-14.96% -96.48% -100.00% -38.49% -96.07%

Under this alternative, motorized cross-country travel and dispersed camping is allowed across 

the Gila National Forest. These two types of use continue to have the potential for negative 

impacts to the Mexican gray wolf. Additionally, these two types of use perpetuate the 

development of additional roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing for the development of 

road densities that are greater than the current average of 0.99 miles per square mile. 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 all action alternatives,

motorized cross-country travel (see assumption) is no longer allowed. The change from the 

existing condition is a 100 percent reduction in motorized cross-country travel. Since no crosscountry travel is allowed in the analysis area, there would be no effect to the Mexican gray wolf 

or its habitat from this activity.

Differences Among the Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Miles of motorized routes and 

trails and acres of potentially affected habitat within the analysis area are reduced by 

approximately 40 percent under alternative E, 29 percent under alternative D, 23 percent under 

alternatives F and G, and 2 percent under alternatives C (see table 66 for specific numbers). 

Under alternative C, motorized routes are increased in 14 watersheds above the no action 

alternative; none of the other action alternatives increase route densities above the existing 

condition. Additionally, under alternatives 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 motorized dispersed camping in 

alternatives C to G is reduced by 89 percent to 100 percent within the analysis area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

150 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

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 alternatives C, F, 

and G, you have motorized vehicle areas in five watersheds and motorized OHV areas in two 

watersheds. Under alternatives E and D, there would be less direct and indirect effect to the 

Mexican gray wolf from this activity.

The area of potentially affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced on average by 

100 percent under alternative E, 96 percent under alternative D, 38 percent under alternative F, 96

percent under alternative G, and 15 percent under alternative C.

Table 67. Mexican gray wolf federally listed species determination by alternative

Federally Listed 

Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Mexican gray wolf *NLJ NLJ NLJ NLJ NLJ

Rationale for 

Determination

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 degrees than alternative E. Alternative C eliminates 

cross-country 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.

*NLJ – not likely to jeopardize determination

Small Mammals

Although a large number of studies addressing the impact of roads on small mammals have 

assessed road barrier effects, less attention has been given to the effect of roads on the density and 

diversity of local communities. (See Goosem (2002) for a well done study.) Some have 

mentioned the importance of road edges to small mammal conservation, but have not made 

reference to road effects on diversity or density in adjacent habitats beyond the edge (Bellamy et 

al. 2000). Others have compared diversity and density between natural adjacent habitat and road 

edges or medians (Douglass 1977, Adams and Geis 1983, Adams 1984, Garland and Bradley 

1984, Meunier et al. 1999, and Goosem 2000), but have not described community attributes in 

natural areas without road influences. 

The most visible effect of roads on wildlife is direct mortality from collisions with vehicles. Road 

influences on landscapes extend much further than their physical boundaries (Reijnen et al. 1995, 

Forman 2000, Forman and Deblinger 2000, Riitters and Wickham 2003). McGregor et al. (2008), 

working with translocated white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) and eastern chipmunks 

(Tamias striatus), found that although these species tended to avoid crossing the road surface, 

their densities were not lower near roads. Bissonette and Rosa (2009) detected no clear 

abundance, density, or diversity effects relative to distance from the road. The zone of influence 

for small mammals and roads appears to be out to approximately 400 meters. This study analyzed 

effects out to 600 meters from roads. Only 2 of 13 species were never captured near roads. The 

abundance of the remaining 11 small mammal species was either similar at different distances 

from the road or higher closer to the road. Although roads may act as barriers and possible 

sources of mortality, adjacent zones of vegetation often provide favorable microhabitat in the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 151

desert landscape for many small mammals (Bissonette and Rosa 2009). Underhill and Angold 

(2000) described an effect zone of up to 100 meters as causing visible impacts on roadside 

ecological communities. 

While studies show that small mammal density is greatest along large, mostly paved, roadways 

(Adams and Geis 1983, Adams 1984, McGregor et al. 2008, and Bissonette and Rosa 2009), few 

researchers have done comparative studies along rural dirt roads. One study that did look at more 

rural county roads (Adams and Geis 1983) showed that small mammal density increased away 

from the road right-of-way. In this analysis, it is assumed that most roads traversing the forest will 

be similar to the rural roads in the Adams and Geis (1983) study, rather than large interstate type 

roads normally analyzed. Zone of influence according to a review of literature appears to be 

between 100 and 400 meters. The analysis uses a disturbance zone based on a median of 250 

meters from roadways for small mammals. 

As with other groups of terrestrial wildlife, motorized/recreation effects to small mammals can be 

grouped into two analysis factors: 

1. A greater potential for harvest/direct effects, and/or 

2. Disturbance/indirect effects. 

Harvest or direct effect is be analyzed by miles of roadway within each habitat type and 

disturbance or indirect effect is analyzed by distance from road out to 250 meters (acres). 

Again, the effects were determined by using an approach that analyzes the change in habitats that 

focal species are associated with among the different alternatives. These selected species reflect 

general habitat conditions needed by other small mammals with similar habitats (see table 68 and 

table 69).

Table 68. Small mammal species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection

Species Analyzed Rationale for Selection

Hooded skunk FS Sensitive Species

Botta’s pocket gopher FS Sensitive Species

Gunnison’s prairie dog FS Sensitive Species

White Mountains ground squirrel FS Sensitive Species

Southern red-backed vole FS Sensitive Species

Long-tailed vole FS Sensitive Species and FS MIS Species – Representative of wet meadow 

and wetland habitat.

Arizona montane vole FS Sensitive Species

White-nose coati FS Sensitive Species

Western red bat FS Sensitive Species

Arizona gray squirrel FS Sensitive Species

Beaver FS MIS – Representative of low, middle and high elevation riparian habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

152 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 69. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area used 

to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to small mammals

Focal Species Motorized 

Activity

Harvest

Indicator

Disturbance

Zone

Analysis

Area

Hooded skunk

Botta’s pocket gopher

Motorized trail or 

OHV use 

Route Miles 250 m Desert shrub or grasslands, 

and piñon-juniper or shrub 

oak woodland

Gunnison’s prairie dog

White Mountain 

ground squirrel

Motorized trail or 

OHV and roads

Route Miles 250 m Plains and mountain 

grasslands

Southern red-backed

vole

Motorized trail or 

OHV and roads

Route Miles 250 m Spruce-fir

Long-tailed vole

Arizona montane vole

Motorized trail or 

OHV and roads

Route Miles 250 m Wet meadow, wetland, 

and high elevation riparian

White-nosed coati

Western red bat

Arizona gray squirrel

Motorized trail or 

OHV and roads

Route Miles 250 m Low and middle elevation 

riparian

Beaver Motorized trail or 

OHV and roads

Route Miles 250 m Low, middle, and high 

elevation riparian

Small Mammals – Effects by Alternative

Hooded Skunk and Botta’s Pocket Gopher (Forest Service Sensitive Species)

Table 70. Hooded skunk – Botta’s pocket gopher habitat (desert shrub, piñon-juniper, and 

shrub oak woodland) analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by issue and 

alternative

Analysis Area on NFS Land 

= 1,661,235 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B 

(No Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in 

miles 1,671 1,698 1,309 1,066 1,412 1,410

Percent in miles of alt. B 

(Existing) 2% -22% -36% -16% -16%

Motorized dispersed camping

acres 1,214,155 -1,169,980 -1,179,430 -1,214,155 -1,173,513 -1,175,926

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing) -96% -97% -100% -97% -97%

Motorized areas in acres - all 

vehicles 17 *NC -17 -17 NC NC

Motorized big game retrieval

acres 1,214,155 -235,755 -1,179,430 -1,214,155 -553,082 -1,175,926

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing) -19% -97% -100% -46% -97%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 153

Gunnison’s Prairie Dog and White Mountain 

Ground Squirrel (Forest Service Sensitive Species)

Table 71. Gunnison’s prairie dog - White Mountain ground squirrel habitat (plains and 

mountain grassland) analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by issue and 

alternative

Analysis Area on NFS Land = 

227,232 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and Trails in miles 622 615 517 469 540 537

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) -1% -17% -25% -13% -14%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 216,904 -200,953 -204,062 -216,904 -201,071 -202,386

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -93% -94% -100% -93% -93%

Motorized areas in Acres - all 

vehicles

3 0 -3 -3 0 0

Motorized area in acres - OHV only 3 0 -3 -3 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 216,904 -11,665 -204,062 -216,904 -42,912 -202,386

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -5% -94% -100% -20% -93%

Long-tailed Vole (Forest Service Sensitive Species and Gila 

Management Indicator Species Representative of Wet Meadow/wetland 

Habitat) and Arizona Montane Vole (Forest Service Sensitive Species)

Table 72. Long-tailed vole - Arizona montane habitat (wet meadow, wetland, and high

elevation riparian) analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by issue and 

alternative

Analysis Area on NFS Land = 

6,811 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 42 40 29 18 35 35

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) -4% -31% -56% -17% -17%

Motorized dispersed camping

acres

3,828 -3,408 -3,616 -3,828 -3,412 -3,523

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -89% -947% -100% -89% -92%

Motorized areas in acres 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 3,828 -443 -3,616 -3,828 -992 -3,523

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -12% -947% -100% -26% -92%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

154 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

White-nosed Coati, Western Red Bat, and 

Arizona Gray Squirrel (Forest Service Sensitive Species)

Table 73. White-nosed coati, western red bat, Arizona gray squirrel habitat (low and middle

elevation riparian) analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by issue and 

alternative

Analysis Area on NFS Land = 

21,733 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B 

(No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternatives

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 97 97 59 49 75 71

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) - <1% -39% -49% -23% -27%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 12,853 -11,970 -12,403 -12,853 -12,249 -12,302

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -93% -97% -100% -95% -96%

Motorized areas in acres 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 12,853 -3,176 -12,403 -12,853 -6,477 -12,302

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -24% -97% -100% -50% -96%

Beaver (Gila Management Indicator Species 

Representative of Low, Middle, and High Elevation Riparian Habitat)

Table 74. Beaver habitat (low, middle, and high elevation riparian) analysis area - existing 

condition and proposed change by issue and alternative

Analysis Area on NFS land = 

28,120 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 138 136 88 67 109 106

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) -1% -37% -51% -21% -24%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 16,328 -15,070 -15,705 -16,328 -15,349 -15,513

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -92% -96% -100% -94% -95%

Motorized areas in acres 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 16,328 -3,611 -15,705 -16,328 -7,445 -15,513

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -22% -96% -100% -46% -95%

No Action Alternative (Alternative B): For upland species of small mammals under this 

alternative, there are 1,671 miles of motorized routes in the hooded skunk and Botta’s pocket 

gopher analysis area, and 622 miles of motorized routes in the Gunnison’s prairie dog and White 

Mountain ground squirrel analysis area. For riparian and wetland species of small mammals 

under this alternative, there are 138 miles of motorized routes in the beaver analysis area; 42 

miles of motorized routes in the long-tailed and Arizona montane vole analysis area; and 97 miles 

of motorized routes in the white-nosed coati, western red bat, and Arizona gray squirrel analysis 

area. Habitat associated with these routes has been lost and will not recover unless the route is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 155

closed and possibly decommissioned. The potential for direct effects like vehicle collision, 

poaching, and trapping to these species would continue at the same rate. The potential disturbance 

zone for hooded skunks and Botta’s pocket gopher is 311,967 acres, and 86,542 acres for 

Gunnison’s prairie dog and White Mountain ground squirrel. The potential disturbance zone for 

beaver is 6,748 acres, 2,256 acres for long-tailed and Arizona montane voles, and 4,713 acres for 

white-nosed coati, western red bat and Arizona gray squirrel. Within these potential disturbance 

zones, motorized routes continue to cause the potential for indirect effects like disturbance, 

displacement, avoidance, and harassment. 

Under this alternative, motorized cross-country travel, motorized dispersed camping, and 

motorized big game retrieval would continue to be allowed across the Gila National Forest. These 

three types of use continue to have potential effects to upland, riparian, and wetland species of 

small mammals. Additionally, these three types of use may perpetuate the development of 

additional roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing for the development of higher road 

density. Under the no action alternative, through time, the potential for the direct loss of 

individuals and habitat would increase, as would the potential for disturbance effects to these 

species. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Under all action alternatives, motorized cross-country 

travel (see assumption) would no longer be allowed. The change from the existing condition is a 

100 percent reduction in motorized cross-country travel. In the hooded skunk and Botta’s pocket 

gopher analysis area, motorized dispersed camping is reduced by 96 to 100 percent under all 

action alternatives; Gunnison’s prairie dog and White Mountain ground squirrel analysis area 93 

to 100 percent; beaver analysis area 92 to 100 percent; long-tailed and Arizona montane voles 

analysis area 89 to 100 percent; and 93 to 100 percent in the white-nosed coati, western red bat 

and Arizona gray squirrel analysis area. For all small mammals, the area of potentially affected 

habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100 percent under alternative E, 94 to 97

percent under alternative D, 92 to 97 percent under alternative G, 19 to 50 percent under 

alternative F, and 5 to 25 percent under alternative C.

Motorized areas are locations where there have been traditional uses like motorized camping and 

OHV use. Under all action alternatives, in the beaver, vole, and coati/bat/gray squirrel analysis 

areas, no areas currently exist and no areas have been designated. Under alternatives D and E, in 

the hooded skunk and pocket gopher analysis areas, there is a reduction of 17 acres of potentially 

affected habitat, and under the remaining action alternatives, there is no change from the existing 

condition. In the prairie dog and ground squirrel analysis area under alternatives D and E, there is 

a reduction of 3 acres of potentially affected habitat, and under the remaining action alternatives,

there is no change from the existing condition.

Miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat within the analysis 

area for small mammals that occur in upland habitats are reduced by 25 to 36 percent under 

alternative E, 17 to 22 percent under alternative D, 13 to 16 percent under alternative F, and 14 to 

16 percent under alternative G. Under alternative C, motorized routes are increased by 2 percent

in the hooded skunk and Botta’s pocket gopher analysis area, and reduced by 1 percent in the 

Gunnison’s prairie dog and White Mountain ground squirrel analysis area.

Miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat within the analysis 

area for small mammals that occur in riparian habitats are reduced by 49 to 56 percent under 

alternative E, 31 to 39 percent under alternative D, 17 to 23 percent under alternative F, and 17 to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

156 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

27 percent under alternative G. Under alternative C there is less than 4 percent reduction in 

riparian analysis areas for small mammals. 

In the shrub and woodland communities used by hooded skunks and Botta pocket gophers, all 

action alternatives except alternative E add 13 to 69 miles of routes that are not currently system 

roads and trails. For the other focal species and their associated analysis areas, alternative E adds 

0 miles of routes that are currently not system routes; alternatives D, F, and G add 1 mile; and 

alternative C adds up to 10 miles of routes (table 75 and table 76).

Table 75. Small mammal Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative

Sensitive Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing 

Condition C D E F G

Hooded skunk MI MI MI MI MI

Botta’s pocket gopher MI MI MI MI MI

Gunnison’s prairie dog MI MI MI MI MI

White Mountain ground 

squirrel

MI MI MI MI MI

Southern red-backed vole MI MI MI MI MI

Long-tailed vole MI MI MI MI MI

Arizona montane vole MI MI MI MI MI

White-nose coati MI MI MI MI MI

Western red bat MI MI MI MI MI

Arizona gray squirrel MI MI MI MI MI

Rationale for Determination Under alternatives D to G, the potential effects to small mammals are reduced, 

particularly under alternative E. Under alternative C there is very little change 

from the existing condition, and in the shrub and woodland communities there is 

an increase in motorized routes. Under alternatives F and C, the amount of 

available habitat in riparian species habitat accessible to motorized big game 

retrieval remains high. This activity may not occur often in this habitat type, but, 

as stated with other riparian species/groups, the potential to cause several years of 

damage with a single entry is high. The amount of potentially affected habitat in a 

given year would be small considering the relatively low number of game 

retrievals that could occur in a given year and the amount of Forest Service land 

on which this activity has the potential to occur. 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 small mammals that 

occur on the Gila National Forest. None of the alternatives would cause a trend 

toward Federal listing. 

*MI – may impact
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 157

Table 76. Long-tailed vole and beaver Gila National Forest management indicator species 

determination by alternative

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Long-tailed vole NA NA NA NA NA

Beaver NA NA NA NA NA

Rationale for 

Determination

Under alternatives D to G, the potential effects to small mammals are reduced, particularly 

under alternative E. The potential to affect individuals under all action alternatives still exists; 

but population and habitat trends for the beaver and long-tailed vole would not be affected by 

any of the action alternatives.

*NA – no adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Amphibians and Reptiles

Compared to groups like large mammals, relatively few studies have been completed related to 

the effects of human recreation and travel activities on herpetofauna. Habitats important to many 

herpetofauna are breeding/rearing, foraging, and overwintering areas. Amphibians usually require 

warmer lentic aquatic areas with vegetation for breeding/rearing, riparian areas that support large 

amounts of insects for foraging, and soils that lend themselves to burrows, forest litter and/or 

large woody debris, or deep waters that are unlikely to completely freeze for overwintering 

(Maxwell and Hokit 1999). Reptiles usually require adequate sun exposure and substrate for 

nesting or basking; habitats that support adequate forage, which includes insects, fish, 

amphibians, small mammal, or birds; and overwintering areas like deep water, mud flats, deep 

rock crevices, or mammal burrows. In areas where these three types of habitat are in relatively

close proximity, herpetofuana migration distances are relatively short; but if these areas are 

isolated spatially, reptiles and amphibians are capable of undertaking quite extensive seasonal 

migrations. Management actions that have the potential to affect one or more of these habitats, or 

the migration that many species undergo to reach these habitats, should be considered when 

evaluating the effects of an activity (table 77).

Table 77. Amphibian and reptile species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection

Species Analyzed Rationale for Selection

Mexican gartersnake FS Sensitive Species

Arizona toad FS Sensitive Species

Narrow-headed gartersnake FS Sensitive Species

Reticulate Gila monster FS Sensitive Species

Chiricahua leopard frog Federally Listed “Threatened” Species

The literature documents that a large number of amphibians and reptiles are killed on roadways 

(Maxwell and Hokit 1999). Fahrig et al. (1995) documented that the higher the traffic intensity,

the greater the number of dead frogs and toads. OHVs have also been documented to cause direct 

mortality (Maxwell and Hokit 1999). Motor vehicles on roads and OHVs also affect habitat 

quality and fragmentation, and herpetofauna have even been documented to suffer from vehicle 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

158 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

noise. Soil disturbance can negatively affect amphibians and reptiles. Temporary pools of water 

on roadways have been documented to negatively affect amphibians. Voss and Chardon (1998) 

documented that Moor Frog populations were negatively affected by density of roads within 250 

meters of waterways. Semlitsch (1998) found that some species used and dispersed within 250 

meters of riparian, wetland and aquatic habitats. 

Effects to reptiles and amphibians can be grouped into two analysis factors: 

1. A greater potential for harvest, and/or 

2. Disturbance effects. 

Harvest effects were analyzed by miles of roadway within each habitat type and disturbance 

effects were analyzed by distance from road within the identified associated habitat out to 250 m 

(acres). 

The effects were determined by using an approach that analyzed the change in habitats that focal 

species are associated with between the different alternatives. These selected species reflect 

general habitat conditions needed by other reptiles and amphibians with similar habitats. There is 

an exception to this approach of using habitat association as the analysis area. For the federally 

listed Chiricahua leopard frog, the analysis examined the change in miles of road within dispersal 

distances of extant populations (the dispersal distance identified by the FWS), and the change in 

the number of road-stream crossings within this zone (table 78).

Table 78. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area used 

to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to amphibians and reptiles

Focal 

Species

Motorized 

Activity

Harvest

Indicator

Disturbance

Zone

Analysis

Area

Mexican 

gartersnake

Motorized trail or 

OHV and roads

Route Miles 250 m Low elevation 

riparian

Arizona toad, 

narrow-headed 

gartersnake

Motorized trail or 

OHV and roads

Route Miles 250 m Low, middle, and

high elevation 

riparian

Retculate Gila 

monster

Motorized trail or 

OHV and roads

Route Miles 250 m Desert shrub or 

grassland 

Chiricahua 

leopard frog

Motorized trail or 

OHV use 

Route Miles

Number of 

Stream 

Crossings

Miles of routes within:

- 1 mile overland

-3 miles along an ephemeral 

or intermittent drainage

-5 miles along a perennial 

stream

Occupied sites
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 159

Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Federally “Threatened” Species) – On the Gila National Forest, 15 

occupied sites were known 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 National Forest adds to this concern.

Chiricahua leopard frog movement patterns are not well understood. Active movement of adult 

frogs up and down a drainage, or directional dispersal of metamorph and subadult frogs may be in 

response to deteriorating habitat (i.e., drying of breeding pond), predators (e.g., conspecifics and 

gartersnakes), or intraspecific competition (Southwest Endangered Species Act Team 2008). 

Historically, it is likely that perennial corridors were important for dispersing individual frogs. In 

the absence of perennial corridors, movement by frogs is likely facilitated by the presence of 

seasonal surface waters (lotic and lentic) and otherwise wet conditions during the summer rainy 

season that permit overland movement in typically dry environments (Southwest Endangered 

Species Act Team 2008). Based on observations of various ranids in Arizona and New Mexico 

(Southwest Endangered Species Act Team 2008), reasonable dispersal distances for the species 

are (1) 1 mile overland, (2) 3 miles along intermittent drainages, and (3) 5 miles along permanent 

watercourses (Southwest Endangered Species Act Team 2008), or some combination thereof.

Accurately identifying (1) the action area of a proposed project, and (2) whether habitats occur 

within the action area where the species is reasonably likely to occur are critical steps for

analyzing if and how a particular action may affect Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog Summary – For this species, miles of roads within the reasonable 

dispersal distances from occupied sites was the indicator used to analyze the potential for harvest 

and disturbance under the different alternatives. Reasonable dispersal distances for the frog from 

occupied habitats are described above. We also analyzed the change in the number of road-stream 

crossings within this zone.

The forest has completed extensive survey work for this species over the past 9 years. During this

time, the number of populations on the Gila has continued to decline as a result of presence of 

Chytridiomycosis fungus. Analyzing the change in miles of roads within a reasonable dispersal 

distance from occupied sites between the different alternatives, along with the analysis of other 

focal amphibian species that are dependent on perennial riparian areas provides the basis needed 

to determine the potential effects to this species from the different alternatives. 

These species have been selected as a focal species for amphibians and reptiles that occur in the 

indicated vegetation types. For these species, the analysis indicators (road miles and acres of 

potential disturbance) analyzed the change in low elevation riparian habitat by alternative from 

the existing condition.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

160 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Reptiles and Amphibians – Effects by Alternative

Mexican Gartersnake (Forest Service Sensitive Species)

Table 79. Mexican gartersnake habitat (low elevation riparian) analysis area - existing 

condition and proposed change by issue and alternative

Analysis Area on NFS Land = 

10,862.33 Acres

Existing 

Effects, 

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 42 43 27 24 38 33

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) 3% -34% -43% -9% -20%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 6,037 -5,427 -5,775 -6,037 -5,701 -5,758

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -90% -96% -100% -94% -95%

Motorized areas in acres 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 6,037 -1,210 -5,775 -6,037 -2,890 -5,758

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -20% -96% -100% -48% -95%

Arizona Toad and Narrow-Headed Gartersnake (Forest Service Sensitive Species)

Table 80. Arizona toad – narrow-headed gartersnake habitat (low, middle, and high 

elevation riparian) analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by issue and 

alternative

Analysis Area on NFS Land = 

28,120 acres.

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternatives

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 138 136 88 67 109 106

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) -1% -37% -51% -21% -24%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 16,328 -15,070 -15,705 -16,328 -15,349 -15,513

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -92% -96% -100% -94% -95%

Motorized areas in acres 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 16,328 -3,611 -15,705 -16,328 -7,445 -15,513

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -22% -96% -100% -46% -95%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 161

Reticulate Gila Monster (Forest Service Sensitive Species)

Table 81. Reticulate Gila monster habitat (desert shrub and grassland) analysis area -

existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative

Analysis Area on NFS Land = 

18,138 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 25 26 20 16 20 20

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) 4% -21% -34% -19% -19%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 15,795 -14,838 -14,993 -15,795 -14,858 -14,995

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -94% -95% -100% -94% -95%

Motorized areas in acres 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 15,795 -2,508 -14,993 -15,795 -7,426 -14,995

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -16% -95% -100% -47% -95%

No Action Alternative (Alternative B): Under the existing condition for reptiles and 

amphibians, there are 42 miles of motorized routes in the Mexican gartersnake analysis area, 138 

motorized routes in the Arizona toad and narrow-headed gartersnake analysis area, and 25 miles 

of motorized routes in the Reticulate Gila monster analysis area. Habitat associated with these 

routes has been lost and will not recover unless the route is closed and possibly decommissioned,

and the potential for direct effects like vehicle collision, poaching, and collection would continue. 

The potential disturbance zone for Mexican gartersnake is 2,330 acres, 6,858 acres for Arizona 

toad and narrow headed gartersnake, and 3,905 acres for Reticulate Gila monster. Within these 

potential disturbance zones, motorized routes continue to cause the potential for disturbance, 

displacement, avoidance, and harassment. 

Under this alternative, motorized cross-country travel, motorized dispersed camping, and 

motorized big game retrieval would continue to be allowed across the Gila National Forest. These 

three types of use continue to have potential effects to upland, riparian, and wetland species of 

reptiles and amphibians. Additionally, these three types of use may perpetuate the development of 

additional roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing for the development of higher road 

density. Under the no action alternative, through time, the potential for the direct loss of 

individuals and habitat would increase, as would the potential for disturbance effects to these 

species. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Under all action alternatives, motorized cross-country 

travel (see assumption) is no longer allowed. The change from the existing condition is a 100

percent reduction in motorized cross-country travel. Motorized dispersed camping is reduced in 

the Mexican gartersnake analysis area by 90 to 100 percent under all action alternatives; in the

Arizona toad and narrow headed gartersnake analysis area, 92 to 100 percent; and 94 to 100

percent in the Gila monster analysis area. For these focal species, the area of potentially affected 

habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100 percent under alternative E, 95 to 96

percent under alternative D, 46 to 94 percent under alternative F, 95 percent under alternative G, 

and 16 to 22 percent under alternative C.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

162 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Motorized areas are locations where there have been traditional uses like motorized camping and 

OHV use. Under all action alternatives, no areas have been designated in the reptile and 

amphibian analysis areas (table 82).

Miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat within the analysis 

area for reptiles and amphibians are reduced by 34 to 51 percent under alternative E, 21 to 37

percent under alternative D, 9 to 19 percent under alternative F, and 19 to 24 percent under 

alternative G. Under alternative C, motorized routes are increased by 4 percent in the Gila 

monster analysis area, 3 percent in the Mexican gartersnake analysis area, and reduced by 1

percent in the Arizona toad and narrow-headed gartersnake analysis area.

For the focal species and their associated analysis areas, alternative E adds no miles of routes;

alternatives D, F, and G add 1 mile of currently unauthorized route; and alternative C adds up to 

10 miles of unauthorized routes. Because the Gila National Forest currently allows cross-country 

travel, most proposed routes even though unauthorized/recognized are currently being used.

Table 82. Amphibian and reptile Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative

Sensitive Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing 

Condition C D E F G

Mexican gartersnake MI MI MI MI MI

Arizona toad MI MI MI MI MI

Narrow-headed gartersnake MI MI MI MI MI

Reticulate Gila monster MI MI MI MI MI

Rationale for 

Determination

Under alternatives D to G, the potential effects to reptiles and amphibians are reduced, 

particularly under alternative E. Under alternative C, there is an increase in motorized 

routes in the Mexican gartersnake and Gila Monster analysis areas; and a 1 percent

decrease in the Arizona toad and narrow-headed gartersnake analysis area. Under 

alternatives F and C, the amount of available habitat in riparian species habitat 

accessible to motorized big game retrieval remains high. This activity may not occur 

often in this habitat type, but as stated with other riparian species/groups, the potential 

to cause several years of damage with a single entry is high. The amount of potentially 

affected habitat in a given year would be small, considering the relatively low number 

of motorized game retrievals that could occur in a given year, and the amount of 

Forest Service land that this activity has the potential to occur in. 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 reptile or amphibian that 

occurs on the Gila National Forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 163

Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Federally listed threatened species)

Table 83. Chiricahua leopard frog reasonable dispersal analysis area - existing condition 

and proposed change by issue and alternative

Analysis Area (15 

occupied sites) on NFS

Lands = 71,624 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails

in miles

71 70.6 59.7 36.6 64.5 67.7

Percent in miles of alt. B 

(Existing)

-0.6% -15.9% -48.5% -9.2% -4.7%

Routes Crossing Streams

No. of Open existing ML 

2–ML 5

65 -21 -38 -57 -34 -23

No. of Administrative 

routes

20 21 23 21 21

Total FS route and trail

crossings

65 64 48 31 52 63

Percent change of alt. B 

(Existing)

-9.9% -32.5% -56.4% -26.8% -11.4%

No. of private road-stream 

crossings

2 NC NC NC NC NC

Motorized dispersed 

camping in acres

39,828 -38,529 -38,971 -39,828 -38,643 -38,612

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-96.7% -97.9% -100% -97% -96.9%

Motorized Areas

Motorized area in acres - all 

vehicles

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Motorized area in acres -

OHV only

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Motorized big game 

retrieval acres

39,828 -4,966 -38,971 -39,828 -16,873 -38,612

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-12.5% -97.9% -100% -42.4% -96.9%

No Action Alternative (Alternative B): Under this alternative, there are 71 miles of motorized 

routes within a reasonable dispersal area of occupied Chiricahua leopard frog sites. The literature 

documents that a large number of amphibians and reptiles are killed on roadways (Maxwell and 

Hokit 1999). Fahrig et al. (1995) did document that the higher the traffic intensity, the greater the 

number of dead frogs and toads. OHVs have also been documented to cause direct mortality 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

164 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

(Maxwell and Hokit 1999). Motor vehicles on roads and OHVs also affect habitat quality and

fragmentation, and herpetofauna have even been documented to suffer from vehicle noise. 

Temporary pools of water on roadways have been documented to negatively affect amphibians. 

The potential for collision loss does exist on Forest Service motorized routes; the lower traffic 

rates and travel speeds on forest routes reduces this potential. The potential for take associated 

with poaching also exists. Increases in the level of use on these routes through time would 

increase the potential for direct and indirect effects. 

Under this alternative, motorized cross-country travel and dispersed camping continues to be 

allowed across the Gila National Forest. These two types of use continue to have the potential to 

impact the Chiricahua leopard frog in habitats located within the dispersal distances of this 

species (39,828 acres). Additionally, these two types of use perpetuate the development of 

additional roads and OHV routes; potentially allowing for the development of more routes than 

the 71 miles currently identified within the dispersal distance analysis area. 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. Under all action 

alternatives, the change from the existing condition is a 100 percent reduction in motorized crosscountry travel. The authorization to allow motorized dispersed camping in these alternatives is 

reduced by 97 percent to 100 percent within the analysis area. No motorized areas are designated 

within this analysis area. Since no cross-country travel and no motorized areas are located in the 

analysis area, there would be no effect to the Chiricahua leopard frog or its habitat from these 

activities (table 84).

Table 84. Chiricahua leopard frog federally listed species determination by alternative

Federally 

Listed 

Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Chiricahua 

leopard frog

MALAA MALAA MALAA MALAA MALAA

Rationale for 

Determination

Under alternative E, the change results in a much higher benefit to the species and its habitat

than the other action alternatives. The remaining four alternatives do change the uses within 

analysis areas, reducing the risk of potential effects in the following order: alternative D, F, G, 

and C. This change in use does cause less adverse effects than roads and trails open under the 

no action alternative. All action alternatives propose some level of administrative use, reducing 

the potential level of effect relative to the change. The change to administrative use reduces 

traffic levels; therefore, providing long-term beneficial effects by reducing the potential to cause 

the direct mortality of frogs. However, even low levels of use through occupied habitat still 

have the potential to cause harvest/take. Under alternatives F and C, the area open to big game 

retrieval is still relatively high compared to the other action alternatives. Many of the remaining 

Chiricahua leopard frog locations on the forest occur in popular hunting areas, so it is 

reasonable to expect some level of game retrieval within the analysis area. Leopard frogs are 

associated with riparian/aquatic type habitats that are more susceptible to damage by crosscountry motorized use than upland habitats; therefore, the relative potential for adverse effects 

is greater under alternatives F and C for big game retrieval than the other action alternatives. All 

action alternatives have the potential to affect individuals by causing the direct take of the 

species; therefore, a “may affect likely to adversely affect” determination is made for all action 

alternatives.

*MALAA - may affect likely to adversely affect determination
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 165

Differences Among the Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Miles of motorized routes and 

trails and acres of potentially affected habitat within the analysis area are reduced by 

approximately 48 percent (-35 mi) under alternative E, 16 percent (-11 mi) under alternative D, 9

percent (-7 mi) under alternative F, 5 percent (-3 mi) under alternative G, and 1 percent (-1 mi) 

under alternative C (see table 83 for specific numbers). Under the existing condition, there are 65 

stream crossings within the analysis area. This number is reduced by 56 percent under alternative 

E to 31 crossings; by 32.5 percent under alternative D to 48 stream crossings; by 27 percent under 

alternative F to 52 crossings; by 11 percent under alternative G to 63 stream crossings; and by 10

percent under alternative C to 64 crossings. Under alternative E, 23 of the stream crossing go to 

administrative use only; under alternatives D, F, and G, 21 go to administrative use only; and 

under alternative C, 20 go to administrative use. The greater the reduction in miles of motorized 

routes and number of motorized stream crossing in the analysis areas, the less the potential for 

direct and indirect effects. Additionally, the more of these miles and crossings that go to 

administrative use only, 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 and 

stream crossings reduced in the analysis areas.

The area of potentially affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100 percent

under alternative E, 98 percent under alternative D, 42 percent under alternative F, 97 percent

under alternative G, and 12.5 percent under alternative C.

Avian Analysis

Analyses for this document in regard to avian species are based on an extensive literature review, 

the “Gila National Forest Plan,” “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan,” “Northern Goshawk 

Management Recommendations” (GTR RM-17), and the “New Mexico Partners in Flight 

(NMPIF) Draft Land Bird Conservation Plan for the State of New Mexico” (New Mexico 

Partners in Flight 2010). 

Studies examining the effects that motorized roads have on avifauna are relatively numerous 

compared to guilds of other species such as large carnivores and amphibians. Studies 

emphasizing the direct effect of road mortality to bird species were historically most prevalent, 

with more recent ornithological analyses focusing on habitat fragmentation and modification, and 

road effects to migratory bird species. Liddle (1997) states that road building, and particularly 

alteration of roadside habitat, can have a major effect on passerine (songbird) species. Volume of 

traffic was shown to have a quantitative effect on the density of nesting birds (Reijnen et al.

1995), with noise identified as the main disturbance factor. Edges of roads with low traffic 

densities may actually provide nesting areas for some species, if managed properly (Warner 

1992). Gaines et al. (2003) summarized motorized routes’ effects to focal species of birds 

occurring as edge effects, habitat loss or fragmentation, disturbance at specific sites, collisions, 

snag reduction, physiological response, and routes for competitors or predators. Habitats 

important to bird species vary widely according to each species’ life history and occur across the 

entire forest. As with analyses for the other guilds of species in this analysis, it is appropriate for 

focal species to be selected from each habitat type selected. Analysis was conducted for the 

following guilds of avian species: raptorial birds, primary cavity nesters, riparian birds, songbirds 

from forested areas, songbirds from grassland areas, and game birds. Analyses for road effects to 

wildlife, and specifically on guilds of avian species, can be generally described as follows: 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

166 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

1. A greater potential for harvest/direct effects, and 

2. Disturbance/indirect effects. 

Road mile reduction is identified as the main disturbance factor for measuring direct effects, so 

analyses of each action alternative’s road miles as it pertains to that species or guild of species 

occupying that habitat type will be the first analytical tool to measure the Gila National Forest’s 

travel management project proposed action and each alternative. To measure indirect effects, 

acres of disturbance are calculated for focal species within each habitat type. A zone of 

disturbance on either side of the road will be the analysis tool for that guild of species occupying 

that habitat type.

Raptorial Birds

Human activities can impact raptorial birds (hawks, falcons, and owls) by physically harming or 

killing birds, altering habitats, or disrupting normal behavior (Postovit and Postovit 1987,

Richardson and Miller 1997). At key stages in a raptor’s breeding activity, such as courtship 

periods and nest building, raptorial birds may desert a nest site as a result of disturbance (Hamann 

et al. 1999). Alteration of habitat could physically remove nest sites, potential nest sites, roost 

sites, disrupt perching and hunting locations, or alter the prey base on which these species rely 

(Hamann et al. 1999). Distances at which raptors flush from human activity from vehicles has 

been recorded for some species (Richardson and Miller 1997, and Holmes et al. 1993). Energy 

used for escape flights can further affect birds of prey during periods of extreme weather or prey 

scarcity (Stalmaster and Newman 1978, Buehler et al. 1991, and Grubb et al. 1992). Management 

recommendations to minimize effects to raptorial birds from roads include temporary or 

permanent closure of roads near nesting areas, managing travel corridors such that vehicles and 

campers do not remain close to known nest sites, and buffering known or potential nesting areas 

from human disturbances. The literature suggests that raptors are unlikely to be disturbed by 

routine use of roads, homes, and other facilities where such use predates 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 (USFWS 2007) (table 85).

Mexican Spotted Owl – The “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan” divided the range of the owl 

into 11 geographic areas called “recovery units” (RUs). One of these recovery units, “The Upper 

Gila Mountains” recovery unit partially falls within the boundary of the Gila National Forest. The 

Upper Gila Mountains Recovery Unit contains the largest known number of Mexican spotted 

owls (MSOs) of all the recovery units with 55 percent of known Mexican spotted owl territories 

(Ward et al. 1995). The forest plan amendment standards and guidelines state:

“Establish a Protected Activity Center (PAC) at all MSO sites located during surveys and all 

management territories established since 1989. Delineate an area of not less than 600 acres 

around the PAC using boundaries of known habitat polygons and/or topographic features.”

On the Gila National Forest, we have 286 protected activity centers; and approximately 604,825 

acres of designated critical habitat outside of wilderness. The Gila National Forest has the highest 

number of protected activity centers of any national forest within the range of the species. Most 

of these designated management areas are within the boundary of mixed conifer habitat on the 

forest (84,337 acres of non-wilderness and 79,579 acres of wilderness). Gainey et al. (2008) 

suggest that the Gila region is a source population for Mexican spotted owls and that the species 

is highly correlated with both cliff/rock habitat, and mixed conifer habitat cover type. Mixed 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 167

conifer and pine-oak forests are identified in the “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan” as the 

habitat type in this recovery unit where Mexican spotted owls are primarily found. 

