Gila National Forest 

Travel Management Project

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement

Final Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation

Prepared by:

Arthur Telles, Jr. - Forest Biologist

Rene Guaderrama - District Wildlife Biologist

Justin Schofer – District Wildlife Biologist

Brian Parks – GIS Specialist

for:

Gila National Forest

December 2013
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, 

employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital 

status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is 

derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in 

any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will 

apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

i

Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1

Assumptions............................................................................................................................ 1

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy ................................................................................. 1

Alternatives and Mitigation Measures........................................................................................ 3

Affected Environment................................................................................................................. 5

Existing Condition................................................................................................................... 5

Species Considered.................................................................................................................. 8

Analysis Process ....................................................................................................................... 13

Motorized Use Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife ...................................................................... 13

Mortality from collision with vehicles.................................................................................. 14

Modification of animal behavior........................................................................................... 14

Alteration of terrestrial wildlife habitat................................................................................. 15

Increased contact and exploitation by humans...................................................................... 15

Analysis Factors.................................................................................................................... 16

Analysis Questions................................................................................................................ 18

Proposed Plan Amendments.................................................................................................. 21

Environmental Consequences................................................................................................... 23

Ungulates............................................................................................................................... 23

Wildlife Cumulative Affects ............................................................................................... 161

Present and Future Activities............................................................................................... 166

Wildlife Literature Cited......................................................................................................... 179

Wildlife Bibliography.......................................................................................................... 196

Appendix A. Gila National Forest Neotropical Migratory Birds by Habitat Type................. 199

Desert Migratory Birds........................................................................................................ 199

Spruce-Fir Migratory Birds................................................................................................. 200

Mountain Grassland Migratory Birds.................................................................................. 200

Oak Woodland Migratory Birds.......................................................................................... 201

Oak-Juniper Migratory Birds .............................................................................................. 202

Piñon Juniper Migratory Birds............................................................................................ 203

Ponderosa Pine Migratory Bird........................................................................................... 204

Coniferous Riparian Migratory Birds.................................................................................. 205

Deciduous Riparian Migratory Birds .................................................................................. 206

Marsh/Open Water Migratory Birds.................................................................................... 208

Tables

Table 1: Summary of the alternatives.............................................................................................. 4

Table 2: Primary vegetation types on the Gila National Forest ...................................................... 6

Table 3: Federally listed species (endangered, threatened, and experimental) for Catron, Grant, 

Hidalgo, and Sierra County, New Mexico (accessed December 17, 2012)............................. 8

Table 4: Forest Service Southwestern Region Sensitive Species and Federal candidates............ 10

Table 5: 2007 New Mexico Partners in Flight High Priority Migratory Bird Species by Vegetation 

Type....................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 6: Management indicator species by vegetation type.......................................................... 12

Table 7: Species identified through scoping.................................................................................. 13

Table 8: Responses of wildlife to various disturbance factors...................................................... 17

Table 9: Wildlife and fish standards and guidelines...................................................................... 19
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

ii

Table 10: Land management plan amendments 1 through 6 that would be implemented in all 

action alternatives.................................................................................................................. 21

Table 11: Proposed Forest Plan Amendment No. 7 for all action alternatives.............................. 22

Table 12: Ungulate species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection ........................... 23

Table 13: Ungulate avoidance/displacement distances by activity ............................................... 24

Table 14: Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators 

for ungulate species............................................................................................................... 26

Table 15: Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance zone, and analysis area that is used to 

analyze the effects of the different alternatives to ungulates................................................. 26

Table 16: Elk Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative........... 27

Table 17: Pronghorn Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative 28

Table 18: Analysis Area-Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ................... 30

Table 19. Bighorn sheep Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative .............. 31

Table 20: Mule deer analysis area - existing condition and proposed changes by alternative ...... 31

Table 21: Mule deer Gila National Forest management indicator species determination by 

alternative .............................................................................................................................. 32

Table 22: Wide-ranging carnivores - species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection 33

Table 23: Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators

............................................................................................................................................... 35

Table 24: 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..................... 35

Table 25: Analysis Area - existing condition and proposed changes by alternative (difference in 

miles per square mile from alternative B)............................................................................. 35

Table 26: Mexican gray wolf – summary of effects by alternative............................................... 42

Table 27: Mexican gray wolf federally listed species determination by alternative ..................... 43

Table 28: Black Bear Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Change by Alternative 44

Table 29: Mountain Lion Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Change by 

Alternative ............................................................................................................................. 45

Table 30: Small mammal species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection.................. 48

Table 31: Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators

............................................................................................................................................... 53

Table 32: Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area used to 

analyze the effects of the different alternatives to small mammals....................................... 53

Table 33. Lesser Long-Nosed Bat Habitat Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed 

Change by Alternative........................................................................................................... 54

Table 34: Lesser Long-nosed Bat federally listed species determinations by alternative ............. 56

Table 35: Southern Red-backed Vole Habitat Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed 

Change by Alternative........................................................................................................... 56

Table 36: Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative ...................................... 57

Table 37: Hooded skunk and Botta’s pocket gopher analysis area - existing condition and 

proposed changes by alternative............................................................................................ 58

Table 38: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ................. 59

Table 39: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ................. 60

Table 40: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ................. 62

Table 41: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ................. 64

Table 42: Small mammal Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative ............. 67

Table 43: Long-tailed vole and beaver Gila National Forest management indicator species 

determination by alternative .................................................................................................. 68

Table 44: Amphibian and reptile species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection...... 68

Table 45: Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators 

for amphibians and reptiles ................................................................................................... 72
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

iii

Table 46: Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area used to 

analyze the effects of the different alternatives to amphibians and reptiles.......................... 72

Table 47: Chiricahua leopard frog analysis area - existing condition and proposed changes by 

alternative .............................................................................................................................. 73

Table 48: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ................. 74

Table 49: Chiricahua leopard frog federally listed species determination by alternative ............. 77

Table 50: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ................. 78

Table 51: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ................. 79

Table 52: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ................. 80

Table 53: Amphibian and reptile Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative.. 83

Table 54: Raptor species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection............................... 84

Table 55: Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators 

for raptors.............................................................................................................................. 89

Table 56: Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area used to 

analyze the effects of the different alternatives to raptors..................................................... 90

Table 57: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ................. 90

Table 58: Mexican Spotted Owl Critical habitat analysis area – existing condition and proposed 

change table by alternative .................................................................................................... 91

Table 59: Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat (Mixed Conifer) Analysis Area - existing condition and 

proposed changes by alternative............................................................................................ 93

Table 60: Mexican spotted owl federally listed species and critical habitat determinations by 

alternative .............................................................................................................................. 96

Table 61: Mexican spotted owl Gila National Forest management indicator species determination 

by alternative ......................................................................................................................... 97

Table 62: New Mexico Partners in Flight (NMPIF) high-priority species determination by 

alternative .............................................................................................................................. 97

Table 63: PFA Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ......... 97

Table 64: Ponderosa Pine Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by 

Alternative ............................................................................................................................. 98

Table 65: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............... 100

Table 66: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............... 101

Table 67: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............... 102

Table 68: Raptorial birds Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative............ 105

Table 69: Northern goshawk Gila National Forest management indicator species determination by 

alternative ............................................................................................................................ 105

Table 70: Raptor New Mexico Partners in Flight (NMPIF) high-priority species determination by 

alternative ............................................................................................................................ 105

Table 71: Primary cavity nester and excavator species selected to be analyzed and rationale for 

selection............................................................................................................................... 106

Table 72: Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators

............................................................................................................................................. 107

Table 73: Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area that was 

used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to cavity nesters............................ 107

Table 74: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............... 107

Table 75: Hairy woodpecker Gila National Forest management indicator species determination by 

alternative ............................................................................................................................ 110

Table 76: Riparian bird species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection................... 110

Table 77: Summary of potential motorized route effects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators

............................................................................................................................................. 115

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

analyze the effects of the different alternatives to riparian birds......................................... 116
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

iv

Table 79: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............... 116

Table 80: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............... 117

Table 81:Southwestern Willow Flycatcher federally listed species and critical habitat 

determinations by alternative .............................................................................................. 120

Table 82: Southwestern willow flycatcher New Mexico Partners in Flight high-priority species 

determination by alternative ................................................................................................ 121

Table 83. Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............... 121

Table 84: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............... 123

Table 85: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............... 124

Table 86: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............... 126

Table 87: Riparian bird Forest Service sensitive species determinations by alternative............. 128

Table 88: Black hawk Gila National Forest management indicator species determinations by 

alternative ............................................................................................................................ 129

Table 89: Riparian bird New Mexico Partners in Flight high-priority species determinations by 

alternative ............................................................................................................................ 129

Table 90: Forested, woodland and grassland bird species selected to be analyzed and rationale for 

selection............................................................................................................................... 129

Table 91: Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators

............................................................................................................................................. 132

Table 92: Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area used to 

analyze the effects of the different alternatives to forested, woodland and grassland birds 133

Table 93: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............... 133

Table 94: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............... 134

Table 95: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............... 136

Table 96: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............... 137

Table 97: Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative .................................... 140

Table 98: Gila National Forest management indicator species determination by alternative ..... 140

Table 99: New Mexico Partners in Flight high-priority species determination by alternative.... 140

Table 100: Game bird species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection..................... 141

Table 101: Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators

............................................................................................................................................. 143

Table 102: Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area that was 

used to analyze the effects of the different alternatives to game birds................................ 143

Table 103: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............. 144

Table 104: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............. 145

Table 105: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............. 147

Table 106: Gila National Forest management indicator species determination by alternative ... 149

Table 107: Merriam’s wild turkey determination by alternative................................................. 149

Table 108: New Mexico Partners in Flight high-priority species determination by alternative.. 149

Table 109: Insect species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection ............................ 150

Table 110. Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators

............................................................................................................................................. 152

Table 111: Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area used to 

analyze the effects of the different alternatives to insects................................................... 152

Table 112: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............. 153

Table 113: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............. 154

Table 114: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............. 155

Table 115: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative ............. 157

Table 116: Insect Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative........................ 160

Table 117: Lower San Francisco WSA Route Miles by Alternative........................................... 161

Table 118: Affected Lower Riparian Type Habitat by Alternative............................................. 161
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

v

Table 119: Primary Vegetation Types on the Forest................................................................... 162

Table 120: Mexican Gray Wolf Cumulative Effects Analysis Area by Alternative ................... 168

Table 121: 5th code Watersheds per Route Density Category by Alternative (49 watersheds 

within NF Boundary)........................................................................................................... 169

Table 122: Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and General Wildlife Species Standards and 

Guidelines Compliance by Alternative................................................................................ 172
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

1

Introduction

This specialist’s report is a discussion and display of the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental 

effects/impacts to wildlife that could result from the implementation of the different alternatives for the 

Gila National Forest Travel Management Project. This report only analyzes alternatives evaluated in 

detail; by comparing the change the alternatives propose from the existing condition. This Forest wide 

analysis evaluates the relative change of potential effects of each alternative in comparison to the existing 

condition. This analysis also evaluates the effects of proposed forest plan amendments associated with 

this project.

Assumptions

Administrative Route: have less use than routes open to the public.

Seasonal Resource Protection: motorized routes exclude during the MSO nesting.

Motorized Cross Country Area Calculations: include slopes and vegetated stands that limit motorized 

cross country travel, game retrieval, and camping.

Motorized Cross Country Travel: the evaluation of excluding this use does not include evaluating 

authorized permission provided by a Forest Service Official with this authority. So Motorized Dispersed 

Camping and authorized Motorized Big Game Retrieval are not consider cross country travel for this 

analysis, but as an authorized use so these will be analyzed separately by alternative.

Closed Routes: benefit wildlife.

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy

This Wildlife Specialist report evaluates compliance with the laws, regulations, and policies that control 

wildlife, and fish management in the Forest Service. Management direction relevant to the proposed 

action includes: 

• Endangered Species Act (ESA): The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) 

requires that any action authorized by a federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a threatened or endangered (TE) species, or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of the critical habitat of such species. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, requires the 

responsible federal agency to consult the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

concerning TE species under their jurisdiction. It is Forest Service policy to analyze potential effects 

of management actions to TE species and document the determination in a Biological Assessment 

(BA). The results are summarized in this chapter and the full BA will accompany the final EIS. 

• Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670): "Sensitive" species include "those plant 

and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is of concern" 

(FSM 2670.5). The Forest Service is responsible for protecting all federally proposed and listed 

species and the Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS). In addition, the Forest Service is directed 

to "assist states in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species" (FSM 2670.32). Statelisted species are not addressed in the project environmental impact statement, BAE, unless they are 

also considered a RFSS, in which case they will be discussed in the BAE with findings summarized 

in the decision document as appropriate. Forest Service Sensitive Species Policy (FSM 2670.32) calls 

national forests to assist states in achieving conservation goals for endemic species; complete 

biological evaluations of programs and activities; avoid and minimize impacts to species with 

viability concerns; analyze significance of adverse effects on populations or habitat; and coordinate 

with states, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) and National Marine and 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

2

Fisheries Service (NMFS). The Forest Service Manual (2670.15) further defines sensitive species as 

those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a 

concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trend in numbers, density or 

habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. Many of the species that are on 

the Regional Forester Sensitive Species list have viability concerns for the following reasons:

1. Loss or degradation of suitable habitat (for both terrestrial and aquatic species).

2. The species is at the edge of its range.

3. Little is known about the species and prudence dictates that the species be protected until more is 

known about the viability of the species.

4. Excessive harvest/exploitation or persecution.

5. Disease or interactions with non-native species.

6. Combination of the aforementioned factors.

The analysis of effects must include an assessment of the effects of each alternative on FSS species; this 

assessment is documented in a Biological Evaluation (BE) and summarized in this chapter. Only 

alternatives that do not lead to a trend toward listing of loss of viability can be selected. 

• Management Indicator Species (MIS)(1982 Planning Rule)(36 CFR 219): The Gila National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment #10 for Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

amended the MIS list for the Gila National Forest to represent the major vegetation types potentially 

affected by management actions. The Forest Level MIS analysis is incorporated by reference into this 

analysis where all eleven MIS and their associated habitats are considered.

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act: Executive Order (EO) 13186, signed January 10, 2001, lists several 

responsibilities of federal agencies to protect migratory birds. Among them, agencies are directed to 

support the conservation intent of the migratory bird conventions by integrating bird conservation 

principles, measures, and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent 

practicable, adverse impacts on migratory birds when conducting agency actions. The Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) between USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, signed 

December 8, 2008, provides additional direction. The purpose of this MOU is to strengthen migratory 

bird conservation through enhanced collaboration between the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife 

Service, in coordination with state, tribal and local governments. The MOU identifies specific 

activities for bird conservation, pursuant to EO 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. Agencies shall 

identify potential impacts to migratory birds and their habitats, avoid or minimize adverse impacts, 

restore and enhance habitats, and evaluate the effects of actions on migratory birds. Where they exist, 

other analyses should be used, such as the New Mexico Partners in Flight Conservation Plan. The 

New Mexico Partners in Flight has identified highest priority species, by vegetation types (NMPIF, 

2007). All New Mexico breeding species were scored on global and New Mexico abundance, global 

and New Mexico breeding distribution, threats to breeding and wintering grounds, global winter 

distribution and the importance of New Mexico for breeding. These species are not necessarily 

species of concern but do illustrate the importance of the area to New Mexican avifauna. The Forest 

Level Migratory Bird analysis is incorporated by reference into this analysis where all high priority 

migratory species and their associated habitats are considered.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

3

• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act: The bald eagle was listed by the USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service as a federally endangered species in 1978. On July 12, 1995, this species was reclassified to 

Threatened in the lower 48 states. On August 9, 2007, the bald eagle was removed from the federal 

list of threatened and endangered species. Even though they are de-listed, bald eagles are still 

protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. These Acts 

require some measures to continue to prevent bald eagle “take” resulting from human activities. 

Following de-listing, the species was put on the Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. 

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): is an environmental law that establishes a 

multidisciplinary approach to considering environmental effects in federal government agency 

decision making. NEPA also establishes procedural requirements for all federal government agencies 

to prepare environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs). These

documents contain statements of the environmental effects of proposed federal agency actions. 

• Executive Order 13443: Was signed by President Bush on August 13, 2007 and is intended to 

enhance hunting opportunities on federal lands. 

• Gila National Forest Land Management Plan and associated amendments: The Gila National 

Forest Land Management Plan was developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land and 

Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule) (36 CRF 219). Wildlife and Fish 

Standard and Guidelines that apply to travel management are listed in Table 7.

This Wildlife Specialist report is based upon literature review (including the Gila National Forest Plan, as 

amended), Forest data, as well as a field assessment of habitat conditions. The techniques and 

methodologies used in this analysis consider the best available science. The analysis includes a summary 

of credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating reasonably foreseeable impacts. The 

analysis also identifies methods used and references the scientific sources relied on. The conclusions are 

based on a scientific analysis that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information.

Alternatives and Mitigation Measures

Alternative A: Proposed Action. Alternative not to be analyzed in detail and will be dropped from 

consideration. 

Alternative B: No Action. No changes in the current management of the transportation system would 

occur. Cross country travel would continue to be allowed.

Note: In Alternatives C, D, E, F and G, cross country travel would be prohibited.

Alternative C: Most motorized opportunities. Close only those routes that are necessary to meet law, 

regulation, policy. More areas for OHV use may be allowed. 300’ motorized camping corridors would be 

designated along specific routes. Motorized big game retrieval for elk, deer, bear, mountain lion, javelina 

and pronghorn would be permitted up to one mile from motorized routes. 38 small areas traditionally used 

for camping would be designated over a total of 28.3 acres scattered throughout the Forest and one 7.8 

acre area would be designated for motorcycle and ATV use only on the Reserve Ranger District.