Table 85. Raptor species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection

Species Analyzed Rationale for Selection

Northern goshawk1 FS sensitive species, management indicator species representative of ponderosa pine 

habitat cover type, and NM PIF high priority species.

Peregrine falcon2 FS sensitive species and NM PIF high priority species.

Bald eagle FS sensitive species and protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

of 1962.

Golden eagle Protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1962.

Mexican spotted owl3 Federally listed “threatened” species with designated critical habitat, management 

indicator species representative of mixed conifer habitat cover type, and NM PIF 

high priority species.

1 The ponderosa pine analysis area for this Gila MIS/NMPIF HP/Focal species will be used to determine potential 

effects to other NMPIF high priority species that occur in this habitat type (flammulated owl). 2 The analysis area for this Forest Service sensitive species/NMPIF HP/Focal species will be used to determine 

potential effects to other NMPIF high priority species that occur in cliff habitats (prairie falcon). 3 The mixed conifer analysis area for this Gila MIS/NMPIF HP/Focal species will be used to determine potential effects 

to other NMPIF high priority species that occur in this habitat type (Williamson’s sapsucker, olive-sided flycatcher, 

dusky flycatcher, and red-faced warbler. The disturbance zone for these upland birds is similar to that of the Mexican 

spotted owl).

The “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan” states that recreation activities may affect Mexican 

spotted owls directly by disturbing nests, roosts, or foraging areas. Indirect disturbance was 

identified from recreation through altered habitat caused by trampling of vegetation, soil damage, 

or both. The “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan” states if a given recreational activity does not 

cause habitat alteration, the activity will have a generally low impact potential to spotted owls. 

The plan also states that noise produced from vehicles may disturb spotted owls at important 

nesting and roost sites. Gaines et al. (2003) reviewed studies on the northern spotted owl and 

determined that road and trail associated factors that were likely to affect spotted owls were 

collisions, disturbances at a specific site, physiological responses, edge effects, and snag 

reduction. These same factors are expected to affect the Mexican spotted owl. During a study 

investigating noise effects to Mexican spotted owl, Delaney et al. (1999) found that owls did not 

flush from roosts or nests when chain saws were used greater than 105 meters away. Mexican 

spotted owls were determined to be capable of hearing road construction noise from as far as 400 

meters away, though responses to these noises were not documented (Delaney and Grubb 2002). 

A study investigating noise disturbance from helicopters on the Lincoln National Forest indicated 

that a 105-meter buffer zone for helicopter overflights would minimize Mexican spotted owl

flush response and any potential effects on nesting activity (Delaney et al. 1999). To analyze 

effects to this species from the proposed action and each alternative of the travel management 

project on the Gila National Forest, analysis will focus on two factors: 

1. To analyze the potential for harvest/direct disturbance effects of motorized activities to 

Mexican spotted owls, we will measure road miles within protected activity centers, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

168 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Mexican spotted owl critical habitat, and within the mixed conifer vegetation type as 

these miles pertain to the existing condition and the change proposed in each alternative. 

2. To analyze potential disturbance/indirect effects we will use a disturbance zone of 105 

meters within protected activity centers, critical habitat, and mixed conifer vegetation 

types as it pertains to the existing condition and to the change proposed in each 

alternative (table 86).

Table 86. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area used 

to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to raptors

Focal Species Motorized Activity Harvest

Indicator

Disturbance 

Zone Analysis Area

Northern 

goshawk

Motorized trail or 

OHV and roads

Route Miles 400 m PFAs, ponderosa pine

Peregrine 

falcon

Motorized trail or 

OHV and roads

Route Miles 2,200 m Peregrine nest area

Bald eagle Motorized trail or 

OHV and roads

Route Miles 500 m Quemado Lake, Snow Lake, and 

Lake Roberts

Golden eagle Motorized trail or 

OHV and roads

Route Miles 200 m Desert shrub or grassland 

Mexican 

spotted owl

Motorized trail and 

roads

Route Miles 105 m Protected activity centers, critical 

habitat, mixed conifer

Raptors – Effects by Alternative

Northern Goshawk (Forest Service Sensitive 

Species, Gila MIS Species, and NMPIF High Priority Species)

Table 87. Northern goshawk post-fledgling area analysis area – existing condition and 

proposed change by issue and alternative

Northern Goshawk Post-Fledgling 

Area Analysis Area on NFS Land = 

34,961 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 97 106 50 33 71 70

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) 9% -49% -66% -27% -28%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 31,962 -29,911 -31,021 -31,962 -29,998 -30,275

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -94% -97% -100% -94% -95%

Motorized areas in acres - all vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 31,962 -383 -31,021 -31,962 -6,311 -30,275

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -1% -97% -100% -20% -95%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 169

Table 88. Northern goshawk ponderosa pine analysis area – existing condition and 

proposed change by issue and alternative

Northern Goshawk Ponderosa 

Pine Analysis Area on NFS Land = 

1,177,746 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 1,994 1,999 1,394 1,043 1,597 1,585

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) <+1% -30% -48% -21% -21%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 903,431 -856,552 -867,641 -903,431 -858,877 -863,114

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -95% -96% -100% -95% -96%

Motorized areas in acres - All vehicles 9 NC -9 -9 NC NC

Motorized big game retrieval acres 903,431 -98,979 -867,641 -903,431 -298,469 -863,114

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -11% -96% -100.00% -33% -96%

Peregrine Falcon (Forest Service Sensitive 

Species and New Mexico Partners in Flight High Priority Species)

Table 89. Peregrine falcon analysis area – existing condition and proposed change by 

issue and alternative

Peregrine Falcon 

Nest/Management Analysis Area 

on NFS Land = 47,408 Acres

Existing 

Effects Alt. 

B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Motorized Routes

Miles of open existing ML 2–ML 5 19 0 -7 -13 -3 -5

Miles of administrative route 0 0 0 5 0 0

Total FS routes and trails in miles 19 20 13 11 17 15

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) +2% -33% -44% -13% -22%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 20,764 -20,221 -20,512 -20,764 -20,221 -20,512

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -97% -99% -100% -97% -99%

Motorized areas in acres 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 20,764 -5,873 -20,512 -20,764 -11,732 -20,512

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -28% -99% -100% -57% -99%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

170 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Bald Eagle (Forest Service Sensitive Species)

Table 90. Bald eagle analysis area – existing condition and proposed change by issue and 

alternative

Bald Eagle Analysis Area-Lake 

Habitat 500-Meter Buffer on NFS 

Land = 2,081 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) <-1% -3% -3% -3% -3%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 2,031 -2,026 -2,026 -2,031 -2,026 -2,026

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -99.7% -99.7% -100% -99.7% -99.7%

Motorized areas in acres 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 2,031 0 -2,026 -2,031 -153 -2,026

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) 0% -99.7% -100% -8% -99.7%

Golden Eagle (Protected Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1962)

Table 91. Golden Eagle analysis area – existing condition and proposed change by issue 

and alternative

Golden Eagle Habitat (Desert 

Shrub/Grassland) Analysis Area 

Total Habitat on NFS Land = 18,138

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Motorized Routes

Total FS routes and trails in miles 25 26 20 16 20 20

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) 4% -21% -34% -19% -19%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 15,795 -14,838 -14,993 -15,795 -14,858 -14,995

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -94% -95% -100% -94% -95%

Motorized areas in acres 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 15,795 -2,508 -14,993 -15,795 -7,426 -14,995

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -16% -95% -100% -47% -95%

No Action Alternative (Alternative B): Under the existing condition for raptors, there are 97 

miles of motorized routes in the northern goshawk post-fledgling area analysis area, 1,985 miles 

of motorized routes in the northern goshawk ponderosa pine analysis area, 19 miles of motorized 

routes in the peregrine falcon analysis area, 7 miles of motorized routes in the bald eagle analysis 

area, and 25 miles of motorized routes in the golden eagle analysis area. Habitat associated with 

these routes has been lost and will not recover unless the route is closed and possibly 

decommissioned. The potential disturbance zone for goshawks in the post-fledgling area analysis 

area is 21,041 acres, 455,287 acres in the goshawk ponderosa pine analysis area, 19 miles of road 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 171

in the peregrine falcon analysis area, 1,632 acres in the bald eagle analysis area, and 3,248 acres 

in the golden eagle area. Within these potential disturbance zones, motorized routes continue to 

cause the potential for disturbance, displacement, avoidance, and harassment. The literature 

suggests that raptors are unlikely to be disturbed by routine use of roads, homes, and other 

facilities where such use predates 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 (USFWS 2007). Increases in the level of use on these routes, 

through time, would increase the potential for indirect effects. 

Under this alternative, motorized cross-country travel, motorized dispersed camping, and 

motorized big game retrieval would continue to be allowed across the Gila National Forest. These 

three types of use continue to have potential effect on raptors. Additionally, these three types of 

use may perpetuate the development of additional roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing 

for the development of higher road density. Under the no action alternative, through time, the 

potential for the direct loss of individuals and habitat would increase, as would the potential for 

disturbance effects to these species. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Under all action alternatives, motorized cross-country 

travel would no longer be allowed. The change from the existing condition is a 100 percent

reduction in motorized cross-country travel. In the goshawk post-fledgling area analysis area,

motorized dispersed camping is reduced by 94 to 100 percent under all action alternatives; 

goshawk ponderosa pine analysis area 95 to 100 percent; peregrine falcon analysis area 97 to 100

percent; bald eagle analysis area 99.7 to 100 percent; and 94 to 100 percent in the golden eagle 

analysis area. For these focal species, the area of potentially affected habitat for motorized big 

game retrieval is reduced by 100 percent under alternative E, 95 to 99.7 percent under alternative 

D, 8 to 57 percent under alternative F, 95 to 99.7 percent under alternative G, and 0 to 16 percent

under alternative C. The wide range of change between focal species under alternative F is, more 

specifically, a reduction of 8 percent in the bald eagle analysis area; 20 percent reduction in the 

goshawk post-fledgling area analysis area; 33 percent reduction in the goshawk ponderosa pine 

analysis area; 57 percent reduction in the peregrine falcon analysis area; and 47 percent reduction 

in the golden eagle analysis area.

Motorized areas are locations where there have been traditional uses like motorized camping and

OHV use. For all focal species except the goshawk ponderosa pine analysis area, no areas have 

been designated under any of the action alternatives. In the goshawk ponderosa pine analysis 

area, currently there are 9 acres of habitat being affected by a motorized area. Alternatives E and 

D eliminate these acres of affected habitat, and the remaining action alternatives propose no 

change from the existing condition.

Under alternatives D, E, F, and G, the number of miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of 

potentially affected habitat is reduced respectively by 49, 66, 27, and 28 percent in the goshawk 

post-fledgling area analysis area; 30, 48, 21, and 21 percent in goshawk ponderosa pine analysis 

area; 33, 44, 13 and 22 percent in peregrine analysis area; 3, 3, 3, and 3 percent in the bald eagle 

analysis area; and 21, 34, 19 and 19 percent in the golden eagle analysis area. Under alternative 

C, miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat is increased by 9

percent in the goshawk post-fledgling area analysis area; less than 1 percent in the goshawk 

ponderosa pine analysis area; 2 percent in the peregrine analysis area; 4 percent in the golden 

eagle analysis area; and is reduced by less than 1 percent in the bald eagle analysis area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

172 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

For the focal species and their associated analysis areas, alternative E adds no miles of routes, 

alternative D adds 0 to 8 miles, alternatives F and G add 0 to 21 miles, and alternative C adds 0 to 

41 miles of unauthorized routes. Alternative C is the only alternative that allows for an actual 

increase in miles of routes through the associated analysis areas. Because the forest allows crosscountry travel on some proposed routes, even though unauthorized, they are currently being used. 

See table 92, table 93, and table 94 for species determination by alternative.

Table 92. Raptorial birds Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative

Sensitive Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Northern goshawk *MI MI MI MI MI

Peregrine falcon MI MI MI MI MI

Bald eagle MI MI MI MI MI

Rationale for 

Determination

Under alternatives D, E, F, and G, the potential effects to these raptors are reduced, 

particularly under alternatives E and D. Under alternative C, there is an increase in 

motorized routes in the goshawk analysis areas, peregrine analysis area, and golden eagle 

analysis area. The potential to affect individuals under all action alternatives 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 cause a trend toward Federal 

listing.

*MI – may impact

Table 93. Northern goshawk Gila National Forest management indicator species 

determination by alternative

Management 

Indicator Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing 

Condition C D E F G

Northern goshawk *NA NA NA NA NA

Rationale for 

Determination

Under alternatives D, E, F, and G the potential effects to goshawks are reduced, 

particularly under alternatives E and D. Under alternative C, there is an increase in 

motorized routes in both goshawk analysis areas. The potential to affect individuals under 

all action alternatives exists. Population and habitat trends for the northern goshawk would 

not be affected by any of the action alternatives.

*NA – no adverse effects to the population or habitat trends
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 173

Table 94. Raptor New Mexico Partners in Flight (NMPIF) high priority species 

determination by alternative

NMPIF High Priority 

Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Northern goshawk *NA NA NA NA NA

Flammulated owl NA NA NA NA NA

Peregrine falcon NA NA NA NA NA

Prairie falcon NA NA NA NA NA

Golden eagle NA NA NA NA NA

Rationale for 

Determination

Under alternatives D, E, F, and G, the potential effects to these species are reduced, 

particularly under alternatives E and D. Under alternative C, there is an increase in 

motorized routes in goshawk ponderosa pine analysis areas, the peregrine analysis area, 

and the golden eagle analysis area. The potential to affect individuals under all action 

alternatives exists; but there will be no measurable negative effects on these migratory 

species. Unintentional take of individuals may occur, but these alternatives will not 

negatively affect population levels.

*NA – no adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Mexican Spotted Owl (Federally Listed Threatened species, with Designated 

Critical Habitat, Gila Management Indicator Species, and NMPIF High Priority Species)

Table 95, table 96, and table 97 provide comparisons of existing conditions and proposed change 

by issue and alternatives.

Table 95. Mexican spotted owl protected activity center analysis area – existing condition 

and proposed change by issue and alternative

Mexican Spotted Owl Protected 

Activity Centers (MSO PACs)

Analysis Area on NFS Land = 

187,083.17 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B 

(No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 244 250 128 80 184 183

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) 3% -48% -67% -25% -25%

Motorized dispersed camping in acres 132,119 -128,145 -130,568 -132,119 -128,624 -129,520

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -97% -99% -100% -97% -98%

Motorized areas in acres - all vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 132,119 -16,442 -130,568 -132,119 -49,278 -129,520

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -12% -99% -100% -37% -98%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

174 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 96. Mexican spotted owl critical habitat analysis area – existing condition and 

proposed change by issue and alternative

Mexican Spotted Owl Critical 

Habitat Analysis Area on NFS 

Land = 1,122,932 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternatives

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in 

miles

1,308 1,343/+35 882/-426 569/-739 1,041/-267 1,043/-265

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) 3% -33% -57% -20% -20%

Closed road to OHV trail in miles 0 7 NC NC 7 7

Add unauthorized trail in miles 0 43 NC NC 4 4

Motorized dispersed camping

acres

604,825 -577,147 -584,498 -604,825 -578,062 -580,600

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -95% -97% -100% -96% -96%

Motorized areas in acres - all 

vehicles

1 NC -1 -1 NC NC

Motorized big game retrieval

acres

604,825 -78,693 -584,498 -604,825 -222,323 -580,600

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -13% -97% -100% -37% -96%

Table 97. Mexican spotted owl mixed conifer or restricted habitat analysis area – existing 

condition and proposed change by issue and alternative

Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat 

(Restricted or Mixed Conifer) 

Analysis Area on NFS lands= 

163,916 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternatives

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 105 115 67 45 83 83

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) 10% -36% -57% -21% -21%

Motorized dispersed camping in acres 84,101 -81,721 -82,278 -84,101 -81,869 -82,135

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -97% -98% -100% -97% -98%

Motorized areas in acres - all vehicles 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) -16% -98% -100% -41% -98%

No Action Alternative (Alternative B): Under this alternative, there are 244 miles of motorized 

routes in protected activity centers, 1,308 miles in designated Mexican spotted owl 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 Mexican spotted owl are relatively low. 

The potential for collision 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, Mexican spotted owl

collision losses have been documented. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 175

The potential disturbance area in protected activity centers (19,372 acres), Mexican spotted owl

critical habitat (100,904 acres), and mixed conifer habitat (10,381 acres) 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 predates 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 (USFWS 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 use continue to have the 

potential to impact Mexican spotted owl protected activity center habitat (132,119 acres),

designated critical habitat (604,825 acres), and yet to be identified protected activity centers in 

unsurveyed mixed conifer habitat. Additionally, these two types of use perpetuate the 

development of additional roads and OHV routes; potentially allowing for development of more 

routes than the 244 miles that are currently identified in protected activity centers, 1,308 miles in 

designated Mexican spotted owl 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 

motorized dispersed camping in these alternatives is reduced by 95 to 100 percent in areas with 

Mexican spotted owl habitat. No motorized areas are designated in Mexican spotted owl

protected activity centers or mixed conifer habitat. Under all action alternatives, the change from 

the existing condition is a 100 percent reduction in motorized cross-country travel. It is also 

important to note that Mexican spotted owls typically nest and roost in narrow or steep canyons

with a dense canopy cover and large amount of dead and down material. These nesting and 

roosting characteristics further limit the potential to cause direct and indirect effects to Mexican 

spotted owls and their habitat from dispersed camping. Under alternatives C, F, and G, our 

analysis shows that there is 1 acre of disturbance to Mexican spotted owl critical habitat. This 

disturbance does not affect any of the primary constituent elements in designated critical habitat. 

Since no motorized areas are located in protected activity centers or mixed conifer habitat, and 

the 1 acre within the boundary of critical habitat does not affect the primary constituent elements,

none of these actions will have an effect to Mexican spotted owls or their 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 percent in all analysis areas 

under alternative E; 33 to 48 percent under alternative D; and 20 to 25 percent under alternatives 

F and G (see table 95, table 96, and table 97 for specific numbers). Additionally, under 

alternatives 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 protected activity centers adding more protection 

to nesting Mexican spotted owls. 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 trails and acres of potentially affected habitat 

increase by 3 to 10 percent in all analysis areas under alternative C. Since these are new miles and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

176 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

acres of disturbance, there is a greater potential to cause direct and indirect effects to this species 

and its habitat under alternative C. 

Alternatives E and D add 0 miles of currently closed or unauthorized routes in the protected 

activity center analysis area. Alternatives F and G add 2 miles of currently closed motorized trails 

and 2 miles of currently unauthorized routes to the protected activity center analysis area. 

Alternative C adds 2 miles of currently closed motorized trail and 7 miles of unauthorized routes 

to the protected activity center analysis area. In restricted habitat, alternative C is the only action 

alternative that adds any currently closed or unauthorized routes, adding 11 miles to this analysis 

area. In critical habitat, all action alternatives at a minimum reopen 1 mile of road. The reopening 

of this 1 mile should not affect the primary constituent elements of critical habitat. Alternatives F 

and G reopen an additional 7 miles of closed road to OHVs and 4 miles of unauthorized trail. 

These two alternatives have a greater potential to affect the primary constituent elements of 

critical habitat. Alternative C reopens an additional 7 miles of closed road to OHVs and 43 miles 

of unauthorized trail. This alternative has the greatest potential to affect the primary constituent 

elements of critical habitat. Alternative C is the only alternative that allows for an actual increase 

in miles of routes through the associated analysis areas. New routes have the potential to cause 

new disturbance (table 98, table 99, and table 100). In these analysis areas, potentially affected 

habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100 percent under alternative E, 97 to 99

percent under alternative D, 37 to 41 percent under alternative F, 96 to 98 percent under 

alternative G, and 12 to 16 percent under alternative C.

Table 98. Mexican spotted owl federally listed species and critical habitat determinations

by alternative

Federally Listed 

Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing 

Condition C D E F G

Mexican spotted owl *MALAA *MANLAA MANLAA MALAA MALAA

Mexican spotted owl 

critical habitat

MALAA MANLAA MANLAA MALAA MALAA

Rationale for 

Species 

Determination

Under alternatives E and D, longer term beneficial effects to the species and its habitat are 

greater than the other action alternatives, respectively. Under alternatives F and G, long-term 

beneficial effects are less, but both still benefit the species and its habitat above the existing 

condition. These four alternatives change the use within portions of each of the analysis areas; 

proposing administrative use. This change causes less effects than roads and trails open to all of 

the public. Alternatives E and D don’t add any closed roads in protected activity centers and 

don’t change the primary constituent elements of designated critical habitat, don’t affect mixed 

conifer habitat, and don’t increase, but rather decrease disturbance in occupied habitat. 

Therefore, a determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” is made for these two 

alternatives. Alternatives F and G add closed and currently unauthorized routes to Mexican 

spotted owl protected activity centers and critical habitat providing for the potential for new 

direct and disturbance effects. Alternative C adds closed and currently unauthorized routes to 

protected activity centers, critical habitat, and restricted/mixed conifer habitat providing for the 

potential for new direct and disturbance effects. Again, alternative C is the only alternative that 

allows for an increase in miles of routes above the existing condition. Even though alternatives 

C, F, and G would have long-term beneficial effects to the Mexican spotted owl and its habitat, 

adding routes can cause adverse effects, requiring a “may affect likely to adversely affect” 

determination be made for these three action alternatives. Additionally, alternatives F and C 

continue to allow big game retrieval in a greater proportion of the analysis areas than the other 

action alternatives. The relative risk of affecting the primary constituent elements in critical 

habitat and causing direct effects to the habitat is greater under these two alternatives. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 177

Table 98. Mexican spotted owl federally listed species and critical habitat determinations

by alternative

Federally Listed 

Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing 

Condition C D E F G

Rationale for 

Critical Habitat 

Determination

Alternatives E and D don’t add any closed roads in protected activity centers and do not change 

the primary constituent elements of designated critical habitat, and they don’t affect mixed 

conifer habitat. Alternatives F and G add closed and currently unauthorized routes to Mexican 

spotted owl protected activity centers and critical habitat providing for the potential for new 

direct and disturbance effects. Alternative C adds closed and currently unauthorized routes to 

Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers, critical habitat, and restricted/mixed conifer 

habitat providing for the potential for new direct and disturbance effects. Again, alternative C is 

the only alternative that allows for an actual increase in miles of routes above the existing 

condition. Alternatives E and D don’t change the primary constituent elements in critical 

habitat, therefore, a determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect “ is made for 

these two alternatives. Alternatives C, F, and G add routes to designated critical habitat which 

can affect the primary constituent elements; therefore, a determination of “may affect, likely to 

adversely affect;” is made for these three alternatives.

*MALAA - may affect likely to adversely affect determination

**MANLAA - may affect not likely to adversely affect determination

Table 99. Mexican spotted owl Gila National Forest management indicator species 

determination by alternative

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Mexican 

spotted owl

NA NA NA NA NA

Rationale for 

Determination

Population and habitat trends for the Mexican spotted owl would not be affected by any of the 

action alternatives.

Table 100. New Mexico Partners in Flight (NMPIF) high priority species determination by 

alternative

NMPIF High Priority 

Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Mexican spotted owl *NA NA NA NA NA

Williamson’s sapsucker NA NA NA NA NA

Olive-sided flycatcher NA NA NA NA NA

Dusky flycatcher NA NA NA NA NA

Red-faced warbler NA NA NA NA NA

Rationale for 

Determination

Under alternatives D, E, F, and G, the potential effects to these species are reduced, 

particularly under alternatives E and D. Under alternative C, there is an increase in 

motorized routes in the mixed conifer habitat analysis areas. The potential to affect 

individuals under all action alternatives exists; but there will be no measurable negative 

effects on these migratory species. Unintentional take of individuals may occur, but these 

alternatives will not negatively affect population levels.

*NA – no adverse effects to the population or habitat trends
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

178 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Primary Cavity Nesters and Excavators

Disturbance to primary cavity nesters from roads, including negative edge effects and snag and 

downed log reduction from wood harvesting, prescribed fire, and safety implementation is well 

documented (Bull and Holthausen 1993, Kreisel and Stein 1999, Hutto 1995, Milne and Heijl 

1989, Raphael and White 1984). Scott and Patton (1978) conducted a study examining the 

characteristics of ponderosa pine snags used by cavity nesters in Arizona, and determined that 

larger ponderosa pine snags, greater than 15 inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) were 

preferred by all 14 species of birds whose nests were located during the study. Gaines et al.

(2003) assessed effects of road associated factors on primary cavity excavators by buffering open 

roads through forested habitat by 60 meters on either side of the road. The analysis area selected 

(Gaines et al. 2003) was at the 5th-code watershed level. The focal species used for the analysis is 

the hairy woodpecker (table 101 and table 102). To analyze effects to this guild of species from 

the proposed action and each alternative of the travel management project on the Gila National 

Forest, analysis will focus on two factors: 

1. To analyze the potential for harvest/direct effects of motorized activities to primary cavity 

nesters, road miles within ponderosa pine and mixed conifer vegetation cover types were 

measured, as these densities pertain to the existing condition and the change proposed in 

each alternative.

2. To analyze disturbance/indirect effects, a disturbance zone of 60 meters from roads 

within ponderosa pine and mixed conifer vegetation cover types was used as it pertains to 

the existing condition and the change proposed in each alternative (see table 100).

Table 101. Primary cavity nester and excavator species selected to be analyzed and 

rationale for selection

Species Analyzed Rationale for Selection

Hairy woodpecker Management indicator species representative of ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer snag component

Table 102. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area that 

was used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to cavity nesters

Focal Species Motorized Activity Harvest

Indicator

Disturbance

Zone

Analysis

Area

Hairy woodpecker Motorized trail or OHV use Route Miles 60 m Ponderosa pine

Mixed conifer

Overall, the hairy woodpecker appears to be minimally impacted by forest fragmentation, 

although a few studies have reported a decline in numbers as forest patch size decreases. The 

hairy woodpecker is the focal species for this group/guild of species. The analysis indicators for 

direct and disturbance effects are described above.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 179

Cavity Nesting Birds – Effects by Alternative

Hairy Woodpecker (Gila MIS Species - Representative of 

Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer Snag Component Species)

Table 103. Hairy woodpecker habitat (ponderosa pine and mixed conifer) analysis area –

existing condition and proposed change by alternative

Analysis Area Total Habitat 

on NFS Land = 1,341,662 

acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in 

miles

2,099 2,114 1,461 1,089 1,680 1,668

Percent in miles of alt. B 

(Existing)

1% -30% -48% -20% -21%

Motorized dispersed camping

acres

987,532 -938,273 -949,919 -987,532 -940,746 -945,249

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-95% -96% -100% -95% -96%

Motorized areas in acres - all 

vehicles

9 NC -9 -9 NC NC

Motorized big game retrieval

acres

987,532 -112,610 -949,919 -987,532 -333,214 -945,249

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-11% -96% -100% -33% -96%

No Action Alternative (Alternative B): Under the existing condition for the hairy woodpecker

and its associated analysis area, there are 2,087 miles of motorized routes. Habitat associated with 

these routes has been lost and will not recover unless the route is closed and possibly 

decommissioned, and the potential for direct effects like collision, poaching, and collection would 

continue. The potential disturbance zone for this species and its associated analysis area is 98,052 

acres. Within this potential disturbance zone, motorized routes continue to cause the potential for 

disturbance, displacement, avoidance, and harassment. Increase in the level of use on these routes 

through time would increase the potential for indirect effects. 

Under this alternative, motorized cross-country travel, motorized dispersed camping, and 

motorized big game retrieval would continue to be allowed across the Gila National Forest. These 

three types of use continue to have potential effects to cavity nesting birds. Additionally, these 

three types of use may perpetuate the development of additional roads and motorized trails; 

potentially allowing for the development of higher road density. Under the no action alternative, 

through time, the potential for direct loss of individuals and habitat would increase, as would the 

potential for disturbance effects to the hairy woodpecker. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Under all action alternatives, motorized cross-country 

travel would no longer be allowed. The change from the existing condition is a 100 percent

reduction in motorized cross-country travel. Motorized dispersed camping is reduced by 95 to 

100 percent under all action alternatives. Motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100 percent
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

180 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

under alternative E, 96 percent under alternatives D and G, 33 percent under alternative F, and 11

percent under alternative C.

Motorized areas are locations where there have been traditional uses like motorized dispersed 

camping and OHV use. In this analysis area, 9 acres of habitat are being affected by a motorized 

area. Alternatives E and D eliminate these acres of affected habitat, and the remaining action 

alternatives propose no change from the existing condition.

Under alternatives D, E, F, and G, miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially 

affected habitat are reduced by 30 percent, 48 percent, 20 percent, and 21 percent, respectively, in 

this analysis area. Under alternative C, miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of 

potentially affected habitat are increased by 1 percent.

For the focal species and their associated analysis areas, alternative E adds no miles of routes,

alternative D adds 8 miles, alternative F adds 22 miles, alternative G adds 23 miles, and 

alternative C adds 53 miles of unauthorized routes. None of the action alternatives allow for an 

actual increase in the total miles of routes through the associated analysis areas, except alternative 

C, which allows for a 1 percent increase. Because the Gila National Forest allows motorized 

cross-country travel, some proposed routes, even though unauthorized, are currently being used.

Table 104. Hairy woodpecker Gila National Forest management indicator species 

determination by alternative

Management 

Indicator Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Hairy woodpecker *NA NA NA NA NA

Rationale for 

Determination

Under alternatives D, E, F, and G, the potential effects to cavity nesting birds are reduced. 

Alternative C slightly increases the miles of motorized routes, but reduces the effects of 

motorized cross-country travel. The potential to cause the unintentional take of individuals 

exist under all action alternatives, but the population and habitat trends for the hairy 

woodpecker would not be affected by any of the action alternatives.

*NA – no adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Riparian Birds

As with the amphibian analysis included in this report, avian species that occupy riparian habitat 

on the Gila National Forest can be affected by vehicular traffic and roads by disturbance at a 

specific site, displacement or avoidance, habitat loss or fragmentation, and collisions (Gaines et 

al. 2003). Knight and Cole (1991) indicate that birds may respond to human activity by altering 

their behavior, spatial distribution, and habitat use. Corridors created by roads can fragment 

songbird habitat, and human activity within these areas may displace or disrupt breeding activity 

for songbirds and other avian species (Hamann et al. 1999). Increased nest parasitism by brownheaded cowbirds and increased access by nest predators is also a major source of disturbance in 

fragmented riparian ecosystems. Fragmentation of limited, high value habitats such as riparian 

corridors may result in some of the most severe impacts to songbirds (Hamann et al. 1999). Hutto 

(1995) indicates that many songbird species are largely or exclusively restricted to riparian 

habitats. Therefore, it can be inferred that songbirds occupying these specific habitats will be 

more affected by riparian corridor fragmentation via roads and trails, than fragmentation of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 181

adjacent forests (Hamann et al. 1999). A recommended corridor buffer of 100 meters or greater 

was suggested as the minimum width within fragmented riparian habitat necessary to minimize 

effects to songbirds (Vander Hagen and Degraaf 1996). Other researchers have suggested 

managers buffer minimum corridor widths from 75 to 175 meters to include at least 90 percent of 

all songbird species that may be impacted by road fragmentation of habitat. This analysis used a 

buffer of 100 meters on each side of the road to analyze the effects of roads to riparian bird 

species. Road miles and densities in riparian corridors were the analytical tool by which direct 

effects to riparian bird species were measured (see table 105 and table 106).

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher - The subspecies was listed as endangered effective March 29, 

1995 (USFWS 2002). The Southwestern willow flycatcher breeds in relatively dense riparian tree 

and shrub communities associated with rivers, swamps, and other wetlands, including lakes (e.g., 

reservoirs) (USFWS 2002). In 2007, the New Mexico population was estimated at 800 to 900 

birds, based on documentation of approximately 514 territories and 403 nests (NMPIF 2010). The 

total species population is estimated at 1,200 territories or approximately 2,400 individuals (Durst 

et al. 2008). About 32 percent of the global population is thought to occur in New Mexico 

(NMPIF 2010). On the Gila National Forest, we have two sites along the Gila River that have 

been consistently occupied for over 10 years. These two areas are in locations known as the Gila 

Bird Management Area (GBMA) and the Forest West ditch site. In 2008, seven territories were 

found at the Gila Bird Management Area and four territories at the Forest West ditch site (Shook 

2009). In 2007, a new breeding site was discovered on the forest along the San Francisco River 

(Keller Canyon site). The Keller Canyon site, located on the reach between Deep Creek and Alma 

Highway 180, had three flycatcher territories in 2007, 2008, and 2009. 

Ubar Ranch, found in the Cliff-Gila Valley on private land, is located near the two sites on the 

Gila River on the forest, and is one of the largest sites known throughout the subspecies range. In 

2008, 140 territories were detected on the Ubar Ranch (Durst et al. 2008). The Gila Bird 

Management Area is primarily managed to enhance habitat conditions for birds. Since 2004, the 

Keller Canyon site has not had livestock grazing in this area.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Summary - Analyzing the change in miles of roads within 

100 meters of occupied sites and within 100 meters of designated critical habitat will be the 

indicator that is used to analyze the potential for harvest and disturbance to the Southwestern 

willow flycatcher under the different alternatives. For this species and its designated critical 

habitat, we also analyzed the number of road stream crossings within occupied habitat and 

designated critical habitat. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

182 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 105. Riparian bird species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection

Species Analyzed Rationale for Selection

Northern gray hawk1 FS sensitive species

Western yellow-billed cuckoo1 FS sensitive species

Arizona Bell’s vireo1 FS sensitive species

Albert’s towhee1 NMPIF high priority species in low and middle elevation riparian areas.

Gila woodpecker1 FS sensitive species and NMPIF high priority species in low and middle 

elevation riparian areas.

Common ground dove1 FS sensitive species and NMPIF high priority species in low and middle 

elevation riparian areas.

Black hawk1 FS sensitive species, Gila MIS, and NMPIF high priority species in low 

and middle elevation riparian areas.

Neotropic cormorant FS sensitive species

Red-naped sapsucker2 NMPIF high priority species

Wilson’s Phalarope NMPIF high priority species for wetland/wet meadow habitat

Southwestern willow flycatcher Federally “endangered” species with designated critical habitat and 

NMPIF high priority species

1 The low to middle elevation riparian analysis area for this group of focal species will be used to determine potential 

effects to other New Mexico Partners in Flight high priority species that occur in this habitat type (elf owl, Lucy’s 

warbler, and summer tanager). 2 The high elevation riparian analysis area for this focal species will be used to determine potential effects to other New 

Mexico Partners in Flight high priority species that occur in this habitat type (black swift, Hammond’s flycatcher, 

American dipper, MacGillivray’s warbler, and painted redstart).

Table 106. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area 

used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to riparian birds

Focal Species Motorized Activity Harvest

Indicator

Disturbance 

Zone

Analysis

Area

Northern gray hawk

Yellow-billed cuckoo

Arizona bell’s vireo

Abert’s towhee

Gila woodpecker

Common ground dove

Black hawk

Motorized trail or OHV and 

roads

Route Miles 100 m Low and middle

elevation riparian

Neotropic vormorant Motorized trail or OHV and 

roads

Route Miles 100 m Lake 

Red-naped sapsucker Motorized trail or OHV and 

roads

Route Miles 100 m High elevation 

riparian

Wilson’s phalarope Motorized trail or OHV and 

roads

Route Miles 100 m Wetland and wet 

meadow

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher

Motorized trail or OHV use Route Miles

Number of 

stream 

crossings

100 m Occupied sites

Critical habitat
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 183

Riparian Bird – Effects by Alternative

Northern Gray Hawk, Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo, and Arizona Bell’s Vireo 

(Forest Service Sensitive Species); Common Ground Dove, Abert’s Towhee, and 

Gila Woodpecker (Forest Service Sensitive Species and NM PIF High Priority 

Migratory Bird); and Black Hawk (Forest Service Sensitive Species, Gila 

Management Indicator Species, and NM PIF High Priority Migratory Bird Species)

Table 107. Northern gray hawk, yellow-billed cuckoo, Arizona Bell’s vireo, Gila 

woodpecker, common ground dove, black hawk habitat (low, middle riparian) analysis 

area – existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative

Analysis Area on NFS Land = 

10,862 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 97 97 59 49 75 71

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) <-1% -39% -49% -23% -27%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 12,853 -11,970 -12,403 -12,853 -12,249 -12,302

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -93% -97% -100% -95% -96%

Motorized areas in acres 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 12,853 -3,176 -12,403 -12,853 -6,477 -12,302

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -25% -97% -100% -50% -96%

Neotropic Cormorant (Forest Service Sensitive Species)

Table 108. Neotropic cormorant habitat (lakes) analysis area – existing condition and 

proposed change by issue and alternative

Analysis Area (Habitat 500-m. 

Buffer) on NFS Land = 2,081 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 7 7 7 7 7 7

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) <-1% -3% -3% -3% -3%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 2031 -2,026 -2,026 -2,031 -2,026 -2,026

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -99.7% -99.7% -100% -99.7% -99.7%

Motorized areas in acres 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 2,031 0 -2,026 -2,031 -153 -2,026

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) 0% -99.7% -100% -8% -99.7%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

184 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Red-naped Sapsucker (NM PIF High Priority Migratory Bird Species)

Table 109. Red-naped sapsucker analysis area - existing condition and proposed change 

by issue and alternative

Red-naped Sapsucker Habitat 

(High Elevation Riparian) Analysis 

Area on NFS Land = 6,387 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Motorized Routes

Total FS routes and trails in miles 41 40 29 18 34 34

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) -4% -31% -56% -16% -16%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 3,475 -3,100 -3,302 -3,475 -3,100 -3,211

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -89% -95% -100% -89% -92%

Motorized areas in acres 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 3,475 -435 -3,302 -3,475 -968 -3,211

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -13% -95% -100% -28% -92%

Wilson’s Phalarope (NM PIF High Priority 

Migratory Bird for Wet Meadow and Wetland Habitat)

Table 110. Wilson’s phalarope analysis area – existing condition and proposed change by 

issue and alternative

Wilson’s Phalarope Habitat

(Wetland/Wet Meadow) Analysis 

Area on NFS Land = 423 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 1 0 0 0 0

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) 0% -52% -58% -52% -52%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 353 -309 -314 -353 -311 -312

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -87% -89% -100% -88% -88%

Motorized areas in acres 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 353 -8 -314 -353 -24 -312

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -2% -89% -100% -7% -88%

No Action Alternative (Alternative B): Under the existing condition for riparian birds, there are 

7 miles of motorized routes in the neotropic cormorant analysis area, 41 miles of motorized routes 

in the red-naped sapsucker analysis area, 1 mile of motorized routes in the Wilson’s snipe analysis 

area, and 95 miles of motorized routes in the low to middle elevation riparian bird focal species 

analysis area. Habitat associated with these routes has been lost and will not recover unless the 

route is closed and possibly decommissioned, and the potential for direct effects like collision, 

poaching, and collection would continue. The potential disturbance zone for cormorant areas is 

456 acres, 1,587 acres in red-naped sapsucker area, 105 acres for Wilson’s snipe area, and 3,586 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 185

acres for low to middle elevation riparian bird species focal area. Within these potential 

disturbance zones, motorized routes continue to cause the potential for disturbance, displacement, 

avoidance, and harassment. Increases in the level of use on these routes through time would 

increase the potential for indirect effects. 