Alternative D: Moderate motorized access with additional protection of sensitive resources, such as 

TES species, high-density cultural sites, riparian/wetland areas, low condition watersheds, and 

roadless areas. Big game retrieval in camping corridors only. Emphasis is on resource protection and 

non-motorized recreation activities. Motorized opportunities would be implemented in a manner to ensure 

that sensitive resources are not significantly adversely affected. Three hundred foot (300’) motorized 

dispersed camping corridors would be designated along specific routes. Motorized big game retrieval for 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

4

deer and elk would be permitted in the designated motorized dispersed camping corridors (i.e., 300’ in the 

designated motorized camping corridors). No areas would be designated.

Alternative E: Least motorized access, most resource protection and emphasizing non-motorized 

recreation. This alternative would emphasize fewer motorized uses, particularly focused on minimizing 

conflicts with resources including watershed, aquatic, wildlife, and cultural resources and on maximizing 

the opportunities for non-motorized recreation activities. No camping corridors or big game retrieval 

would be designated. No motor vehicle use areas would be designated.

Alternative F: Emphasis on motorized recreation opportunities while considering sensitive 

resources such as TES species, high-density cultural sites, riparian/wetland areas, low condition 

watersheds, and roadless areas. More motorized routes than the original proposed action are proposed 

to be open. 300’ motorized dispersed camping corridors would be designated along specific routes. 

Allows for motorized big game retrieval within 1⁄2 mile of motorized roads and retrieval is limited to elk. 

Thirty-eight small areas traditionally used for camping would be designated over a total of 28.3 acres 

scattered throughout the Forest and one 7.8 acre area would be designated for motorcycle and ATV use 

only on the Reserve Ranger District.

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

non-motorized opportunities. Motorized roads and trails are a mix of elements from Alternative F and 

the original Proposed Action (Alternative A). Three hundred foot (300’) motorized dispersed camping 

corridors would be designated along specific routes (a mix of the routes proposed in Alternative D and F, 

as well as the original Proposed Action). Motorized Big Game Retrieval would be the same as in 

Alternative D. Areas would remain the same as in Alternatives C and F.

Table 1: Summary of the alternatives

Key Elements Alt. B* Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F* Alt. G

Miles of roads open 

to the public for 

motorized use

4,613 4,272 2,976 2,318 3,363 3,334

Miles of motorized 

trails (less than 50 

inches in width) 

16 205 125 0 179 179

Miles of single-track 

(motorcycle) trails 0 64 0 0 0 0

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)

5,076

(no distance 

limit, forest is 

open

1,524 1,178 0 1,434 1,316
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

5

Key Elements Alt. B* Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F* Alt. G

Motorized big game 

retrieval (MBGR) 

description (acres 

open for MBGR)

No limit on 

distance or 

species. Forest 

is open 

(approx. 

2,443,391 

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. 

2,078,666 acres)

300 feet 

using same 

motorized 

dispersed 

camping 

corridors for 

retrieving

elk and deer 

(approx. 

84,388 

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. 

1,506,576 

acres)

300 feet 

using same 

motorized 

dispersed 

camping 

corridors for 

retrieving elk 

and deer 

(approx. 

94.008 acres)

Number of areas 

(acres) open to all 

vehicles 

No limit, forest 

is open 36 (24) 0 (0) 0 (0) 36 (24) 36 (24)

Number of areas 

(acres) restricted to 

ATV and motorcycles 

only

No limit, forest 

is open 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (3)

Affected Environment

Existing Condition 

The Gila National Forest is located in southwest New Mexico. The Forest is divided into six Ranger 

Districts that have the responsibility of managing a land mass of 3.3 million acres within Catron, Grant, 

Sierra, and Hidalgo Counties. Within this acreage there are 792,000 acres of designated Wilderness, and 

2,300 acres of designated and proposed Research Natural Area. The Forest is currently open to motorized

cross country use except in wilderness, designated and proposed Research Natural Areas, and restricted 

off-road vehicle areas or areas specifically signed or closed by Forest Order.

The Forest landscape includes a wide variety of mountainous terrain. The Mogollon, Pinos Altos, Black 

Range, and Tularosa are the larger mountain ranges on the forest. Elevation ranges from 4,200 feet in the 

semi-desert lowlands to almost 11,000 feet in the rugged Mogollon Mountains. Lower elevations are 

characterized by rolling hills dissected by moderately steep canyons and sand washes. Higher elevations 

are characterized by rugged mountains, deep headwater canyons, elevated mesas, and rock walled cliffs. 

Rocky outcrops are prevalent, with some of the most rugged and remote areas in the southwest found 

along the west face of the Mogollon Mountains and the east face of the Black Range Mountains. 

Major drainages on the Forest include the main-stem and headwaters of the Gila, San Francisco, and 

Mimbres rivers. The Forest also has drainages that flow into the Rio Grande from the Black Range 

Mountains. Drainages that flow out of the Black Range that support perennial flow include Animas, Seco, 

Palomas, Chloride, and Percha creeks. The southwest side of the Black Range is drained by the 

headwaters and main-stem of the Mimbres River. Major tributaries to this river include McKnight Creek, 

and Iron Creek. Major tributaries within the Gila and San Francisco watersheds include the West, Middle, 

and East forks of the Gila River; Beaver, Taylor, Diamond, South Diamond, Black Canyon, Little, 

Sapillo, Turkey, Mogollon, Bear, Sycamores, Willow, Negrito, Tularosa, Centerfire creeks and Dry Blue 

River. Major variables that relate directly to the spatial distribution of riparian vegetation along these 

drainages are flooding, groundwater conditions, and various soil properties (particularly soil moisture). 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

6

The flow regimes of the Gila, San Francisco, and Mimbres Rivers are primarily unrestricted by major 

impoundments or diversions; therefore, channel configurations are widely variable and the vegetation 

communities are represented by a diverse mosaic of many communities. Within these drainages there are 

tributaries and associated springs and seeps that support perennial and intermittent waters sources with 

associated riparian vegetation. Lakes on the Gila include Lake Roberts, Snow Lake, and Quemado Lake. 

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 semi-desert zones 

at lower elevations include mesquite, yucca, cacti, desert ceanothus, beargrass, and black grama in the 

various communities. Riparian zones range from the alder-narrow leaf cottonwood zones in higher 

elevations to sycamore-walnut-boxelder and Fremont cottonwood zones at the lower elevations. 

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 was collected in the field, 

Forestwide. 

In 2012, the Whitewater-Baldy Complex wildfire burned approximately 300,000 acres of high elevation 

spruce-fir, mixed conifer forest on the Glenwood, Reserve, and Wilderness Ranger Districts. This 

included a large portion of the western side of the Gila Wilderness. Following the fire, a mid-scale post 

fire change condition assessment update was completed in January 2013, reflecting changes to the 

vegetation types within the fire perimeter. 

A Region 3 riparian vegetation mapping project (RMAP) was initiated in 2009 and was completed in 

2011. RMAP used a combination of GIS, remote sensing, photo interpretation in conjunction with high 

resolution infrared photography and other ancillary data sources to map riparian vegetation communities 

region wide at a scale of 1:12,000. An independent accuracy assessment was completed, based on a 

random sample of 258 map polygons; the overall area-weighted user accuracy was estimated at 81%. 

Table 2 provides the most up to date vegetation types within the administrative boundary of the Gila 

National Forest used for this assessment. 

Table 2: Primary vegetation types on the Gila National Forest

Vegetation Type USFS Acres Non-Wilderness Acres Wilderness Acres

Desert Shrub/Grassland 26,067 25,382 685

Grass - Stand Replacement & Seeding 18,415 5,050 13,364

High Riparian 4,310 1,795 2,515

Lake 243 243 0

Low Riparian 9,283 8,306 977

Mid Riparian 20,859 14,370 6,489

Mixed Conifer 126,399 70,295 56,103

Piñon Juniper/Shrub Oak Woodland 1,602,637 1,213,660 388,977
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

7

Vegetation Type USFS Acres Non-Wilderness Acres Wilderness Acres

Plains Grassland/Mountain Grassland 232,217 223,051 9,166

Ponderosa Pine 1,163,459 897,986 265,473

Sparsely Vegetated 5,600 3,748 1,852

Sparsely Vegetated - Stand Replacement 58,354 12,770 45,585

Spruce - Fir 898 0 898

Wet Meadow/Wetland 1,710 1,595 116

Grand Total 3,270,450 2,478,250 792,200

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, 

Mexican gray wolf, and adjacent to the Forest the Lesser-long nosed bat. 

In January 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published the Final Rule that allowed for the 

establishment of a Non-Essential Experimental Population of the Mexican gray wolf on the ApacheSitgreaves National Forest 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 of 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. 

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 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. Birds of the Gila National Forest 

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. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

8

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. 

The Forest lacks data related to smaller isolated type habitats like springs, caves, cliffs, rock slides, and 

other unique features on our landscape.

Species Considered

Species analyzed in this report include those that occur on the Gila National Forest that are:

1. Federally listed Endangered, threatened, or proposed, and designated critical habitat for these 

species.

2. Region 3 Regional Forester Sensitive Species.

3. Migratory Bird species that may occur on the Gila National Forest.

4. Gila National Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS) as listed in the Gila National Forest 

Plan 1986.

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 the implementation of an alternative but not 

covered by the species listed above. 

Threatened and Endangered Species, and Designated Critical Habitat (proposed 

species covered in sensitive species section)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service County List of Endangered and Threatened Species, and Species of 

Concern were reviewed to determine the federally listed species that would need to be considered in this 

evaluation. 

Table 3 identifies the federally listed species, and respective designated critical habitat considered in this 

evaluation, and the species dropped from additional evaluation.

Table 3: Federally listed species (endangered, threatened, and experimental) for Catron, Grant, Hidalgo, and 

Sierra County, New Mexico (accessed December 17, 2012)

Scientific Name Common Name Status County

Sp. Dropped from 

Additional Analysis 

and Rational

Strix occidentalis 

lucida Mexican Spotted Owl Threatened & Critical 

Habitat

Catron, Grant, 

Hidalgo, Sierra

Sterna antillarum Least Tern (interior 

population Endangered Catron 

No habitat on the Gila. 

No Effect 

Determination
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

9

Scientific Name Common Name Status County

Sp. Dropped from 

Additional Analysis 

and Rational

Empidonax traillii 

extimus

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher

Endangered & Critical 

Habitat

Catron, Grant, 

Hidalgo, Sierra

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 Effect 

Determination see 

analysis.

Leptonycteris nivalis Mexican long-nosed 

bat Endangered Hidalgo

No habitat or 

occurance records on 

the Gila. No Effect 

Determination.

Lithobates 

chiricahuensis

Chiricahua leopard 

frog

Threatened & Critical 

Habitat

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.

Regional Forester Sensitive Species and Federal candidates

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service Proposed Species, and Forest Service Sensitive Species List 

for Region 3 were reviewed to determine the species that would need to be considered in the evaluation of 

this project. Table 4 identifies the sensitive species considered for this evaluation, and the species dropped 

from additional evaluation.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

10

Table 4: Forest Service Southwestern Region Sensitive Species and Federal candidates

Scientific Name Common Name Status Sp. Dropped from Additional 

Analysis and Rational

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

Bat mortality due to high traffic 

volume on major highways is less 

than 0.6% (Russell etal, 2009). Along 

forest roads with lower speeds and 

significantly less volumes of traffic 

there would be no adverse effects to 

cliff dwelling bats. The 

implementation of this project will 

have No Impact to these bats.

Euderma maculatum Spotted bat Sensitive

Bat mortality due to high traffic 

volume on major highways is less 

than 0.6% (Russell etal, 2009). Along 

forest roads with lower speeds and 

significantly less volumes of traffic 

there would be no adverse effects to 

cliff dwelling bats. The 

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

Asturina nitida maximus Northern Gray Hawk Sensitive
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

11

Scientific Name Common Name Status Sp. Dropped from Additional 

Analysis and Rational

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 Sensitive/Proposed

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

Anaxyrus microscaphus 

microscaphus

Southwestern (Arizona) 

toad Sensitive

Lithobates yavapaiensis Lowland leopard frog Sensitive

Extensive surveys for leopard frogs 

over the last 15 to 25 yrs. have failed 

to document this species. No Impact

REPTILES

Thamnophis rufipunctatus Narrow-headed 

gartersnake Sensitive/proposed

Thamnophis eques megalops Mexican gartersnake Sensitive/proposed

Heloderma suspectum 

suspectum

Reticulate Gila monster Sensitive

INSECTS

Erpetogomphus heterodon Dashed ringtail Sensitive

Lachiania dencyannae A May fly Sensitive

Speyeria nokomis nitocris Mountain silverspot 

Butterfly (Nitocris fritillary) Sensitive

Euhyparpax rosea A Notodontid moth Sensitive

Migratory Bird Species 

This 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 check list, New Mexico Partners in Flight, and the 

National Audubon Society. This information provides a guide to local project and landscape planning and 

analysis. The Forest Service MOU with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies specific activities for 

bird conservation, pursuant to EO 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 

migratory bird species on National Forest System lands. The Gila used New Mexico Partners in Flight 

information to identify high priority species, by vegetation types on the Forest. These high priority/focal 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

12

species represent the potential effects from each alternative to the other migratory birds that can occur on 

the Forest (see Appendix A). Table 5 identifies focal species considered in this analysis:

Table 5: 2007 New Mexico Partners in Flight High Priority Migratory Bird Species by Vegetation Type

Habitat Type NMPIF High Priority Species

Chihuahuan Desert Grassland Scaled Quail

Wet Meadow and Montane Grassland Wilson's Phalarope and Bobolink.

Southwestern Riparian Woodland (low to 

moderate elevation riparian)

Common Black Hawk, Common Ground Dove, Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher, Bell’s Vireo, Lucy’s Warbler, Abert’s Towhee, Bank Swallow, 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Lewis’s Woodpecker, Red-headed Woodpecker, and 

Painted Bunting.

High Elevation (Montane) Riparian Black Swift, Painted Redstart, and Veery.

Emergent Wetlands and Lakes American Bittern, Bald Eagle, and Snowy Plover.

Chihuahuan Desert Shrub Crissal Thrasher, Painted Bunting, and Black-throated Sparrow.

Montane Shrub Virginia’s Warbler, Lazuli Bunting, Gray Vireo, Black-chinned Sparrow

Piñon – Juniper Woodland Gray Vireo, Piñon Jay, and Juniper Titmouse.

Ponderosa Pine Mexican Spotted Owl, Flammulated Owl, Virginia’s Warbler, Grace’s 

Warbler, Pygmy Nuthactch, Lewis’s Woodpecker, and Red-faced Warbler.

Mixed Conifer Mexican Spotted Owl, Williamson’s Sapsucker, Red-faced Warbler, and 

Flammulated Owl. 

Spruce-Fir Blue Grouse

Cliff/Cave/Rock Prairie Falcon, Peregrine Falcon, and White-throated Swift

Management Indicator Species

The eleven Gila National Forest management indicator species and their associated habitats as listed by 

the Gila National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan will be considered in this analysis; the 

Forest level management indicator species analysis is incorporated by reference into this analysis (USFS 

2012). Table 6 identifies the eleven MIS species and their associated habitats.

Table 6: Management indicator species by vegetation type

Management Indicator Species Vegetation Type

Mule deer Desert Shrub

Mearns’ quail Plains Grassland/Mountain Grassland

Plain titmouse 

Mule deer Piñon Juniper/ 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/Mid Riparian

Beaver High Riparian

Long-tailed vole Wet Meadow/Wetlands
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

13

Other Species

Table 7 lists species identified through scoping that occur on the Gila National Forest which have the 

potential to be impacted by the implementation of an alternative; therefore, will be considered for this 

evaluation.

Table 7: Species identified through scoping

Species

Rocky Mountain Elk Mountain Lion Merriam Wild Turkey

Pronghorn Black Bear

Analysis Process

Motorized Use Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife

For this analysis, motorized travel includes motorized travel on roads, motorized travel on trails (by off 

highway vehicles OHVs), cross-country motorized travel (including motorized big game retrieval), and 

motorized dispersed camping. The degree of impacts to wildlife and their habitat is influenced by the 

mode of motorized travel, type of road (size and surfacing), the associated volume and speed of traffic, 

noise generated by the traffic, and the season of use by both animal and traffic (Forman and Alexander 

1998, Trombulak and Frissell 2000, and Wisdom et al. 2000). 

For over 80 years biologist have recognized roads as a 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 motorized recreation negatively effects 

the biotic integrity of both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). StrittholtDellasala2001, indicates that wilderness areas and designated roadless areas both small and large within 

the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion have a high level of plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate occurrence 

records; making a compelling case for the potential role of roadless areas as refugia for native 

biodiversity. 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. Some vehicle impacts are direct 

causing mortality; others are indirect like disturbance by vibration, noise, light, human activity, damage to 

forage, cover, shade, and water supplies; or can be large scale disrupting ecological communities or 

causing habitat fragmentation (Fullerton et al. 2009). Several scientific papers and literature reviews have 

been written on the effects of motorized roads on terrestrial wildlife species with an emphasis on wideranging carnivores and ungulates. More recently researchers have started to look at the effects of OHV 

(ATV and motorcycles). ATV use on public lands is increasing and these vehicles have been described as 

the multiplier of man in terms of their impacts to the environment in an area (Karasin 2003). 

The general impacts of motorized roads and trails on wildlife species are described below (Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000):

• Mortality from collisions with vehicles.

• Modification of animal behavior (e.g., displacement and avoidance of roads by wildlife, humancaused disruption of breeding).

• Alteration of terrestrial habitat (e.g., edge creation and habitat fragmentation).