Under this alternative motorized cross-country travel, motorized dispersed camping, and 

motorized big game retrieval would continue to be allowed across the Gila National Forest. These 

three types of use continue to have potential effect to riparian birds. Additionally, these three 

types of use may perpetuate the development of additional roads and motorized trails; potentially 

allowing for the development of higher road density. Under the no action alternative, through 

time, the potential for the direct loss of individuals and habitat would increase, as would the 

potential for disturbance effects to these species. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Under all action alternatives, motorized cross-country 

travel (see assumption) is no longer allowed. The change from the existing condition is a 100

percent reduction in motorized cross-country travel. In the cormorant analysis area, motorized 

dispersed camping is reduced by 100 percent under all action alternatives; 87 to 100 percent in 

the sapsucker analysis area; 87 to 100 percent in the snipe analysis area; and 93 to 100 percent in 

the low to middle elevation riparian bird analysis area. For these focal species, the area of 

potentially affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100 percent under 

alternative E, 89 to 100 percent under alternative D, 7 to 50 percent under alternative F, 88 to 100

percent under alternative G, and 0 to 25 percent under alternative C. The wide range of change 

between focal species under alternative F is a reduction of 8 percent in the cormorant analysis 

area; 28 percent reduction in the sapsucker analysis area; 7 percent reduction in the snipe analysis 

area; and 50 percent reduction in the low to middle elevation riparian bird analysis area.

Motorized areas are locations where there have been traditional uses like motorized camping and 

OHV use. Under all action alternatives, no areas currently exist in the different riparian bird 

analysis areas, and no areas have been designated.

Under alternatives C, D, E, F, and G, miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially 

affected habitat are reduced by less than 1, 3, 3, 3, and 3 percent in the cormorant analysis area, 

respectively; 4, 31, 56, 16, and 16 percent in the sapsucker analysis area, respectively; 0, 52, 58, 

52 and 52 percent in the snipe analysis area, respectively; and less than 1, 39, 49, 23, and 27

percent in the low to middle elevation riparian bird analysis area, respectively.

For the focal species and their associated analysis areas, alternative E adds no miles of routes; 

alternatives D, F, and G add 0 to 2 miles, and alternative C adds 0 to 13 miles of unauthorized 

routes. None of the action alternatives allow for an actual increase in the total miles of routes 

through the associated analysis areas. Because the Gila National Forest allows motorized crosscountry travel, most proposed routes, even though unauthorized, are currently being used.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

186 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 111. Riparian bird Forest Service sensitive species determinations by alternative

Sensitive Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing 

Condition C D E F G

Northern gray hawk *MI MI MI MI MI

Western yellow-billed cuckoo MI MI MI MI MI

Arizona Bell’s vireo MI MI MI MI MI

Albert’s towhee MI MI MI MI MI

Gila woodpecker MI MI MI MI MI

Common ground dove MI MI MI MI MI

Black hawk MI MI MI MI MI

Neotropic cormorant MI MI MI MI MI

Rationale for Determination Under alternatives C, D, E, F, and G, the potential effects to riparian birds are 

reduced. 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 cause a trend toward Federal listing.

*MI – may impact

Table 112. Black hawk Gila National Forest management indicator species determinations

by alternative

Management 

Indicator Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Black hawk *NA NA NA NA NA

Rationale for 

Determination

Under alternatives C, D, E, F, and G, the potential effects to black hawks are reduced. 

The potential to affect individuals under all action alternatives exists. Population and 

habitat trends for the black hawk would not be affected by any of the action alternatives.

*NA – no adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Table 113. Riparian bird New Mexico Partners in Flight high priority species 

determinations by alternative

NMPIF High Priority 

Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Albert’s towhee *NA NA NA NA NA

Gila woodpecker NA NA NA NA NA

Common ground dove NA NA NA NA NA

Black hawk NA NA NA NA NA

Elf owl NA NA NA NA NA
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 187

Table 113. Riparian bird New Mexico Partners in Flight high priority species 

determinations by alternative

NMPIF High Priority 

Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Lucy’s warbler NA NA NA NA NA

Summer tanager NA NA NA NA NA

Red-naped sapsucker NA NA NA NA NA

Black swift NA NA NA NA NA

Hammond’s flycatcher NA NA NA NA NA

American dipper NA NA NA NA NA

MacGillivray’s warbler NA NA NA NA NA

Painted red start NA NA NA NA NA

Wilson’s phalarope NA NA NA NA NA

Rationale for 

Determination

Under alternatives C, D, E, F, and G, the potential effects to these species are 

reduced. Unintentional take of individuals may occur, but these alternatives will not 

negatively affect population levels. 

*NA – no adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

(Federally “Endangered” Species with Designated Critical Habitat)

Table 114. Southwestern willow flycatcher occupied habitat analysis area - existing 

condition and proposed change by issue and alternative

Occupied Sites (3 occupied 

areas) Analysis Area on NFS

Land = 247 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B 

(No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Routes crossing streams

Total number of FS route and trail

crossings

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Motorized dispersed camping

acres

62.0 -57.5 -57.5 -62.0 -57.5 -57.5

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -92.8% -92.8% -100.0% -92.8% -92.8%

Motorized areas in acres - all 

vehicles

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 62.0 0.0 -57.5 -62.0 0.0 -57.5

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) 0.0% -92.8% -100.0% 0.0% -92.8%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

188 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 115. Southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat analysis area - existing condition 

and proposed change by issue and alternative

Critical Habitat Analysis Area on 

NFS lands = 1,032 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) -0.9% -18.5% -20.1% -18.5% -18.5%

Routes crossing streams

Number of open existing ML 2–5 5 0 0 0 0 0

Number of administrative routes 5 5 5 5 5

Total number of FS route and trail

crossings

5 5 5 5 5 5

Percent change of alt. B (Existing) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 413.4 -344.9 -344.9 -413.4 -344.9 -344.9

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -83.4% -83.4% -100.0% -83.4% -83.4%

Motorized areas in acres - all 

vehicles

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Motorized big game retrieval

acres

413.4 -40.9 -345.0 -413.4 -122.8 -345.0

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -9.9% -83.4% -100.0% -29.7% -83.4%

No Action Alternative (Alternative B): Under this alternative, 0.7 mile of motorized routes 

occur within the three occupied areas, and 2.8 miles within designated southwestern willow 

flycatcher critical habitat. These routes continue to cause habitat loss and an increased potential 

for nest parasitism. The potential for collision loss or poaching loss is relatively low. The 

potential disturbance area in occupied sites (57 acres), and southwestern willow flycatcher critical 

habitat (176 acres) continues to cause the potential for indirect effects. Knight and Cole (1995) 

indicated that birds may respond to human activity by altering their behavior, spatial distribution, 

and habitat use. Corridors created by roads can fragment songbird habitat, and human activity 

within these areas may displace or disrupt breeding activity for songbirds and other avian species 

(Hamann et al. 1999). Increases in the level of use on these routes through time would increase 

the potential for indirect effects. 

Under this alternative, motorized cross-country travel and dispersed camping will continue to be 

allowed across the Gila National Forest outside of designated wilderness and other special 

management areas. These two types of use continue to have the potential to impact the 62 acres of 

occupied sites and 413 acres of designated critical habitat. Additionally these two types of use 

perpetuate the development of additional roads and OHV routes; potentially allowing for the 

development of more routes than the 0.7 mile that is currently identified in occupied sites, and 2.8 

miles in designated southwestern willow flycatcher critical 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 its habitat. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 189

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Under these alternatives,

motorized cross-country travel (see assumption) is no longer allowed. Under all action 

alternatives, the change from the existing condition is a 100 percent reduction in motorized crosscountry travel. Under these alternatives no motorized areas have been designated. The 

authorization to allow motorized dispersed camping in occupied sites is reduced by 93 to 100

percent, and 83 to 100 percent in designated critical habitat. The effects from these changes will 

be beneficial to the species under all alternatives. 

In occupied sites, miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat 

remain the same under all action alternatives as the no action alternative (0.7 mile of motorized 

routes and 0 stream crossings). The change between the no-action alternative and alternatives D, 

E, F, and G, is that the 0.7 mile in occupied sites is now only available to administrative use. In 

alternative C, the change is a conversion of 0.6 mile of the 0.7 mile to administrative use. Again, 

administrative routes have less use than routes open to the public, so the level of direct and 

indirect effects would be reduced in all action alternatives. Under alternative C, the reduction in 

effects would be less than the other action alternatives. 

Differences Among the Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): In southwestern willow 

flycatcher critical habitat, miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected 

habitat are reduced by 20 percent in alternative E; 18.5 percent under alternatives D, F, and G; 

and 0.9 percent under alternative C. The four alternatives also reduce the use within portions of 

each of the analysis areas by proposing administrative use. Under alternatives D, E, F, and G, 1.4 

miles of the existing routes go from open to the public to administrative use only. Under 

alternative C, 1.1 miles go to administrative use only. Under the existing condition, you have five 

stream crossings open to the public, and under each of the action alternatives these five crossings 

go to administrative use only. 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. No alternatives propose 

adding closed routes or unauthorized routes to these analysis areas. 

In these analysis areas, potentially affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 

100 percent under alternative E, 83 to 93 percent under alternative D, 0 to 30 percent under 

alternative F, 83 to 93 percent under alternative G, and 0 to 10 percent under alternative C.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

190 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 116. Southwestern willow flycatcher federally listed species and critical habitat 

determinations by alternative

Federally Listed 

Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing 

Condition C D E F G

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher

*MANLAA MANLAA MANLAA MANLAA MANLAA

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher

critical habitat

MANLAA MANLAA MANLAA MANLAA MANLAA

Rationale for Species 

Determination

Long-term beneficial effects under alternative E are greater than the other action 

alternatives. Under alternatives D, F and G, the effects are very similar except for 

motorized big game retrieval, which has reduced effects in alternatives D and G; under 

alternative F, the access into these analysis areas is similar to alternative B. Under 

alternative C there is less of a reduction in motorized routes in Southwestern willow 

flycatcher critical habitat and less of a reduction in acres of potential habitat available to 

motorized big game retrieval in both analysis areas. southwestern willow flycatchers are 

associated with riparian type habitats that are more susceptible to damage by crosscountry motorized use than upland habitats; therefore, the relative potential for big game 

retrieval to affect southwestern willow flycatcher habitat is greater under alternatives F 

and C than the other action alternatives. The four action alternatives do change the use 

within portions of each of the analysis areas, proposing administrative use. This change in 

use causes less effects than roads and trails open to all of the public. The level of potential 

effect under alternatives C, D, E, F, and G is reduced to an insignificant and discountable 

level; therefore, a determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” is made for 

these alternatives. 

Rationale for 

Critical Habitat 

Determination

All action alternatives reduce the level of effect to southwestern willow flycatcher critical 

habitat. Under all alternatives, the number of stream crossings remains the same, but the 

use is changed to administrative use only, reducing the level of effect to an insignificant 

and discountable level. For these reasons, a determination of “May affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect” is made for designated southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat.

*MANLAA - may affect not likely to adversely affect; **MALAA - may affect likely to adversely affect determination 

Table 117. Southwestern willow flycatcher New Mexico Partners in Flight high priority 

species determination by alternative

NMPIF High 

Priority Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Southwestern 

willow flycatcher

*NA NA NA NA NA

Rationale for 

Determination

Under alternatives C, D, E, F, and G, the potential effects to these species are reduced.

These alternatives will not negatively affect population levels.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 191

Songbirds from Forested and Grassland Areas

Knight and Cole (1991) indicate that birds may respond to human activity by altering their 

behavior, spatial distribution, and habitat use. Corridors created by roads can fragment songbird 

habitat, and human activity within these areas may displace or disrupt breeding activity for 

songbirds and other avian species (Hamann et al. 1999). For example, the brown creeper may be 

affected by roads from loss of habitat, snag reduction, fragmentation of habitat, edge effects, 

displacement or avoidance, and increased depredation from predators/nest parasites (brownheaded cowbirds). Another study found that brown creepers were twice as likely to occur in 

habitats that were more than 100 m. from a road (Hutto 1995). Further researchers corroborated 

that creepers, thrush species, and the red-breasted nuthatch were associated with larger forest 

patches (Keller and Anderson 1992, and Brand and George 2001).

Roads and motorized trails reduced forest bird reproduction up to a distance of 200 m. adjacent to 

a major highway (Foppen and Reijnen 1994). As analysis for the travel management project on 

the Gila National Forest deals with secondary roads with much less traffic than primary roads, 

this distance should be interpreted with caution. However, in a study investigating forest cover on 

the movements of forest birds, Belisle et al. (2001) supported that forest birds’ movements are 

constrained when they travel in deforested or fragmented landscapes. Fragmentation as a result of 

forest roads can, therefore, be interpreted to degrade remaining forest habitat, in which breeding 

success is thereby decreased (Belisle et al. 2001, Burke and Nol 1998, Payne and Payne 1993, 

and Haas 1998). Miller et al. (1998) found that the majority of species in both forested and 

grassland habitats were disturbed by trails in a zone of influence up to 100 m. Marzluff (1997) 

hypothesized that changes in songbird abundance in response to roads in southwestern ponderosa 

pine forests were beneficial to some species (Corvids, juncos and finches), but would moderately 

decrease abundance of robins, warblers, tanagers, grosbeaks and song sparrows. In addition, 

roads and recreation trails may fragment forest patches and increase nest predation and parasitism 

rates by species such as cowbirds and gray jays (Hickman 1990, Miller et al. 1998, and 

Gutzwiller et al. 2002). The focal species used for the analysis are the plain titmouse, gray vireo, 

white-eared hummingbird, and Costa’s hummingbird. To analyze effects to this guild of species 

from the proposed action and each alternative of the travel management project on the Gila 

National Forest, analysis will focus on two factors: 

1. To analyze the potential for harvest/direct disturbance effects of motorized activities to 

songbird/birds from forested and grassland areas, road densities within forest and 

grassland vegetation cover types were measured, as these densities pertain to the 

proposed action and each alternative.

2. To analyze disturbance/indirect effects, a disturbance zone of 100 m. from roads within 

forested and grassland vegetation cover types was used as it pertains to the proposed 

action and each alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

192 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 118. Songbird species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection

Species Analyzed Rationale for Selection

Burrowing owl FS sensitive species

White-eared hummingbird1 FS sensitive species

Costa’s hummingbird2 FS sensitive species, and focal species representative for NMPIF HP desert 

shrub/grasslands

Plain titmouse3 Gila MIS representative for piñon-juniper/shrub oak woodland

Gray vireo3 FS sensitive species and NMPIF high priority species

1 The ponderosa pine for this group of focal species will be used to determine potential effects to other NMPIF high

priority species that occur in this habitat type (greater pewee, olive warbler, Virginia’s warbler, and Grace’s warbler). 2 The desert shrub and grassland analysis area for this focal species will be used to determine potential effects to other 

NMPIF high priority species that occur in this habitat type (long-billed curlew). 3 The piñon-juniper/shrub oak woodland analysis area for this focal species will be used to determine potential effects 

to other New Mexico Partners in Flight high priority species that occur in this habitat type (Scott’s oriole, 

MacGillivray’s warbler, green-tailed towhee, black-chinned sparrow, ferruginous hawk, and black-throated gray 

warbler).

Table 119. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area 

used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to songbirds

Focal Species Motorized Activity Harvest

Indicator

Disturbance

Zone

Analysis

Area

Burrowing owl Motorized trail or OHV and 

roads

Route 

Miles

75 m Plains and mountain 

grassland 

White-eared 

hummingbird

Motorized trail or OHV and 

roads

Route 

Miles

100 m Ponderosa pine

Costa’s 

hummingbird

Motorized trail or OHV and 

roads

Route 

Miles

100 m Desert shrub or 

grassland 

Plains titmouse

Gray vireo

Motorized trail or OHV use Route 

Miles

100 m Piñon-juniper or shrub 

oak woodland
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 193

Upland Nongame and Songbirds – Effects by Alternative

Burrowing Owl (Forest Service Sensitive Species)

Table 120. Burrowing owl habitat (plains and mountain grassland) analysis area - existing 

condition and proposed change by issue and alternative

Analysis Area on NFS lands = 

227,232 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 622 615 517 469 540 537

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) -1% -17% -25% -13% -14%

Motorized dispersed camping

acres

216,904 -200,953 -204,062 -216,904 -201,071 -202,386

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -93% -94% -100% -93% -93%

Motorized areas

Motorized area in acres - all vehicles 3 0 -3 -3 0 0

Motorized area in acres - OHV 

only

3 0 -3 -3 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 216,904 -11,665 -204,062 -216,904 -42,912 -202,386

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -5% -94% -100% -20% -93%

White-eared Hummingbird (Forest Service Sensitive 

Species and Ponderosa Pine Focal Species)

Table 121. White-eared hummingbird habitat (ponderosa pine) analysis area - existing 

condition and proposed change by issue and alternative

Analysis Area on NFS lands = 

1,177,746 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in 

miles

1,994 1,999 1,394 1,043 1,597 1,585

Percent in miles of alt. B 

(Existing)

<+1% -30% -48% -20% -21%

Motorized dispersed camping

acres

903,431 -856,552 -867,641 -903,431 -858,877 -863,114

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -95% -96% -100% -95% -96%

Motorized areas in acres - all 

vehicles

9 0 -9 -9 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval

acres

903,431 -98,979 -867,641 -903,431 -298,469 -863,114

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -11% -96% -100% -33% -96%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

194 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Costa’s Hummingbird (Forest Service Sensitive Species, 

NM PIF High Priority Migratory Bird Species and Focal Species 

Representative for Desert Shrub or Grassland Habitat)

Table 122. Costa’s hummingbird habitat (desert shrub and grassland) analysis area -

existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative

Analysis Area on NFS lands = 

18,138 acres

Existing 

Effects 

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 25 26 20 16 20 20

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) 4% -21% -34% -19% -19%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 15,795 -14,838 -14,993 -15,795 -14,858 -14,995

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -94% -95% -100% -94% -95%

Motorized areas in acres 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 15,795 -2,508 -14,993 -15,795 -7,426 -14,995

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -16% -95% -100% -47% -95%

Plains Titmouse (Gila Management Indicator Species for 

Piñon-juniper/Shrub Oak Woodland Birds) and Gray Vireo 

(Forest Service Sensitive Species and NM PIF High Priority Migratory 

Bird Species and Piñon-juniper/Shrub Oak Woodland Bird Focal Species)

Table 123. Plains titmouse and gray vireo habitat (piñon-juniper and shrub oak woodland) 

analysis area – existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative

Analysis Area on NFS 

lands = 1,643,096 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails

in miles

1,646 1,672 1,290 1,050 1,391 1,389

Percent in miles of alt. B 

(Existing)

2% -22% -36% -15% -16%

Motorized dispersed 

camping acres

1,198,360 -1,155,142 -1,164,437 -1,198,360 -1,158,654 -1,160,931

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-96% -97% -100% -97% -97%

Motorized areas in acres -

all vehicles

17 0 -17 -17 0 0

Motorized big game 

retrieval acres

1,198,360 -233,247 -1,164,437 -1,198,360 -545,656 -1,160,931

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-19% -97% -100% -46% -97%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 195

No Action Alternative (Alternative B): Under the existing condition for nongame birds, there 

are 622 miles of motorized routes in the burrowing owl analysis area, 25 miles of motorized 

routes in the Costa’s hummingbird analysis area, 1,985 miles of motorized routes in the whiteeared hummingbird analysis area, and 1,642 miles of motorized routes in the plains titmouse/gray 

vireo analysis area. Habitat associated with these routes has been lost and will not recover unless 

the route is closed and possibly decommissioned, and the potential for direct effects like collision, 

poaching, and collection continues. The potential disturbance zone for burrowing owls is 32,935 

acres, 1,758 acres in the Costa’s hummingbird area, 150,242 acres for the white-eared 

hummingbird area, and 127,957 acres for the plains titmouse/gray vireo analysis area. Within 

these potential disturbance zones, motorized routes continue to cause the potential for 

disturbance, displacement, avoidance, and harassment. Increases in the level of use on these 

routes through time would increase the potential for indirect effects.

Under this alternative, motorized cross-country travel, motorized dispersed camping, and 

motorized big game retrieval would continue to be allowed across the Gila National Forest. These 

three types of use continue to have potential effect on nongame upland birds. Additionally, these 

three types of use may perpetuate the development of additional roads and motorized trails; 

potentially allowing for the development of higher road density. Under the no action alternative,

through time, the potential for the direct loss of individuals and habitat would increase, as would 

the potential for disturbance effects to these species.

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Under all action alternatives, motorized cross-country 

travel would no longer be allowed. The change from the existing condition is a 100 percent

reduction in motorized cross-country travel. In the burrowing owl analysis area, motorized 

dispersed camping is reduced by 93 to 100 percent under all action alternatives; 94 to 100 percent 

in the Costa’s hummingbird analysis area; 95 to 100 percent in the white-eared hummingbird 

analysis area; and 96 to 100 percent in the plains titmouse/gray vireo analysis area. For these 

focal species, the area of potentially affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced 

by 100 percent under alternative E, 94 to 97 percent under alternative D, 20 to 47 percent under 

alternative F, 93 to 97 percent under alternative G, and 5 to 19 percent under alternative C.

Motorized areas are locations where there have been traditional uses like motorized camping and 

OHV use. In the burrowing owl analysis area, there are 3 acres of habitat being affected by 

motorized areas; 9 acres of habitat in the white-eared hummingbird area; and 17 acres of habitat 

in the plains titmouse/gray vireo analysis area. Alternatives E and D eliminate these acres of 

affected habitat, and the remaining action alternatives propose no change from the existing 

condition.

Under alternatives D, E, F, and G, miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially 

affected habitat are reduced by 17, 25, 13, and 14 percent, respectively, in the burrowing owl 

analysis area; 21, 34, 19, and 19 percent, respectively, in the Costa’s analysis area; 30, 48, 20 and 

21 percent, respectively, in the white-eared analysis area; and 22, 36, 15, and 16 percent, 

respectively in the plains titmouse/gray vireo analysis area. Alternative C adds 1 mile of 

unauthorized routes in the Costa’s analysis area, 14 miles in the white-eared analysis area, and 30 

miles in the plains titmouse/gray vireo analysis area. In the burrowing owl analysis area,

alternative C reduces the miles of motorized routes by 7 miles. Alternative C is the only 

alternative that allows for an actual increase in miles of routes through the associated analysis 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

196 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

areas. Because the Gila National Forest allows motorized cross-country travel, most proposed 

routes, even though unauthorized, are currently being used.

For the focal species and their associated analysis areas, alternative E adds 0 to 5 miles of 

unauthorized routes, alternative D adds 3 to 46 miles, alternative F adds 1 to 59 miles, alternative 

G adds 1 to 57 miles, and alternative C adds 1 to 97 miles of unauthorized routes. Alternative C is 

the only alternative that allows for an actual increase in miles of routes through the associated 

analysis areas. Because the Gila National Forest allows motorized cross-country travel, most 

proposed routes, even though unauthorized, are currently being used. 

Table 124. Upland nongame and songbirds Forest Service sensitive species determination 

by alternative

Sensitive Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Burrowing owl MI MI MI MI MI

White-eared hummingbird MI MI MI MI MI

Costa’s hummingbird MI MI MI MI MI

Gray vireo MI MI MI MI MI

Rationale for 

Determination

Under alternatives D, E, F, and G, the potential effects to upland nongame birds are 

reduced. Alternative C slightly increases the overall miles of motorized routes, but 

reduces the effects of motorized cross-country travel. 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 cause a trend toward Federal listing.

*MI – may impact

Table 125. Plain titmouse Gila National Forest management indicator species 

determination by alternative

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Plain titmouse *NA NA NA NA NA

Rationale for 

Determination

Under alternatives D, E, F, and G, the potential effects to this focal species are reduced. 

Alternative C slightly increases the overall miles of motorized routes, but reduces the effects 

of motorized cross-country travel. The potential to affect individuals under all action 

alternatives exists. Population and habitat trends for the Plain titmouse would not be affected 

by any of the action alternatives.

*NA – no adverse effects to the population or habitat trends
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 197

Table 126. Upland nongame and songbirds New Mexico Partners in Flight high priority 

species determination by alternative

NMPIF High Priority 

Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

White-eared hummingbird *NA NA NA NA NA

Greater pewee NA NA NA NA NA

Olive warbler NA NA NA NA NA

Virginia’s warbler NA NA NA NA NA

Grace’s warbler NA NA NA NA NA

Costa’s hummingbird NA NA NA NA NA

Long-billed curlew NA NA NA NA NA

Gray vireo NA NA NA NA NA

Scott’s oriole NA NA NA NA NA

MacGillivray’s warbler NA NA NA NA NA

Green-tailed towhee NA NA NA NA NA

Black-chinned sparrow NA NA NA NA NA

Ferruginous hawk NA NA NA NA NA

Black-throated gray warbler NA NA NA NA NA

Rationale for Determination Under alternatives D, E, F, and G, the potential effects to these focal species are 

reduced. Alternative C slightly increases the overall miles of motorized routes, 

but reduces the effects of motorized cross-country travel. The potential to affect 

individuals under all action alternatives exists. There will be no measurable 

negative effects on this focal group of migratory species. Unintentional take of 

individuals may occur, but these alternatives will not negatively affect 

population levels. 

*NA – no adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Game Birds

Game birds may be affected by roads as they may cause habitat fragmentation, increased access 

by poachers, collisions, edge effects, displacement or avoidance, increased routes for competitors 

and predators, disturbance at specific sites, and physiological response to vehicles. Hamann et al. 

(1999) discuss sharp-tailed grouse leks (concentrated breeding sites) and recommend buffering 

these specific sites up to 2 kilometers to minimize effects at these important reproductive 

locations. This upland game species does not occur on the Gila National Forest, and no federally 

listed game birds are found on the forest. Wild turkeys have been documented to avoid roads 

during nesting (Badyaev and Faust 1996). Besides roads allowing access to poaching (Hurst and 

Dickson 1992), roadway development has a negative influence in turkey habitat (Beasom and 

Wilson 1992). Upland game species can be negatively influenced by habitat fragmentation from 

road networks (Brennan et al. 2008). The blue grouse, present on the Mogollon Rim and in larger 

mountain ranges where spruce-fir vegetation cover type occurs, will nest in montane forest 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

198 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

communities with relatively open tree canopies out to 2 kilometers from the forest edge (New 

Mexico Partners in Flight 2010). They prefer forests dominated by ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir, 

and New Mexico Partners in Flight recommends maintaining open meadows and more open 

canopy within a 1-mile zone surrounding meadows. In areas managed for wild turkey, Hamann et 

al. (1999) suggest that managers minimize the number of roads open to public use. Holbrook and 

Vaughan (1985) suggested that managers should consider minimum road alternatives for meeting 

forest objectives. They concluded that the difference between turkey mortality and proximity to 

roads in the hunting season verses the off season was 95 meters.

Roberts and Porter (1998) state that nesting success is the most important demographic parameter 

affecting wild turkey population sizes. Badyaev and Faust (1996) found that successful nests were 

located an average of 290 m. from roads, + 50 m. To analyze effects to this guild of species from 

the proposed action and each alternative of the travel management project on the Gila National 

Forest, analysis will focus on two factors: 

1. To analyze the potential for harvest/direct disturbance effects of motorized activities to 

game birds, road densities were measured, as these densities pertain to the proposed 

action and each alternative.

2. To analyze disturbance/indirect effects, a disturbance zone of 300 meters from roads was 

used as it pertains to the proposed action and to each alternative.

Table 127. Game bird species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection

Species Analyzed Rationale for Selection

Mearn’s quail Gila MIS 

Merriams’ wild turkey Game species identified as species of concern during scoping

Blue grouse NMPIF high priority species representative of spruce fir vegetation

Table 128. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area that 

was used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to game birds

Focal Species Motorized Activity Harvest

Indicator

Disturbance

Zone Analysis Area

Mearn’s quail Motorized trail or OHV Use Route Miles 300 m Plains and mountain 

grassland

Merriam’s wild 

turkey

Motorized trail or OHV and 

roads

Route Miles 300 m Ponderosa pine 

Mixed conifer

Blue grouse Motorized trail or OHV and 

roads

Route Miles 300 m Spruce fir
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 199

Game Birds – Effects by Alternative

Mearn’s Quail (Gila Management Indicator 

Species and Grassland Game Bird Focal Species) 

Table 129. Mearn’s quail habitat (plains and mountain grassland) analysis area - existing 

condition and proposed change by issue and alternative

Analysis Area on NFS lands = 

227,232 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in 

miles

622 615 517 469 540 537

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) -1% -17% -25% -13% -14%

Motorized dispersed camping

acres

216,904 -

200,953

-204,062 -216,904 -201,071 -202,386

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -93% -94% -100% -93% -93%

Motorized areas in acres - all 

vehicles

3 NC -3 -3 NC NC

Motorized area in acres - OHV 

only

3 NC -3 -3 NC NC

Motorized big game retrieval

acres

216,904 -11,665 -204,062 -216,904 -42,912 -202,386

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -5% -94% -100% -20% -93%

Merriam’s Wild Turkey (Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer Game Bird Focal Species) 

Table 130. Merriam’s wild turkey habitat (ponderosa pine and mixed conifer) analysis area 

- existing condition and proposed change by alternative

Analysis Area 

on NFS lands = 1,341,662 

acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in 

miles

2,099 2,114 1,461 1,089 1,680 1,668

Percent in miles of alt. B 

(Existing)

1% -30% -48% -20% -21%

Motorized dispersed camping

acres

987,532 -938,273 -949,919 -987,532 -940,746 -945,249

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-95% -96% -100% -95% -96%

Motorized areas in acres - all 

vehicles

9 NC -9 -9 NC NC

Motorized big game retrieval

acres

987,532 -112,610 -949,919 -987,532 -333,214 -945,249

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-11% -96% -100% -34% -96%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

200 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

No Action Alternative (Alternative B): Under the existing condition for game birds, there are 

622 miles of motorized routes in the Mearn’s quail analysis area, and 2,087 miles of motorized 

routes in the Merriam’s wild turkey analysis area. Habitat associated with these routes has been 

lost and will not recover unless the route is closed and possibly decommissioned, and the 

potential for direct effects like collision, hunting, and poaching would continue. The potential 

disturbance zone for Mearn’s quail is 98,644 acres, and 401,347 acres in the Merriam’s wild 

turkey analysis area. Within these potential disturbance zones, motorized routes continue to cause 

the potential for disturbance, displacement, avoidance, and harassment. Increases in the level of 

use on these routes through time would increase the potential for indirect effects. 

Under this alternative, motorized cross-country travel, motorized dispersed camping, and 

motorized big game retrieval would continue to be allowed across the Gila National Forest. These 

three types of use continue to have potential effects to upland game birds. Additionally, these 

three types of use may perpetuate the development of additional roads and motorized trails; 

potentially allowing for the development of higher road density. Under the no action alternative, 

through time, the potential for the direct loss of individuals and habitat would increase, as would 

the potential for disturbance effects to these species. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Under all action alternatives, motorized cross-country 

travel is no longer allowed. The change from the existing condition is a 100 percent reduction in 

motorized cross-country travel. In the Mearn’s quail analysis area, motorized dispersed camping 

is reduced by 93 to 100 percent under all action alternatives; and 95 to 100 percent in the 

Merriam’s wild turkey analysis area. For these focal species, the area of potentially affected 

habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100 percent under alternative E, 94 to 96

percent under alternative D, 20 to 95 percent under alternative F, 93 to 96 percent under 

alternative G, and 5 to 95 percent under alternative C.

Motorized areas are locations where there have been traditional uses like motorized camping and 

OHV use. In the Merriam’s turkey analysis area, currently there are 3 acres of habitat being

affected by a motorized area; and 9 acres of habitat in the Merriam’s wild turkey analysis area. 

Alternatives E and D eliminate these acres of affected habitat, and the remaining action 

alternatives propose no change from the existing condition.

Under alternatives D, E, F, and G, miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially 

affected habitat are reduced, by 17, 25, 13, and 14 percent, respectively in the Mearn’s quail 

analysis area, and 30, 48, 20, and 21 percent, respectively in the Merriam’s wild turkey analysis 

area. Alternative C adds 15 miles of unauthorized routes in the Merriam’s wild turkey analysis 

area. In the Mearn’s quail analysis area, in alternative C, the miles of motorized routes are

reduced by 7 miles. Alternative C is the only alternative that allows for an actual increase in miles 

of routes through the associated analysis areas. Because the Gila National Forest allows 

motorized cross-country travel, most proposed routes, even though unauthorized, are currently 

being used.

For the focal species and their associated analysis areas, alternative E adds 0 to 2 miles of routes, 

alternative D adds 3 to 8 miles, alternative F adds 1 to 22 miles, alternative G adds 2 to 23 miles, 

and alternative C adds 3 to 53 miles of unauthorized routes. Alternative C is the only alternative 

that allows for an actual increase in miles of routes through the associated analysis areas. Because 

the Gila National Forest allows motorized cross-country travel, most proposed routes, even 

though unauthorized, are currently being used.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 201

Table 131. Mearn’s quail Gila National Forest management indicator species determination 

by alternative

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Mearn’s quail *NA NA NA NA NA

Rationale for 

Determination

Under alternatives C, D, E, F, and G, the potential effects to upland game birds are reduced. 

The potential to affect individuals under all action alternatives still exists. Population and 

habitat trends for this species would not be affected by any of the action alternatives.

*NA – no adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Table 132. Merriam’s wild turkey determination by alternative

Game Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Merriam’s wild turkey *NA NA NA NA NA

Rationale for 

Determination

Under alternatives C, D, E, F, and G, the potential effects to this upland game bird 

are reduced. The potential to affect individuals under all action alternatives still 

exists. Population and habitat trends for this species would not be affected by any of 

the action alternatives.

*NA – no adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Table 133. Blue grouse New Mexico Partners in Flight high priority species determination 

by alternative

NMPIF HighPriority Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F G

Blue grouse *NE NE NE NE NE

Rationale for 

Determination

No motorized routes occur in spruce fir habitat; therefore, there would be no effect to this 

New Mexico Partners in Flight high priority migratory bird species or any other bird 

species that occurs in this vegetation type. 

*NE – no effect

Insects

Roads and trails create edge habitats (Johnson et al. 1975, Adams and Geis 1983, Holzapfel and 

Schmidt 1990, Lightfoot and Whitford 1991, and Reed et al. 1996), resulting in a variety of 

effects, including changes in vegetation and encroachment of nonnative and invasive species 

(Huey 1941). The impermeable surfaces of roads and OHV routes shed precipitation, thereby 

increasing overall moisture availability in the immediate vicinity of the road or route (Ouren et al. 

2007). The increased moisture availability may promote greater plant vigor along roadsides than 

in surrounding areas (Johnson et al. 1975), and Angold (1997) indicated that such effects may 

extend as far as 200 m. from road edges. The greater vegetation cover typically observed along 

roadsides also is often due, in part, to greater species richness in those areas (Holzapfel and 

Schmidt 1990). Interestingly, increased vegetation cover along roadsides may attract more 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

202 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

invertebrates and other organisms. For example, Lightfoot and Whitford (1991) found that shrubs 

along a road supported greater numbers of foliage arthropods.

Invertebrates may be precluded from crossing various road types, including those considered 

relatively narrow; however, there are species differences that may be influenced by their 

ecologies and physical capabilities (Ouren et al. 2007). For example, Samways (1989) found that 

both “tarred” (paved) and “untarred” roads were almost complete or partial barriers to three 

species of bush crickets, but roads were only minor, very minor, or did not serve as barriers to the 

movements of six other bush cricket species, five of which readily fly across roads. On the other 

hand, Munguira and Thomas (1992) found that wide highways did not affect the movements of 

butterflies in open populations; movements of butterflies in closed populations, however, were 

slightly impeded by roads. Other butterfly species may not even attempt to fly across roads 

(described by authors as 2-lane highways and secondary roads); possibly due to the extreme 

changes in microclimate over roads (including columns of warm air rising above roads (Van der 

Zande 1980). Mader (1984) reported that in a 5-year mark-recapture-release study involving 

10,186 carabid beetles representing nine species, three species were never recaptured on the 

opposite side of study area roads (1- or 2-lane paved roads) or parking loops, and the remainder 

were recaptured across the road only rarely. However, some individuals of a Swedish snail 

species (Arianta arbustorum) that were captured and translocated to the opposite sides of narrow 

paths or relatively wider roads did return to the capture sides of paths (Baur and Baur 1990). 

Luckenbach and Bury (1983) found that in OHV play areas, there were marked declines in 

herbaceous and perennial plants, arthropods, lizards, and mammals when compared to nearby 

controls. The biota was affected even by relatively low levels of OHV activity, while areas 

heavily used by OHVs had virtually no native plants or wildlife. Hess (1969) found that in areas 

where roads were built along stream courses and crossed the stream courses, there was an 

increase in the biomass of aquatic insects at the disturbed sites than the undisturbed control site. 

However, the diversity of insects was greatly reduced. The order Diptera was the only order of 

insects to show a significant increase in numbers, while all other orders declined. In the 

undisturbed areas (no roads within 300 feet of a stream course), all insect orders showed an 

increase in numbers. All mayfly species also showed an increase in numbers from predisturbance 

conditions to postdisturbance conditions, but the increase was not significant (Hess 1969). Habitat 

may not be reduced, but possibly even enhanced along road edges for insect species (Johnson et 

al. 1975, Holzapfel and Schmidt 1990, Lightfoot and Whitford 1991, Angold 1997, and Ouren et 

al. 2007). Hess (1969) found that stream turbidity returned to precrossing turbidity within 700 

feet (approx. 215 m) of the stream crossing.

As with other groups of terrestrial wildlife, motorized/recreation effects to insects can be grouped 

into two analysis factors; to analyze effects to this guild of species from the proposed action and 

each alternative of the travel management project on the Gila National Forest, analysis will focus 

on two factors: 

1. To analyze the potential for harvest effects of motorized activities to insects, road miles 

were measured as these miles pertain to the proposed action and each alternative.