• Increased contact and exploitation by humans.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

14

Mortality from collision with vehicles 

Animal mortality or injury from collision with vehicles is well documented in the literature. Trombulak 

and Frissell (2000) reported that mortality from vehicle collisions included a wide array of wildlife 

including deer, bear, hawks, owls, songbirds, snakes, lizards, and amphibians. Road associated mortality 

generally increases as traffic volume and speed increases. For large mammals, unpaved forest roads pose 

less of a concern of mortality or injury from vehicle related collisions. However, amphibians may be 

especially vulnerable to road collision mortality because their life history involves movement between 

wetland and upland habitats, and amphibians are inconspicuous and sometimes slow-moving (Trombulak 

and Frissell 2000). Raptors are also vulnerable to collisions from forest roads and trails because they often 

forage along roads (Loos and Kerlinger 1993); however, most reports of raptor mortality are in 

association with highways. OHV activity has been documented to also cause direct mortality due to 

breakage of nest-supporting vegetation, collapsed burrows, inner ear bleeding, and vehicle – animal 

collisions (Ouren et al. 2007; Long et al. 1999). 

Modification of animal behavior 

The ability or willingness of an animal to cross a road type varies greatly by species (Brody and Pelton, 

1989; Lovallo and Anderson, 1996). Improved gravel roads have been found to inhibit crossings by 

mountain lions (Van Dyke, 1986). Even infrequently traveled single lane routes as narrow as an OHV trail 

(<3.3 yards) have been documented to alter crossing/movement patterns of prairie voles and cotton rats 

(Swihart and Slade, 1984). Thurber et al. (1994) examined the response of wolves to different road types 

and found that radio-collared wolves avoided oil field access roads open to public use but were attracted 

to a gated pipeline access road and secondary gravel roads with limited human use. His speculation was 

that these roads with low human activity provide easy travel corridors for wolves.

Noise, and other disturbances associated with motorized use have the potential to cause stress responses 

to a broad spectrum of wildlife. The effect of noise on wildlife varies among species and individuals. 

Noise can alter animal behavior, affect breeding, the ability for some species to detect predators, and it 

has been documented to cause animals to emerge from their underground burrows at inappropriate times 

(Ouren etal. 2007; Long etal, 1999; Bondello and Brattstrom, 1979). Noise generated by OHVs has been 

found to cause inner ear bleeding in kangaroo rats, and hearing loss in this species and in sand lizards. 

Motorized noise may simulate natural sounds causing species like the spadefoot toad to emerge 

prematurely from its burrow, most likely because the sound mimicked thunder (Brattstrom and Bondello, 

1983). Noise created by certain types of OHVs can be as high as 110 decibels, a level that is near the 

threshold for human pain (Lovich and Bainbridge, 1999). This level of noise is not the loudest 

anthropogenic sounds in wildlife habitat areas, but they do tend to be emitted more frequently than other 

high-intensity sounds (Brattstrom and Bondello, 1983). One cannot assume that noise will always cause a 

negative effect; it has been documented that frogs can modify their calling patterns in response to acoustic 

interferences (Wong etal, 2009). Defour, 1980 reports that there are studies that document animals may 

become accustomed to continual noise, showing no reaction to this sound (habituation); however 

habituation to intermittent noise occurs less frequently. Occasional traffic down a two track road is an 

intermittent type of noise that in this author’s observation often solicits a response from the different 

species encounter on these roads. 

Studies show that wildlife, including birds, reptiles, and large ungulates, respond to disturbance with 

accelerated heart rates and metabolic function, and suffer from increased levels of stress (MacArthur et al, 

1979; Weimerskirch, 2002; Dufour 1980). Observed and documented responses include head raising, 

body shifting, short distance movements, flapping of wings, and flight or escape behavior. These 

responses can lead to bodily injury, energy loss, and decreased food intake (Dufour 1980). Longer term 

responses include changes or shifts in home ranges, changes in movement patterns, and habitat avoidance 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

15

and abandonment (Kasworm and Manley 1990, Jalkotzy et al. 1997, Dufour 1980, Gaines et al. 2003). 

These responses can lead to vulnerability to predators, starvation, and reproductive failure. 

Alteration of terrestrial wildlife habitat 

Forman and Alexander (1998) documented that road corridors cover approximately 1% of the United 

States, and that ten percent of the road length is in national forest and one percent is interstate highway. 

Roads can have the direct impact of converting large areas of habitat into non-habitat. Motorized activity 

reduces plant cover and along many roads completely eliminates vegetation. Vehicle activity on and off 

roads cause soils to be compacted altering the potential for vegetation, affects soil water contents, surface 

water flow patterns of run-off and sedimentation, adds dust to the air, and can modify surface 

temperatures (Trombulak and Frisell 2000). Forest roads and trails create edges that have an influence on 

ecological conditions well beyond the extent of the road prism (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). The road 

or trail creates edge habitat for species that are habitat generalists, particularly for some mammal species 

(e.g., coyote and deer mice) and some songbird species. Ravens are more common along roads since 

carrion is more available along these corridors. For habitat specialists, such as interior dwelling species 

that require intact, undisturbed patches of habitat such as the American marten and the spotted owl, roads 

fragment habitat. Interior-forest birds breeding adjacent to roads and trails may receive higher nest 

predation by a variety of bird and mammal predators and some songbird species have shown to have 

increased brown-headed cowbird parasitism rates. Roads and trails fragment or disrupt habitat by 

introducing exotic or noxious weeds. 

Ouren etal. (2007) states: “The road-effect zone is the area over which significant ecological effects 

extend outward from a road and typically is many times wider than the road surface plus roadsides. The 

zone is asymmetric with convoluted boundaries, reflecting the sequence of ecological variables, plus 

unequal effect-distances due to slope, wind, and habitat suitability on opposite sides of a road. Knowing 

the average width of the road-effect zone permits us to estimate the proportion of the land ecologically 

affected by roads.” 

Increased contact and exploitation by humans 

Brocke et al. (1988) reported that increased road densities allow for increased access by humans. As 

human use increases so does noise, disturbance, use and alteration of adjacent habitats, and the potential 

for illegal activities. 

Potential effects of motorized travel and recreation 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) and other authors who used this information to analyze the effects of roads on wildlife (Gaines 

et al. 2003) on Forest Service lands:

• Habitat Loss and Fragmentation Including Negative Edge Effects – roads can have the direct impact 

of converting large areas of habitat into non-habitat, while the indirect effects of noise, dust, and 

exhaust (pollution) 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. 

• 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.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

16

• 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 over harvest/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 that provides 

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 tails.

Travel management related impacts on wildlife vary with the volume, timing, and type of travel; the 

species of wildlife in the area; the types of habitats involved; time of day or season of year; and a host of 

other factors. Currently, the Gila does not have information related to the volume of use by different 

vehicles, the speed these vehicles travel at, noise generated by this use, and/or the areas and seasons of 

most use; therefore, this analysis is a relative risk assessment of each of the action alternatives compared 

to the no action alternative. Known information for this analysis is species location or habitat location 

information, and changes in road or motorized trail by alternative; therefore, this is the information that 

will be used to complete this analysis.

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 what is known about specific road and travel conditions that exist on the forest. An 

extensive amount of time was spent reviewing species and habitat location information to complete this 

analysis.

An extensive amount of time was spent reviewing the most up to date and most relevant literature to use 

the best available science for this analysis.

Analysis Factors

Wisdom et al. (2000) road and trail effects (identified above) can be grouped into 8 categories, as shown 

in column 1 of the table below. 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. 

Knight and Cole (1995) developed a conceptual model of the responses of wildlife to recreational 

activities. Their model identified two immediate responses death (harvest) or behavior change (direct or 

indirect effects). The relevant motorized activities considered in the development of their model included 

vehicle, OHV, and motorcycle recreation on and off roads. I’ve reviewed these groupings and like Knight 

and Cole (1995) feel the effects from motorized recreation on and/or off roads, as identified by the many 

different researchers, can be grouped into these same two categories disturbance or harvest; as noted in 

column 4 of Table 8.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

17

Table 8 summarizes/categorizes the responses of different wildlife species to motorized use as identified 

by various authors listed on the table.

Table 8: Responses of wildlife to various disturbance factors

Road and Trail Associated Factors 

as Summarized by Wisdom et al. 

2000

Liddle 1997 Knight and Cole 

1995 Response Analysis Factors

Disturbance, Displacement, Avoidance, 

Harassment Disturbance type 1 Behavior change Disturbance/Indirect Effect

Physiological Response Disturbance type 1 Behavior change Disturbance/Indirect Effect

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation 

(including Negative Edge Effects) Disturbance type 2 Behavior change Disturbance/Indirect Effect

Snag and Downed Log Reductions Disturbance type 2 Behavior change Disturbance/Indirect Effect

Barriers to Animal Travel or Movement Disturbance type 2 Behavior change Disturbance/Indirect Effect

Route for competitors and predators Disturbance type 2 Behavior change Disturbance/Indirect Effect

Collisions Disturbance type 3 Damaging Contact 

(Collisions) Harvest/Direct Effect

Harvest or Collection Facilitated by 

Motorized travel Disturbance type 3 Damaging Contact (Collection/Poaching) Harvest/Direct Effect

Focal Species

Ecologists have used different systems to evaluate the 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 affects to federally 

listed and R3 sensitive species in this region of the Forest Service is limited; using the focal species 

approach allows the Gila to use literature related to different groups of species and then use this 

information 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 a thorough 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.