2. To analyze disturbance/indirect effects, a disturbance zone of 250 meters from roads was 

used as it pertains to the proposed action and to each alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 203

Table 134. Insect species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection

Species Analyzed Rationale for Selection

A notodontid moth FS sensitive

Nitocris fritillary FS sensitive

A may fly FS sensitive

Dashed ringtail FS sensitive

Table 135. Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area 

used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to insects

Focal Species Motorized Activity Harvest

Indicator

Disturbed

Zone

Analysis

Area

A Notodontid 

moth 

Motorized trail or OHV 

use 

Route 

Miles

215 m Desert shrub or piñon-juniper or 

shrub oakland or ponderosa pine

Nitocris fritillary 

(butterfly)

Motorized trail or OHV 

and roads

Route 

Miles

215 m Wet meadow, wetland, and high 

elevation riparian

A May fly Motorized trail or OHV 

and roads

Route 

Miles

215 m Middle elevation riparian (only 

within the Gila drainage)

Dashed ringtail 

(Dragonfly)

Motorized trail or OHV 

and roads

Route 

Miles

215 m Wet meadow, wetland, and high 

elevation riparian

Insect – Effects by Alternative

A May Fly (Forest Service Sensitive Species)

Table 136. A May Fly habitat (low elevation riparian) analysis area - existing condition and 

proposed change by issue and alternative

Analysis Area on NFS land = 

10,862.33 Acres

Existing 

Effects Alt. B 

(No Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in 

miles

42 43 27 24 38 33

Percent in miles of alt. B 

(Existing)

+3% -34% -43% -9% -20%

Motorized dispersed camping

acres

6,037 -5,427 -5,775 -6,037 -5,701 -5,758

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-90% -96% -100% -94% -95%

Motorized areas in acres - all 

vehicles

0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval

acres

6,037 -1,210 -5,775 -6,037 -2,890 -5,758

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-20% -96% -100% -48% -95%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

204 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Nitocris Frtillary (Forest Service Sensitive Species)

Table 137. Nitocris fritillary habitat (wet meadow or wetland and high elevation riparian) 

analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by issue and alternative

Analysis Area on NFS land = 6,811 

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in miles 42 40 29 18 35 35

Percent in miles of alt. B (Existing) -4% -31% -56% -17% -17%

Motorized dispersed camping acres 3,828 -3,408 -3,616 -3,828 -3,412 -3,523

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -89% -94% -100% -89% -92%

Motorized areas in acres - all vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval acres 3,828 -443 -3,616 -3,828 -992 -3,523

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -12% -94% -100% -26% -92%

Dashed Ringtail (Forest Service Sensitive Species)

Table 138. Dashed ringtail habitat (wet meadow or wetland and high, middle, and low

elevation riparian) analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by issue and 

alternative

Analysis Area on NFS land = 

28,543.54 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails in 

miles

139 137 88 68 110 106

Percent in miles of alt. B 

(Existing)

-1% -37% -51% -21% -24%

Motorized dispersed camping

acres

16,681 -15,379 -16,019 -16,681 -15,660 -15,826

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -92% -96% -100% -94% -95%

Motorized areas in acres - all 

vehicles

0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized big game retrieval

acres

16,681 -3,619 -16,019 -16,681 -7,469 -15,826

Percent in acres of alt. B (Existing) -22% -96% -100% -45% -95%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 205

A Notodontide Moth (Forest Service Sensitive Species)

Table 139. A Notodontide moth habitat (desert shrub or grassland, piñon-juniper or shrub 

oak woodland, ponderosa pine) analysis area - existing condition and proposed change by 

issue and alternative

Analysis Area on NFS 

land = 2,838,981 Acres

Existing 

Effects Alt.

B (No 

Action)

Change in Effects by Alternative

C D E F G

Total FS routes and trails

in miles

3,664 3,697 2,703 2,109 3,009 2,995

Percent in miles of alt. B 

(Existing)

+3% -26% -42% -18% -18%

Motorized dispersed 

camping acres

2,117,586 -2,026,532 -2,047,071 -2,117,586 -2,032,390 -2,039,040

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-96% -97% -100% -96% -96%

Motorized areas in acres -

all vehicles

25 0 -25 -25 0 0

Motorized big game 

retrieval acres

2,117,586 -334,734 -2,047,071 -2,117,586 -851,551 -2,039,040

Percent in acres of alt. B 

(Existing)

-16% -97% -100% -40% -96%

No Action Alternative (Alternative B): Under the existing condition for insects, there are 42 

miles of motorized routes in the A May Fly analysis area, 42 miles of motorized routes in the 

Nitocris fritillary analysis area, 138 miles of motorized routes in the dashed ringtail analysis area, 

and 3,652 miles of motorized routes in the A Notodontide moth analysis area. Habitat associated 

with these routes has been lost and will not recover unless the route is closed and possibly 

decommissioned, and the potential for direct effects like collision and collection would continue. 

The potential disturbance zone for A May Fly is 2,173 acres, 2,150 acres in the Nitocris fritillary 

area, 6,626 acres in the dashed ringtail area, and 562,942 acres in the A Notodontide moth 

analysis area. Within these potential disturbance zones, motorized routes continue to cause the 

potential for disturbance, displacement, avoidance, and harassment. Increases in the level of use 

on these routes through time would increase the potential for indirect effects (table 140). 

Under this alternative, motorized cross-country travel, motorized dispersed camping, and 

motorized big game retrieval would continue to be allowed across the Gila National Forest. These 

three types of use continue to potentially affect insects. Additionally, these three types of use may 

perpetuate the development of additional roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing for the 

development of higher road density. Under the no action alternative, through time, the potential 

for the direct loss of individuals and habitat would increase, as would the potential for disturbance 

effects to these species.

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Under all action alternatives, motorized cross-country 

travel would no longer be allowed. The change from the existing condition is a 100 percent
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

206 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

reduction in motorized cross-country travel. In the A May Fly analysis area, motorized dispersed 

camping is reduced by 90 to 100 percent under all action alternatives; 89 to 100 percent in the 

Nitocris fritillary analysis area; 92 to 100 percent in the dashed ringtail analysis area; and 96 to 

100 percent in the A Notodontide moth analysis area. For these focal species, the area of 

potentially affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100 percent under 

alternative E, 94 to 97 percent under alternative D, 26 to 48 percent under alternative F, 92 to 96

percent under alternative G, and 12 to 22 percent under alternative C.

Motorized areas are locations where we have had traditional uses like motorized dispersed 

camping and OHV use. In the A May Fly, Nitocris fritillary, and dashed ringtail analysis areas,

there are no acres of habitat being affected by a motorized area under all alternatives. In the A 

Notodontide moth analysis area, 25 acres of habitat are being affected by motorized areas under 

alternatives B, C, F and G. Alternatives E and D eliminate these acres of affected habitat for A 

Notodontide moth.

Under alternatives D, E, F, and G, miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially 

affected habitat are reduced by 34, 43, 9, and 20 percent, respectively, in the A May Fly analysis 

area; 31, 56, 17, and 17 percent, respectively, in the Nitocris fritillary area; 37, 51, 21 and 24

percent, respectively, in the dashed ringtail analysis area; and 26, 42, 18, and 18 percent, 

respectively in the A Notodontide moth analysis area. Alternative C adds 1 mile of unauthorized 

routes in the A May Fly analysis area, eliminates 2 miles in the Nitocris fritillary analysis area, 

eliminates 2 miles in the dashed ringtail analysis area, and adds 33 miles 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. Because the Gila National Forest currently allows 

motorized cross-country travel, most proposed routes, even though unauthorized, are currently 

being used.

For the different focal species, alternative E adds no miles of unauthorized routes in the A May 

Fly, Nitocris fritillary, and dashed ringtail analysis areas, and 6 miles of unauthorized routes in the 

A Notodontide moth analysis area. Alternative D adds 1 mile of unauthorized routes in the A May 

Fly analysis area, 0 miles in the Nitocris fritillary 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 add 1 mile of unauthorized routes in the A May Fly analysis area, 0 miles in 

the Nitocris fritillary analysis area, 2 miles in the dashed ringtail analysis area, and 80 miles of 

unauthorized routes in the A Notodontide moth analysis area. Alternative C adds 3 miles of 

unauthorized routes in the A May Fly analysis area, 0 miles in the Nitocris fritillary analysis area, 

12 miles in the dashed ringtail analysis area, 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 have not previously been recognized as a designated route. These new routes have 

the potential to cause new disturbance.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 207

Table 140. Insect Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative

Sensitive Species

Determination by Alternative

B - Existing Condition C D E F 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 fritillary 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

Cumulative Effects 

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, recreational activities, game management, and other land-disturbing 

actions that remove vegetation and cause direct or indirect effects to species and/or their habitat. 

The watershed cumulative effects analysis compiled a list of these different types of activities 

within each 5th-code watershed. This analysis reviewed this list of past, present and reasonable 

foreseeable projects within each 5th-code watershed, and used the results of the watershed 

cumulative effects analysis to help focus in on areas of potential wildlife concern: areas with the 

potential for higher levels of disturbance for threatened and endangered species, sensitive species, 

high priority migratory bird species, forest management indicator species, and other wildlife.

The watershed cumulative effects section looked at activities within Gila National Forest 

watersheds to assess if these activities had resulted in land disturbance that had reached or 

exceeded a disturbance threshold (USDA Forest Service 2010d). The amount of disturbance 

within each 5th-code watershed was used to determine how much potential wildlife habitat was 

being affected.

Where the 5th-code watershed analysis indicated higher levels of disturbance, a closer 

look/analysis was completed at the 6th-code level. 

Of the 33 5th-code watersheds analyzed, none approached the 15 percent disturbance level 

identified as the threshold level of concern in the watershed cumulative effects analysis 

(watershed specialist report). Under the existing condition (alternative B) the three 5th-code 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

208 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

watersheds with the highest disturbance level were: Corduroy Canyon at 8.6 percent, Negrito 

Creek at 5.7 percent, and the Upper San Francisco at 3.4 percent. Of the remaining 5th-code 

watersheds analyzed, 20 had a disturbance level of less than 1 percent and 10 had a disturbance 

level of 1 to 2.9 percent. Under most action alternatives except alternative C, the overall 

disturbance level across the Gila National Forest is reduced.

The overall analysis of all the activities discussed above by 5th-code watershed shows that the 

amount of directly affected habitat for wildlife is low in comparison to the availability of habitat. 

To help determine if localized problems exist related to cumulative wildlife effects, we looked at 

how roads were contributing to the disturbance level in the three watersheds with the highest 

disturbance levels. Road densities (all ownerships) where reviewed within the boundary of these 

watersheds. For the wildlife cumulative effects analysis, we considered open roads, not closed 

roads like the watershed analysis, since it is the traffic level not the actual roadbed that continues 

to cause disturbance effects. The Corduroy 5th code has an open road density of 1.2 mi/mi2. The 

Upper San Fransico River 5th code has an open road density of 1.58 mi/mi2, and Negrito Creek 5th

code a road density of 1.36 mi/mi2. The 5th-code analysis also determined that the Alamocito 5thcode watershed has a high road density within the boundary of the Gila National Forest (1.93 

mi/mi2). 

Since effects at a larger scale like the 5th-code level can sometimes hide localized cumulative 

effects, a 6th-code level in areas with potential concern was also examined. 

Within the Corduroy 5th-code watershed, no 6th-code watersheds have a road density greater than 

2 mi/mi2, three 6th-code watersheds have a road density of between 1.1 to 1.8 mi/mi2, and four 6thcode watersheds have a road density of less than 1 mi/mi2. Of the three 6th-code watersheds 

between 1.1 to 1.8 mi/mi2, all action alternatives reduce road densities or maintain them at the 

lower end of this scale. One of the 6th-code watersheds is even reduced to a density below 1.0 

mi/m2, except under alternative C. Of the four 6th-code watersheds that have density of less than 1

mi/mi2, all action alternatives reduce the road densities, except in one under alternative C, which 

maintains a density of 1.0 mi/mi2.

Within the Negrito 5th-code watershed, three 6th-code watersheds have a road density of less than 

1mi/mi2, four have road densities between 1.2 to 1.7 mi/mi2, and one greater than 2 mi/mi2. In the 

one 6th-code watershed that has a road density of greater than 2 mi/mi2, alternative E reduces it to 

below 1 mi/mi2; Alternative D reduces it to 1.8 mi/mi2; and under the remaining action 

alternatives (C, F, and G) it remains above 2. In the four 6th-code watersheds that are between 1.2 

to 1.7 mi/mi2, all action alternatives except C reduce road densities; most below 1.5 mi/mi2 except 

in alternative G in one 6th-code watershed. 

Within the Upper San Francisco River 5th-code watershed, one 6th-code watershed has a road 

density of less than 1 mi/mi2, eight are between 1.1 to 2.0 mi/mi2, and one is greater than 2 

mi/mi2. In the one 6th-code watershed that has a road density of greater than 2 mi/mi2, alternative 

E reduces it to below 2 mi/mi2; under alternative D it is reduced to 1.9 mi/mi2; and it remains 

above 2 under the other action alternatives. Of the eight 6th-code watersheds that are in the 1.1 to 

1.9 mi/mi2 range, three of these are in the upper end of this range and remain so (1.5 to 1.9) for 

most alternatives except under alternative E for two of the 6th-code watersheds; and the remaining 

five are reduced to the lower end of this range under all action alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 209

In addition to the two 5th-code watersheds listed above, eight other 5th-code watersheds have 6thcode watersheds with road densities that are greater than 1.9 mi/mi2 under existing conditions 

(Silver City four 6th-code watersheds; Ft. Bayard one 6th-code watershed, Mangas Valley one 6thcode watershed; Tularosa River four 6th-code watersheds; Middle Fork of the Gila River three 6thcode watersheds; Alamocito three 6th-code watersheds; Mangas Creek one 6th-code watershed; 

and Coyote Creek one 6th-code watershed). Two of the 6th-code watersheds in the Silver City 5thcode watershed and the one Fort Bayard 6th-code watershed remain above this level under all 

action alternatives. One 6th-code watershed in Mangas Valley and Tularosa River remains above 

this level in all action alternatives except alternative E. In one of the Alamocito 6th-code 

watersheds, road densities remain between 1.9 to 2.2 in alternatives C, F, and G, and drop to 

between 1.2 and 1.5 for alternatives E and D. In the second Alamocito 6th-code watershed, road 

densities remain between 1.6 and 2.1 under all alternatives. In both the Middle Fork of the Gila 

6th-code watersheds, road densities range from 1.6 to over 1.9 mi/mi2 in alternatives C, F, and G, 

and drop below 1.4 mi/mi2 under alternatives D and E. The one Coyote Creek 6th-code watershed

stays above 1.9 mi/mi2 under all action alternatives. In the three Tularosa 6th-code watersheds that 

are above 1.9 mi/mi2, one remains above 2.0 mi/mi2, one remains above 1.6 mi/mi2, and the third 

remains above 1.5 mi/mi2 under all action alternatives. The Mangas Creek 6th-code watershed

remains between 1.5 to 2 mi/mi2 under all action alternatives except alternative C.

The 6th-code watersheds within the Silver City, Fort Bayard, and Mangas Valley watersheds that 

have high road densities are associated with places like the community of Silver City. The effects 

from these areas to wildlife on the Gila National Forest will not be significant because these areas 

are primarily off the forest. 

The Coyote 6th-code watershed occurs primarily on the adjoining national forest. The effects from 

this watershed to wildlife on the Gila National Forest will not be significant because most of this 

watershed occurs off the forest.

The Negrito Creek, Upper San Francisco, Tularosa, Middle Fork of the Gila, Alamocito, and 

Mangas Creek 5th-code watersheds have hosted the majority of past and present timber harvesting 

activities on the forest, with roads having been constructed to accommodate this action. Timber 

harvesting activities are no longer common, but they were prevalent in the 1980s and 1990s. A 

majority of the timber related roads are still in use and are contributing to cumulative wildlife 

impacts. The disturbance acres in both watersheds are primarily a result of past and present 

vegetation treatment activities, the roads associated with these treatments, and disturbance caused 

by wildfire. These watersheds have localized areas of concern.

Additionally, to help determine potential cumulative effects to federally listed species, open road 

densities (all ownership) where analyzed within the analysis area of each species. 

For the Chiricahua leopard frog and southwestern willow flycatcher, the analysis also looked at 

number of stream crossings (all ownership) within the analysis area. Again, the overall analysis of 

all the activities discussed above by 5th-code watershed shows that the amount of directly affected 

habitat for wildlife is low in comparison to the availability of habitat.

Cumulative Effects Findings

Across the Gila National Forest, the incremental impacts of the proposed project and its 

associated alternatives, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

210 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

actions, are at levels that do not cause significant effects to wildlife species or their habitat on the 

forest. 

This analysis shows that if the effects of all open roads are considered (private, county, State, and 

Federal), there are localized areas of concern under several of the action alternatives for species 

like ungulates, wide ranging carnivores, and the Chiricahua leopard frog.

Ungulates: Increases in ungulate harvest are associated with increased access. Rowland et al. 

(2005) states that elk vulnerability to harvest increases as open road density increases. This 

statement is supported by the literature (Unsworth et al. 1993, Gratson and Whitman 2000, and 

Hayes et al. 2002). Lyon et al. 1997, document bull elk vulnerability is highest in areas with open 

roads, reduced in areas with closed roads, and lowest in roadless areas. Watson (2005) reported 

that roads facilitate poaching of pronghorn.

Localized 6th-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 density levels will continue to facilitate 

this exposure; table 141 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) document that research related to recreational impacts on 

carnivores is 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 effects 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 

Thiel 1985). However, Claar et al. (1999) state 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 a problem; however, since the start of the reintroduction project in 1998, illegal 

shootings and vehicle collisions have been the greatest source of wolf mortality within the 

recovery area in Arizona and New Mexico. 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 Wildlife Service 

2010). 

Localized 6th-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 will continue 

to facilitate this exposure. Table 141 identifies the alternatives of concern in grey. The potential to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 211

adversely affect wide 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 the table.

Table 141. Comparison of 6th-code watershed road densities by alternative

5th-Code 

Watershed

6th-Code 

Watershed 

within Each 5thCode

Watershed

Road 

Density

Alternative

B C C E F G

Negrito Creek 150400040602 mi/mi2 2.85 2.85 1.79 0.99 2.31 2.31

Upper San 

Francisco River

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 

Gila River

150400010302 mi/mi2 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

Grey areas denote alternatives with higher road densities and potentially higher rates of exposure between humans and 

wide ranging carnivores.

Chiricahua Leopard Frog: The literature documents that amphibians are killed on roadways. 

Fahrig et al. (1995) documented that the higher the traffic intensity, the greater the number of 

dead frogs and toads. Voss 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 were 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 (Southwest Endangered Species Act Team 2008), 

reasonable dispersal distances for the species are: (1) 1 mile overland, (2) 3 miles along 

intermittent drainages, and (3) 5 miles along permanent watercourses (Southwest Endangered 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

212 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Species Act Team 2008), 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 were examined for this cumulative effects analysis.

The higher road density and number of stream crossings, the greater the exposure rate 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 effects to the Chiricahua leopard frog would be expected to continue under 

alternatives C, D, F, and G.

Sensitive Plants

This section is a summary of the sensitive plant species specialist report (USDA Forest Service, 

2010g).

Affected Environment

There are currently no threatened, endangered, proposed, or species of concern found within the 

Gila National Forest boundary. Twenty-two species on the Southwestern Regional Forester’s 

sensitive species list have the potential to occur within the forest (table 142). 

Methods

Analysis for effects of motorized travel within areas of sensitive plants was conducted using GIS 

analysis, data, and data sources that were put into road and vegetation layers to identify corridors 

through sensitive plant habitat. The only spatial data the Gila National Forest had was a 

spreadsheet with legal locations to the section level of plant observations. Indicators used to 

measure impacts to designated plants are corridor acres within 6th-code watersheds that are within 

habitat types where sensitive plants have been recorded or found. This survey information and or 

distribution within sensitive plant habitat was overlaid on proposals for alternatives to reflect the 

increase or decrease of acreage being impacted by motorized dispersed camping and motorized 

big game retrieval.

Table 142 provides a brief description of each plant’s reported location in relation to the forest 

and its habitat association. Effects determinations are displayed by alternative for each species. 

The percentages reflect the increase or decrease of acreage within habitat types for sensitive 

plants for motorized dispersed camping and motorized big game retrieval. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 213

Table 142. Southwestern Region sensitive plant species (USDA Forest Service 2007) known or having the potential to occur on the 

forest

Common 

Name

Reported 

Occurrences

Habitat 

Association

Alternative Percentages reflect +/- change of acreage 

within habitat association for the species B C D E F G

Wright’s 

Dogweed 

Adenophyllum 

wrightii var. 

wrightii

Pinos Altos Range; 

Grant County; 3 

occurrence records 

on Gila from 

Wilderness and 

Silver City Ranger 

Districts

Drainages within

piñon-juniper

woodlands (sandy or 

silty soils)

MI MI MI NI MI MI Alt. B includes cross-country travel which may 

impact the species.

Alt. C identifies -97 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -27 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval. 

Alt. D identifies -98 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact but, risk is 

very low.

Alt. E NI -100 percent decrease in acreage.

Doesn’t allow for motorized dispersed camping 

and or motorized big game retrieval.

Alt. F identifies -97 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -56 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval.

Alt. G identifies -97 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Goodding’s 

Onion Allium 

gooddingi 

Ownbey

Occurrence records 

on Quemado, 

Glenwood, 

Wilderness and 

Reserve Ranger 

Districts, but also 

has the potential to 

occur on Black 

Range and Silver 

City Ranger 

Districts.

Mixed conifer and 

spruce-fir zones, 

generally in north 

trending drainages

MI MI MI NI MI MI Alt. B includes cross-country travel which may

impact the species.

Alt. C identifies -95 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -11 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval. 

Alt. D identifies -98 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact but, risk is 

very low.

Alt. E NI -100 percent decrease in acreage.

Doesn’t allow for motorized dispersed camping 

and/or motorized big game retrieval.

Alt. F identifies -97 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -56 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval.
214

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 142. Southwestern Region sensitive plant species (USDA Forest Service 2007) known or having the potential to occur on the 

forest

Common 

Name

Reported 

Occurrences

Habitat 

Association

Alternative Percentages reflect +/- change of acreage 

within habitat association for the species B C D E F G

Alt. G identifies -97 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Mogollon 

Death Camas 

Anticlea 

mogollonensis

Most of its range 

within Gila 

Wilderness, around 

the area of White 

Water Baldy.

Understory of upper 

montane and 

subalpine coniferous 

forest. Often found 

with aspen.

NI NI NI NI NI NI Species has only been documented within Gila 

Wilderness.

Greene 

Milkweed

Asclepias 

uncialis 

uncialis

No occurrence 

records on the 

forest. Two 

occurrence records 

north of Silver City 

on private land.

Yucca grasslands 

with scattered 

juniper trees

NI NI NI NI NI NI Species documented within private property.

Villous 

Groundcover 

Milkvetch

Astragalus 

humistratus 

var. crispulus

Occurrence record 

from Quemado RD, 

and private land 

adjacent to 

Quemado RD. No 

other occurrence 

records on Gila.

Pine forest on 

slopes, benches, and 

ledges. Vegetated 

roadbanks.

MI MI MI NI MI MI Alt. B includes cross-country travel which may 

impact the species.

Alt. C identifies -95 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -1 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval. 

Alt. D identifies -95 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact but, risk is 

very low.

Alt. E NI -100 percent decrease in acreage.

Doesn’t allow for motorized dispersed camping 

and or motorized big game retrieval.

Alt. F identifies -95 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -22 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval.

Alt. G identifies -95 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 215

Table 142. Southwestern Region sensitive plant species (USDA Forest Service 2007) known or having the potential to occur on the 

forest

Common 

Name

Reported 

Occurrences

Habitat 

Association

Alternative Percentages reflect +/- change of acreage 

within habitat association for the species B C D E F G

Gila Thistle

Cirsium 

gilense

Two occurrence 

records on the 

forest. One on the 

Glenwood Ranger 

District within the 

wilderness, and one 

on the Reserve 

Ranger District

outside wilderness.

Moist mountain 

meadows in 

coniferous forests.

MI MI MI NI MI MI Alt. B includes cross-country travel which may 

impact the species.

Alt. C identifies -95 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -7 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval. 

Alt. D identifies -98 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Alt. E NI -100 percent decrease in acreage.

Doesn’t allow for motorized dispersed camping 

and or motorized big game retrieval.

Alt. F identifies -94 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -19 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval.

Alt. G identifies -95 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Wooton’s 

Hawthorn

Crataegus 

wootoniana

Occurrence records 

for Grant and 

Catron Counties on 

the Glenwood, 

Wilderness, and 

Silver City Ranger 

Districts.

Populations occur 

on the forest in 

Cherry Creek and 

Telephone Canyon 

within the Pinos 

Altos Mtn. Range.

Canyon bottoms and 

forest understory in 

lower montane 

coniferous forests

MI MI MI NI MI MI Alt. B includes cross-country travel which may 

impact the species.

Alt. C identifies -98 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -31 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval. 

Alt. D identifies -99 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Alt. E NI -100 percent decrease in acreage.

Doesn’t allow for motorized dispersed camping 

and or motorized big game retrieval.

Alt. F identifies -98 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -71 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval.
216

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 142. Southwestern Region sensitive plant species (USDA Forest Service 2007) known or having the potential to occur on the 

forest

Common 

Name

Reported 

Occurrences

Habitat 

Association

Alternative Percentages reflect +/- change of acreage 

within habitat association for the species B C D E F G

Alt. G identifies -98 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Yellow Lady’s 

Slipper

Cypripedium 

parviflorum 

pubescens

Occurrence records 

for Grant County 

within the Gila 

Wilderness, on 

Little Creek and 

Little Turkey Creek.

Not documented 

outside of 

wilderness.

Middle to high 

elevation riparian 

(50 to 100 yards 

from water in nearly 

full sunlight). Seeps. 

fir, aspen, and pine 

forest in full 

sunlight. Mesic 

slopes up to 60 

degrees.

NI NI NI NI NI NI Species has only been documented within the Gila 

Wilderness.

Mogollon 

Hawkweed 

Hieracium 

fendleri var. 

mogollense

Catron County; no 

known occurrence 

records on the Gila 

NF.

Understory plant in 

montane coniferous 

forest.

NI NI NI NI NI NI Records indicate no known occurrences within the 

forest. 

Metcalfe’s 

Tick – Trefoil 

Desmodium 

metcalfei

Historically, in 

Grant and Sierra 

Counties in Cabello 

watershed. No 

recent occurance 

records.

Rocky slopes, in 

canyons, and in 

ditches within 

oak/piñon-juniper 

woodlands/

grasslands

NI NI NI NI NI NI Records indicate no recent occurrences within the 

forest.

Hess’ 

Fleabane

Erigeron 

hessii

All known 

populations are 

within the Gila 

Wilderness, in the 

area of White Water 

Baldy.

Grows from 

bedrock cracks in 

open areas in upper 

montane to 

subalpine conifer 

forests.

NI NI NI NI NI NI Species has only been documented within the Gila 

Wilderness.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 217

Table 142. Southwestern Region sensitive plant species (USDA Forest Service 2007) known or having the potential to occur on the 

forest

Common 

Name

Reported 

Occurrences

Habitat 

Association

Alternative Percentages reflect +/- change of acreage 

within habitat association for the species B C D E F G

Arizona 

Coralroot 

Hexalectris 

spicata var. 

arizonica

Hidalgo and Sierra 

Counties. No 

known occurrence 

records on the Gila 

NF.

Heavy leaf litter 

under the drip line 

of oaks, pines, and 

junipers. Canyon 

bottoms and 

wooded canyon 

sides most 

commonly over 

limestone.

NI NI NI NI NI NI Records indicate no known occurrences within the 

forest. 

Rusby 

Hawkweed 

Hieracium 

abscissum

H. rusbyi

All known 

populations are 

within the Gila 

Wilderness.

Mixed conifer 

forest. Associated 

genera and species 

include: Pinus 

(pine), Alnus 

(alder), Quercus 

spp. (oak), and 

Juniperus deppeana 

(alligator juniper

NI NI NI NI MI MI Species has only been documented within the Gila 

Wilderness.

Heartleaf 

Groundsel 

Packera 

cardamine 

Scenecio 

cardamine

Mogollon 

Mountains of 

Catron County.

Nine occurrence 

records on Gila.

More specifically 

all east of the Silver 

Creek Divide, south 

of Bursum around 

the area of trail 182.

Understory of late 

seral spruce-fir

NI NI NI NI NI NI Species has only been documented within the Gila 

Wilderness.

Maguire’s 

Beardtongue 

Penstemon 

linarioides 

ssp.maguirei

Not seen in NM in 

over 100 years. 

Mining was cited as 

threat to the only 

known population 

in Arizona.

Limestone cliffs in 

piñon-juniper 

woodlands.

NI NI NI NI NI NI Plant has not been documented in over 100 years 

in New Mexico, and limited information is 

available on the species. Habitat may be found in 

the Gila River Valley in Grant County.
218

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 142. Southwestern Region sensitive plant species (USDA Forest Service 2007) known or having the potential to occur on the 

forest

Common 

Name

Reported 

Occurrences

Habitat 

Association

Alternative Percentages reflect +/- change of acreage 

within habitat association for the species B C D E F G

Metcalfe’s 

Penstemon 

Penstemon 

metcalfei

Thirteen occurrence 

records on Gila 

primarily on Black 

Range Ranger 

District in remote 

areas, one record on 

Wilderness Ranger 

District.

Mixed conifer and

spruce fir - all 

stages.

MI MI MI NI MI MI Alt. B includes cross-country travel which may 

impact the species.

Alt. C identifies -98 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -18 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval. 

Alt. D identifies -98 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Alt. E NI -100 percent decrease in acreage.

Doesn’t allow for motorized dispersed camping 

and or motorized big game retrieval.

Alt. F identifies -98 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -52 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval.

Alt. G identifies -98 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Davidson’s 

Cliff Carrot 

Pteryxia 

davidsonii

Grant and Catron 

Counties. One pre1970 record in the 

Gila NF files, at 

4,880 feet in a gray 

oak dominated 

west-facing slope 

adjacent to a 

tributary to Mangus 

Creek.

Moist rocky areas 

seem to be 

important to this 

species. This species 

has been 

documented to 

occur on sheer 

cliffs; in rocky, 

damp, drainages; 

and mountainsides.

The literature also 

documents that the 

species grows in wet 

areas (potentially 

wetlands, seeps, 

springs, and riparian 

areas).

MI MI MI NI MI MI Alt. B includes cross-country travel which may 

impact the species.

Alt. C identifies -96 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -16 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval. 

Alt. D identifies -97 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Alt. E NI -100 percent decrease in acreage.

Doesn’t allow for motorized dispersed camping 

and or motorized big game retrieval.

Alt. F identifies -96 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -41 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 219

Table 142. Southwestern Region sensitive plant species (USDA Forest Service 2007) known or having the potential to occur on the 

forest

Common 

Name

Reported 

Occurrences

Habitat 

Association

Alternative Percentages reflect +/- change of acreage 

within habitat association for the species B C D E F G

Alt. G identifies -96 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Blumer’s Dock 

Rumex 

orthoneurus

Has been 

documented in 

Grant and Catron 

Counties on the 

forest; and probably 

occurs on all ranger 

districts.

Middle to high 

elevation wetlands 

with moist, organic 

soil adjacent to 

perennial springs or 

streams in canyons 

or meadow 

situations.

MI MI MI NI MI MI Alt. B includes cross-country travel which may 

impact the species.

Alt. C identifies -95 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -15 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval. 

Alt. D identifies -99 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Alt. E NI -100 percent decrease in acreage.

Doesn’t allow for motorized dispersed camping 

and or motorized big game retrieval.

Alt. F identifies -97 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -28 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval.

Alt. G identifies -98 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Mimbres 

Figwort 

Scrophularia 

macrantha

Thirty-five

occurrence records 

on Gila, all flow 

into the Mimbres 

watershed.

Noonday, Railroad, 

and Upper Gallinas 

Canyons. These 

occurrences’ are on 

both the Silver City 

and Wilderness 

Ranger Districts.

Typically steep, 

rocky, usually 

north-facing igneous 

cliffs and talus 

slopes.

MI MI MI NI MI MI Alt. B includes cross-country travel which may 

impact the species.

Alt. C identifies -98 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -52 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval. 

Alt. D identifies -98 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Alt. E NI -100 percent decrease in acreage.

Doesn’t allow for motorized dispersed camping 

and or motorized big game retrieval.
220

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 142. Southwestern Region sensitive plant species (USDA Forest Service 2007) known or having the potential to occur on the 

forest

Common 

Name

Reported 

Occurrences

Habitat 

Association

Alternative Percentages reflect +/- change of acreage 

within habitat association for the species B C D E F G

Alt. F identifies -98 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -73 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval.

Alt. G identifies -98 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Porsild’s 

Starwort 

Stellaria 

porsildii

Pinos Altos 

Mountains of NM, 

Grant County. On 

Gila occurs just 

below Signal Peak 

on a west-facing 

slope on the Silver 

City Ranger 

District.

Mixed conifer and 

aspen forests.

MI MI MI NI MI MI Alt. B includes cross-country travel which may 

impact the species.

Alt. C identifies -98 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -25 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval. 

Alt. D identifies -98 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Alt. E NI -100 percent decrease in acreage.

Doesn’t allow for motorized dispersed camping 

and or motorized big game retrieval.

Alt. F identifies -98 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -57 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval.

Alt. G identifies -98 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Pinos Altos 

Flame Flower 

Talinum 

humile

Grant and Hidalgo 

Counties in NM. Six

occurrence records 

on Gila. Cherry 

Creek, Beartooth 

drainages on the 

Silver City Ranger 

District, and 

Noonday drainage 

Madrean grassland, 

oak woodland, 

piñon-oak woodland 

or piñon-juniper 

woodland.

MI MI MI NI MI MI Alt. B includes cross-country travel which may 

impact the species.

Alt. C identifies -99 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -51 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval. 

Alt. D identifies -99 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 221

Table 142. Southwestern Region sensitive plant species (USDA Forest Service 2007) known or having the potential to occur on the 

forest

Common 

Name

Reported 

Occurrences

Habitat 

Association

Alternative Percentages reflect +/- change of acreage 

within habitat association for the species B C D E F G

on the Wilderness 

Ranger District.

Alt. E NI -100 percent decrease in acreage.

Doesn’t allow for motorized dispersed camping 

and or motorized big game retrieval.

Alt. F identifies -99 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -77 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval.

Alt. G identifies -99 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Mogollon 

Clover 

Trifolium 

longipes spp. 

Neurophyllum

Catron County,

NM; documented 

on the Black Range, 

Quemado, 

Glenwood, 

Wilderness, and 

Reserve Ranger 

Districts.

Riparian zones in 

mixed conifer 

forest. High 

elevation 

permanently wet 

meadows along 

streams and springs

MI MI MI NI MI MI Alt. B includes cross-country travel which may 

impact the species.

Alt. C identifies -93 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -3 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval. 

Alt. D identifies -94 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.

Alt. E NI -100 percent decrease in acreage.

Doesn’t allow for motorized dispersed camping 

and or motorized big game retrieval.

Alt. F identifies -93 percent for motorized 

dispersed camping and -23 percent for motorized 

big game retrieval.

Alt. G identifies -94 percent for both motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game 

retrieval. Chance for potential impact, but risk is 

very low.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

222 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Environmental Consequences

General Effects to Plants

Motorized travel includes motorized travel on roads, motorized travel on trails, cross-country 

motorized travel (includes motorized big game retrieval), and motorized dispersed camping. The 

development of unauthorized routes has grown during the last 2 decades and some are causing 

natural resource damage within the forest. The amount of unauthorized routes is difficult to 

measure accurately. Since unauthorized routes are not engineered, some are having direct habitat 

damage such as soil disturbance, which can result in decreased vegetation cover and density. As 

soil compacts and erodes, roots can be exposed and eventually killed, which can then lead to the 

establishment of weed species (Joslin and Youmans 1999). Loss of vegetation cover increases 

exposure of soil to wind and water erosion, which reduces the ability of plants to reestablish an 

area. These effects can last decades or even centuries (Joslin and Youmans 1999). Plants are also 

vulnerable to direct damage from off-highway vehicles (OHVs) by crushing, shearing and 

uprooting which can change plant characteristics by reducing flower and seed production and 

carbohydrate reserves, which reduces plant vigor and recruitment (Cole and Landres 1995). 

Motorized routes can create edge habitat that promotes nonnative encroachment and invasive 

plant species (Ouren et al. 2007).

There is limited information associated with the plant species discussed in this document, both 

rangewide and site specific for the Gila National Forest. Global and State population rankings 

were used when available to identify the overall status of the species. Effects to sensitive plant 

species are summarized in table 143.

Summary

Motorized routes and trails were not included in this analysis. The effects of road systems and 

sensitive plants are discountable due to the disturbance that already exists with the roads and or 

trails. Sensitive plants do not occur within a designated roadway or trail. Percents indicate the 

reduction of acreage within associated habitat types for sensitive plant species within 6th-code 

watersheds. Alternative C has the greatest amount of acreage available for motorized dispersed 

camping and motorized big game retrieval. Corridors associated with motorized dispersed 

camping include a 300-foot corridor off designated routes and 1 mile of cross-country travel from 

designated routes. With the elimination of cross-country travel (alternative B), the effects of 

motorized dispersed camping and motorized big game retrieval are virtually eliminated in 

alternatives D and G. Alternative F reduces a greater amount of acreage for motorized dispersed 

camping compared to motorized big game retrieval. It should be noted that although motorized 

big game retrieval is reflected as open in the analysis, the use would be seasonal in conjunction 

with hunting season and would be random with regard to location of harvest. Alternative E is 

limited to road systems and roadside parking. This alternative also eliminates cross-country 

motorized travel, motorized dispersed camping, and motorized big game retrieval, which would 

have the greatest benefit for sensitive plant populations on the Gila National Forest.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are the incremental environmental impacts or effects of the action together 

with impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic scope for 

the cumulative effects assessment for sensitive plants includes the entire Gila National Forest. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 223

The percentage of acreage indicates habitat types associated with sensitive plants and the 

motorized opportunity in each 6th-code watershed within the vegetation type. All action 

alternatives except alternative B reduce the miles available for motorized use and eliminate

motorized access off designated system routes which, in return, decreases the acreage that could 

be affected.

Reasonable foreseeable actions that contribute to increased cumulative effects to sensitive plants 

within the Gila National Forest include: firewood gathering, livestock grazing, road maintenance, 

OHV use, hunting/camping, mining and other recreational uses. OHV use associated with crosscountry travel poses the biggest threat to sensitive plants. With the elimination of cross-country 

travel through all alternatives, these effects would be eliminated. However, alternatives C, D, F 

and G allow for motorized dispersed camping and motorized big game retrieval. Alternative E 

eliminates both motorized dispersed camping and motorized big game retrieval. This alternative 

has the greatest benefit for sensitive plants. Alternatives D and G also decrease acreage available 

for motorized dispersed camping and motorized big game retrieval and would be beneficial. 

Alternative F allows for a greater amount of acreage available for motorized big game retrieval,

but averages the same for motorized dispersed camping. Overall, there wouldn’t be an increase in 

adverse cumulative impacts to sensitive plants with the action alternatives listed.

Invasive Species 

This section is a summary of the invasive species specialist report (USDA Forest Service 2010h).