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 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

18

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 mammal, bird, reptile, and amphibian 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 the “Primary Vegetation Types” table in the Affected Environment section of this document. 

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. 

Unique Habitat Area

The Forest lacks data related to smaller isolated type habitats like springs, caves, cliffs, rock slides, and 

other unique features on our landscape, but by using listed and other sensitive species location 

information and the analysis process identified above the deciding official will have enough information 

to determine the potential effects (relative risk) by alternative to species that use these unique habitats. 

For example the Forest has Peregrine Falcon nesting location information so by completing an analysis of 

how each alternative has the potential to affect this species provides information on potential effects to 

other species that use cliff type habitat.

Analysis Questions

1. Wildlife Standard or Guideline in the Gila National Forest Plan that are related to species, groups 

of species, or wildlife emphasis areas in the Gila National Forest Plan that relate to the 

implementation of this project (see Table 9).

2. Proposed Forest Plan Amendments associated with this project (Table 10 and Table 11). 

3. Issues identified during scoping related to terrestrial wildlife species.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

19

Table 9: Wildlife and fish standards and guidelines

Topic Direction Forestwide

Wildlife and Fish 1 Manage for a diverse, well-distributed pattern of habitats for wildlife populations 

and fish species in cooperation with states and other agencies. X

Wildlife and Fish 2 Maintain and/or improve habitat for threatened or endangered species and work 

toward the eventual recovery and delisting of species through recovery plans. X

Wildlife and Fish 3 Manage for indigenous species. Exotic species capable of reproducing in native 

habitats will not be introduced or allowed to invade National Forest System lands. X

Wildlife and Fish 4 Cooperate with state and other agencies to maintain wildlife populations within the 

habitat capability objectives stated in management area emphasis description. X

Wildlife and Fish 5 Within turkey habitat management areas: Manage open road densities to maintain 

and restore habitat islands without vehicle intrusion. X

Wildlife and Fish 6 Plan and administer disturbance activities in known elk calving, turkey nesting, and 

raptor nesting areas so as not to disrupt calving and nesting success. X

Wildlife and Fish 7

During transportation planning, road and trail densities will be evaluated, 

maintaining emphasized carrying capacity within key habitat areas for wildlife. 

2A (page 53) Canyon Creek, Middle Fork Gila River, Indian Creek

2B (page 59) Beaver Creek, Corduroy Canyon

2D (page70) Crest Area, Bear Creek, Turkey Creek

2E (page 75) Crest Area, Turkey Run, Byers Run, Monument Park, Diamond Creek, 

South Fork Cuchillo Creek

2F (page 81) Animas Creek drainage, Crest Area

2G (page 86) Crest Zone, Berenda Canyon

2H (page 92) Burnt Cabin Flats, Stiver Canyon, Scales Canyon, Taylor Canyon

3A (page 98) Johnson Canyon, Pueblo Creek

3C (page 109) Dillman Creek, Freeman Mountain, Dillon Mountain, San Francisco 

River, Centerfire Creek, Trout Creek, Potato Patch, Lilly Patch

3D (page 115) Lake Erin, Jenkins Creek, Smith Creek, Toriette

4A (page 122) Bearwallow Park/Mtn, Mineal Creek, Deep Creek, Indian Creek, 

Whitewater Creek, Little Whitewater Creek

4B (page 129) San Francisco River and important side drainages, Sacaton, Sun Dial

Mountain, Devils Park, Dry Creek, Little Dry Creek, Devils Creek

4C (page 137) San Francisco River, Mule Creek, Pot Holes Country, Sawmill Creek, 

Harden Cienega

5A (page 149) Black Mountain and Jordan Mesa winter ranges, Beaver Creek, East 

and Middle Fork of the Gila River

6A (page 175) Five Springs Canyon, Govina Canyon, Long Canyon, Squirrel Canyon, 

Upper Largo Canyon, Upper Wilson Canyon

6B (page 182) T Bar Grassland Area, Gilita Ridge, Moraga Canyon, Collins Park –

Salvation Peak, Eckleeburger Hill, O Bar O Mountain, Negrito Creek, Elk Mountains, 

Loco Mountain, Cox Canyon

6C (page 189) Granny Canyon Area, Sign Camp Mountain area, Legget Canyon area, 

Negrito Creek, San Francisco River, Eagle Peak

6D (page 196) Leggett Area, Willow Springs Mountain, San Francisco River, Tularosa 

River, Gordon Canyon

7A (page 203) Gila River, Bear Canyon

7B (page 208) Jack’s Peak, Gold Gulch, Walking X Canyon

7C (page 213) Twin Sisters Creek, Cameron Creek

7D (page 218) Walnut Creek

7E (page 224) Goose Lake, Sheep Corral Creek, Gila River, Cow Creek, Bear Creek, 

Walnut Creek

7F (page 231) Meadow Creek, Trout Creek, Sapillo Creek, Gla River, Watson 

Mountain, Mogollon Creek

7G (page 237) 74 Mountain, Rain Creek, Mogollon Creek, Sacaton

X
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

20

Topic Direction Forestwide

8A (page 242) North Mesa, Brushy Mountain

9B (page 261) Slaughter Mesa, Gallo Mountain, Escondido Mountain, Mangas 

Mountain

9C (page 266) Mangas Mountain, Alamocito Canyon

9D (page 271) Sand Flat, Bull Camp, Gallo Mountain, Slaughter Mesa

9E (page 276) Apache Mountain, Negro Canyon, Whiskey Creek

Wildlife - Mexican 

Spotted Owl 1 Limit human activity in protected activity centers during the breeding season. X

Wildlife - Mexican 

Spotted Owl 2

Road or trail building in PACs should be avoided but may be permitted on a case-bycase basis. X

Wildlife - Mexican 

Spotted Owl 3

Generally allow continuation of the level of recreation activities that was occurring 

prior to listing. X

Wildlife - Mexican 

Spotted Owl 4

Emphasize maintenance and restoration of healthy riparian ecosystems through 

conformance with forest plan riparian standards and guidelines. Management 

strategies should move degraded riparian vegetation toward good condition as soon 

as possible. Damage to riparian vegetation, stream banks, and channels should be 

prevented. 

X

Wildlife - Northern 

Goshawk 1 Limit human activity in protected activity centers during the breeding season. X

Wildlife - Northern 

Goshawk 2

Limit human activities in or near nest sites and post-fledgling family areas during the 

breeding season so that goshawk reproductive success is not affected by human 

activities. The breeding season extends from March 1 through September 30. 

X

Wildlife - Northern 

Goshawk 3

Emphasize maintenance and restoration of healthy riparian ecosystems through 

conformance with forest plan riparian standards and guidelines. Management 

strategies should move degraded riparian vegetation toward good condition as soon 

as possible. Damage to riparian vegetation, stream banks, and channels should be 

prevented. 

X

Wildlife - Northern 

Goshawk 4 Manage road densities at the lowest level possible. X

Wildlife - Threatened 

& Endangered Species 

1

Manage threatened and endangered animal, fish and plant habitat to achieve 

delisting in a manner consistent with the goals established with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish in compliance 

with approved recovery plans.

X

Wildlife - Threatened 

& Endangered Species 

2

Consult with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish on forest projects 

which may affect state endangered wildlife species. X

Wildlife - Threatened 

& Endangered Species 

3

Threatened, endangered and sensitive species habitats found during project or 

management planning phases will be evaluated on the basis of best information 

available. Management requirements needed to maintain or enhance habitats for 

these species will be incorporated into implementation plans for individual areas. 

Habitat requirements for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species will take 

precedence over requirements for other species.

X

Wildlife - Threatened 

& Endangered Species 

4

When management practices are proposed in or likely to affect listed species 

habitat, a Biological Assessment and Evaluation will be conducted to assess impacts 

and determine needs for consultation or conference with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service or the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Consultation will be 

initiated for situations where listed or proposed listed species may or is likely to be 

affected. 

X

Wildlife - Threatened 

& Endangered Species 

5

Monitor management within occupied and potential habitat of plants listed as 

threatened, endangered, or on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List. Manage 

sensitive species to sustain viability and prevent the need for listing as threatened 

X
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

21

Topic Direction Forestwide

or endangered. 

Proposed Plan Amendments

Table 10: 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.”

Use of motor vehicles in Hells Hole is managed 

by the travel management plan and displayed 

on the motor vehicle use map.

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.