Affected Environment

Invasive species are plant and animal species not native to a region, which when introduced either 

accidentally or intentionally, out-compete native plants or animals for available resources, may 

reproduce prolifically, and can potentially dominate regions and ecosystems. No invasive animal 

species are known to occur in the project area and will not be addressed further. Invasive plant 

seeds and spores can travel by wind, in water or by animals and people in fur or feathers, 

clothing, or the tires of vehicles. Roads and trails are one pathway through which seeds may 

spread. Plant seeds may get lodged in the mud, grease, and crevices of vehicles and may travel as 

far as the vehicle itself. Because they often arrive in new areas unaccompanied by their native 

predators, there are no natural agents to restrain their establishment and spread. The Gila National 

Forest has focused on four major areas for management of invasive plant species: (1) prevention, 

(2) detection and recognition, (3) control to keep populations under control, and (4) cooperation 

with Federal, State, counties, and weed control districts. 

Three categories of noxious weeds have been identified for the State of New Mexico (Class A, B,

and C weeds). Refer to the invasive species specialist report (USDA Forest Service 2010h) for the 

New Mexico Noxious Weed plant list by category. As of April 2009, approximately 21 species 

were identified as Class A, 10 species as Class B, 6 species as Class C, and 8 species in the 

“Watch List” category. The categories and invasive plant species are also addressed in detail in 

three additional publications: 1999 New Mexico Invasive Weeds, 2006 Troublesome Weeds of 

New Mexico, and 2007 Roadside Weed Management.

The major invasive plants known to occur within the analysis area include bull thistle, cheatgrass, 

musk thistle, purple loosestrife, Russian olive, salt cedar, scotch thistle, Siberian elm, spotted 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

224 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

knapweed, tree of heaven, and yellow starthistle. These species are generally associated with 

ground disturbance on roads, trails, utility corridors, developed campgrounds, timber sale areas, 

wildland burns, and developed rangeland structural improvements such as stock ponds and 

pipelines. Some invasive species are limited to specific areas, while others are common at all 

major river systems.

Methodology to Estimate Effects

Electronic databases and forest files for invasive plant inventory and treatment records were 

reviewed for the analysis area. Professional judgment was used to estimate effects of the 

alternatives. The total amount of proposed miles for roads and trails was determined for this 

proposed project to compare the estimated effects for each alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects in this analysis are related to percent of change of road miles from 

alternative B, the no action alternative. Percentages of change within the analysis area are 

displayed in table 143 by alternative.

Table 143. Proposed total roads and trails displayed in miles for each alternative

Description B C D E F G

Proposed total roads (miles) 4,602 4,269 2,980 2,334 3,346 3,325

Proposed total trails (miles) 16 202 124 1 180 180

Proposed combined totals (miles) 4,618 4,471 3,104 2,335 3,526 3,505

Percent change from alternative B - 3% -33% -49% -24% -24%

Alternative B (No Action)

Under this alternative, motorized travel within the analysis area would continue to occur at the 

current level on all National Forest System lands for any activity, and would have the largest 

amount of potential invasive plant species that would occur within the analysis area when 

compared to all the proposed alternatives. As a result, the number of invasive plant species that 

would go to seed and spread by motorized and nonmotorized use is expected to remain about the 

same. The rate of establishment of new infestations would be expected to increase, since seed 

would continue to be spread via uncontrolled motorized travel within the analysis area. In 

summary, alternative B would allow for the largest amount of potential for invasive plant species 

that would occur within the analysis area when compared to all the proposed alternatives.

Alternative C

This alternative would be very similar to the no action alternative (alternative B). Under this 

alternative, the amount of motorized travel would be reduced with the restriction of authorized 

cross-country travel and access for game retrieval limited to “1 mile” within the analysis area. As 

a result, a 3 percent difference from alternative B would occur in the amount of invasive plant 

species that would continue to go to seed and spread. The rate of establishment of new 

infestations would be expected to continue to increase through other uses such as designated 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 225

motorized and nonmotorized travel, proposed “areas” would be recognized within the analysis 

area, restricted access of “1 mile” for game retrieval, and restricted access of motorized dispersed 

travel of “300 feet.” No cross-country travel would be authorized. In summary, alternative C 

would be very similar to alternative B, and when compared with all the proposed alternatives,

would have the second largest amount of potential for invasive plant species within the analysis 

area.

Alternative D

This alternative displays a moderate amount of change when compared to the no action 

alternative (alternative B). Under this alternative, the amount of motorized travel would be 

reduced with the restriction of authorized cross-country travel. Access for game retrieval and 

motorized travel would be limited to “300 feet” within the analysis area. No proposed “areas” 

would occur under this alternative. As a result, a 33 percent difference from alternative B would 

occur in the amount of invasive plant species that would continue to go to seed and spread. The 

rate of establishment of new infestations would be expected to decrease, since the amount of 

uncontrolled motorized travel within the analysis area would also be moderately decreased as 

compared to alternative B, including no cross-country travel, no recognized “areas,” and 

restricted motorized dispersed travel and access for game retrieval limited to “300 feet.” In 

summary, alternative D would have a moderate amount of invasive plant species compared to 

alternative B, and when compared with all the proposed alternatives, would have the second 

smallest amount of potential for invasive plant species within the analysis area. 

Alternative E 

This alternative displays the most amount of change when compared to the no action alternative 

(alternative B). Under this alternative, no authorized cross-country travel would be allowed 

within the analysis area. No proposed “areas,” motorized dispersed travel or access for big game 

retrieval would occur. As a result, a 49 percent difference from alternative B would occur in the 

amount of invasive plant species that would continue to go to seed and spread. The rate of 

establishment of new infestations would also be expected to decrease, since the amount of 

uncontrolled motorized travel within the analysis area would be decreased the most as compared 

to alternative B, including no cross-country travel, no recognized “areas,” no motorized dispersed 

travel, and no access for big game retrieval. In summary, alternative E would have the least 

amount of invasive plant species compared to alternative B, and when compared with all the 

proposed alternatives, would have the least amount of potential for invasive plant species within 

the analysis area. 

Alternative F 

This alternative displays some change when compared to the no action alternative (alternative B). 

Under this alternative, no authorized cross-country travel would be allowed within the analysis 

area. Proposed “areas” would be recognized, motorized dispersed travel would be limited to “300 

feet,” and access for big game retrieval would be limited to “1⁄2 mile.” As a result, a 24 percent

difference from alternative B would occur in the amount of invasive plant species that would 

continue to go to seed and spread. The rate of establishment of new infestations would also be 

expected to decrease, since the amount of uncontrolled motorized travel within the analysis area 

would be decreased the most as compared to alternative B, including no cross-country travel, 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

226 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

authorized motorized dispersed travel restricted to “300 feet,” and authorized access for big game 

retrieval restricted to “1⁄2 mile.” In summary, alternative F would have a lower amount of invasive 

plant species compared to alternative B, and when compared with all the proposed alternatives,

would have a lower amount of potential for invasive plant species within the analysis area. 

Alternative G 

This alternative displays the same amount of change as alternative F, and some change when 

compared to the no action alternative (alternative B). Under this alternative, no authorized crosscountry travel would be allowed within the analysis area. Proposed “areas” would be recognized, 

motorized dispersed travel and access for game retrieval would be limited to “300 feet.” As a 

result, a 24 percent difference from alternative B would occur in the amount of invasive plant 

species that would continue to go to seed and spread. The rate of establishment of new 

infestations would also be expected to decrease, since the amount of uncontrolled motorized 

travel within the analysis area would be decreased the most as compared to alternative B,

including no cross-country travel, authorized motorized dispersed travel, and authorized access 

for big game retrieval restricted to “300 feet.” In summary, alternative G would have a lower 

amount of invasive plant species compared to alternative B, and when compared with all the 

proposed alternatives, would have a lower amount of potential for invasive plant species within 

the analysis area, except for alternative E. 

Cumulative Effects

An assortment of past and present ground-disturbing activities such as utility corridors, roads, 

trails, developed campgrounds, livestock grazing, timber removal, recreation uses, wildland 

burning, road construction, and developed rangeland structural improvements such as stock ponds 

and pipelines, have contributed to the spread of invasive plants. These types of ground 

disturbance in conjunction with other forest uses and activities from other vectors (such as 

animals, hiking, mountain biking, and motorized use) will cumulatively affect the spread of 

invasive plant species within the analysis area. Alternative B would contribute the most toward 

cumulative effects because it provides the most favorable conditions for the spread and 

establishment of invasive plants with its uncontrolled motorized use, and alternative E would 

contribute the least. Alternatives C, D, F and G would continue to contribute to cumulative effects 

for invasive species, but at a much lower level when compared with the no action alternative 

because of reduced number of authorized roads and trails associated with forest uses and 

activities. 

Cultural Resources

This section is a summary of the cultural resources specialist report (USDA Forest Service, 

2010i). 

Gila National Forest History and Prehistory

The Gila National Forest has a rich archaeological and cultural history. The forest includes lands 

that have been used and occupied by humans throughout the prehistoric era, beginning with the 

Paleoindian Period (<9,500 B.C.–5,500 B.C.) (ARMS 2009). Paleoindian peoples were highly 

mobile hunters and gatherers who hunted megafauna (now extinct large mammals such as 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 227

mammoths) (Cordell 1997). The Archaic Period (5,500 B.C.–A.D. 200) follows the Paleoindian 

Period (ARMS 2009). Archaic peoples were also mobile and relied on hunting and gathering. 

However, in this period people began to rely more on plants and horticulture began (Cordell 

1997). The Mogollon Culture (A.D. 200–A.D. 1400) spanned about 1,200 years during which 

people relied more on horticulture, followed by predominance of agriculture. Pottery and more 

permanent dwellings (pithouses, A.D. 200–A.D. 1000, and then pueblos, A.D. 1000–A.D.1400) 

were hallmarks of the period (ARMS 2009, Cordell 1997, Diehl and LeBlanc 2001, and Martin 

1979). Phases of the Mogollon Culture are primarily defined by pottery and dwelling types (see 

Anyon and LeBlanc 1984, LeBlanc 1980a, LeBlanc 1980b, Lekson 1992, Berman 1989, and 

Martin and Rinaldo 1950). The Mogollon people are the most widely studied on the forest. Most 

prehistoric sites found on the forest are Mogollon, including habitation remains in the form of 

pithouses or masonry dwellings, roasting pits, lithic (stone) and pottery artifact scatters, and some 

agricultural features like check dams, cultural landscapes, etc. 

The historic period began in New Mexico with Spanish contact in 1539. On forest and elsewhere 

in New Mexico, the historic period is divided by the rise and fall of political control by the 

Spanish (A.D. 1539–1821), Mexican (A.D. 1821–1848), and American (A.D. 1848–present) 

periods (Opler 1983). From the Spanish Period through the first several decades of the American 

Period, the goal of each political entity was to secure safe passage through this area and/or 

provide access to its resources for mining, ranching, and grazing. During the American Period, 

overlapping interests of Apache peoples and settlers of the area led to conflict between the two 

groups. Eventually, the U.S. Government turned to the removal of Apache peoples to 

reservations. Most resisted as long as possible, but eventually most Apache tribal people were 

removed to several reservations within and outside New Mexico (Opler 1983). 

Contemporary and historic land uses include mining, ranching, grazing, logging, frontier 

settlement, frontier military activities, and government land management. Evidence of these 

activities persists in the archaeological record today in the form of the remains of forts, cabins, 

corrals, windmills, abandoned mines, military reservations, water wells, irrigation ditches, check 

dams, bridges, sawmills, homesteads, historic roads and trails, and Forest Service administrative 

sites. Other site types include rancherias, camps, battle sites (Indian Wars in particular), and trash 

dumps. Since the establishment of the forest in 1905, ranger stations, administrative sites, 

lookouts, and recreational areas have been built as well. Finally, Civilian Conservation Corps 

(CCC) associated camps and infrastructure like roads, bridges and campgrounds are found on the

forest.

Today, land use in the forest continues to follow the multiple-use mission of the Forest Service, 

including grazing, mining, ranching, and vegetation and fuels management. Native American 

tribes also continue to intermittently use the forest for traditional activities including plant 

gathering and visits to special places. A very few places on the forest are recognized by tribes as 

traditional cultural properties, though none have been identified in the travel management project 

area.

Affected Environment

For the past 35 or more years, forest cultural resource specialists (archaeologists), in compliance 

with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, have 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

228 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

inventoried about 384,267 acres (11.6 percent) of the forest’s 3.3 million acres to professional 

standards. A total of 5,932 cultural sites are in the Gila National Forest databases. 

For the forest and Region 3 of the Forest Service, a cultural resource site is defined as “a locus 

(location) of purposeful human activity which has resulted in a deposit of cultural material 

beyond one or a few accidentally lost artifacts.” (USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 

1987, FSH 2309.24, pp. 2–3). In practical terms, this means a cultural resource site can include 

things like ancient pueblo structures, broken pottery sherds, grinding stones, arrowheads or other 

stone tools scattered on the ground, rock walls, or the remains of historic homesteads or mines. 

Eight sites or groups of sites known as “districts” are listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places; 1,118 sites have been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and 

294 have been determined ineligible. The other 4,512 sites are unevaluated for National Register 

of Historic Places eligibility, and must be treated as if they are eligible until an official 

determination is made in consultation with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer. 

An unevaluated site requires more study before it can be determined whether the site is eligible 

for the National Register of Historic Places.

Cultural Resource Consultation and Travel Management

In lieu of using the 36 CFR 800 regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act, the forest is 

complying with this law by following the USDA Forest Service, Region 3 Protocol regarding 

Section 106 consultation for Travel Management Route Designation (TM protocol) ( USDA

Forest Service, Southwestern Region; New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer; Appendix 

I; 2007). The TM protocol is appendix I of the Southwestern Region Programmatic Agreement 

between the State Historic Preservation Officer, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and 

USDA Forest Service. Both the cultural resource programmatic agreement and TM protocol 

streamline and standardize the Section 106 consultation process for the forest. For example, the 

protocol stipulates that in some cases, archaeological surveys will not be required or can be 

conducted at less than 100 percent coverage. In many instances, the protocol also eliminates the 

need for pre-consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer for sample surveys. 

The TM protocol exempts existing road prisms and/or associated constructed features from 

Section 106 compliance and consultation. It is agreed that impacts to cultural resource sites may 

have occurred when these roads were created, and that disturbance from continued use of these 

roads is acceptable if the portion of the site within the road has already been disturbed to a 

substantial degree. Therefore, cultural sites or portions of sites within road prisms and/or 

associated constructed features are exempt from further consideration and consultation, resulting 

in an overall determination of no adverse effect for travel management. 

Actions considered new undertakings under the National Historic Preservation Act will go 

through Section 106 consultation and compliance (per Southwestern Region Programmatic 

Agreement, TM protocol, or 36 CFR 800) before they appear on the motor vehicle use map. 

These include: motorized dispersed camping corridors, areas, and route designations such as 

adding unauthorized routes to the NFS road and trail system, re-opening closed roads, and 

converting closed roads to NFS trails. If potential effects are identified, they will be addressed by 

the forest in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. Under the TM cultural 

resource protocol, the Travel Management Rule NEPA decision can be signed based on existing 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 229

cultural resource data. Additional cultural surveys may be phased up to 3 years after the decision 

has been signed.

Environmental Effects

For all alternatives, effects on cultural resources (heritage resources) have been analyzed with 

respect to four issues: motorized routes, motorized dispersed camping, motorized big game 

retrieval, and motorized areas. Because not all cultural surveys for the Travel Management Rule

have been completed, existing survey data and known sites are used in this analysis. 

Background Assumptions

● Cultural resource sites adjacent to locations having motorized access, including crosscountry travel, routes, areas, motorized big game retrieval, and motorized dispersed 

camping corridors, may be easier to access and have potential for existing and ongoing 

disturbances from recreational activities like motorized camping.

● Some data suggest that cultural sites located near routes may be more susceptible to 

looting (Spangler 2006). 

● On the Gila National Forest, most cultural sites exhibit some level of vandalism or 

looting, so the presence of this type of disturbance is not necessarily related to access 

provided by motorized routes or motorized dispersed camping.

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Roadside Parking

For all alternatives, vehicles will be able to park adjacent to roads within one vehicle length for 

dispersed camping purposes and other outdoor activities. The forest plan has always allowed this 

type of roadside parking, so there is no change from current condition. In addition, roadside 

parking is exempt from Section 106 consultation under the TM protocol, because continued 

motor vehicle use is considered acceptable where the integrity of cultural sites has already been 

disturbed and compromised (Appendix I, Stipulation II.C.; USDA Forest Service, Southwestern 

Region; New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer 2007).

While Section 106 consultation is not required for roadside parking, it was analyzed within 

motorized routes. Roadside parking has potential to cause direct and indirect effects to cultural 

resources near roads. Direct effects may include, but are not limited to, vehicular impacts. 

Vehicles may be driven over sites causing disturbance to features and artifact displacement. In 

wet weather or sensitive soils, vehicles may cause rutting, compaction, and erosion which could 

disturb cultural deposits. Indirect effects of roadside parking may include parking within walking 

distance of a site or within a site boundary, which can lead to dispersed camping in cultural sites, 

looting (opportunistic, inadvertent or purposeful), graffiti, and other site damage or destruction.

These effects may occur in all alternatives, but are correspondingly reduced as miles of 

designated roads are reduced. All action alternatives will substantially benefit the condition of 

cultural resources on the forest by greatly reducing miles of roads and roadside parking as 

compared to current conditions open to cross-country travel. Many fewer cultural resources will 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

230 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

be subject to indirect effects from roadside parking, because parking may occur only along 

designated roads.

Motorized Cross-Country Travel

Motorized cross-country travel is prohibited under all action alternatives. This means that 

vehicular off-road travel will not be permitted, except in appropriate motorized dispersed 

camping corridors, areas, or for motorized big game retrieval. Vehicles must stay in the confines 

of routes for driving, and access outside of these routes will be reduced to foot traffic or other 

authorized access (pack animals, for example).

Studies in California, Utah, and national parks demonstrate that off-road vehicle travel can result 

in direct and indirect effects to cultural resources (Long et al. 1999, Sampson 2007, and 

Schiffman 2005). These may include, but are not limited to, vehicular contact with site features, 

artifact scatters and cultural deposits, deliberate or opportunistic looting, rutting or trail creation, 

and artifact collecting. These studies cover much smaller areas than the forest, with much more 

concentrated use of off-highway vehicles, and different environmental conditions than those 

found on the forest.

On the forest, prohibiting cross-country travel under action alternatives will be highly beneficial 

to cultural resources by reducing ease of access to sites located in areas that do not have 

designated routes. The number of known sites that will no longer be accessible through blanket 

cross-country travel ranges from 3,512 to 3,862 depending on the action alternative. This will 

considerably reduce the potential for direct and indirect effects from motorized use. The potential 

risk of other indirect effects associated with recreational use of National Forest System lands may 

be reduced because access will be limited to nonmotorized traffic. Foot traffic off routes can 

result in some indirect effects like looting or camping within a cultural site (Schiffman 2005). 

However, restrictions on vehicle use are cited as one way to protect cultural resources (Spangler 

et al. 2006).

Effects from Motorized Routes

Motorized routes provide ease of access to National Forest System lands and the cultural 

resources located within them. Reduction of miles/acres of motorized routes and prohibition of 

cross-country travel are highly beneficial to cultural resources by reducing the number of cultural 

resources exposed to direct and indirect effects of motorized vehicle use.

Analysis for routes focused on the comparison to existing condition of the number of miles/acres 

proposed per alternative, and the number of cultural sites within areas of potential effect (buffers) 

for trails (10 feet either side of center line) and roads (50 feet either side of center line). These 

buffers represent land that may be disturbed by motorized use authorized under this decision, 

including roadside parking.

Analysis

The number of miles for cultural resource analysis includes Forest Service, county, State, and 

Federal highway jurisdictions. Because the number of miles and acres associated with county, 

State, and Federal highway routes remain the same throughout cultural resource analysis, the 

numbers of known sites located within them are also static. Differences in miles or acres for 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 231

cultural resources analysis reflect the differences between routes under and not under Forest 

Service jurisdiction. Routes under other jurisdictions were included in this analysis because they 

are adjacent to National Forest System lands, providing access to these lands and the cultural 

resources within them.

Alternative B

Alternative B has about 5,320 miles/63,726 acres of routes (table 144). There are 1,274 known 

sites within these routes. Types of potential direct and indirect effects are discussed below, and 

these types of effects will be the same for each alternative. 

Cultural sites found within buffered route acres and cross-country travel acres for alternative B 

may be at risk for direct effects related to vehicular contact. Vehicles may be driven over sites 

causing disturbance to features and artifact displacement. In wet weather or sensitive soils, 

vehicles may cause rutting, compaction, and erosion which could disturb cultural deposits.

Additional direct and indirect effects of motorized route designation include activities that 

recreationalists may participate in once they have reached their destination. These may include, 

but are not limited to, dispersed camping, firewood collection, hiking, etc. These kinds of 

activities may result in damage, dismantling or scavenging of historic or prehistoric sites for 

structural materials that can be used for fire rings or wood for fire; deliberate or opportunistic 

looting and artifact collecting; graffiti on historic and prehistoric features; and mixing of modern 

trash litter with historic artifacts or collection of historic trash mistaken for modern trash.

Also, use of vehicles within sites may cause vegetation to become disturbed, thereby exposing 

soils. This may cause erosion, which can displace artifacts and cultural deposits.

Table 144. Summary of miles, acres, and number of sites in motorized routes by 

alternative

Alternative

B C D E F G

Changes in route system in 

miles

0 412 515 468 501 502

Miles of existing routes 5,320 4,941 3,648 3,011 4,029 4,006

Total miles 5,320 5,353 4,163 3,478 4,530 4,508

Change in number of miles of 

NFS motorized routes 

expressed as a percent (+ or -) 

of alternative B 

+0.6% -21.7% -34.6% -14.8% -15.3%

Acres for routes 63,726 62,268 48,796 41,769 52,677 52,430

Change in number of acres of 

NFS motorized routes as 

expressed as a percent (+ or -) 

of alternative B

-2.3% -23.4% -34.5% -17.3% -17.7%

Known cultural sites 1,274 1,262 1,084 912 1,131 1,129
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

232 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Alternative

Change in number of known 

sites within NFS motorized 

routes as expressed as a 

percent (+ or -) of alternative B

-0.5% -15.0% -28.4% -11.2% -11.4%

Effects Common to Alternatives C, D, E, F, and G

Motorized route designation effects are common to all alternatives, however, the number of 

cultural sites that may be at risk will change as cross-country motorized travel is restricted and the 

number of miles/acres and sites are reduced. Beneficial effects will increase as cross-country 

travel is prohibited and route mileage/acreage is reduced. Prohibition of cross-country travel 

should reduce indirect effects to cultural sites, especially erosion and rutting. Closure of routes 

may promote natural reclamation of the routes themselves. As miles/acres of routes close, indirect 

effects like looting and camping related impacts should also reduce as sites outside the route 

system will be harder to access.

Alternative C

Changes under alternative C result in 5,353 miles or 62,268 acres of routes. This is a 0.6 percent 

increase in miles from alternative B, but a decrease of 2.3 percent in acreage. Although the 

mileage for alternative C is greater than alternative B, most of the additional miles are proposed 

new trails, which are narrower. Therefore, the available acreage for routes is less. There is a 0.5

percent decrease in the number of known sites from alternative B (table 144). Alternative C does 

not allow cross-country travel.

Possible types of direct and indirect effects seen in alternative B are the same in alternative C, but 

there is less potential of risk for such effects to a fewer number of sites given the prohibition of 

cross-country travel. Also, prohibition of cross-country travel should provide beneficial effects to 

cultural sites located outside of routes. Effects to cultural sites outside the route buffers are 

considered in sections on motorized dispersed camping, motorized big game retrieval, and areas.

Alternative D

Changes under alternative D result in 4,163 miles and 48,796 acres of routes. This is a decrease of 

23.4 percent in miles and a decrease of 23.4 percent in acres from alternative B. There is a 

decrease of 15.0 percent in the number of known sites from alternative B (table 144). Alternative 

D does not allow cross-country travel. 

Alternative D provides less access to sites than do alternatives B and C. Possible effects are the 

same, but the potential for these effects is decreased greatly from alternative B because access to 

sites is greatly reduced with the prohibition of cross-country travel. The potential for effects and 

access to sites is decreased from alternative C. 

Beneficial effects of this alternative increase from alternatives B and C because the number of 

sites outside of routes also increases. These cultural sites should not be exposed to direct 

vehicular impacts. Because the numbers of miles/acres have decreased from alternatives B and C, 

cultural sites that are located farther from the route system should also see a decrease in indirect 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 233

impacts. This should occur because access to these sites will be reduced to widely dispersed foot 

traffic and other authorized access (like equestrians and pack animals).

Alternative E 

Changes under alternative E result in 3,478 miles and 41,769 acres of motorized routes. This is a 

decrease of 34.6 percent in miles and a decrease of 34.5 percent in acres from alternative B. There 

is a decrease of 28.4 percent in the number of known sites from alternative B. Alternative E does 

not allow cross-country travel. When compared to alternative B and all other alternatives, 

changes in alternative E result in the least number of miles/acres for routes, which equates to the 

least access to cultural sites both within the route system and outside of routes (table 144).

While the types of effects remain the same as alternative B, the reduction in miles in alternative E 

should decrease the potential risk of direct and indirect effects to cultural resources. Alternative E 

should provide the most beneficial or protective effects to cultural sites. A much smaller number 

of known cultural sites (alternative E’s 912 vs. alternative B’s 1,274) will have potential to be 

affected by direct vehicular impact. Sites outside of alternative E’s routes should not be exposed 

to this type of impact through route designations. The reduction of miles/acres will reduce overall 

access to sites outside the route system, decreasing the potential for indirect impacts to cultural 

sites outside the route system.

Alternative F 

Changes under alternative F result in 4,530 miles and 52,677 acres of routes. This is a decrease of 

14.8 percent in miles and a decrease of 17.3 percent in acres from alternative B. There is a 

decrease of 11.2 percent of known sites from alternative B (table 144). Alternative F does not 

allow cross-country travel.

Alternative F greatly reduces access to sites when compared to alternative B because of the 

prohibition of cross-country travel. Alternative F provides less access to sites than alternative C, 

but an increase from alternatives E and D.

The types of effects for alternative F are the same as for alternative B and all other alternatives, 

but the potential for effects to cultural sites in alternative F should be greater than in alternatives 

E and D and less than in alternatives B and C. The beneficial effects of alternative F are higher 

than in alternatives B and C, but a decrease from alternatives E and D.

Alternative G

Changes under alternative G result in 4,508 miles and 52,430 acres of routes. This is a decrease of 

15.3 percent in miles and a decrease of 17.7 percent in acres when compared to alternative B. 

There is an 11.4 percent reduction of known sites from alternative B (table 144). Alternative G 

does not allow cross-country travel.

This alternative is very similar to alternative F in access to sites, but provides more access than 

alternatives E and D; and less access than alternatives B and C. The effects for alternative G will 

be the same as in all other alternatives, but the potential for effects should be greater than in 

alternatives E and D; comparable to alternative F; and less than in alternatives B and C. The 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

234 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

beneficial effects of alternative G are higher than in alternatives B and C, comparable to 

alternative F, but a decrease from alternatives E and D.

Motorized Dispersed Camping Corridors

Motorized dispersed camping corridors may be allowed up to 300 feet on either side of 

designated roads. These corridors are meant solely for motorized dispersed camping. This means 

driving into a camping spot, setting up camp, and using that camp as a base from which to 

recreate. This is a traditional use of places adjacent to National Forest System roads. All camping 

corridors with high cultural site density have received or will receive 100 percent survey of the 

total 600-foot corridor (300 feet on either side of the road’s centerline) (USDA Forest Service,

Southwestern Region; New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer; Appendix I 2007).

Sample surveys will take place in camping corridors with low site density. Previously recorded 

sites within the camping corridors will be revisited. Sites located within proposed camping 

corridors will be assessed for existing disturbances and continued risk potential. Individual 

camping corridors will not appear on the motor vehicle use map until Section 106 compliance and 

consultation is complete.

Alternative B

Alternative B allows motorized dispersed camping on 2.44 million acres of National Forest 

System lands managed by Gila National Forest (table 145). There are about 4,774 known cultural 

sites in this area.

Table 145. Motorized dispersed camping corridor acres available by alternative

Alternative

B C D E F G

Number of acres available 2.44 million 110,780 85,921 0 104,390 95,994

Change in number of acres

of motorized dispersed 

camping corridors expressed 

as a percent (+ or -) of 

alternative B

-95.5% -96.5% -100% -95.7% -96.1%

Number of known cultural 

sites 

4,774 806 474 0 670 546

Change in number of known 

cultural sites within 

motorized dispersed 

camping corridors expressed 

as a percent (+ or -) of 

alternative B

-83.1% -90.1% -100% -86.0% -88.6%

Cultural resources located near or within places available for recreation, like motorized dispersed 

camping, may have potential for direct and indirect effects relating to that type of recreation. In 

some cases, cultural resources within recreational locations like those for motorized dispersed 

camping have ongoing potential for disturbances related to that activity. Therefore, it is assumed 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 235

that cultural resources near or within motorized dispersed camping corridors may have a potential 

risk of new or ongoing recreational disturbances. 

A risk assessment study was conducted to determine what types of disturbances occur on sites 

within areas that allow motorized dispersed camping. This assessment’s purpose was to tally the 

number of disturbances related to camping and sources of disturbance. The total number of 

disturbances allows specialists to gauge the site’s level or degree of disturbance at the time of 

most recent field recordation. This number is also used to gauge whether or not continued 

exposure to camping or other activities may cause adverse effects to the cultural site in question. 

The risk assessment was conducted on a sample of the total 4,774 known sites. The risk 

assessment may be found in its entirety in the cultural resource specialist report (USDA Forest 

Service 2010).

The risk assessment sample included 1,019 (about 21.3 percent) of known sites in the portion of 

the forest open to motorized camping in alternative B. Each total given for analyzed sites by 

alternative is a subset of the 1,019 analyzed for alternative B (table 146). The risk assessment 

relied on a literature search of hard copy site records to determine their condition at the time of 

recording. This information was then used to determine the known effects of motorized dispersed 

camping.

Table 146. National Register of Historic Places status of sites within motorized dispersed 

camping corridors by alternative

National 

Register Status

Alternative

B C D E F G

Eligible 1,008 212 139 0 180 147

Unevaluated 3,755 594 335 0 490 399

Not eligible 277 63 42 0 60 46

Listed 11 0 0 0 0 0

Total number of 

sites

5,051 869 516 0 730 592

Total number of 

sites in corridors 

4,774 806 474 0 670 546

Total number of 

sites analyzed for 

risk

1,019

(21.3% of all known 

sites)

716

(88.9%)

417

(88.0%)

N/A 592

(88.4%)

482

(88.3%)

Key: ( ) indicates percentage of sites within corridors that were analyzed through the literature search.

There are limitations to this analysis method that may affect results. The risk assessment relied on 

a literature search based on information collected over a period of more than 30 years for timber 

sale, range improvement, road maintenance, and other projects where recording the effects of 

motorized dispersed camping may not have been paramount. Limitations include the fact that 

sites may not have been visited in several years, site reports may not contain information specific 

to this analysis, and site conditions may have changed. Heritage specialists recorded whether site 

documentation was adequate for each site based on the completeness of site records. To be 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

236 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

considered complete, the documentation should have included a full description of the site, site 

condition, and site maps. Sometimes the year of recordation was considered in this equation. A 

site that had not been visited in 20 to 30 years may have been adequately documented at the time, 

but the lack of more current information warranted the determination that the documentation was 

inadequate.

Adequate site documentation was reported for about 51.7 to 54.6 percent of the sites within 

alternatives C, D, F, and G. About 46.1 percent were reported adequate for alternative B (table 

147).

Table 147. Adequacy of site documentation by alternative for hard copy literature search 

of site records

Adequate Site 

Documentation

Alternative

B C D E F G

Yes 470 

(46.1%)

370

(51.7%)

226

(54.2%) N/A 307

(51.9%)

263

(54.6%)

No 549

(53.9%)

346

(48.3%)

191

(45.8%) N/A 285

(48.1%)

219

(45.4%)

Total 1,019 716 417 N/A 592 482

Cultural sites in which motorized dispersed camping occurs could be directly affected through 

vehicular contact. Vehicles may be driven over sites causing disturbance to features and artifact 

displacement. In wet weather or sensitive soils, vehicles may cause rutting and erosion that could 

disturb cultural deposits.

Additional direct and indirect effects of motorized dispersed camping surround camping activities 

that include, but may not be limited to: dismantling or scavenging of historic or prehistoric sites 

for structural materials that can be used for fire rings or wood for fire; deliberate or opportunistic 

looting and artifact collecting; graffiti on historic and prehistoric features; and mixing of modern 

trash litter with historic artifacts or collection of historic trash mistaken for modern trash.

Also, use of vehicles within sites may cause vegetation to become disturbed in some areas,

exposing soils. This may cause erosion which may displace artifacts and cause impacts to cultural 

deposits. 

Motorized dispersed camping effects are common to all alternatives. However, the number of 

sites impacted by these effects will change as the number of acres and sites per alternative also 

change. The risk assessment is used to show these trends. The result of this risk assessment study 

for alternative B shows that of the 1,019 sites, 104 show impacts attributable to camping, while 

919 have no impacts (table 148). 

Beneficial effects will increase as acres available for motorized dispersed camping are reduced 

and motorized dispersed camping corridors are designated. Reducing motorized dispersed 

camping to specific corridors will help reduce the potential of direct and indirect effects and 

access to cultural sites. Sites located outside motorized dispersed camping corridors should 

benefit from this action because vehicles will not be allowed to drive outside the corridor except 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 237

for motorized big game retrieval or with special forest authorization. This should reduce any 

potential direct and indirect effects from motor vehicle use on those sites.

Table 148. Sites with motorized dispersed camping impacts per alternative 

Sites with Motorized Dispersed 

Camping Impacts Only

Alternative

B C D E F G

No impact 915 634 363 N/A 527 421

Low, moderate, or severe impacts 104 82 54 N/A 65 61

Total Sites 1,019 716 417 N/A 592 482

Alternative C 

Changes under alternative C result in about 110,780 acres being available for motorized dispersed 

camping corridors, a reduction of 95.5 percent in acres from alternative B (table 145). This is a 

reduction of 83.1 percent from the number of known sites within alternative B. Alternative C 

limits vehicular access to sites within motorized dispersed camping corridors. The number of 

cultural resources having potential for direct and indirect effects related to motorized dispersed 

camping is reduced from 4,774 to 806 known sites, when comparing alternative B to C. 

The types of direct and indirect effects seen in alternative B will remain the same in alternative C. 

However, with the reduction in acres available for motorized dispersed camping, there is less 

potential risk for such effects. 

Common to alternatives C, D, E, F, and G is a potential for more concentrated motorized use 

within motorized dispersed camping corridors. This could increase the potential risk of direct and 

indirect effects to sites within the corridors. 

Common to alternatives C, D, E, F, and G, sites outside of motorized dispersed camping corridors 

may see a reduction in potential for direct and indirect effects of motorized dispersed camping, as 

driving will be restricted to the corridors. Cultural sites will benefit from this action because

vehicular impacts should not occur outside of the camping corridors, except in cases of roadside 

parking, areas, and motorized big game retrieval. This may reduce potential risk for direct and 

some indirect effects of motorized dispersed camping to those areas. Access to sites outside these 

corridors should be limited as walking or pack animals will be the only mode of transportation. 

Controlled vehicular access to sites has been shown to protect cultural resources (Spangler et al. 

2006).

The number of sites reported as having low, moderate, or severe motorized dispersed camping

impacts in alternative C is 82 (table 148). This is a slight reduction from alternative B. The types 

of impacts to sites in alternative C are the same as in alternative B, but the risk analysis does 

show a general trend in reduction of number of sites with these types of impacts. 

Alternative D

Changes under alternative D result in 85,921 acres of motorized dispersed camping corridors, a 

reduction of 96.5 percent of the acres in alternative B (table 145). This is a reduction of 90.1

percent from the number of known sites within alternative B. Both are a great reduction from 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

238 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

alternative B and a moderate reduction from alternative C. The number of cultural resources that 

have the potential of direct effects related to vehicles and indirect effects related to camping is 

greatly reduced from alternative B and moderately reduced from alternative C. Alternative D 

further reduces access to sites within and outside corridors, which will benefit cultural resources. 

The types of direct and indirect effects seen in alternatives B and C will remain the same in 

alternative D. However, with the reduction in acres available for motorized dispersed camping

and number of known sites, there is less potential risk for such effects.

The risk assessment indicates that about 54 sites in alternative D show low, moderate, or severe 

motorized dispersed camping impacts (table 148). This is a great reduction from both alternatives 

B and C.

Alternative E

Changes in alternative E result in no motorized dispersed camping corridors (table 145). This 

would be a 100 percent reduction in acres and known sites from alternative B. This alternative 

provides the least access to sites of all alternatives. Dispersed camping may still occur because of 

roadside parking, but no driving should occur elsewhere. Potential effects related to camping 

would still occur in alternative E. However, because there are no associated motorized dispersed 

camping corridors, this risk should be greatly reduced from all other alternatives, especially 

alternative B. 

Alternative E should provide the most beneficial effects to cultural resources. Direct and indirect 

effects from vehicular access to sites should not occur outside of roadside parking.

Alternative F 

Changes in alternative F result in about 104,390 acres for motorized dispersed camping corridors,

a 95.7 percent reduction in acres from alternative B (table 145). This is a reduction of 86 percent 

from the number of known sites in alternative B. This alternative reduces acres to motorized 

dispersed camping and, therefore, access to sites when compared with alternatives B and C, but 

increases acres and access when compared to alternatives D and E. Alternative F provides some 

beneficial effects, given the reduction in number of sites that could potentially be at risk for direct 

and indirect effects, but these beneficial effects are not as great as in alternatives D and E. 

The types of direct and indirect effects will remain the same in alternative F as in alternative B. 

With the reduction of access from alternatives B and C, there is less potential risk for such effects.

With the increase of access from alternatives D and E, there is more potential risk for these types 

of effects. 

The risk analysis reports that about 65 sites had low, moderate, or severe motorized dispersed 

camping impacts (table 148). This is a great decrease from alternative B, and a moderate increase 

from alternatives C and D.

Alternative G

Changes to alternative G result in about 95,994 acres for motorized dispersed camping corridors, 

a 96.1 percent reduction from alternative B (table 145). This is a reduction of 88.6 percent from 

the number of known cultural sites in alternative B. This alternative reduces access to sites when 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 239

compared to alternatives B, C, and F, slightly increases access from alternative D, and greatly 

increases access from alternative E. Alternative G provides some beneficial effects, given the 

reduction in the number of sites that could potentially be at risk for direct and indirect effects, but 

these beneficial effects are not as great as in alternatives D and E.

The types of direct and indirect effects will remain the same in alternative G as in alternative B. 

With the reduction of access from alternatives B, C, and F, there is less potential risk for such 

effects. With the increase of access from alternatives D and E, there is more potential risk for 

these types of effects.

The risk assessment analysis shows that 61 sites from those analyzed for alternative G have 

reported low, moderate, or severe motorized dispersed camping impacts (table 148). This is 

comparable to alternative F, a decrease from alternatives B and C, and an increase from 

alternative D.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval

Motorized big game retrieval allows hunters to retrieve downed animals through cross-country 

travel. Hunters cannot hunt from their vehicles, so they are limited to using the vehicle for 

retrieval. Because this action is limited, seasonal, and occurs over a vast area, the probability of 

any one site being driven over by any one hunter is minimal, even in alternative B. Therefore, this 

action poses only a slight potential of risk to cultural resources. 

However, this action provides ease of access to National Forest System lands and cultural 

resources located within them. Each alternative has a proposed distance for motorized big game 

retrieval. The reduction of acres for this activity through alternatives will directly relate to the 

reduction of cultural resources that have potential risk for direct and indirect effects associated 

with this action. Analysis for motorized big game retrieval focused on the number of acres 

proposed per alternative and the number of cultural sites within that area. It also focused on the 

number of potential acres of disturbance from this action for each alternative. This information is 

outlined at the beginning of chapter 3 in the “Assumptions and Limitations Common to All 

Resources” section.

Alternative B 

Alternative B allows unlimited motorized access for game retrieval on 2.44 million acres 

containing 4,774 known sites (table 149). Disturbance acreage per year was not determined for 

alternative B. However, general information can lead to an estimate when compared to alternative 

C. For alternative B, game retrieval is not limited by any species or distance from a road. In the 

current condition, there are no guidelines on how to use the retrieval vehicle. A hunter is allowed 

to meander through the forest to get to the downed animal. This is not the case in alternative C 

where species and distance from the road are limited. Also, alternative C provides guidance on 

how a hunter should use their retrieval vehicle. This provides some indication that disturbance 

acreage should be slightly larger than that seen in alternative C.

These conditions also provide some indication of the types of potential risk to cultural resources 

within areas that allow motorized big game retrieval. Vehicles may be driven over sites causing 

disturbance to features and artifact displacement. In wet weather or sensitive soils, vehicles may 

cause rutting, compaction, and erosion which could disturb cultural deposits. The nature of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

240 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

motorized big game retrieval should not bring about continued use of a vehicle in one place, 

however, there is a potential for the disturbance of vegetation within a site. This may cause 

erosion which may displace artifacts and cause impacts to cultural deposits. Motorized big game 

retrieval does provide access to remote places on the forest. This access could potentially result in 

deliberate or opportunistic looting and artifact collecting. 

If an animal is killed near or on a site, hunters could potentially displace artifacts, features, or 

cultural sediments while dragging or dressing the animal. Dressing the animal within a cultural 

site may attract other animals to the site, causing bioturbation.

Table 149. Comparison of acreage available for motorized big game retrieval, disturbance, 

and known sites by alternative

Alternative

B C D E F G

Acreage available for 

motorized big game retrieval

2.44 

million

2.08 

million

85,921 0 1.50 

million

95,994

Change in number of acres of 

motorized big game retrieval

expressed as a percent (+ or -) 

of alternative B

-14.8% -96.5% -100% -38.5% -96.1%

Possible disturbance acreage 

per year

4,852.5 220 0 953.3 220

Known sites within motorized 

big game retrieval areas

4,774 4,607 474 0 4,180 546

Change in number of known 

sites within motorized big 

game retrieval areas

expressed as a percent (+ or -) 

of alternative B

-3.5% -90.1% -100% -12.4% -88.6%

Alternative C (One Mile from Roads, Elk, 

Deer, Bear, Mountain Lion, Javelina, and Antelope)

Changes in alternative C limit motorized retrieval to six species within 1 mile of open roads. 

About 2.08 million acres are available for motorized big game retrieval, a reduction of 14.8

percent of National Forest System lands available for this action, and a reduction of 3.5 percent of 

known sites when compared to alternative B. Possible total disturbance acreage per year is about 

4,852.5 acres (table 149). 

Possible types of effects to cultural resources in alternative C are the same as seen in alternative 

B. Alternative C does limit some access to sites, but the numbers show only a small reduction in 

potential risk when compared to alternative B.

Alternative D (300 Feet from Open Roads, Deer and Elk)

Changes to alternative D result in motorized big game retrieval in areas within motorized 

dispersed camping corridors. This includes about 85,921 acres. This is a reduction of 96.5 percent
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 241

of National Forest System lands available for this action, and a reduction of 90.1 percent of 

known sites when compared to alternative B. Because harvest is limited to deer and elk, the 

possible acreage disturbance is 220 acres per year (table 149). 

The types of effects that are seen in alternative B would be the same as in this alternative. 

Alternative D limits access to sites and greatly reduces the number of sites that have a potential 

for effects when compared to alternatives B and C. 

In alternative D, motorized big game retrieval will only be allowed in motorized dispersed 

camping corridors, which will go or have gone through Section 106 consultation and compliance. 

Some of the motorized dispersed camping corridors will be sampled while others have 100

percent cultural resource inventory. Cultural sites located in motorized big game retrieval and 

motorized dispersed camping corridors in this alternative would be avoided by effects associated 

with these activities.

Alternative E (No Motorized Big Game Retrieval)

Alternative E does not permit motorized big game retrieval (table 149). This alternative poses no 

potential risk to cultural resources, and is a complete reduction in potential effect from alternative 

B and all other alternatives. 

Alternative F (One-half Mile from Open Roads, Elk Only)

Changes in alternative F result in motorized retrieval of elk only from within one-half mile of 

open roads. Alternative F reduces motorized big game retrieval to 1.5 million acres. This is a 

reduction of 38.5 percent of National Forest System lands available for motorized big game 

retrieval, and a reduction of 12.4 percent of known sites when compared to alternative B. Because 

retrieval is reduced to elk, the possible disturbance acreage per year is 953.3 acres (table 149).

The types of effects that are seen in alternative B would be the same in this alternative. 

Alternative F limits some access to sites when compared to alternatives B and C, but when 

compared to alternatives E and D, provides access to a larger number of sites. This alternative 

should reduce the potential risk of effects when compared to alternatives B and C, but increase 

the potential risk of effects when compared to alternatives E and D.

Alternative G (300 Feet on Roads where 

Motorized Dispersed Camping is Allowed, Deer and Elk)

Changes in alternative G result in motorized big game retrieval within 95,994 acres of land. This 

is a 96.1 percent reduction of Gila National Forest lands available and an 88.6 percent reduction 

of known sites when compared to alternative B. Possible disturbance acreage at this distance is 

about 220 acres per year (table 149). 

The types of effects seen in alternative B would be the same for this alternative. Alternative G 

limits much more access to sites than do alternatives B, C, and F. Access to sites between 

alternatives G and D are comparable, but alternative G allows access to a few more cultural sites. 

When compared to alternative E, alternative G provides access to many more sites. This should 

reduce the potential risk of effects when compared to alternatives B and C, but increase the 

potential risk of effects when compared to alternatives D and E.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

242 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

In alternative G, motorized big game retrieval will only be allowed in motorized dispersed 

camping corridors, which will go through Section 106 consultation and compliance. Some of the 

motorized dispersed camping corridors will be sampled, while others will go through a 100

percent inventory. This will help identify cultural sites and allow effects to be mitigated through 

avoidance. This may mean dropping motorized dispersed camping corridors, which will also 

mean motorized big game retrieval activities will not be allowed to take place in that area. This 

may benefit cultural sites within some motorized big game retrieval areas, because they will be 

avoided.

Areas

Thirty-nine areas have been proposed for alternatives C, F, and G. These areas allow any 

motorized vehicle activity within them, but 38 of the 39 have traditionally been used as camping 

areas and this is the expected ongoing use. The remaining area is an area open to motorcycles and 

ATV use located on the Reserve Ranger District. The area is located within a borrow pit near an 

old landfill. Analysis for areas focused on the number of acres per alternative and the number of 

sites within that area. Also, sites within the traditional camping areas were analyzed similarly to 

those within motorized dispersed camping corridors, and the potential effects to cultural resources 

are the same as those seen in motorized dispersed camping.

Alternative B

There are no designated areas in alternative B. However, cross-country travel and motorized

dispersed camping are allowed in alternative B, and these activities are similar in scope to areas.

There are 2.44 million acres and 4,774 known sites within the areas that allow cross-country 

travel and motorized dispersed camping in alternative B. Effects of these actions are similar in 

scope. Effects include, but are not limited to, vehicular contact. Vehicles may be driven over sites,

causing disturbance to features and artifact displacement. In wet weather or sensitive soils, 

vehicles may cause rutting and erosion that could disturb cultural deposits.

Additional direct and indirect effects of motorized dispersed camping in areas include, but may 

not be limited to: dismantling or scavenging historic or prehistoric sites for structural materials 

that can be used for fire rings or wood for fire; deliberate or opportunistic looting and artifact 

collecting; graffiti on historic and/or prehistoric features; and mixing of modern trash litter with 

historic artifacts or collection of historic trash mistaken for modern trash.

Alternatives C, F, and G

Changes incorporated in alternatives C, F, and G result in 38 areas traditionally used for camping. 

These areas comprise a total of 28.02 acres; the majority of them are less than 1 acre in size. Only 

three cultural sites are known to be within these areas, each in a different area. Changes 

represented in alternatives C, F, and G result in a great reduction in number of acres and sites 

from alternative B for similar activities.

The three known sites within these areas were assessed and only one site reportedly had camping 

impacts. The types of effects of camping in areas are the same as seen in motorized dispersed 

camping. However, sites within areas may be completely avoided by changing the shape or 

eliminating the area. This reduces the potential for direct and indirect effects for alternatives C, F, 

and G.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 243

The 3.31-acre area for ATV and motorcycle use has been surveyed and does not have any cultural 

resources. There will be no potential for damage to cultural resources in this area or surrounding 

Gila National Forest System lands due to motorized activities being limited to a specific location.

Alternatives D and E

Alternatives D and E do not permit areas. These alternatives pose no potential risk to affect 

cultural resources, and are a complete reduction in potential effect compared to alternatives B, C, 

F, and G. 

Conclusions on Direct and Indirect

Travel Management Effects to Cultural Resources

Alternative B provides maximum access to the most number of cultural sites because it permits 

motorized cross-country travel. All other alternatives prohibit motorized cross-country travel 

(except for motorized big game retrieval and administrative use or written authorization), which 

limits access to sites in less roaded areas and decreases the potential for direct and indirect effects 

to cultural resources when compared to alternative B. 

Changes presented in alternative C result in the most mileage/acreage for routes, the greatest 

acreage for motorized dispersed camping corridors, the greatest distance for motorized big game 

retrieval, and the presence of areas. Outside of alternative B, alternative C provides the most 

potential for relative risk of direct and indirect effects to cultural resources because it allows more 

access to more cultural sites than alternatives D, E, F, and G. 

Changes presented in alternative D result in the second least potential for direct and indirect 

effects to cultural resources. Alternative D has fewer route miles and acres, less acreage for 

motorized dispersed camping corridors and motorized big game retrieval than do alternatives B, 

C, F, and G. Alternative D does not have any areas, unlike alternatives C, F, and G. This means 

alternative D provides less access to a lower number of sites, lowering the potential for effects to 

cultural resources. 

Changes presented in alternative E result in the least potential for direct and indirect effects to 

cultural resources of all alternatives. Alternative E has the lowest number of miles/acres for 

routes, no motorized dispersed camping corridors, no motorized big game retrieval, and no areas.

This provides the least access to the fewest number of sites. 

Changes presented in alternative F result in less potential risk for direct and indirect effects to 

cultural resources than do alternatives B and C, but a higher potential for risk than alternatives D, 

E, and G. Alternative F has less mileage and acreage for routes than alternatives B and C,

comparable to alternative G, and more than alternatives D and E. Alternative F has less motorized 

dispersed camping corridors than alternatives B and C, and more than alternatives D, E, and G. 

Alternative F has less motorized big game retrieval acreage than alternatives B and C, and more 

than alternatives D, E, and G. Alternative F proposes the same acreage of areas as do alternatives 

C and G. Alternative F provides less access to fewer sites than do alternatives B and C, but more 

access to more sites than do alternatives D, E, and G. 

Changes presented in alternative G result in less potential risk for direct and indirect effects to 

cultural resources than do alternatives B, C, and F, but a higher potential for risk than alternatives 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

244 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

D and E. Alternative G has less mileage and acreage for routes than alternatives B and C, is

comparable to alternative F, and has more than alternatives D and E. Alternative G has less 

motorized dispersed camping corridors than alternatives B, C, and F, is comparable to alternative 

D, and has more than alternative E. Alternative G has less motorized big game retrieval acreage 

than alternatives B and C, is comparable to alternative D, and has more than alternative E. 

Alternative G has the same acreage of areas as do alternatives C and F. Alternative G provides 

less access to fewer sites than do alternatives B, C, and F, but more access to more sites than do 

alternatives D and E.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to cultural resources relate to potential effects to National Register eligible or 

unevaluated properties resulting from impacts of actions in the past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future from ground-disturbing activities. Since the passage of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, cultural resource surveys have been conducted and effects addressed through 

consultation between the Gila National Forest and the State Historic Preservation Officer. Future 

projects occurring on forest lands will require appropriate compliance with the National Historic 

Preservation Act, including cultural resources inventories. If potential effects are identified, they 

will be addressed by the forest in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer under 

the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Past Projects 

A list of about 3,830 past projects dating from 1980 to April 2010 was generated from various 

Forest Service databases. This list of projects represents an overview of the magnitude of past 

archaeological work on the Gila National Forest. Most of these projects can be divided into a 

number of project types including: heritage/archaeology; construction and maintenance; fire; 

land/survey; mining; range; roads; soil/watershed; timber; utilities; and wildlife. Table 150 lists 

these project types along with some examples of some of the projects seen on the forest.

Table 150. Types of projects that have occurred on the forest with National Historic 

Preservation Act compliance since 1980

Project Type Project Examples

Heritage or 

archaeology

Section 110; inventory; deferred maintenance; NAGPRA; ARPA investigations; 

interpretation; data recovery; Passport in Time; education outreach; field schools; FOIA 

searches; damage assessments; special use permits

Fire Prescribed burns; fire lines; heliport; landing strip; training area; handlines

Construction and 

maintenance

Administrative site improvement; demolition of buildings; parking lots; landfill extension

Lands or survey Acquisition; exchanges; FS property fence lines

Mining Exploration; closures/waste removal

Range Allotments; fences; cattle guards; corrals; traps; water/drink tanks

Recreation Trail building/maintenance; campground improvements; toilet installations; signing

Roads Opening; closing; bridges; culverts; easements; quarries; erosion controls; temporary road 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 245

Table 150. Types of projects that have occurred on the forest with National Historic 

Preservation Act compliance since 1980

Project Type Project Examples

closures and openings; plating; ROW work

Soil or watershed Soil terrestrial ecosystem survey; watershed improvements; water gap fences; channel 

alignments; ground water monitoring; well drill pads; spring/seep development

Timber Tree planting; reforestation; thinning; timber/salvage sales; vegetation control; Christmas 

trees

Wildlife Wildlife studies/improvements; fish structures; enclosures

Utilities Pipelines; phone lines; fiber optic cable lines

The National Historic Preservation Act became law in 1966, and was not fully implemented until 

the mid-1970s. Ground-disturbing projects since this time have gone through Section 106 

consultation and compliance. Potential effects to cultural resources were addressed through this 

process, thereby eliminating or reducing the likelihood of any cumulative effects.

The forest did not have to conduct cultural resource compliance on projects before this time. 

Therefore, activities taking place on the forest before this time and even before the forest was 

established in 1905, could have impacted cultural resources, or could now be considered historic 

resources themselves (roads, mines, sawmills, forts, homesteads, etc.). 

Before implementation of Section 106, motorized routes were created without consideration of 

cultural resources. This resulted in motorized routes intersecting sites. In some cases, cultural 

features and artifacts are within the route prism and may have been damaged by vehicular contact 

or route maintenance. Today, about 1,274 known sites are intersected by motorized routes and/or 

associated constructed features. An unknown percentage of these sites may also be at risk for 

erosion related to this previous construction in combination with environmental factors. As stated 

above, these existing routes and their associated constructed features are exempt from Section 

106 compliance and consultation through the TM protocol (USDA Forest Service, Southwestern 

Region; New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer; Appendix I 2007). 

Grazing has been practiced on the forest for more than 100 years. This activity has the potential to 

cause cumulative effects on cultural sites, including erosion. When an area is overgrazed, there is 

not enough vegetation to prevent wind and water erosion. This may cause erosion of cultural 

deposits and displacement of artifacts. However, current management practices on grazing 

allotments minimize overgrazing and effects to known sites. All range improvements (fences, 

pipelines, drinkers, etc.) and range allotments or allotment management plans receive separate 

and individual Section 106 compliance unrelated to travel management.

Cross-country travel and motorized dispersed camping have been authorized through the forest 

plan for decades. These actions have the potential to cause direct and indirect effects that, over 

time, could be considered cumulative for some cultural resources on the forest.

The risk assessment completed for motorized dispersed camping provides information on 1,019 

cultural sites (about 21.3 percent of all known eligible and unevaluated sites) that relates to 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

246 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

cumulative effects. Several categories of the assessment (motorized dispersed camping 

disturbances, route-site intersections, and FS authorized) have been quantified (table 151). These 

disturbances are related to Forest Service projects or policies.

Cultural sites with motorized dispersed camping disturbances range from 104 in alternative B to 

54 in alternative D; cultural sites that are intersected by a route range from 268 in alternative B to 

140 in alternative D; and with authorized disturbances, range from 391 in alternative B to 184 in 

alternative D. 

This indicates that past activities have impacted some cultural resources across the forest, 

confirming potential risk of cumulative effects from past activities. As explained above, such 

cumulative effects may have already occurred before Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act was fully implemented on the forest in the mid-1970s.

Table 151. Number of sites per alternative that have at least one point in each of the impact 

categories 

Types of 

Impacts

Alternative

B

(1,019 sites)

C

(716 sites)

D

(417 sites)

E

(0 sites)

F

(592 sites)

G

(482 sites)

Motorized 

dispersed 

camping 

disturbance

104 82 54 N/A 65 61

Route-site 

intersections 268 217 140 N/A 184 160

FS authorized 391 294 184 N/A 243 202

The number of sites in each alternative is a subsample of the sites in alternative B. If the site is in one of the other 

alternatives, it is also in alternative B.

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects

A list of 119 present and foreseeable projects is provided in the cultural resources report (USDA 

Forest Service 2010i). These projects will go (or have gone) through Section 106 consultation and 

compliance using the Southwestern Region Heritage PA before the project is (or was) 

implemented. Effects to cultural resources will be addressed via the PA or Section 106 process, 

with the intent of avoiding or minimizing effects, resulting in determinations of “no effect” or 

“effects not likely to be adverse.” Therefore, cumulative effects should be reduced and likely not 

be adverse when added to effects of travel management designation, which also goes through the 

Section 106 process. Effects accumulated from past projects implemented prior to the 

requirements of National Historic Preservation Act should not be exacerbated by effects of the 

travel management project, so these cumulative effects are also not likely to be adverse. 

For travel management alternatives C, D, E, F, and G, cultural sites within existing road and trail 

prisms and/or associated features are exempt from Section 106 compliance and consultation, and 

will not be considered in the overall determination of effect for travel management. However, 

actions considered new undertakings under the National Historic Preservation Act will go through 

consultation and compliance as appropriate, before they appear on the motor vehicle use map.

These include: motorized dispersed camping corridors, areas, route designations like adding 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 247

unauthorized routes to the NFS road and trails system, re-opening closed roads, and converting 

closed roads to NFS trails. If potential effects to cultural resources are identified, they will also be 

addressed using available National Historic Preservation Act compliance processes to avoid or 

minimize effects. Therefore, any cumulative effects resulting from travel management 

alternatives C, D, E, F, and G will be reduced and likely not adverse. 

In summary, when the cumulative effects of travel management are added to effects of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, there should not be an increase in effects to cultural 

resources across the forest, and these effects should not be adverse.

Social and Economic

The study area for the social and economic analysis includes Catron, Grant, Hidalgo, and Sierra 

Counties in New Mexico. These four counties contain the vast majority of Gila National Forest 

lands. Catron County contains the largest share of the forest, with more than 2 million acres (62

percent of the 4-county total). The next highest forest acreage is in Grant County, with 27 percent

of the total. Sierra County contains 11 percent, while Hidalgo County is home to just 0.6 percent

of the forest.

Methodology and Assumptions

Assumptions

1. The economic impacts are analyzed using miles of road as a proxy for estimated 

employment and income by alternative. The relationship between miles of road and 

economic impacts is not known. For this analysis, it is assumed that the relationship is 

linear (i.e., that the economic impacts will change at a constant rate per mile of road).

2. The analysis assumes that counties with more Gila National Forest land are more 

dependent on the forest’s resources. Therefore, it is assumed that social and economic 

effects would be more significant in counties with higher percentages of the Gila National 

Forest within their boundaries. In this analysis, Catron and Grant Counties contain the 

bulk (89 percent) of the forest. Nevertheless, potential impacts are analyzed for all four 

counties.

3. The “Lifestyles, Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes,” section is primarily informed by public 

comments. Public comments are not a random sample of the public’s opinion of potential 

Forest Service management actions. It is plausible that people who choose to comment 

are systematically different than those who do not, which suggests that public comments 

will not be representative of the population at large. Therefore, while the analysis aims to 

be inclusive, it is inevitable that not all unique perspectives will be captured.

Data Sources

The U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Headwaters Economics, U.S. Census of 

Agriculture, National Visitor Use Monitoring Study, and Recreation Economic Contribution 

Analysis provide most of the data for the social and economic analysis. These data sources are 

used to inform existing conditions, trends, and anticipated impacts from the alternatives.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

248 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Affected Environment

The Gila National Forest is located in southwestern New Mexico. The forest lies within portions 

of Catron, Grant, Hidalgo, and Sierra Counties. All counties in the 4-county assessment are rural.

The largest incorporated areas within the assessment area are Silver City (10,330) in Grant 

County, Truth or Consequences (7,111) in Sierra County, Lordsburg (2,882) in Hidalgo County, 

and Bayard (2,401) and Hurley (1,411), both in Grant County. The one incorporated area in 

Catron County is Reserve, with a population of only 388 (U.S. Census Bureau 2009).

Population and Demographics

All four counties in the study area are sparsely populated. However, Grant County is by far the 

largest—it has more than double the population of the second largest county in the planning area 

(Sierra), and Grant County is nearly 10 times more populous than the least populated county 

(Catron). Table 152 provides a breakdown of population changes in the study area as well as the 

State and Nation.

Table 152. Population data for study area, New Mexico, and the United States

Area 1980 Census 1990 Census 2000 Census 2009 Estimate

Change 

from 2000 

to 2009

Catron County 2,720 2,563 3,543 3,405 - 4.1%

Grant County 26,204 27,676 31,002 29,903 - 3.7%

Hidalgo County 6,049 5,958 5,932 5,057 - 17.3%

Sierra County 8,454 9,912 13,270 12,886 - 3.0%

Total Gila NF 

Counties

43,427 46,109 53,747 51,251 -4.6%

New Mexico 1,303,303 1,515,069 1,819,041 2,009,671 10.5%

United States 281,424,602 307,006,550 9.1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2009

Nearly all of the planning area counties experienced positive population growth rates between 

1980 and 2000. However, between 2000 and 2009, all four counties lost population. Decreasing 

populations may be due to aging populations (deaths exceed births) and out-migration. In recent 

years, layoffs in the mining sector decreased available economic opportunities in the area, which 

may have spurred out-migration. However, positive population growth rates are expected to 

return as a result of the anticipated influx of amenity retirees (Council of Governments 2010).

The median age of a population is relevant for social and economic analysis of travel 

management planning. Older populations are likely to have different needs and preferences 

related to forest use than younger populations. Table 153 lists the median age for planning area 

counties, the State, and the nation in 2000. The table also provides a comparison with the 1990 

median age to identify trends.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 249

The populations in Catron and Sierra Counties are substantially older than the other planning area 

counties, the State, and the nation. Sierra County has the highest median age of any of the 

considered areas. However, Catron County experienced the most striking change between 1990 

and 2000—the median age in the county increased by 27 percent during the decade. Grant and 

Hidalgo Counties, in contrast, have age structures similar to the State and the Nation. Issues 

concerning elderly and aging populations, particularly related to access to forest resources, are 

likely to be most pronounced in Catron and Sierra Counties. 

Table 153. Median age trends, 1990–2000

Area 1990 Census 2000 Census Percent

Change

Catron County 37.7 47.8 27%

Grant County 33.2 38.8 17%

Hidalgo County 30.7 34.8 13%

Sierra County 51.1 48.9 -4%

New Mexico 31.2 34.6 11%

United States 32.9 35.3 7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000

The racial and ethnic composition of the study area offers context for the social analysis. Table 

154 compares the racial and ethnic breakdown of the counties in 1990 and 2000. The majority of 

residents self-identify as white, however, all planning area counties became more racially diverse 

between 1990 and 2000. Whereas in 1990, the planning area was 93 percent white; by 2000, it 

was only 80 percent white. This difference is due to an increase in the number of people who 

identify their race as “other.” Although racial identification is similar across the planning area, the 

ethnic composition of the counties is more variable. In both Grant and Hidalgo Counties, 

approximately half of the residents are Hispanic.

Table 154. Racial and ethnic breakdown of study area and New Mexico

Area

Ethnicity Race

Total NonHispanic Hispanic White African 

American

American 

Indian

Asian 

Pacific 

Islander

Other

Year 1990

Catron County 72% 28% 98% 0% 1% 0% 1% 100%

Grant County 49% 51% 93% 0% 1% 0% 5% 100%

Hidalgo County 50% 50% 92% 0% 0% 1% 7% 100%

Sierra County 76% 24% 93% 0% 1% 0% 5% 100%

Total Gila 

Counties

56% 44% 93% 0% 1% 0% 5% 100%

New Mexico 62% 38% 76% 2% 9% 1% 13% 100%

Year 2000

Catron County 81% 19% 88% 0% 2% 1% 9% 100%
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

250 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Grant County 51% 49% 76% 1% 1% 0% 22% 100%

Hidalgo County 44% 56% 84% 0% 1% 0% 15% 100%

Sierra County 74% 26% 87% 0% 1% 0% 11% 100%

Total Gila 

Counties

58% 42% 80% 0% 1% 0% 18% 100

%

New Mexico 58% 42% 67% 2% 10% 1% 21% 100%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census, 1990 and 2000. Calculations were prepared by University of New 

Mexico, Bureau of Business and Economic Research. Note: Ethnicity can be of any race. The “Other” group includes 

two or more races.

The racial and ethnic composition of the four counties is roughly equivalent to State averages.

The ethnic breakdown of the planning area precisely mirrored the State in 2000. The key 

difference between the planning area and the State is the American Indian population. The State 

has a much higher percentage of American Indians than the planning area, where they only make 

up 1 percent of the 4-county population.

Lifestyles, Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes

Most public comments express values related to forest resources and management. However, the 

identified values vary considerably among the public. Some members of the public believe that 

unhampered motorized access improves public use and enjoyment of the forest. On the other 

hand, some comments express frustration with motorized use on the forest. These comments 

often identify resource conservation and the preservation of solitude as forest values that 

motorized use diminishes. In the context of travel management planning, these two value groups 

are the main source of conflict. However, within these overarching groups, a number of beliefs 

and attitudes about how the Forest Service should manage forest resources are present. Group 

definition is not rigid—many forest users value elements of both motorized and nonmotorized 

uses. In addition, substantial diversity among specific beliefs and attitudes exist within each 

group. The preceding description is meant to clarify primary uses and values attached to the 

forest, not to provide a definitive explanation of the public’s lifestyles, values, beliefs, and 

attitudes.

Within the group that primarily values uninhibited motorized access, some members believe that 

motorized access to public lands is a right, regardless of whether they choose to exercise it. They 

are likely to have a negative attitude toward regulations that constrain their behavior. This group 

also contains people who engage in activities on the forest that require or benefit from motorized 

access. Firewood and piñon nut gathering, access for the elderly and disabled, motorized big 

game retrieval, and dispersed motorized camping are the primary forest uses that rely on 

motorized access.

A more detailed discussion of recreation opportunities, values and beliefs can be found in the 

“Recreation Effects” section.

Firewood gathering on the forest is particularly tied to livelihoods in some of the surrounding 

communities. Wood for fires continues to be widely used either aesthetically or as the primary 

heat source within homes. Approximately 48 percent of the housing units in Catron County rely 

on wood as the primary heating fuel. In Grant, Hidalgo, and Sierra Counties, approximately 5 to 

12 percent of the housing units use wood for heat (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The use of wood 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 251

for heating homes may be tied to long-term customs, traditions, and culture of the community.

Much of the firewood gathering on the forest relies on motorized access for transport.

Members of the public who oppose unregulated motorized use are likely to believe that the forest 

has intrinsic value, particularly tied to wilderness, that motorized uses disrupt and compromise.

Wildlife habitat and pristine areas are generally more important than access to this group.

Members of this group may also participate in activities on the forest that compete with 

motorized uses, such as bird watching or wilderness solitude. Members of this group may 

emphasize the nonmarket values that the forest provides—for instance, the benefits that wellfunctioning ecosystems offer, such as nutrient cycling and wildlife habitat.

Environmental Justice

In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898. This order mandates that all Federal 

agencies analyze the potential for their actions to disproportionately affect minority and lowincome populations. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued supplemental guidance 

to assist agencies’ compliance (CEQ 1997). The CEQ suggests the following criteria for 

identifying populations potentially affected by environmental justice concerns:

● “Minority population: Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the 

minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population 

percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population 

percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis...”

● “Low-income population: Low-income populations in an affected area should be 

identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census' 

Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. In identifying lowincome populations, agencies may consider as a community either a group of individuals 

living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant 

workers or Native Americans), where either type of group experiences common 

conditions of environmental exposure or effect.”

Table 154 indicates that the racial and ethnic breakdown in the planning area counties is 

consistent with the racial and ethnic composition in the State. This suggests that the minority 

population in the affected area is not meaningfully greater than the minority population 

percentage in the general population (of New Mexico). However, the sizeable Hispanic 

populations in Grant and Hidalgo Counties may merit consideration as potential environmental 

justice populations.

In 1999, the poverty rate in the planning area exceeded the poverty rate of the State (table 155). 

Among the four counties, the poverty rate varies substantially. In Hidalgo and Catron Counties, 

approximately one-quarter of the residents live below the poverty rate. Although Catron County’s 

poverty rate remained fairly level between 1989 and 1999, the poverty rate in Hidalgo County 

increased by more than 6 percentage points. The poverty rates in Catron and Hidalgo Counties 

merit particular attention, particularly where Forest Service management actions may affect 

employment, income, and other sources of well-being attached to the forest. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

252 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 155. Per capita income and persons in poverty, 1989 and 1999

Area

1989 1999

Per 

Capita 

Income

Persons 

Below 

Poverty 

Line

Percent of 

Persons 

Below 

Poverty Line

Per 

Capita 

Income

Persons 

Below 

Poverty 

Line

Percent of 

Persons 

Below 

Poverty Line

Catron County 11,080 657 25.6% 13,951 860 24.3%

Grant County 12,175 5,731 20.7% 14,597 5,676 18.3%

Hidalgo County 13,098 1,212 20.3% 12,431 1,591 26.8%

Sierra County 13,140 1,882 19.0% 15,023 2,706 20.4%

Total Gila 

Counties

12,441 9,482 20.6% 14,421 10,833 20.2%

Total New Mexico 14,596 305,934 20.6% 17,261 328,933 18.4%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census, 1990 and 2000. Calculations were prepared by University of New 

Mexico, Bureau of Business and Economic Research.

Note: The poverty line is the federally established poverty level. Per capita income is in 1990 dollars. The 1989 per 

capital income figures were adjusted for the effects of inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U-RS).

Employment and Income

The 4-county planning area has experienced changing economic fortunes. Many of these changes 

relate to the use of natural resources from the Gila National Forest and other public lands. During 

the past 2 decades, much of the logging industry in this part of New Mexico was eliminated—the 

largest sawmill closed in Reserve in 1993 (USDA Forest Service 2001). Grazing is another source 

of income tied to public lands. Recently, grazing policies have moved toward encouraging 

sustainable grazing practices. Restrictions on grazing can compound the adverse economic 

impacts of drought and unfavorable market conditions (University of New Mexico, Bureau of 

Business and Economic Research 2007, pp. 26–27). The Council of Governments (Southwest 

New Mexico Council of Governments 2010) notes that a number of communities in the planning 

area counties have traditionally had economies based on agriculture, wood products, and mining. 

Major layoffs have affected Grant County, in particular. Elsewhere, wood product jobs have 

declined and some private agricultural lands have been converted for other uses. 

The recreational opportunities the forest provides and the rural character of the planning area can 

spur amenity-driven economic growth. Tourism and amenity migration bring money into the local 

economy, which supports growth in related and supporting industries (e.g., the accommodation 

and food service sector). The importance of amenity migrants is borne out in the data—nearly a 

quarter of Catron County residents had lived in another state prior to the 2000 Census. The 

housing stock in the planning area expanded by about 6,500 units between 1990 and 2000, an 

increase of approximately one-third. The 2000 Census found a very large number of vacant 

homes in Catron (38 percent) and Sierra (30 percent) Counties. Sixty-six percent of the vacant 

homes in Catron and 59 percent of those in Sierra County were seasonal or vacation homes.

Although Sierra County has other attractions, like Elephant Butte, the major attraction in Catron 

County is the Gila National Forest (UNM BBER pp. 26–27).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 253

Table 156 disaggregates total employment to its component parts: private sector, public sector, 

and the industries within these sectors.

Table 156. County employment by industry

County

Total Percent 

of Total Catron Grant Hidalgo Sierra

Total Private Sector 267 6,847 850 2,315 10,279 66

Goods Producing (Total) 30 1,998 189 556 2,773 18

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and

hunting

19 28 137 248 432 3

Construction 11 548 52 304 915 6

Mining 0 1,422 * 4 1,426 9

Service Providing (Total) 237 4,849 661 1,759 7,506 48

Accommodation and food services 38 916 198 390 1,542 10

Administrative and waste services * 307 0 23 330 2

Arts, entertainment and recreation * 56 * * 56 0

Educational services * 58 * * 58 0

Finance and insurance * 185 * 71 256 2

Health care and social services 78 842 117 464 1,501 10

Information * 117 15 14 146 1

Management of companies and

enterprises

0 249 * 0 249 2

Manufacturing 13 154 * 128 295 2

Other services, except public 

administration

12 221 * 68 301 2

Professional, scientific and

technical services

* 166 59 134 359 2

Real estate and rental 10 108 * 24 142 1

Retail trade 50 1,234 243 420 1,947 13

Transportation and warehousing * 135 29 16 180 1

Utilities 7 * * * 7 0

Wholesale trade 29 101 * 7 137 1

Total Public Sector 326 3,390 651 893 5,260 34

Federal government 113 206 229 115 663 4

State government 56 1,212 80 291 1,639 11

Local government 158 1,972 342 487 2,959 19

Grand Total 593 10,237 1,501 3,208 15,539 100

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

254 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Of these industries, travel management on National Forest System lands is most likely to affect: 

agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting; accommodation and food services; arts, entertainment, 

and recreation; and public sector employment. A detailed analysis of the extent to which the forest 

contributes to the economy of the local area is included in the social and economic specialist

report.

Total personal income may come from both labor and non-labor sources. Labor income is derived 

from employment in the sectors identified in table 154. Non-labor income comprises dividends, 

interest, transfer payments (e.g., Social Security), and rent. Table 157 lists median household 

income for the planning area, as well as the State and Nation.

Table 157. Median household income

Area Median Household Income (2008)

Catron County $29,127

Grant County $36,239

Hidalgo County $34,236

Sierra County $27,580

4-county Average $31,795

New Mexico $43,719

United States $52,029

Source: New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions 2008

All counties in the planning area have median household incomes below the State and Nation.

The average household income in the 4-county area is more than $10,000 below the State average 

and $20,000 below the national average. These data suggest that planning area residents are more 

likely to be on the economic margins of society. Economic changes (either positive or negative) 

may have a more pronounced effect on the economic well-being of the area.

Table 158 identifies the division of labor and non-labor income in planning area counties, the 

State, and the Nation. 

Table 158. Share of labor and non-labor income

Area Labor Income (%) Non-Labor Income (%)

Catron County 39 61

Grant County 49 51

Hidalgo County 56 44

Sierra County 40 60

4-County Average 46 54

New Mexico 65 35

United States 68 32

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS Table CA30, 2006
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 255

The 4-county planning area is much more reliant on non-labor income than the State and the 

Nation. Total personal income in New Mexico and the United States is composed of 

approximately two-thirds labor income and one-third non-labor income. In contrast, three 

planning area counties receive more non-labor income than labor income. Catron and Sierra 

Counties are particularly skewed toward non-labor income. These data suggest that the planning 

area has a high concentration of retirees. The reliance on non-labor income may also indicate 

dependence on government transfer payments. Non-labor income may help to stabilize the 

economy, as it is not tied to employment status. However, non-labor income may fluctuate based 

on asset markets (e.g., investments in stocks and bonds) or changes in government policy. 

Payments to the State and Counties

The Forest Service provides payments and other economic opportunities to the State and counties 

through the following programs.

Payments in Lieu of Taxes 

Payments in lieu of taxes are Federal payments to local governments that help offset losses in 

property taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands within their boundaries. Payments in lieu of taxes

payments help local governments provide services such as firefighting and police protection, 

construction of public schools and roads, and search-and-rescue operations. Payments are made 

annually for tax-exempt Federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 

National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service, and for Federal 

water projects and some military installations. Payments to counties are based on population, 

receipt sharing payments, and the amount of Federal land within a county (table 159).

Table 159. Payments in lieu of taxes to the State and local counties for fiscal year 2010

Area Payment Total Acres

Catron County $555,090 2,746,752

Grant County $1,654,713 1,178,886

Hidalgo County $681,421 823,734

Sierra County $896,178 1,299,512

Statewide Total $32,205,935 22,510,697

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior 2010

Secure Rural Schools Program, 2008–2011

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS Act) was 

amended and reauthorized in P.L. 110-343 on October 3, 2008. This law ensures counties across 

the country can receive payments that provide funding for schools and roads and make additional 

investments in projects that enhance forest ecosystems. The SRS Act authorizes the use of 

resource advisory committees as a mechanism for local communities to collaborate with Federal 

land managers in recommending projects on Federal lands or that will benefit resources on 

Federal lands. For the Gila National Forest, the resource advisory committee has just been newly 

formed and project proposals were recently requested, so no payments have been allocated yet.