Amendment No 7: Amend Gila National Forest Plan to add and remove language from the recreation 

standards and guidelines related to the Off-Road Vehicle Policy so it is consistent with the Travel 

Management Rule and outdated schedule will be removed, as identified on Table 11.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

22

Table 11: Proposed Forest Plan Amendment No. 7 for all action alternatives

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.

*Management prescription applicable to all areas except wilderness

**Standards and guidelines will apply uniformly throughout the Gila National Forest

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 (MBGR) may lead to resource, recreation, social and 

economic impacts.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

23

Area

The proposed designated area specifically for OHV activities may lead to resource, recreation, social and 

economic impacts.

San Francisco River Area

During the comment period for the Draft EIS, many concerns and issues related to motor vehicle use and 

access to the lower San Francisco River were received. The concerns and issues generated the need for 

the Forest to specifically address and analyze the effects of the alternatives in this particular area and 

associated routes.

Environmental Consequences

Ungulates

Table 12 identifies ungulates assessed in this section.

Table 12: 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

The Arizona Game and Fish Department document that research related to road effects on ungulates did 

not begin until the 1970’s (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% of the papers suggested 

deer were affected by traffic/road type, 84% elk, 80% bighorn sheep, and 100% pronghorn (Gagnon et al., 

2007). Their findings suggest that wild ungulates do not always respond to the same level of use. Table 12 

identifies the ungulate species assessed in this section.

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). Gratson and 

Whitman 2000, document that reduced hunter densities in road closure areas contributed substantially to 

greater survival rates of bulls compared to roaded areas. 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. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

24

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, Lyon 1983, 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. Table 13 describes the road and trail avoidance distances different researchers have 

documented for ungulates.

Table 13: Ungulate avoidance/displacement distances by activity

Species Activity Displacement 

Distance Reference

Elk ATV 

Flight Probability of 62% 109 yds. (100 m) Wisdom et al. 2004

Elk ATV 

Flight Probability of 43% 545 yds. (500 m) Wisdom et al. 2004

Elk ATV 

Flight Probability of 25% 1,090 yds (1,000 m) Wisdom et al. 2004

Elk Road Driving 400 m Ward 1976

Elk Road Low Traffic ≤ 0 to 1 vehicle 

per day 869 to 890 m Johnson et al. 2000 

Elk Road Medium Traffic 3 to 4 

vehicles per day 909 to 1032 Johnson et al. 2000

Deer ATV 

Flight Probability of 0.06% 109 yds. (100 m) Wisdom et al. 2004

Deer ATV 

Flight Probability of 0.05% 545 yds. (500 m) Wisdom et al. 2004

Deer ATV 

Flight Probability of 0.03% 1,090 yds (1,000 m) Wisdom et al. 2004

Deer Road Driving 800 m Perry and Overly 1977

Deer Road Avoidance 200 m Rost and Bailey 1979

Deer ATV Experimental Harassment 250 m Yarmoloy, Bayer, and Geist 1988

Bighorn Sheep Roads and Trails < 500 visitors per 

year

100 m Smith et al. 1991

Bighorn Sheep Roads and Trails > 500 visitors per 

year

150 m Smith et al. 1991

Bighorn Sheep Road driving sheep fled at 132 m Papouchis et al. 2001

Bighorn Sheep Road driving sheep alerted at 363 m Papouchis et al. 2001

Bighorn Sheep Road driving no sheep response 821 m Papouchis et al. 2001

Bighorn Sheep Vehicle traffic heart rate response < 200 m MacArthur et al. 1979

Pronghorn Mean traffic affect zone on 

primitive roads for ungulates 200 m Gagnon et al. 2007

Pronghorn Mean hiking and Mountain Biking 

Alert Distance 329 m Taylor and Knight 2003

Pronghorn Mean hiking and Mountain Biking 

Flight Distance 234 m Taylor and Knight 2003

Elk (Game Species identified as species of concern during scoping) - Several factors influence 

avoidance/disturbance (potential zone of influence) distances by elk adjacent to roads: traffic rates, cover 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

25

adjacent to roads, topography, and type of road (Rowland et al. 2005). To analyze the change in potential 

disturbance effects of motorized activities to elk we will use 300 m for motorized trails, and 650 m for 

roads. These distances are approximately the middle distance between the different studies reviewed. 

Additionally, these distances will help account for variables like topography and cover. 

The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish has mapped core elk habitat on the Forest; for this 

analysis the analysis indicators (mile and disturbance zone) will analyze the change in these areas by 

alternative from the existing condition (Table 16).

Bighorn Sheep (Forest Service Sensitive Species and Ungulate Focal Species) - Papouchis et al. 

(2001) reported that their findings were consistent with other research that roads cause a zone of influence 

larger than the road itself. In high use areas some sheep do habituate to road traffic but more typically the 

closer to a road the more likely sheep will flee. Papouchis et al. (2001) found that on average sheep fled 

when within 132 m of a road, were alerted when within 363 m, and did not respond at 821 m. MacArthur 

et al. (1979) found vehicle traffic caused a change in bighorn sheep heart rates 14.3% of the time when a 

vehicle was within 200 m. To analyze potential disturbance effects of motorized activities to bighorn 

sheep this analysis will use disturbance zone of 200 m.

On the Gila National Forest, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish started re-introductions of 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep back onto the Forest in March 1964. Two populations continue to occur 

on the Gila the Turkey Creek and San Francisco River populations. 

The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish has mapped core bighorn sheep habitat on the Forest; for 

this analysis the analysis indicators (mile and disturbance zone) will analyze the change in these areas by 

alternative from the existing condition (Table 18).

Pronghorn (Game Species identified as species of concern during scoping) - Avoidance/disturbance 

distance literature related to motorized affects to pronghorn is lacking. Several researchers discuss how 

roads fragment pronghorn habitat and cause flight responses, but do not provide response distance. 

Gagnon et al. (2007) completed a literature review of traffic/road type effects on several ungulates, 

including pronghorn and came up with an average zone of influence distance of 200 m for ungulates. 

Taylor and Knight (2003) examined pronghorn responses to mountain bikers and hikers. Biking activities 

caused pronghorn to be altered at an average distance of 328 m and to flee at an average distance of 234 

m. To analyze disturbance effects of motorized activities to pronghorn this analysis will use disturbance 

zone of 200 m.

The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish has mapped core bighorn sheep habitat on the Forest; for 

this analysis the analysis indicators (mile and disturbance zone) will analyze the change in these areas by 

alternative from the existing condition (Table 17).

Deer (Management Indicator Species Representative of Desert Shrub, and Pinon Juniper/Shrub 

Oak Woodland Vegetation Cover Types) - Wisdom et al. (2004) documents that mule deer do not 

exhibit the same flight response as elk in relation to off-road activities. Unlike elk mule deer showed very 

little flight response to off road use. Yarmoloy et al. (1988) suggest that deer tend to seek cover when 

harassed by ATVs. Wisdom et al. (2004) also suggested that deer are responding by seeking cover. If deer 

are spending more time hiding in cover during periods of motorized use and less time foraging this could 

affect fitness levels. Rost and Bailey (1979) reported a road avoidance zone of 200 m for deer. Wisdom et 

al. (2004) reported a 0.06% chance of flight for deer within 100 m of ATV use. To analyze disturbance 

effects of motorized activities to deer this analysis will use disturbance zone of 200 m.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

26

Mule deer have been identified as a management indicator species on the Gila National Forest for species 

associated with Desert Shrub, Piñon-Juniper, and Shrub Oak Woodland vegetation. For the analysis of 

this focal/management indicator species (mile and disturbance zone) the analysis indicators will analyze 

the change in these habitat/vegetation associations by alternative from the existing condition (Table 20).

Ungulate Summary:

Table 14 lists road associated and motorized trail/ORV factors related to Ungulates and the focal species 

that represent this group (Gaines et al. 2003); analysis factors based on the analysis factor discussed 

above; and the indicator that will be used to compare the different levels of affect between the different 

alternatives.

Table 14: Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators for ungulate 

species

Focal Group Road Associated 

Factors

Motorized 

Trail/ORV 

Associated 

Factors1

Combined 

Analysis Factors Analysis Indicator

Ungulates Hunting, Poaching, 

Collisions3 Hunting, Poaching Harvest/direct effects Route Miles

Habitat Loss

Disturbance, 

Displacement, 

Avoidance, 

Harassment

Habitat Loss

Disturbance, 

Displacement, 

Avoidance, 

Harassment

Disturbance/indirect 

effects

Disturbance Zone 

Summarized In Acres

Table 15 summarizes the harvest indicator, disturbance zone, and analysis area that will be used to 

analyze the effects of the different alternatives to ungulates.