Projected payments to the counties and State are summarized in table 160.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

256 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Table 160. Secure Rural Schools Act, PL 110-343, projected FY 2009–2011 Forest Service 

payments to counties as of July 20, 2009

Eligible New Mexico County Projected Total State or Transition Payment, 

2008 thru 2011

Catron County $24,146,784

Grant County $5,164,020

Hidalgo County $568,833

Sierra County $2,914,760

Statewide Total $70,259,993

Source: USDA Forest Service 2010

The collaborative process with the resource advisory committee will provide a source of 

community input in forest investments. One of the main goals of the projects is to improve and 

maintain existing infrastructure, particularly roads and trails. Therefore, Secure Rural Schools 

funding will help provide funds for additional road maintenance.

Environmental Consequences

Social Effects Common to All Alternatives

Firewood Gathering

Eliminating cross-country travel and closing roads to motor vehicle use under all action 

alternatives may affect the ability of people to collect firewood for their homes. Although 

firewood gathering would continue under all alternatives, it will be limited to designated areas.

Firewood gathering may occur outside of the firewood gathering areas; however, motor vehicle 

access would be limited to roadside parking along designated open roads. The social and 

economic specialist report indicates that most of the roads that access the forest will continue to 

be available within 20 miles of each major community in the forest in all alternatives. 

Access for Disabled and Elderly Populations

Some of the comments received during scoping indicated that motorized access, both by 

motorized routes and cross-country travel, were important to them as they were mobility impaired 

due to age or disability. All of the action alternatives will affect the ability to travel cross country 

by motorized vehicle and could have an effect on people with these concerns. The number of 

miles of motorized routes varies by alternative and could affect the ability of mobility-impaired 

people to reach their favorite places, where those places are not accessible in any other way.

Cultural and Traditional Practices – Tribes

The 10 federally recognized tribes for the forest described in the “Tribal Consultation and Land 

Use” section may also have social and economic interests on the forest. As previously stated, 

these tribes do not have treaty rights on the forest, and the forest is not located adjacent to any 

tribal lands (trust, reserved, or allotted).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 257

American Indian populations in the four counties where the Gila National Forest is located range 

from a low of 1.1 percent (Hidalgo) to a high of 2.8 percent (Catron), compared to 9.7 percent for 

the entire State of New Mexico (table 154).

Because the forest is a greater distance from many tribal lands and reservations, longer drive 

times are required to access the forest. This creates inherently greater economic costs for tribal

members traveling to the forest (gas, vehicle, motel, food, etc.). This situation will remain 

essentially unchanged under all alternatives, including the existing condition.

Data on local tribal businesses are unavailable; such businesses are not known to contribute to 

aspects of the local economy supported by the forest. Rather, most tribal members or groups 

participate in occasional activities on the forest for personal, traditional, community, group or 

religious reasons and uses. Locations of such activities may fluctuate, and have not been 

specifically identified by tribes. Gathering forest products, such as piñon nuts or Emory oak, has 

not been identified as occurring for commercial resale, and sale of forest products is not known to 

supplement tribal household income. 

This information supports a conclusion (and observation based on tribal consultation) that 

visitation to the forest by tribal members is generally less frequent than to places closer to 

existing tribal lands, and will continue to be so. This visitation appears to be more socially and 

culturally driven than economically driven. As such, it is important to maintaining the cultural 

and social fabric of tribes.

Because very few tribal members live and work in the vicinity of the forest compared to other 

parts of New Mexico and Arizona, changes to tribal social and economic activities as a result of 

travel management designation should be minor to none. Tribes will continue to have 

opportunities to gather culturally important materials on the forest under applicable Forest 

Service policies (such as FSH 2409.18 on granting permits free of charge to federally recognized 

tribes to gather forest products for traditional and cultural uses www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/

fsh/2409.18/2409.18_80.doc).

Economic Effects Common to All Alternatives

Economic analysis was conducted using the Recreation Economic Contribution Analysis model.

As the assumptions section noted at the beginning of the analysis, the precise relationship 

between miles of road and economic impacts is unknown. It is assumed that jobs and income 

increase with more miles of road, and decrease with fewer miles of road. However, according to 

the economic impact analysis, none of the alternatives will significantly affect jobs and income. A 

more detailed economic analysis is available in the social and economic specialist report. (USDA 

Forest Service 2010j)

None of the considered alternatives would conflict with the motorized access needed for 

managing grazing allotments, mining, logging, access to private property, or utilities. Therefore, 

none of the alternatives are expected to affect these sectors.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

258 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Environmental Justice

While low-income populations exist in greater presence in the communities surrounding the Gila 

National Forest than the general population of the State and Nation, none of the alternatives are 

expected to have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects. 

However, potential disproportionate impacts on a vulnerable group are possible in Catron County 

related to firewood gathering. As noted in the “Lifestyles, Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes” section 

above, approximately half of the homes in Catron County rely on wood as the primary heating 

source. Additionally, a low median household income and a high poverty rate suggest that 

affordable energy sources are fundamental to individuals’ well-being. Under all action 

alternatives, motorized gathering would be limited to designated routes. However, the forest is 

planning designated areas for personal firewood gathering, taking into consideration proximity to 

community centers. The Forest Service may also provide designated woodcutting areas, with the 

option of allowing off-road travel within those areas. These actions are likely to mitigate any 

potentially adverse effects on the low-income populations who depend on firewood from the 

forest.

Cumulative Effects

All national forests in the Southwestern Region are either in the process of travel management 

planning or implementing existing travel management plans. The Bureau of Land Management 

has also made decisions to designate routes for OHV use. All of the new decisions and the 

implementation of past land use and travel management decisions are generally resulting in fewer 

opportunities for cross-country OHV uses and fewer open routes for OHV use. These past 

decisions include the establishment of wilderness and other areas that prohibit motor vehicle 

recreation, reducing the motor vehicle access to the forest. Although these past decisions are not 

part of current planning for the Gila National Forest travel management plan, they are relevant 

because they are part of the cumulative effects of the travel management plan. Additionally, they 

are relevant to the discussion because much of the use data used in the “Social and Economics”

section discussion was collected within these areas previously designated for non-motorized 

recreation use only. The selection of any of the action alternatives reduces cross-country access 

(as required by the Travel Management Rule). However, the range of alternatives provides a 

varying array of motorized travel opportunities.

Cultural and Traditional Practices – Tribes

The 10 federally recognized tribes for the forest described in the “Tribal Consultation and Land 

Use” section may also have social and economic interests on the forest. As previously stated, 

these tribes do not have treaty rights on the forest, and the forest is not located adjacent to any 

tribal lands (trust, reserved, or allotted). 

American Indian populations in the four counties where the Gila National Forest is located range 

from a low of 1.1 percent (Hidalgo) to a high of 2.8 percent (Catron) compared to 9.7 percent for 

the entire State of New Mexico (table 155). 

Because the Gila National Forest is a greater distance from many tribal lands and reservations, 

longer drive times are required to access the forest. This creates inherently greater economic costs 

for tribal members traveling to the Gila National Forest (gas, vehicle, motel, food, etc.). This 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 259

situation will remain essentially unchanged under all alternatives, including the existing 

condition. 

Data on local tribal businesses are unavailable; such businesses are not known to contribute to 

aspects of the local economy supported by the forest. Rather, most tribal members or groups 

participate in occasional activities on the Gila National Forest for personal, traditional, 

community, group, or religious reasons and uses. Locations of such activities may fluctuate and 

have not been specifically identified by tribes. Gathering forest products, such as piñon nuts or 

Emory oak, has not been identified as occurring for commercial resale, and sale of forest products 

is not known to supplement tribal household income. 

This information supports a conclusion (and observation based on tribal consultation) that 

visitation to the forest by tribal members is generally less frequent than to places closer to 

existing tribal lands, and will continue to be so. This visitation appears to be more socially and 

culturally driven, than economically driven. As such, it is important to maintaining the cultural 

and social fabric of tribes.

Because very few tribal members live and work in the vicinity of the Gila National Forest,

compared to other parts of New Mexico and Arizona, changes to tribal social and economic 

activities as a result of travel management designation should be minor to none. Tribes will 

continue to have opportunities to gather culturally important materials on the Gila National Forest

under applicable Forest Service policies (such as FSH 2409.18 on granting permits free of charge 

to federally recognized tribes to gather forest products for traditional and cultural uses 

www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsh/2409.18/2409.18_80.doc). 

There will be no change in tribal access to the Gila National Forest under the no action alternative 

(B). There is potential for minor effects to tribal activities under alternatives C through G from 

reduction in route mileage that reduces motorized access to some locations on the forest. 

Alternative E is the most restrictive in terms of access, and could have the greatest effects on 

tribal activities. However, these effects are considered minor due to generally infrequent tribal use 

and few concerns identified for the Gila National Forest.

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

The change in driving on National Forest System roads and trails created by any of the action 

alternatives does not jeopardize the long-term productivity of the Gila National Forest. As 

described throughout chapter 3, implementing the action alternatives would improve resources 

such as wildlife habitat, cultural resource sites, and others.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Designating unauthorized routes could spread invasive plants to new locations and cause a loss of 

soil productivity. Alternatives C, D, F, and G are expected to result in more bare ground from 

motorized dispersed camping, and would also result in a loss of soil productivity.

Impact to the Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat cannot be avoided in any action alternative 

as the proposed road system in all alternatives will continue to allow road crossings in known 

Chiricahua leopard frog habitat. Alternative E has the least adverse impact of all the action 

alternatives. Alternatives D and G, somewhat more than alternative E; alternative F slightly more 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

260 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

than alternatives D and G; and alternative C is similar to the existing condition (USDA Forest 

Service 2010f).

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of 

a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a 

period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept 

clear for use as power line rights-of-way or roads or the loss of soil productivity, wildlife habitat, 

and vegetation when roads are constructed. The loss will be irretrievable for the life of the road. A 

previous commitment of resources associated with the existing motorized travel system on the 

forest exists.

All resources were evaluated to determine if there would be irreversible or irretrievable 

commitment of resources (all specialist reports). Except for the resources described below, no 

irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources were found in any action alternative (B

through G):

● Soil productivity may be irretrievably lost due to sediment losses resulting from the 

addition of unauthorized routes to National Forest System roads. These losses are not 

expected to be significant. Additionally, closure of the forest to cross-country travel is 

expected to reduce loss of soil productivity, resulting in a net benefit.

● There is a very small risk of irreversible commitment of heritage resources in those 

alternatives where motorized big game retrieval is proposed. This risk is relative to the 

amount of motorized big game retrieval proposed by the alternative. Alternative E would 

pose no risk; the risk increases slightly in alternatives D and G, slightly more in 

alternative F, and the most risk (similar to the existing condition) in alternative C. (See 

page 239 for information regarding the acres potentially affected by motorized big game 

retrieval). The risk is associated with impacts that cross-country travel—for the purposes 

of motorized big game retrieval—may have if vehicles should unknowingly drive over 

cultural sites.

Other Required Disclosures

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” We’ve prepared this statement in accordance with the 

National Historic Preservation Act, which governs ground disturbance in historical places, and the 

Endangered Species Act, which covers projects that have threatened or endangered species in its 

boundaries.
DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 261

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

List of Preparers and Contributors 

Christopher D. Adams – Zone 

Archaeologist, USDA Forest Service, Gila 

National Forest, Black Range and Wilderness 

Ranger Districts. Education: B.A. 

Anthropology. Experience: 24 years of 

southwestern experience, been with the Forest 

Service the last 15 years, cultural resource 

specialist, tribal and SHPO consultation, grant 

and research proposals, publications and 

NEPA writing.

Melinda Benton – Wildlife Biologist, USDA 

Forest Service, Gila National Forest. 

Education: B.S. Animal Science and Wildlife 

Management. Experience: habitat and 

endangered species management, 

consultation, NEPA writing and reviewing, 

invasive plant control; with the Forest Service 

since 1987.

Matthew Boisseau – Landscape Architect 

and Recreation Specialist, TEAMS.

Education: Masters of Landscape 

Architecture, Texas Tech University, 

Lubbock; B.S., Recreation, Norwich 

University, Northfield, Vermont. Experience: 

landscape architect for the city of San Jose, 

California; worked for the Lincoln National 

Forest, New Mexico, and the Tongass 

National Forest, Alaska. Experience as an 

accessibility coordinator; project lead on 

outdoor recreation site, facility improvement,

and enhancements projects; and as an 

interdisciplinary team specialist. Employed 

with TEAMS since 2008. 

Joe Encinas – Forest GIS Coordinator, 

USDA Forest Service, Gila National Forest. 

Education: B.S. Forest Science from 

Oklahoma State University, 1994. Currently 

enrolled in the post-baccalaureate certificate 

in geographic information systems (GIS) from 

Penn State University. Experience: 17 years in 

GIS and forestry. Employed by the Gila 

National Forest since 2002. Specialize in data 

maintenance/management, spatial analysis, 

cartography, and archaeological GIS.

Gail Firebaugh-Smith – Forest 

Archeologist and Heritage Program 

Manager, USDA Forest Service, Gila 

National Forest. Education: B.A. and M.A. in 

Anthropology from the University of 

Colorado at Boulder, specializing in 

archeology. Experience: 35 years as an 

archeologist, working in 10 western states for 

contract firms, BLM and NPS; with the Forest 

Service since 1988 in Arkansas, Idaho, 

California and New Mexico; 21 years as 

forest archaeologist and heritage program 

manager including 12 years on the Gila.

Albert A. Flores – Acting Assistant NEPA 

Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, Gila 

National Forest. Education: B.S. Forestry 

from Northern Arizona University.

Experience: fuels specialist and fire ecologist.

Started with USFS in 2000.

Amanda Gehrt – District Wildlife Biologist, 

USDA Forest Service, Gila National Forest, 

Quemado Ranger District. Education: B.S. 

Comprehensive Biology: wildlife; natural 

resources. Minor: geography. Experience: 

biological science technician, Gila National 

Forest, 2009-2010; farm planner/habitat 

restorations, Snohomish Conservation 

District, Everett, WA, 2006-2009; soil 

conservation technician, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Loup City, NE, 2003-

2006.

Rene Guaderrama – Wildlife Biologist, 

USDA Forest Service, Gila National Forest, 

Black Range Ranger District. Education: B.S. 

of Agriculture, Wildlife Science; M.S. Forest 

Resources emphasis in fire ecology. 

Experience: 8 years in habitat and endangered 

species management, consultation, NEPA 

writing and reviewing, inventory and 

monitoring Mexican spotted owl and northern 

goshawk, analyzing habitat and wildlife use 

patterns using GIS and GPS.

Kathleen Hawkos – GIS Specialist, USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 

Education: M.S. Geography, emphasis in GIS.
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

262 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Experience: technical background in GIS 

spatial analysis, wilderness needs and 

research natural areas assessments, ABV 

survey; GIS data collection, organization, 

maintenance and distribution with the Forest 

Service since 2004.

Debby Hyde-Sato – Forest NEPA 

Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, Gila 

National Forest. Education: B.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Biology. Experience: aquaculture in 

Philippines; threatened and endangered 

species recovery, interdisciplinary team leader 

and member; stream inventory; wildlife 

surveys; wildlife and fish habitat 

improvement; forest planning teams; appeals 

and litigation. Wildlife biologist, Umpqua and 

San Bernardino National Forests, 9 years 

combined; fisheries biologist, Siskiyou, 

Umpqua, Inyo and San Bernardino National 

Forests, 10 years combined; civil rights, Inyo 

National Forest, 3 years; NEPA program 

manager, Gila National Forest, 7 years.

Annette Joseph – Range Program 

Manager, USDA Forest Service, Gila 

National Forest. Education: B.S. Range 

Science and B.S. Animal Science, New 

Mexico State University, 1982. Experience: 

range program manager 2009-present, 

rangeland management specialist 1982-2009, 

rangeland management specialist trainee 

1978-1981 (other USFS experience: NEPA 

resource planner 2001-2002).

Erin Knolles – Assistant Forest 

Archaeologist, USDA Forest Service, Gila 

National Forest. Education: BA in 

Anthropology. Experience: archaeological 

fieldwork; literature, record and archive 

searches; and report writing for 2.5 years in 

the Forest Service. 

Steven Kozlowski – Wildlife Biologist, 

USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise 

Unit. Education: B.S. Wildlife Biology, 

Colorado State University. Experience: Forest 

Service district fish and wildlife biologist, 

various positions in Rocky Mountain Region 

and Pacific Northwest Region since 1989.

Work experience includes NEPA, endangered 

species consultation, field surveys, habitat 

improvement, land stewardship, 

environmental education, and habitat 

improvement.

Carolyn Koury – Hydrologist, USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region, Gila National 

Forest. Education: B.S. Speech 

Communication, Northern Arizona University, 

1991; M.S. Hydrology, University of Arizona, 

1998. Experience: forest hydrologist on Gila 

National Forest 2002-present (2009); 

hydrologist on Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests, 1998-2002; hydrologist trainee on 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 1994-

1998.

Lisa Mizuno – Environmental Coordinator 

- Forest Travel Management Coordinator, 

USDA Forest Service, Gila National Forest.

Education: B.S. Oceanography with a minor 

in biology; M.S. Interdisciplinary degree in 

fisheries and estuaries. Experience: fisheries 

biologist on the Six Rivers (1991-1999) and 

San Bernardino (1999-2003) National Forests.

Interdisciplinary planner and assistant NEPA 

coordinator on the Gila National Forest since 

2003, assisting, reviewing, and team leading 

various forest projects. Forest travel 

management coordinator since November 

2005.

Jerry A. Monzingo – Fishery Biologist, 

USDA Forest Service, Gila National Forest.

Education: B.S. Forest and Wildlife Biology 

with graduate work in fisheries. Experience: 

consultation, threatened and endangered 

species recovery, stream inventory and 

monitoring, riparian inventory and 

monitoring. Wildlife biologist, Gila National 

Forest 8 years, fishery biologist, Gila National 

Forest 6 years.

Michael Natharius – Soil Scientist, USDA 

Forest Service, Gila National Forest. 

Education: B.S. Agriculture with Major in 

Soil Science. Experience: terrestrial 

ecological unit inventory, riparian inventory 

and monitoring, vegetation inventory and 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 263

monitoring, burned area emergency response 

team leader and member, and interdisciplinary 

team specialist. Soil scientist with the Forest 

Service in Region 3 since 1991. 

Rex A. Null – Civil Engineer, USDA Forest

Service, Gila National Forest. Education: B.S. 

Civil Engineering, New Mexico State 

University. Experience: project manager for 

Burn Construction 2 years, civil engineer for 

Gila National Forest 18 years.

Brian Park – GIS Specialist, USDA Forest 

Service, Gila National Forest. Education: 

M.S. Applied GIS emphasis Rural Planning; 

Certificate in Parks and Recreation emphasis 

Wilderness Management; B.A. American 

History; B.A. English Literature. Experience: 

spatial data collection, management, analysis 

and presentation; GIS specialist at the Gila NF 

since Feb. 2009; GIS specialist for the Vale 

District BLM 2008; cartographer for 

Yellowstone National Park 2007; GIS 

technician for the city of Flagstaff 2005-06.

Arthur Telles, Jr. – Wildlife Biologist, 

USDA Forest Service, Gila National Forest. 

Education: B.S. in Wildlife Science and 

Fishery Science. Experience: 21 years with 

the Forest Service in three regions and five 

national forests; district fisheries biologist (5 

years), forest fisheries biologist (2 years), 

district wildlife biologist (5 years), district 

wildlife/range/and watershed staff (3 years), 

and forest wildlife and fish program manager 

(6 years).

John Titre – Forest Planner, USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region. Education: 

B.S. Natural Resource Management; M.S. 

Recreation Resource Development. 

Experience: qualitative and quantitative 

survey research, sampling, socioeconomic 

analysis, ROS and SMS analysis, 

collaboration, negotiation, hydropower 

licensing, ecotourism, and international 

development.

Bob Schiowitz – South Zone Archaeologist, 

USDA Forest Service, Gila National Forest. 

Education: B.A. Cultural 

Anthropology/Archaeology. Experience: 31 

years as a district and forest archaeologist 

with the Klamath, Kaibab and Gila National 

Forests; with Gila NF since 1984.

Jeanne Schofer – Archaeologist, USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 

Education: B.A. Environmental Studies; M.A. 

Anthropology. Experience: heritage 

management, Section 106 consultation, 

NEPA, public archaeology, geographic 

information system geodatabases with the 

Forest Service since 2006.

Justin Schofer – Wildlife Biologist, USDA 

Forest Service, Gila National Forest. 

Education: B.S. Wildlife Management; M.S. 

Biology. Experience: habitat and endangered 

species management, consultation, NEPA 

writing and reviewing with the Forest Service 

since 2008.

Laura Vallejos – Silviculturist, USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 

Education: B.S. Forest Management; 

Experience: vegetation effects modeling and 

NEPA analysis, silviculture vegetation 

prescriptions for wildlife habitat, fuels 

reduction, forest health, restoration, watershed 

improvement, reforestation, invasive and 

noxious weed control, with the Forest Service 

since 1991.

David Warnack – Collaborative Forest 

Restoration Program Manager, USDA 

Forest Service, Gila National Forest.

Education: B.A. English Literature.

Experience: Recreation program management 

for 7 years and trails program management for 

6 years on the Black Range and Silver City 

Ranger Districts, Gila National Forest. Since 

2008, managing collaboration and partnership 

for forest restoration projects.

Antonio Ybarra – Wildlife Biologist, USDA 

Forest Service, Gila National Forest, Silver 

City Ranger District. Education: B.S. Forest 

and Wildlife Biology. Experience: wildlife 

biologist, Gila National Forest 3 years, 

wildland firefighter 6 years.
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

264 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Cooperating Agencies

Catron County Commissioners

Grant County Commissioners

Hidalgo County Commissioners

Sierra County Commissioners

Tribes

Pueblo of Acoma

Alamo Navajo Chapter

Ft. Sill Apache Tribe

The Hopi Tribe

Pueblo of Laguna

Mescalero Apache

The Navajo Nation

Ramah Navajo Chapter

San Carlos Apache

Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo

Pueblo of Zuni

List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons

to Whom Copies of the DEIS Were Sent

This draft environmental impact statement has been distributed to individuals who specifically 

requested a copy of the document and those who submitted comments during scoping. In 

addition, copies have been sent, or provided electronically, to Federal agencies, federally 

recognized tribes, State and local governments, and organizations representing a wide range of 

views. Federal, State and local governments that were provided with copies of the DEIS include:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Air Quality Bureau

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Bureau of Land Management

Cibola National Forest

Coronado National Forest

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Highway Administration

Grant Soil and Water Conservation District

Lincoln National Forest

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

New Mexico Department of Transportation

New Mexico Environmental Department

New Mexico Office of Communication

New Mexico State Forestry Division

New Mexico State Highway 

New Mexico State Lands Office

New Mexico Tourism Department

Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance, USDI

San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation 

District

Santa Fe National Forest

State Game Commission

State Highway Commission

State Historic Preservation Office

U.S. Army Engineer Division

U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Customs Service (U.S. Department of 

Treasury)

U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD

USDA National Agricultural Library

USDA Natural Resource Conservation 

Service
DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 265

Glossary

5th- or 6th-code Watershed – Watersheds across the Nation are classified in a nested hydrologic 

unit hierarchy consisting of regions, subregions, basins, subbasins, watersheds and 

subwatersheds. Regions are the largest unit. Regions are composed of subregions; subregions are 

composed of basins, and so on. A 5th-code watershed is a subdivision of subbasin and is the unit 

labeled as “watershed.” A watershed is the 5th-level (code), 10-digit unit of the hydrologic unit 

hierarchy. Fifth-code watersheds range in size from 40,000 to 250,000 acres. A 6th-code 

watershed is the unit labeled as subwatershed, a subdivision of a watershed. A subwatershed is the 

6th-level (code), 12-digit unit and smallest of the hydrologic unit hierarchy. Subwatersheds 

generally range in size from 10,000 to 40,000 acres. 

Administrative use – Authorized motor vehicle use on roads or trails to carry out forest 

management activities. This also includes use by permittees as authorized by permit to conduct 

authorized activities.

Affected environment – A description of the area affected by the proposed action as it exists 

now. Existing condition (existing condition) is described as a baseline for comparison of the 

effects of the alternatives. This is the condition described in the no action alternative.

All-terrain vehicle (ATV) – A type of off-highway vehicle that travels on three or more lowpressure tires; has handlebar steering; is less than or equal to 50 inches in width; and has a seat 

designed to be straddled by the operator (FSM 2353.05).

Area – (1) An area on National Forest System lands that is designated for motor vehicle use 

pursuant to §212.51 on a motor vehicle use map (36 CFR § 212.1), and (2) A discrete, specifically 

delineated space that is smaller and, in most cases much smaller, than a ranger district (36 CFR § 

212.1).

Consultation – Consultation with other Federal or State agencies is required by two different acts 

whenever there may be a potentially adverse effect on threatened or endangered wildlife, fish or 

plant species, or on historic or cultural resources. For wildlife, fish, and plant species, the 

Endangered Species Act requires that Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service be conducted whenever Federal agencies actions may have an impact on a threatened, 

endangered, or proposed (for listing) species of wildlife, fish or plants. For historical and cultural 

resources, Section 206 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that a Federal agency 

consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Programmatic agreements are in 

place with SHPO describing the process for Section 206 consultation.

Critical habitat – Habitat that has been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to aid in 

the recovery of threatened or endangered species. Consultation is required whenever there is a 

potential for impacts to critical habitat from management activities.

Cumulative effects – The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact 

of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time (40 CFR 220.3).

Deciding official – The Forest Service employee who has the authority to select and carry out a 

specific planning action.
Glossary

266 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Decommissioning –Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to 

a more natural state (36 CFR § 212.1).

Designated fixed-distance corridors – A distance designated off of roads or trails where 

motorized vehicle use may be allowed for specific purposes.

Designated for motorized use – Roads, trails or areas where motor vehicles may be operated.

Designated road, trail, or area – A National Forest System road, a National Forest System trail, 

or an area on National Forest System lands that is designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to 

§212.51 on a motor vehicle use map (36 CFR § 212.1).

Dispersed recreation – Recreational activities conducted outside of developed sites such as 

developed campgrounds or picnic areas.

Eligible sites – A cultural site is considered eligible for the National Register if it meets the 

National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Evaluation of a site’s eligibility involves considering 

the property’s age, significance, and its integrity. 

Endemism – Restricted or peculiar to a locality or region.

Ephemeral – Lasting a very short time.

Existing condition – See “Affected environment.”

Focal species – A multi-species approach in which the ecological requirements of a suite of 

species are used to define or evaluate the range of habitat conditions required by many other 

species. The species thought to be most sensitive to, or having the most stringent ecological 

requirements for, the particular factor is usually identified as the focal species.

Forest road or trail – A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the 

National Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and utilization of the National Forest System, and the use and development of its 

resources (36 CFR § 212.1).

Highway legal vehicles – Vehicles that are allowed to drive on paved roads according to State 

laws and regulations.

Interdisciplinary team – A team of specialists from different disciplines such as hydrology, soils 

science, wildlife and fish biology, archaeology, engineering, etc., convened to conduct and 

prepare an environmental analysis

Intermittent (Pertaining to streams, lakes, or springs) – Recurrent; showing water only part of 

the time.

Invasive species – Nonnative species of plants or animals that tend to flourish and displace native 

species of plants or animals.

Jurisdiction – Agency authority to approve, veto, or finance all or part of the proposal (40 CFR 

1508.15). The territory or facilities over which authority is exercised.
Glossary

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 267

Maintenance level (operation maintenance level) – Maintenance levels define the level of 

service provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific road. Maintenance levels must be 

consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria. Maintenance levels 1-5 

(operational and objective) are described in the following paragraphs (FSH 7709.59, 62.32):

1. LEVEL 1. These are roads that have been placed in storage between intermittent uses.

The period of storage must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to 

prevent damage to adjacent resources and to perpetuate the road for future resource 

management needs. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and 

runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic 

management strategies are “prohibit” and “eliminate” all traffic. These roads are not 

shown on motor vehicle use maps.

Roads receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or construction standard, 

and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for 

traffic. However, while being maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic 

but may be available and suitable for nonmotorized uses.

2. LEVEL 2. Assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car 

traffic, user comfort, and user convenience are not considerations. Warning signs and 

traffic control devices are not provided with the exception that some signing, such as W18-1 “No Traffic Signs,” may be posted at intersections. Motorists should have no 

expectations of being alerted to potential hazards while driving these roads. Traffic is 

normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, 

dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level.

Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to: 

a. Discourage or prohibit passenger cars, or

b. Accept or discourage high clearance vehicles.

3. LEVEL 3. Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a 

standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. The 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is applicable. Warning signs and traffic 

control devices are provided to alert motorists of situations that may violate expectations.

Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed with single lanes and turnouts.

Appropriate traffic management strategies are either “encourage” or ‘accept.”

“Discourage” or “prohibit” strategies may be employed for certain classes of vehicles or 

users.

4. LEVEL 4. Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and 

convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate 

surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be paved and/or dust 

abated. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is applicable. The most appropriate 

traffic management strategy is “encourage.” However, the “prohibit” strategy may apply 

to specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times.

5. LEVEL 5. Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience.

These roads are normally double lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced 
Glossary

268 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

and dust abated. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is applicable. The 

appropriate traffic management strategy is “encourage.”

Maintenance – The upkeep of the entire forest transportation facility including surface and 

shoulders, parking and side areas, structures, and such traffic control devices as are necessary for 

its safe and efficient utilization (36 CFR § 212.1).

Management indicator species (MIS) – Wildlife, fish, or plant species that represent other 

species that use the same or similar habitat. These species are used to help determine if

management activities may have an effect on the group of species within that habitat. MIS species 

were determined in the “Gila National Forest Plan” and can be found on p. 289a of the 

“Environmental Impact Statement for the Gila National Forest Plan.”

Mesic – Of, pertaining to, or adapted to an environment having a balanced supply of moisture.

Migratory bird species – Bird species that overwinter in areas that differ from their nesting and 

breeding habitats. These birds migrate from their wintering habitat to their summer habitat and 

back annually.

Mitigation – An action taken to make effects less severe or to eliminate adverse effects.

Motor vehicle use map (MVUM) – A map reflecting designated roads, trails, and areas on an 

administrative unit or a ranger district of the National Forest System (36 CFR § 212.1).

Motorcycle – A 2-wheeled motor vehicle on which the wheels are situated in a line, rather than 

side by side (FSM 2353.05).

Motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) – Retrieval of legally taken big game with the use of a 

motor vehicle.

Motorized dispersed camping (MDC) – Camping that is allowed outside of developed camping 

sites where a motor vehicle is used to access the site.

Motor vehicle – Any vehicle which is self-propelled, other than: (1) a vehicle operated on rails; 

and (2) any wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery powered, that is designed 

solely for use by a mobility impaired person for locomotion, and that is suitable for use in an 

indoor pedestrian area (36 CFR § 212.1).

National Forest System (NFS) – As defined in the Forest Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act, the “National Forest System” includes all National Forest System lands reserved or 

withdrawn from the public domain of the United States, all National Forest System lands 

acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means, the national grasslands and land 

utilization projects administered under title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tennant Act (50 Stat. 

525, 7 U.S.C. 1010–1012), and other lands, waters or interests therein which are administered by 

the Forest Service or are designated for administration through the Forest Service as a part of the 

system (36 CFR § 212.1).

National Forest System road – A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a 

legally documented right-of-way held by a State, county, or other local public road authority (36 

CFR § 212.1).
Glossary

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 269

National Forest System trail – A forest trail other than a trail which has been authorized by a 

legally documented right-of-way held by a State, county, or other local public road authority (36 

CFR § 212.1).

Nonindigenous – Nonnative; not originating in or characteristic of a particular region or country.

Nonmotorized – Motor vehicle use is not permitted.

Nonnative - See “Nonindigenous.”

Notice of availability (NOA) – A term used to describe that a draft environmental impact 

statement (DEIS) is available for review and the start of the comment period on the DEIS. NOAs 

are published in the Federal Register. The date of publication in the Federal Register begins the 

comment period for the DEIS.

Notice of intent (NOI) – A term used to describe that an agency is intending to prepare and 

consider an environmental impact statement. NOIs are published in the Federal Register. The date 

of publication in the Federal Register begins the comment period for scoping on the proposed 

action.

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) – Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel 

on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain 

(36 CFR § 212.1).

Partial retention – In general, human activities may be evident but must remain subordinate to 

the characteristic landscape.

Perennial – Present at all seasons of the year.

Proposed action – A proposal made by the Forest Service to authorize, recommend, or 

implement an action to meet a specific purpose and need.

Record of decision (ROD) – A concise public record of the responsible official’s decision to 

implement an action when an environmental impact statement has been prepared.

Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) – A land classification system which categorized 

National Forest System land into six classes, each class being defined by its setting and by the 

probably recreation experiences and activities it affords. The six classes in the spectrum are:

primitive; semiprimitive, nonmotorized; semiprimitive motorized; roaded natural; rural; and 

urban. 

Research natural areas (RNA) – An area in as near a natural condition as possible which 

exemplifies typical or unique vegetation and associated biotic, soil, geologic and aquatic features.

This area is set aside to preserve a representative sample of an ecological community primarily 

for scientific and educational purposes; commercial and general public use is not allowed.

Retention – In general, human activities are not evident to the casual forest visitor.

Riparian – Of, pertaining to, or situated or dwelling on the bank of a river or other body of water.

Riparian risk zones – Areas within 300 feet of perennial and intermittent streams.
Glossary

270 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Road – A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail (36 

CFR § 212.1).

Route – A road or trail (FSM 2353.05).

Scoping – An early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for 

identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. Public comments on the proposed 

action are sought during the scoping process.

Section 7 Consultation – A requirement of the Endangered Species Act. Section 7 consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required whenever a Federal agency’s actions may have 

an impact on a threatened, endangered or proposed for listing species of wildlife, fish or plant.

Sensitive species – Those plant and animal species identified by a regional forester for which 

population viability is a concern, as evidenced by:

1. Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density.

2. Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species’ existing distribution.

Significant issue – An issue is defined as a point of disagreement, debate, or dispute with a 

proposed action, based on some anticipated effect. It is not significant if: it is outside the scope of 

the proposed action; is already decided by law, regulations, forest plan, or other higher level 

decision; is irrelevant to the decision to be made; or is conjectural and not supported by scientific 

(or factual) evidence.

Single-track trails – Motorized trails designated for motorcycles.

Traditional cultural properties – A cultural resource that is eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living 

community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining 

the continuing cultural identity of the community. The entity evaluated for eligibility for inclusion 

in the National Register of Historic Places must be a tangible property; that is, a district, site, 

building, structure, or object as defined in 36 CFR 64.4.

Trail (motorized) – A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is 

identified and managed as a trail (36 CFR § 212.1).

Unauthorized road or trail – A road or trail that is not a National Forest System road or trail, or 

a temporary road or trail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR § 212.1).

Utility terrain vehicle (UTV) or side-by-side – A type of off-highway vehicle that travels on 

four or more low-pressure tires, has a steering wheel or tiller, provides side-by-side seating, and is 

of various widths (FSM 2353.05).

Vehicle class – Type of motor vehicle. Motor vehicles are classified as passenger vehicles, ATVs, 

UTVs, OHVs, etc.
Glossary

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 271

Visual quality objectives (VQO) – A desired level of excellence based on physical and 

sociological characteristics of an area. It refers to the degree of acceptable alterations of the 

characteristic landscape. 

Watershed – The region or area drained by a river, stream, etc.; drainage area.

Wetlands – As defined by Executive Order 11990, areas that are inundated by surface or ground 

water with a frequency sufficient to support.

Wild and scenic rivers – The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress 

in 1968 (Public Law 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) to preserve certain rivers with outstanding 

natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present 

and future generations. Wild river areas are those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of 

impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines 

essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.

Scenic river areas are those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with 

shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible 

in places by roads. 

Wilderness – Per the 1964 Wilderness Act, a wilderness is undeveloped Federal land retaining its 

primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation. No 

motorized activities are permitted in wilderness areas.

Written authorizations – A written document that authorizes specific activities; may be a permit, 

letter, or other written document.

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 273

References

“Discrimination,” Title 7 Code of Federal Regulations, Pt 15. 2010 electronic ed.

“Environmental Impact Statement,” Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Pt 1502. 2010 

electronic ed.

“Other Requirements of NEPA,” Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Pt 1506. 2010 electronic 

ed.

“Planning,” Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Pt 219. 2010 electronic ed.

“Prohibitions,” Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Pt 261. 2010 electronic ed.

“Terminology and Index,” Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Pt 1508. 2010 electronic ed.

“Travel Management,” Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Pt 212. 2010 electronic ed.

16 U.S.C. 3210. 1998. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/ro/policy-reports/law/anilca.pdf

23 U.S.C. 402. 2008. Highway Safety Act of 1966, as Amended by SAFETEA-LU Technical 

Correction Act of 2008. Revision June 2008. Available at: 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/grantman/html/07_Sect402Leg23USC_Chap4

.html

29 U.S.C. 794. 2007. Nondiscrimination under Federal Grants and Programs. Available at: 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/usc_sec_29_00000794----000-.html

Adams, L. W. 1984. Small mammal use of an interstate highway median strip. Journal of Applied 

Ecology Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 175–178.

Adams, L. W. and A. D. Geis. 1983. Effects of roads on small mammals. Journal of Applied 

Ecology, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 403–415.

Angold, P. G. 1997. The impact of a road upon adjacent heathland vegetation: Effects on plant 

species composition. Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 409–417.

Anyon R. and S. A. LeBlanc. 1984. The Galaz Ruin: A Prehistoric Mimbres Village in 

Southwestern New Mexico. Albuquerque (New Mexico): University of New Mexico 

Press, 612 pp.

Archaeological Records Management Section (ARMS). 2009. Instructions for Completing the LA 

Site Form: Appendices. New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs Historic 

Preservation Division. Available at: http://stubbs.arms.state.nm.us/arms/. Accessed on 

March 4, 2010.

Badyaev, A. V. and A. D. Faust. 1996. Nest site fidelity in female wild turkey: Potential causes 

and reproductive consequences. The Condor 98: pp. 589–594.

Baur, A. and B. Baur. 1990. Are roads barriers to dispersal in the land snail Arianta arbustorum?

Can. J. Zool., Vol. 68, pp. 613–617.

Beasom, S. L. and D. Wilson. 1992. Excerpt on the future of roads. Page 330 from Chapter 19:

Rio Grande Turkey. In The Wild Turkey, Biology and Management, compiled and edited 

by G. Dickson, Stackpole Books, 1992.
References

274 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Behnke, R. J. 2002. Trout and Salmon of North America. Free Press, Simon and Shuster, Inc.:

New York, NY. 359 pp.

Belisle, M., A. Desrochers, and M. Fortin. 2001. Influence of forest cover on the movements of 

forest birds: A homing experiment. Ecology, Vol. 82, No. 7, pp. 1893–1904.

Bellamy, P. E.; R. F. Shore; D. Ardeshir; and J. R. Treweek. 2000. Road verges as habitat for 

small mammals in Britain. Mammal Review, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 131–139.

Belt, G. H.; J. O’Laughlin; and T. Merrill. 1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for the 

Protection of Water Quality: Analysis of Scientific Literature. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and 

Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. Report No. 8, 35 pp.

Berman, M. J. 1989. Prehistoric Abandonment of the Upper San Francisco River Valley, WestCentral New Mexico; An Economic Case Study. Binghampton (NY): State University of 

New York (unpublished dissertation), 419 pp.

Bestgen, K. R. 1985. Distribution, biology and status of the roundtail chub, Gila robusta, in the 

Gila River Basin, New Mexico. Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado 

State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Bestgen, K. R. and D. L. Propstk. 1989. Distribution, Status, and Notes on the Ecology of Gila 

robusta (Cyprinidae) in the Gila River Drainage, New Mexico. The Southwestern 

Naturalist. 34(3):402–412.

Bissonette, J. A. and S. A. Rosa. 2009. Road zone effects in small-mammal communities.

Ecology and Society, Vol. 14, Issue 1, Article 27, 15 pp.

Blankenship, J. 1989. Issues and Concerns Regarding the Identification and Protection of Air 

Quality Related Values of the Gila Wilderness. Earth Resource Consultants. Tucson, AZ. 

Prepared for the Gila National Forest, 48 pp.

Blankenship, J. 1990a. Air Quality Related Values, Sensitive Receptors, and Levels of Acceptable 

Change for the Gila Wilderness. Earth Resource Consultants. Tucson, AZ. Prepared for 

the Gila National Forest.

Brand, L. A.; George, T. L. 2001. Response of passerine birds to forest edge in coast redwood 

forest fragments. The Auk, Vol. 118, No. 3, pp. 678–686.

Brennan, L. A.; R. M. Perez; S. J. DeMaso; B. M. Ballard.; and W. P. Kuvlesky, Jr. 2008.

Potential impacts of wind farm energy development on upland game birds: Questions and 

concerns. Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra 

to Tropics, pp. 179–183.

Buehler, D. A.; T. J. Mersmann; J. D. Fraser; and J. K. D. Seegar. 1991. Effects of human activity 

on Bald Eagle distribution on the Northern Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Wildlife 

Management, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 282–290.

Bull, E. L.; and R. S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of Pileated Woodpeckers in 

Northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 335–345.

Burke, D. M.; and E. Nol. 1998. Influence of food abundance, nest-site habitat, and forest 

fragmentation on breeding Ovenbirds. The Auk, Vol. 115, No. 1, pp. 96–104.
References

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 275

Burroughs, E. R., Jr. and J. G. King. 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads. General 

Technical Report INT-264, Ogden, UT, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Center. 21 pp. 

CARB 2007. California Air Resources Board; Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm.

Carroll, C. R.; F. Noss; and P. C. Paquet. 2001. Carnivores as focal species for conservation 

planning in the Rocky Mountain region. Ecological Applications, 11(4), pp. 961–980.

Claar, J. J.; N. Anderson; D. Boyd; B. Conard; G. Hickman; R. Hompesch.; G. Olson; H. I. Pac; 

T. Wittinger; and H. Youmans. 1999. Chapter 7: Carnivores. In Joslin, G. and H. 

Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A Review for 

Montana. Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society, pp. 7.1–7.61.

Clinton, B. D.; and J. M. Vose. 2003. Differences in Surface Water Quality Draining Four Road 

Surface Types in the Southern Appalachians. South. J. Appl. For. 27(2):100–106.

Cole, D. N. and P. B. Landres. 1995. Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. Pages 183–202 in 

Knight, R. L. and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through 

Management and Research. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Copstead, R.; K. Moore; T. Ledwith; and M. Furniss. 1997. Water/road interaction: an annotated 

bibliography. USDA Forest Service, Technology Development Program, San Dimas, CA.

Cordell, L. 1997. Archaeology of the Southwest. San Diego (CA): Academic Press. 540 pp.

Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President. 1997. Environmental 

Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Delaney, D. K. and T. G. Grubb. 2004. Sound recordings of road maintenance equipment on the 

Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico: A report to San Dimas Technology and 

Development Center, November 2003. Rocky Mountain Research Station Research Paper 

RMRS-RP-49, 60 pp.

Delaney, D. K.; T. G. Grubb; P. Beier; L. L. Pater; and M. H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter 

noise on Mexican spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(1), pp. 60–76.

Diefenbach, D. R.; J. C. Finley; A. E. Luloff; R. Stedman; C. B. Swope; H. C. Zinn; and G. J. San 

Julian. 2005. ABSTRACT: Bear and deer hunter density and distribution on public land 

in Pennsylvania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp 1–2.

Diehl, M. S. and S. A. LeBlanc, S. A. 2001. Early Pithouse Villages of the Mimbres Valley and 

Beyond: The McAnally and Thompson Sites in their Cultural and Ecological Contexts, 

Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 83. Cambridge 

(MA): Harvard University, 144 pp.

Dissmeyer, D. E., editor. 2000. Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands. A Synthesis of the 

Scientific Literature. General Technical Report SRS-39. Asheville, North Carolina: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 246 pp.

Douglass, R. J. 1977. Effects of a winter road on small mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology, 

Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 827–834.

Dunne, T. D. and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W. H. Freeman and 

Company, New York.
References

276 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Durst, S. L.; M. K. Sogge; S. D. Stump; H. A. Walker; B. E. Kus; and S. J. Sferra. 2008.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher breeding site and territory summary – 2007. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1303, 35 pp.

Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gove/air/data/geosel.html; 

http://www.epa.gove/air/criteria.html; http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/; 

http://www.epa.gove/ttnchie1/ap42/c3/final/c13s02.pdf.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Particulate Matter. National Summary of Particulate 

Matter Emissions. Available at: http://www.epa.gove/air/emissions/pm.htm.

Executive Order 11644. 1972. Use of off-road vehicles on public lands. Federal Register: 37 FR 

2877, 3 CFR. February 8, 1972. Available at: http://www.archives.gov/federalregister/codification/executive-order/11644.html.

Executive Order 11989. 1977. Off-road vehicles on public lands (amends Executive Order 

11644). Federal Register: 42 FR 26959; May 25, 1977. Available at: 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1977-carter.html

Executive Order. 13186. 2001. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.

Fahrig, L.; J. H. Pedlar; S. E. Pope; P. D. Taylor; and J. F. Wegner. 1995. Effect of road traffic on 

amphibian density. Biological Conservation 73, pp. 177–182.

FLAG. 2000. Federal Land Managers’Air Quality Related Values Workgroup. Phase I Report. 

December 2000, 186 pp.

Foppen, R.; and R. Reijnen. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in 

woodland. II. Breeding dispersal of male Willow warblers (Phylloscopus trochilus) in 

relation to the proximity of a highway. Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 

95–101.

Forman, R. T. T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United 

States. Conservation Biology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 31–35.

Forman, R. T. T.; and R. D. Deblinger. 2000. The ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts 

(U.S.A.) suburban highway. Conservation Biology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 36–46.

Gagnon, J. W.; R. E. Schweinsburg; and N. L. Dodd. 2007. Effects of roadway traffic on wild 

ungulates: A review of the literature and case study of elk in Arizona. eScholarship 

Repository, University of California. 12 pp.

Gaines, W. L.; P. H. Singleton; and R. C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear 

recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, 79 pp.

Garland, T., Jr. and W. G. Bradley. 1984. Effects of a highway on Mojave Desert rodent 

populations. American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 111, No. 1, pp. 47–56.

Gibbons, D. R.; and E. O. Salo. 1973. An annotated bibliography of the effects of logging on fish 

in the western United States and Canada. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 

Portland, OR. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW – 10, 144 pp. 
References

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 277

Goosem, M. 2000. Effects of tropical rainforest roads on small mammals: edge changes in 

community composition. Wildlife Research, Vol. 27, pp. 151–163.

Goosem, M. 2002. Effects of tropical rainforest roads on small mammals: fragmentation, edge 

effects and traffic disturbance. Wildlife Research, Vol. 29, pp. 277–289.

Gratson, M. W.; and C. L. Whitman. 2000. Road closures and density and success of elk hunters 

in Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(2), pp. 302–310.

Grubb, T. G.; W. W. Bowerman; J. P. Giesy; and G. A. Dawson. 1992. Responses of breeding 

Bald Eagles, Haliaeetus leucocephalis, to human activities in northcentral Michigan. The 

Canadian Field-Naturalist, Vol. 106(4), pp. 443–453.

Gucinski, H.; M. J. Furniss; R. R. Ziemer; and M. H. Brookes. 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of 

scientific information. General Technical Report PNWGTR 509. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 103 pp.

Gutzwiller, K. J.; S. K. Riffell; and S. H. Anderson. 2002. Repeated human intrusion and the 

potential for nest predation by Gray Jays. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 66, No. 

2, pp. 372–380.

Haas, C. A. 1998. Effects of prior nesting success on site fidelity and breeding dispersal: an 

experimental approach. The Auk, Vol. 115, No. 4, pp. 929–936.

Hamann, B.; H. Johnston; J. Gobielle; M. Hillis; S. Johnson; L. Kelly; and P. McClelland. 1999.

Chapter 3: Birds. In G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on 

Rocky Mountain wildlife: A Review for Montana. Montana Chapter of the Wildlife 

Society, pp. 3.1–3.34.

Hayes, S. G.; D. J. Leptich; P. Zager. 2002. Proximate factors affecting male elk hunting mortality 

in Northern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 491–499.

Heede, B. H. and J. N. Rinne. 1990. Hydrodynamic and Fluvial Morphologic Processes: 

Implications for Fisheries Management and Research. North American Journal of 

Fisheries. 10:249–268.

Hess, L. J. 1969. The effects of logging road construction on insect drop into a small coastal 

stream. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State College. 64 pp.

Hickman, S. 1990. Evidence of edge species attraction to nature trails within deciduous forest.

Natural Areas Journal, Vol. 10(1), pp. 3–5.

Hoadley, J. 2008. Air Quality Baseline Report: Aldo Leopold, Blue Range and Gila Wilderness 

Areas. Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, New Mexico, 12 pp.

Holmes, T. L.; R. L. Knight; L. Stegall; and G. R. Craig. 1993. Responses of wintering grassland 

raptors to human disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 461–468.

Holzapfel, C. and W. S. Schmidt. 1990. Roadside vegetation along transects in the Judean desert.

Israel Journal of Botany, Vol. 39, pp. 263–270.

Hubbard, J. P. 1977. A biological inventory of the Lower Gila River valley, New Mexico. A report 

jointly prepared by Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and U.S. Forest Service, 61 pp.
References

278 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Huey, L. M. 1941. Mammalian invasion via the highway. Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 22, No. 4, 

pp. 383–385.

Hurst, G. A. and J. G. Dickson. 1992. Roads. Page 281 from Chapter 17: Eastern Turkey in 

Southern Pine-Oak Forests. In The Wild Turkey, Biology and Management, compiled and 

edited by G. Dickson, Stackpole Books, 1992.

Hutto, R. L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand replacement fires in 

Northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology, Vol. 9, No. 5, 

pp. 1041–1058.

Johnson, B. K.; J. W. Kern; M. J. Wisdom; S. L. Findholt; and J. G. Kie. 2000. Resource selection 

and spatial separation of mule deer and elk during spring. Journal of Wildlife 

Management, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 685–697.

Johnson, H. B.; F. C. Vasek; and T. Yonkers. 1975. Productivity, diversity and stability 

relationships in Mojave Desert roadside vegetation. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical 

Club, Vol. 102, No. 3, pp. 106–115.

Joslin, G., and H. Youmans, coordinators. 1999. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain 

Wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, 

Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307 pp.

Keller, M. E. and S. H. Anderson. 1992. Avian use of habitat configurations created by forest 

cutting in Southeastern Wyoming. The Condor, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 55–65.

Knight, R. L. and D. N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands.

Transactions of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, pp. 

238–247.

Kreisel, K. and S. J. Stein. 1999. Bird use of burned and unburned coniferous forests during 

winter. The Wilson Bulletin, Vol. 111, No. 2, pp. 243–250.

Lambeck, R. J. 1997. Focal species: A multi-species umbrella for nature conservation.

Conservation Biology, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 849–856.

LeBlanc, S. A. 1980a. The Early Pithouse Period. In: LeBlanc S. A. and M. E. Whalen, editors.

Archaeological synthesis of South-Central and Southwestern New Mexico, Office of 

Contract Archaeology. Albuquerque (New Mexico): University of New Mexico. pp. 119–

141.

LeBlanc, S. A. 1980b. The Post Mogollon Periods in Southwestern New Mexico: The 

Animas/Black Mountain Phase and the Salado Period. In: LeBlanc, S. A. and M. E. 

Whalen, editors. Archaeological synthesis of South-Central and Southwestern New 

Mexico, Office of Contract Archaeology. Albuquerque (New Mexico): University of New 

Mexico. pp. 271–317.

Lekson, S. H. 1992. Archaeological Overview of Southwest New Mexico. Las Cruces (New 

Mexico): Human Systems Research, Inc. New Mexico State Historic Preservation 

Division Project No. 35-88-30120.004. Approx. 271 pp.

Liddle, M. 1997. Chapter 17: A classification of disturbance to animals. In: Recreation ecology:

The ecological impact of outdoor recreation and ecotourism. New York: Chapman and 

Hall. 639 pp.
References

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 279

Lightfoot, D. C. and W. G. Whitford. 1991. Productivity of creosotebush foliage and associated 

canopy arthropods along a desert roadside. American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 125, No. 2, 

pp. 310–322.

Long, R.; S. Smith; S. Gallagher; and C. Berning. 1999. Off-the-Track: America’s National Parks 

under Siege. San Francisco: Bluewater Network. Great Egg Harbor Watershed 

Association [Internet]. [cited 2010 July 28]. Available from:

http://www.gehwa.org/ORV%20Documents/America's%20National%20Parks%20Under

%20Seige.pdf

Lovich, J. E. and D. Bainbridge. 1999. Anthropogenic degradation of the southern California 

desert ecosystem and prospects for natural recovery and restoration. Environ. Mgmt. 

24:309–326.

Luce, C. H. and T. A. Black. 2001. Effects of traffic and ditch maintenance on forest road 

sediment production. In Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation 

Conference. March 25–29, 2001. Reno, Nevada, pp. V67–V74.

Luce, C. H.; B. E. Rieman; J. B. Dunham; J. L. Clayton; J. G. King, J. G; and T. A. Black. 2001. 

Incorporating Aquatic Ecology Into Decisions on Prioritization of Road 

Decommissioning. Water Resources Impact, 3(3). 

Luckenbach, R. A. and R. B. Bury. 1983. Effects of off-road vehicles on the biota of the 

Algodones Dunes, Imperial County, California. Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 20, No. 

1, pp. 265–286.

Lyon, J. L.; K. T. Weber; and M. G. Burcham. 2007. Reducing Elk Vulnerability with Road 

Closures and Landscape Management: A Model. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station.

MacArthur, R. A.; R. H. Johnston; and V. Geist. 1982. Cardiac and Behavioral Responses of 

Mountain Sheep to Human Disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 46, No. 2 

(April 1982), pp. 351–358.

MacDonald, L. H. and J. D. Stednick. 2003. Forests and water: a state-of-the-art review for 

Colorado. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute Report No. 196, Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, CO, 65 pp.

Mader, H. J. 1984. Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biological 

Conservation 29, pp. 81–96.

Maholland, B. and T. F. Bullard. 2005. Sediment-Related Road Effects on Stream Channel 

Networks in an Eastern Sierra Nevada Watershed. Journal of the Nevada Water Resources 

Association. Vol.2 No. 2, pp. 57–70.

Martin P. S. and J. B. Rinaldo. 1950. Turkey Foot Ridge: A Mogollon Village, Pine Lawn Valley, 

Western New Mexico. Fieldiana: Anthropology, 38(2): 237–393.

Marzluff, J. M. 1997. Chapter 5: Effects of urbanization and recreation on songbirds. USDA 

Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-292. pp. 89–102.

Maxwell, B. and G. Hokit. 1999. Chapter 2: Amphibians and Reptiles. In G. Joslin and H. 

Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A Review for 

Montana. Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society, pp. 2.1–2.18.
References

280 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

McCaffery, M.; T. A. Switalski; and L. Eby. 2007. Effects of Road Decommissioning on Stream 

Habitat Characteristics in the South Fork Flathead River, Montana. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 136:553–561.

McGregor, R. L.; D. J. Bender, D. J.; and L. Fahrig. 2008. Do small mammals avoid roads 

because of the traffic? Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, pp. 117–123.

Mech, L. D.; S. H. Fritts; G. L. Radde; and W. J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road density in 

Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 85–87.

Meehan, William R., editor. 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid 

Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, 

Maryland, 751 pp.

Megahan, W. F. 1978. Erosion processes on steep granitic road fills in Central Idaho. Soil Sci. 

Soc. Am. J. 42(2):350–357.

Meunier, F. D.; J. Corbin; C. Verheyden; and P. Jouventin. 1999. Effects of landscape type and 

extensive management on use of motorway roadsides by small mammals. Can. J. Zool., 

77, pp. 108–117.

Miller, R. R. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American Southwest. Paper Michigan 

Academy of Sciences, Arts, Letters, 46: 365–404.

Miller, R. R. and C. H. Lowe. 1967. Part 2. Fishes of Arizona, pp. 133–151, In: C.H. Lowe, ed. 

The Vertebrates of Arizona. University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ.

Miller, S. G.; R. L. Knight; and C. K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding 

bird communities. Ecological Applications, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 162–169.

Millsap, B. A.; J. A. Gore; D. E. Runde; and S. I. Cerulean. 1990. Setting priorities for the 

conservation of fish and wildlife species in Florida: Wildlife Monograph 111. Supplement 

to the Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 1–57. 

Milne, K. A.; Hejl, S. J. 1989. Nest-site characteristics of White-Headed Woodpeckers. Journal of 

Wildlife Management, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 50-55.

Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. pp 

156–159, 170–171.

Munguira, M. L. and J. A. Thomas. 1992. Use of road verges by butterfly and Burnet populations, 

and the effects of roads on adult dispersal and mortality. Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 

29, No. 2, pp. 316–329.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, National Register of Historic Places (NHPA Section 

101, 16 USC 470a).

Neary, A. P.; Rinne, J. N.; Neary, D. G. 1996. Physical habitat use by spikedace in the upper 

Verde River, Arizona. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. 

26:23–28.

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2010. New Mexico Big Game and Trappers Rules 

and Information. State of New Mexico. Available at: 

http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/publications/documents/rib/2010/BG_RIB_2010.pdf.
References

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 281

New Mexico Department of Transportation. 2007. New Mexico Uniform Crash Report. 2002–

2007 report summary available at Gila National Forest. Silver City, NM. Available at:

http://www.nmshtd.state.nm.us/main.asp?secid=14478

New Mexico Partners in Flight. 2010. Online Reference for Species Conservation Concern:

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). Available at:

http://www.nmpartnersinflight.org/willowflycatcher.html. 7 pp.

Opler, M. E. 1983. Chiricahua Apache. In: Sturtevant W. C., general editor, Ortiz A., volume 

editor. The Southwest: Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9. Washington, DC.: 

Smithsonian Institution. pp. 401–418. 

Ouren, D. S.; C. Haas; C. P. Melcher; S. C. Stewart; P. D. Ponds; N. F. Sexton; L. Burris; T.

Fancher; and Z. H. Bowen. 2007, Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on 

Bureau of Land Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, 

extensive bibliographies, and internet resources: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File 

Report 2007-1353, 225 pp.

Pappouchis, C. M.; F. J. Singer; and W. B. Sloan. 2001. Responses of desert bighorn sheep to 

increased human recreation. Journal of Wildlife Management, 65(3):573–582.

Payne, R. B. and L. L. Payne. 1993. Breeding dispersal in Indigo Buntings: Circumstances and 

consequences for breeding success and population structure. The Condor, Vol. 95, No. 1, 

pp. 1–24.

Postovit, R. and B. C. Postovit. 1987. Impact and Mitigation techniques Pages 183–213 in B. A.

G. Pendleton, B. A. Millsap, K. W. Cline and D. M. Bird [eds.]. Raptor management 

techniques manual. Natl. Wildl. Fed., Sci. Tech. Ser. 10. Washington, DC.

Propst, D. L. 1999. Threatened and endangered fishes of New Mexico. New Mexico Game and 

Fish Department, Santa Fe, NM.

Propst, D. L. and J. Stefferud. 1994. Distribution and Status of the Chihuahua Chub (Teleostei: 

Cyprinidae: Gila nigrescens), with Notes on Its Ecology and Associated Species. The 

Southwestern Naturalist, Vol. 39, No. 3. (Sep 1994), pp. 224–234.

Propst, D. L.; K. R. Bestgen; and C. W. Painter. 1986. Distribution, status, biology, and 

conservation of the spikedace (Meda fulgida) in New Mexico. Final Report, Project E-3. 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM. 93 pp.

Propst, D. L. and J. A. Stefferud. 1997, Population dynamics of Gila trout in the Gila River 

drainage of the southwestern United States. Journal of Fish Biology, 51:1137–1154.

Raphael, M. G. and M. White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity-nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada.

Wildlife Monographs, No. 86, pp. 3–66. Accessed at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3830575

Reed, R. A.; J. Johnson-Barnard; and W. L. Baker. 1996. Contribution of roads to forest 

fragmentation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 1098–

1106.

Reid, L. M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment Production from Forest Road Surfaces. Water 

Resources Research, Vol. 20, No. 11, pp. 1753–1761.
References

282 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

Reijnen, R.; R. Foppen; C. ter Braak; and J. Thissen. 1995. The effects of car traffic on breeding 

bird populations in woodland. III. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of 

main roads. Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 32, No. 1. pp. 187–202.

Richardson, C. T. and C. K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human 

disturbance: A review. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 634–638.

Ritters, K. H. and J. D. Wickham. 2003. How far to the nearest road? Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 125–129.

Rinne, J. N. 1989. Physical Habitat Use by loach minnow, Tiaroga cobitis (Pices:Cyprinidae), in 

Southwestern Desert Streams. The Southwestern Naturalist, 34(1): 109–117.

Rinne, J. N. 1990. The utility of stream habitat and Biota for Identifying Potential Conflicting 

Forest Land Uses: Montane Riparian Areas. For. Ecol. Manage., 33/34: 363–383.

Rinne, J. N. and W. L. Minckley. 1991. Native fishes of arid lands: a dwindling resource of the 

desert southwest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical 

Report RM-206. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, 

CO. pp. 17–18.

Roberts, S. D. and W. F. Porter. 1998. Relation between weather and survival of wild turkey nests. 

Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp. 1492–1498.

Rowland, M. M.; M. Wisdom; B. K. Johnson; and J. G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling 

in relation to roads. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 672–684.

Rowland, M. M.; M. Wisdom; B. K. Johnson; and M. A. Penninger. 2005. Effects of roads on elk: 

Implications for management in forested ecosystems. Pages 42-52 in Wisdom, M. J., 

technical editor, The Stakey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule 

deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, KS. 12 pp.

Sampson, M. P. 2007. Effects of off-highway vehicles on archaeological sites in Red Rock 

Canyon. California State Parks [Internet]. [cited 2010 July 28] Available from:

http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24576, 28 pp.

Samways, M. J. 1989. Insect conservation and landscape ecology: A case-history of bush crickets 

(Tettigoniidae) in Southern France. Environmental Conservation, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 217–

226.

Schiffman, L. 2005. Archaeology, off-road vehicles, and the BLM. The Archaeological Institute 

of America [Internet]. [cited 2010 July 28]. Available from: 

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/southwest/. 6 pp.

Scott, V. E. and D. R. Patton. 1978. Distribution, food habits and nest selection of cavity nesting 

birds of the southwestern forests. Research Notes. 51 pp.

Semlitsch, R. D. 1998. Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond-breeding 

Salamanders. Conservation Biology, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 1113–1119.

Shook, R. 2009. The Gila River Bird Habitat Management Unit: An analysis of avian 

populations, mid-May 1996 through August 2009. Research Report, 91 pp.
References

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 283

Southwest Endangered Species Act Team. 2008. Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates [Rana] 

chiricahuensis): Considerations for making effects determinations and recommendations 

for reducing and avoiding adverse effects. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office, Albuquerque, NM. 75 pp.

Southwest New Mexico Council of Governments. 2010. 2010–2015 Comprehensive Economic 

Development Strategy. Silver City: Southwest New Mexico Council of Governments. 

Available at http://swnmcog.org/images/Approved_CEDS_2010-2015.pdf.

Sprigg, W. A. and T. Hinkley (eds). 2000. Preparing for a Changing Climate: The Potential

Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. Southwest. A Report of the Southwest 

Regional Assessment Group, University of Arizona, The Institute for the Study of Planet 

Earth, Tucson, AZ. Global Change Research Program, 60 pp.

Stalmaster, M. V. and J. R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to 

human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 506–513.

State of New Mexico. 2004. New Mexico Smoke Management Program Guidance. New Mexico 

Environment Department. Air Quality Bureau. Albuquerque, NM.

State of New Mexico. 2010. Draft 2010–2012 State of New Mexico Clean Water Act 

§303(d)/§305(b) Integrated Report. Appendix A, List of Assessed Waters. New Mexico 

Environment Department. Surface Water Quality Bureau, Santa Fe, NM.

Sublette, J. E.; M. D. Hatch; and M. S. Sublette. 1990. The Fishes of New Mexico. University of 

New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.

Switalski, T. A.; J. A. Bissonette; T. H. DeLuca; C. H. Luce; and M. A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and 

Impacts of Road Removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. February 2004. 

2(1): 21–28. 

Thiel, R. P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. 

American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 113, No. 2, pp. 404–407.

Thiel, R. P.; S. Merrill; and L. D. Mech. 1998. Tolerance by denning wolves, Canis lupus, to 

human disturbance. Canadian Field-Naturalist 122(2): pp. 340-342. Jamestown, ND:

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/wolftol/wolftol.htm (Version 04AUG2000)

Trombulak, S. C. and C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and 

aquatic communities. Conservation Biology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 18–30.

Underhill, J. E. and P. G. Angold. 2000. Effects of roads on wildlife in an intensively modified 

landscape. Environ. Rev. 8: pp. 21–39.

UNM – BBER 2007 – University of New Mexico, Bureau of Business and Economic Research. 

2007. Socioeconomic Assessment of the Gila National Forest. Albuquerque: University 

of New Mexico.

Unsworth, J. W.; L. Kuck; M. D. Scott; and E. O. Garton. 1993. Elk mortality in the Clearwater 

drainage of Northcentral Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 495–

502.
References

284 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2006. Regional Economic Information System, Table CA30.

Accessed 11 September 2010. <http://www.bea.gov/regional>.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. American FactFinder. Accessed 11 September 2010.

<http://factfinder.census.gov>.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. American FactFinder. Accessed 11 September 2010.

<http://factfinder.census.gov>.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Population Estimates. Accessed 13 September 2010.

<http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.html>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service State and Private Forestry Forest Products 

Laboratory, Adele Olstad and John Zerbe, eds. The Forest Products Conservation and

Recycling Review, 13(5/6), May/June 2001.

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/tmu/documents/nltr/nltr05_06_01.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

determination of threatened status for the loach minnow. October 28, 1986. Federal 

Register 51(208):39468–39478. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Loach minnow Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, NM. 38 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Gila Trout Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, NM. 113 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Reintroduction of the Mexican Gray Wolf within Its

Historic Range in the Southwestern United States. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Accessed at:

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/pdf/MW_EIS.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. General Species Information: Roundtail Chub, Gila 

robusta. Arizona Ecological Services Office. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Roundtail%20Chub%20R

B.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Species list by county. Available at:

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/EndangeredSpecies/lists/ListSpecies.cfm

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix 

occidentalis lucida). Vol. I. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. Available at: 

http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~alanf/reprints/mso_rec_plan.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii extimus). Accessed at:

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/SWWF_RP.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing 

Gila Chub as Endangered with Critical Habitat; Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 

211, pp. 66664–66721.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment. Region 2, 

Albuquerque, NM. Available at:

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/pdf/Mexican_Wolf_Conservation_Assess

ment.pdf
References

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 285

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Gila National Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern 

Region, September 1986.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-509.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Forest Service Manual 7700 - Transportation System.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Gila National Forest Migratory Bird Assessment. Unpublished 

report available at the Gila National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Biological Assessment for the Continued Implementation of the 

Land and Resource Management Plans for Eleven National Forests and National 

Grasslands of the Southwestern Region. USDA Forest Service, Albuquerque, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. FSM 2600 – Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat 

Management: Chapter 2670 – Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals.

Forest Service Manual, National Headquarters (WO), Washington, DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Travel management; designated routes and areas for motor vehicle 

use; Final Rule. 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295. Federal Register, Vol. 70 No. 216. 

November 9, 2005. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Identifying a Financially Sustainable Road System Spreadsheet Tool 

(FY05 data). USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Regional Foresters Sensitive Species list. Southwestern Region, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. Available at USDA Forest Service, Regional Office, 

Albuquerque, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Travel Management Rule Guidelines. Revision 4, June 30, 2008. 

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/projects/travel-mgt/index.shtml.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Forest Service Handbook 7709.59.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. National Visitors Use Monitoring Results. Data collected FY2006. 

USDA Forest Service Region 3, Gila National Forest. Last updated 24 March 2009. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Implementation Guide for Assessing and Tracking Changes to 

Watershed. Review Draft, 82 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Southwestern Region Climate Change – Trends and Forest Planning. 

Revised May 2010. 46 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Travel Analysis Process. May 2010. Unpublished report available 

from the Gila National Forest, Silver City, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Roads specialist report. Unpublished report available from the Gila 

National Forest, Silver City, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Recreation specialist report. Unpublished report available from the 

Gila National Forest. Silver City, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2010c. Air quality specialist report. Unpublished report available from the 

Gila National Forest, Silver City, NM.
References

286 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

USDA Forest Service. 2010d. Watershed and soils specialist report. Unpublished report available 

from the Gila National Forest, Silver City, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2010e. Aquatic specialist report. Unpublished report available from the 

Gila National Forest. Silver City, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2010f. Wildlife specialist report. Unpublished report available from the 

Gila National Forest, Silver City, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2010g. Sensitive plant species report. Unpublished report available at the 

Gila National Forest, Silver City, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2010h. Invasive species specialist report. Unpublished report available at 

the Gila National Forest, Silver City, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2010i. Cultural resources specialist report. Unpublished report available at 

the Gila National Forest Silver City, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2010j. Social and economic specialist report. Unpublished report available 

at the Gila National Forest, Silver City, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2010k. Law Enforcement (LEIMARS) Summary. Unpublished summary 

available from the Gila National Forest, Silver City, NM.

USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region. 1987. FSH 2309.24 – Cultural Resources Handbook.

Chapter 10 – Survey Standards. R3 Amendment 2309.24-1987-1. Albuquerque, NM. 32 

pp.

USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region. 1996. Cultural Affiliation Assessment 

Mogollon/Upland Lowland. In: Cultural Affiliations: Prehistoric Cultural Affiliations of 

Southwestern Indian Tribes. Albuquerque (NM): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region, pp. 119–121.

USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region; New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer. 

2007. Appendix I: Standard consultation protocol for travel management route 

designation. September 25, 2007. Available from the Gila National Forest, Silver City, 

NM. 16 pp.

van der Zande, A. N.; W. J. ter Keurs; and W. J. van der Weijden. 1980. The impact of roads on 

the densities of four bird species in an open field habitat—evidence of a long-distance 

effect. Biological Conservation 18, pp. 299–321.

Vander Hagen, W. M. and R. M. Degraaf. 1996. Predation on artificial nests in forested riparian 

buffer strips. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 542-550. Accessed at 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3802071

Voss, C. C. and J. P. Chardon. 1998. Effects of habitat fragmentation and road density on the 

distribution pattern of the Moor Frog Rana arvalis. Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 35, 

No. 1, pp. 44–56.

Ward, J. P., Jr.; A. B. Franklin; S. E. Rinkevich; and F. Clemente. 1995. Distribution and 

abundance of Mexican spotted owls. Chapter 1:(1-14) in: W. M. Block, F. Clemente, J. F. 

Cully, J. L. Dick, Jr., A. B. Franklin, J. L. Ganey, F. P. Howe, W. H. Moir, S. L. Spangle, 

S. E. Rinkevich, D. L. Urban, R. Vahle, J. P. Ward, Jr., and G. C. White. Recovery Plan 
References

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 287

for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), Vol. II - Technical supporting 

information. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, NM.

Warner, R. E. 1992. Nest ecology of grassland passerines on road rights-of-way in central Illinois.

Biological Conservation, Vol. 59, pp. 1–7.

Watson, J.; D. Freundenberger; and D. Paull. 2001. An Assessment of the Focal-Species 

Approach for Conserving Birds in Variegated Landscapes in Southeastern Australia.

Conservation Biology, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 1364–1373.

Watson, M. L. 2005. Habitat fragmentation and the effects of roads on wildlife and habitats: 

Background and literature review. Conservation Services Division, New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish, 18 pp.

Wisdom, M.; R. S. Holthausen; B. C. Wales; C. D. Hargis; V. A. Saab; D. C. Lee; W. J. Hann; T.

D. Rich; M. M. Rowland; W. Murphy; and M. R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for 

terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-scale trends and 

management implications, Volume 2 – Group level results. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485, pp. 157–434.

Zimmerman, D. A. 1968. The Gila River Valley in Southwestern New Mexico as an important 

wildlife reservoir. Unpublished report. Available at the Gila National Forest, Silver City, 

NM. 11 pp.

DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest 289

Index

affected environment, vii, 1, 43, 46, 50, 70, 

77, 100, 126, 212, 223, 227, 247

air quality, 70

affected environment, 70

airsheds, 73

cumulative effects, 77

dust, 74, 76

effects, 76, 77

ozone, 72

smoke management, 72, 283

vehicle emissions, 75

visibility, 35, 71, 72, 76

all-terrain vehicle (ATV), 265

alternatives, vii, 13

alternative C, 19

alternative D, 20

alternative E, 21

alternative F, 22

alternative G, 23

comparison, v, vii, ii, 32, 110, 112, 114, 

116, 117

considered in detail, vii, 13

development, vii, 13

features common, vii, 14

public alternative for Wilderness Ranger 

District, 31

amendments, vii, 17, 45

amphibians and reptiles, 157, 280

aquatic resources, 80, 100

cumulative effects, 125

effects, 80, 102

Arizona gray squirrel, 154

Arizona toad, 160

assumptions, 75, 83, 102, 247

bald eagle, 170, 274, 277

beaver, 154

birds, 165

game birds, 197, 199

migratory birds, 132, 183, 184, 194

raptors, 166

raptors, effects, 168

riparian species, v, 182

songbirds, 191

blue grouse, vi, 133, 198, 201

carbon dioxide, 73

Catron County, iii, 129, 215, 216, 217, 218, 

219, 221, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 

253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 263

chihuahua chub, 115

climate change, 73

consultation and coordination, vii, 1, 261

contributors, vii, 261

cooperating agencies, 263

critical habitat, 100, 129, 173, 174, 177, 187, 

188, 190, 284

cross-country travel, 4, 230

cultural resources, 30, 226

consultation, 228

cumulative effects, 244

traditional cultural property, 270

decision, iv, vii, 5

decommissioning, 93, 266

disabled access, 256

effects

summary, ii, 33

employment, 41, 252

Endangered Species Act, viii, 107, 119, 145, 

159, 211, 260, 265, 283

consultation, 270

environmental justice, 251, 258, 275

fixed distance corridors, 266

focal species, 136

forest plan amendments, vii, 17, 45

gartersnake, 160

Gila monster, 161

gila trout, 117

golden eagle, v, 167, 170

Grant County, iii, 70, 115, 129, 213, 215, 

216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 247, 248, 249, 

250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 263, 

264

hairy woodpecker, 179

Hidalgo County, iii, 129, 217, 220, 247, 248,

249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 

257, 258, 264

highway legal vehicles, ii, 15

hooded skunk, 152

hummingbirds, 193, 194

insects, 131, 201

invasive species, vii, 40, 43, 223

affected environment, 223

cumulative effects, 226

effects, 224

loach minnow, 110

long-tailed vole, 153

maintenance, 47

effects, 47
Index

290 DEIS for Travel Management, Gila National Forest

management indicator species (MIS), 101, 

124, 133, 134, 143, 144, 153, 154, 157, 

172, 173, 177, 180, 183, 186, 194, 196, 

199, 201

Mexican spotted owl, 165, 166, 167, 173, 

174, 284

mitigation, vii, 30

motor vehicle use map, 10, 268

motorized areas, 53, 66, 110, 163

motorized big game retrieval, ii, 9, 16, 26, 

45, 52, 63, 109, 137, 239, 241

effects to streams, 109

motorized dispersed camping, 52

riparian areas, 108

motorized dispersed camping corridors, 14, 

233

motorized routes, 52

National Forest System road, 268

National Forest System trail, 269

New Mexico Partners in Flight, iii, v, vi, 

132, 165, 169, 173, 177, 182, 186, 190, 

192, 197, 198, 201, 281

no action (alternative b), 13, 57, 76

northern goshawk, 165, 168, 169

off-highway vehicle, 269

payments (in lieu of taxes), 255

peregrine falcon, 169

plants, vii, 212, 285

affected environment, 212

cumulative effects, 222

effects, 222

pollution, 71

population, 248

preparers, vii, 261

primary cavity nesters and excavators, 178

public comments, i, vii, 7, 11

public concerns, vii, 8

public involvement, i, vii, 6

public safety, 46, 47

effects, 47

purpose and need, i, vii, 1, 4, 13, 269

recreation, 50

recreation opportunity spectrum, 53, 67

riparian and wetland areas

effects, 81, 88

motorized dispersed camping, 108

roadless areas, 55, 68

roads, 46

route density, 107

scoping, 6, 137, 139, 146, 270

sensitive species

aquatic, 119

wildlife, 130

Sierra County, iii, 128, 129, 216, 217, 247, 

248, 249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 

264, 279, 281

significant issues, ii, vii, 9, 51, 137, 248, 

270, 274

motorized big game retrieval, ii, 9

motorized dispersed recreation, ii, 9

social analysis

effects, 256

social and economic analysis, vii, 41, 247, 

258

effects, 257

soils, vii, 35, 77, 78

effects, 85

spikedace, 112

streams

road-stream crossings, 106

threatened and endangered species, 110

transportation system

existing transportation system, vii, 2

travel management rule, i, 1

tribal consultation, vii, 6, 256, 258

tribes, vii, 256, 258

unavoidable adverse effects, vii, 259

utility-terrain vehicle (side-by-side), 270

visual quality, 54, 68

water and soils, 77

water quality, 37, 38, 81, 83, 96, 274, 275, 

283

effects, 90, 92

watershed

classification, 265

watershed and soils

cumulative effects, 96

effects conclusions, 95

watershed condition

effects, 92

western red bat, 154

White Mountain ground squirrel, 153

White-nosed coati, 130, 154

Wilderness Act, 271

wildlife, 126

affected environment, 126

cumulative effects, 210

small mammals, 150, 152