Table 15: 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 Harvest

Indicator

Disturbance 

Zone Analysis Area

Elk Motorized Trail/ORV Use Route Miles 300 m Core Elk Habitat Mapped by 

NMG&F*

Elk Motorized Roads Route Miles 650 m Core Elk Habitat Mapped by 

NMG&F

Bighorn Sheep Motorized Trail/ORV and 

Roads Route Miles 200 m Core Bighorn Sheep Habitat Mapped by NMG&F

Pronghorn Motorized Trail/ORV and 

Roads Route Miles 200 m Core Pronghorn Habitat Mapped by NMG&F

Deer Motorized Trail/ORV and 

Roads Route Miles 200 m Desert Shrub, & Pinion-Juniper/ 

Shrub Oak Woodland

*New Mexico Department of Game and Fish
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

27

Ungulates – Effects by Alternative

Rocky Mountain Elk and Pronghorn

Table 16: Elk Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Total NMGF Core 

Elk Habitat on

USFS = 2,895,180 

ac.

Existing 

Effects

Alt B (No 

Action)

Change in 

Effects 

Alt C

Change in 

Effects 

Alt D

Change in 

Effects 

Alt E

Change in 

Effects 

Alt F

Change in 

Effects 

Alt G

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML2-

ML5

3,906.55 mi.

1,347,536.2 ac.

-252.67 mi.

-94,396.3 ac.

-1,327.60 mi.

-301,247.8 ac.

-1,928.89 mi.

-471,091 ac.

-963.81 mi.

-215,214.2 ac.

-987.61 mi.

-215,100.6 ac.

Reopen Closed ML1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

9.97 mi.

10,377.44 ac.

8.96 mi.

9,057.77 ac.

2.14 mi.

2,464.78 ac.

9.13 mi.

9,470.92 ac.

9.13 mi.

9,470.92 ac.

Administrative 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

124.39 mi.

87,525.5 ac.

274.20 mi.

206,409.3 ac.

363.84 mi.

249,571.4 ac.

231.75 mi.

180,316.4 ac

231.18 mi.

178,868.5 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

4.67 mi.

6,923.47 ac.

3.45 mi.

11,667.11 ac.

1.50 mi.

1,422.55 ac.

3.50 mi.

5,472.92 ac.

4.31 mi.

6,681.86 ac.

Add Admin. 

Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

24.42 mi.

24,514.24 ac.

24.39 mi.

24,461.87 ac.

2.08 mi.

1,597.61 ac.

23.04 mi.

23,648.22 ac.

23.04 mi.

23,648.22 ac.

Seasonal Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

8.05 mi.

2,900.79 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to 

OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

20.23 mi.

4,838.05 ac.

29.98 mi.

7,619.40 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

49.88 mi.

11,491.18 ac.

51.44 mi.

11,986.64 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

15.79 mi.

3,695.11 ac.

-0.80 mi.

-186.43 ac.

-7.25 mi.

-1,735.96 ac.

-15.79 mi.

-3,695.11 ac.

-0.80 mi.

-186.43 ac.

-0.80 mi.

-186.43 ac.

Closed Road to OHV 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

18.19 mi.

4,566.36 ac.

5.45 mi.

1,407.06 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

12.23 mi.

3,007.31 ac.

12.23 mi.

3,007.31 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.83 mi.

768.42 ac.

2.15 mi.

553.52 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

64.38 mi.

15,202.27 ac.

13.57 mi.

3,254.93 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

20.85 mi.

5,003.77 ac.

20.85 mi.

5,003.77 ac.

Total FS Routes and 

Trails (miles) 3,922.34 3,935.13 2,958.37 2,349.38 3,308.11 3,286.12

% in Miles of Alt. B 

(Existing) 0.33% -24.58% -40.10% -15.66% -16.22%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd 

(Including 

ROW/Assert)

157.66 mi.

151,090.56 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, 

County Road

634.96 mi.

297,226.77 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

28

Total NMGF Core 

Elk Habitat on

USFS = 2,895,180 

ac.

Existing 

Effects

Alt B (No 

Action)

Change in 

Effects 

Alt C

Change in 

Effects 

Alt D

Change in 

Effects 

Alt E

Change in 

Effects 

Alt F

Change in 

Effects 

Alt G

Motorized 

Dispersed Camping

(acres)

2,102,646 -2,009,869.1 -2,030,011.4 -2,102,646.4 -2,014,445 -2,021,456.4

% in Acres of 

Alt. B (Existing) -95.59% -96.55% -100% -95.81% -96.14%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All 

Vehicles (acres) 23.69 0.00 -23.69 -23.69 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area -

OHV Only (acres) 3.31 0.00 -3.31 -3.31 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 2,102,646 -297,467.5 -2,030,011.4 -2,102,646.4 -776,377.18 -2,021,456.4

% in Acres of 

Alt. B (Existing) -14.15% -96.55% -100% -36.92% -96.14%

Table 17: Pronghorn Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Total NMDGF Core

Pronghorn

Habitat on NFS land = 

129,350 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Total NFS routes and trails 

(miles) 314.86 312.78 244.57 211.52 257.10 252.85

Percent miles of Alt. B 

(existing) -0.66% -22.33% -32.82% -18.35% -19.70%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert) (miles (mi.) 

and acres (ac.)

22.79 mi.

4,661.40 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

U.S. Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road (miles (mi.) and acres 

(ac.)

55.95 mi. 

8,909.72 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 126,016.6 -116,857.6 -118,049.3 -126,016.6 -117,022.4 -117,309.9

Percent acres of Alt. B 

(existing) -92.73% -93.68% -100% -92.86% -93.09%

Motorized Areas (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 126,016.64 -3,588.43 -118,049.31 -126,016.64 -25,560.34 -117,309.96

Percent acres of Alt. B 

(existing) -2.85% -93.68% -100% -20.28% -93.09%

No Action Alternative (Alt. B): Under this alternative there are approximately 3,922 miles of motorized 

routes in the elk analysis area (Table 16) and 315 miles of motorized routes in the pronghorn analysis area 

(Table 17). These routes continue to cause habitat loss and the potential for other types of direct effects to 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

29

this species. The potential for collision loss does exist on Forest Service routes; however, lower traffic 

rates and travel speeds on forest routes reduce this potential. Increases in road densities increases the 

potential for take associated with poaching. The potential disturbance zone in the elk analysis area 

(1,351,231 acres) and pronghorn analysis area (44,505 acres) along motorized routes continue to cause 

the potential for indirect effects. Under this alternative you continue to have motorized cross country 

travel, dispersed camping, and big game retrieval allowed across the Gila National Forest. These three 

types of uses continue to have potential effects to elk and pronghorn. Additionally, these three types of 

uses perpetuate the development of additional roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing for the 

development of greater road densities. So under this alternative through time the potential for the direct 

loss of individuals and habitat would increase, as would the potential for disturbance affects to the species 

and its habitat. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G; Table 16 and Table 17): Under all action alternatives motorized 

cross country travel (see assumption) is no longer allowed. The change from the existing condition is a 

100% reduction in motorized cross country travel. In the elk analysis area motorized dispersed camping is 

reduced by approximately 96 to 100% under all action alternatives; and in the pronghorn analysis area it 

is reduced by approximately 93 to 100%. For elk the area of potentially affected habitat for motorized big 

game retrieval is reduced by 100% under Alternative E, 97% under Alternative D, 96% under Alternative 

G, 37% under Alternative F, and 14% under Alternative C. For pronghorn the area of potentially affected 

habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100% under Alternative E, 94% under Alternative 

D, 93% under Alternative G, 20% under Alternative F, and 3% under Alternative C.

Motorized areas are locations where we have had traditional uses like motorized camping and OHV use. 

No motorized areas currently occur or are proposed in the pronghorn analysis area. In the elk analysis 

area under Alternatives D and E there is a reduction of 31 acres of potentially affected habitat, and under 

the remaining action alternative there is no change from the existing condition; 31 acres of habitat will 

continue to be affected under Alternatives C, F, and G).

Miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat within the elk analysis area 

are reduced by approximately 40% under Alternative E; 25% under Alternative D; 16% under Alternative 

F and G; and by less than 0.5% under Alternative C. Within the pronghorn analysis area these effects are 

reduced by approximately 33% under Alternative E; 22% under Alternative D; 19% under G; 18% under 

F, and by less than 1% 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 exist, but none 

will affect the viability of these species or the viability of any other wild ungulate on the Gila.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

30

Bighorn Sheep

Table 18: Analysis Area-Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Total NMDGF Core Bighorn Habitat

on NFS land = 68,737 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B 

Alt. C 

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change 

in 

Effects

Total NFS routes and trails (miles) 34.89 34.46 24.12 16.07 33.22 25.92

Percent miles of Alt. B (existing) -1.24% -30.86% -53.95% -4.79% -25.71%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including ROW/Assert) (miles 

(mi.) and acres (ac.) 

1.21 mi.

331.98 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

U.S. Hwy, State Hwy, County Roads 

(miles (mi.) and acres (ac.)

6.28 mi. 

1,364.64 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed Camping (acres) 46,160.20 -44,614.7 -45,675.7 -46,160.2 -45,260.8 -45,700.4

Percent acres of Alt. B (existing) -96.65% -98.95% -100% -98.05% -99%

Motorized Areas (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Big Game Retrieval (acres) 46,160.20 -8,709.99 -45,675.7 -46,160.2 -23,082.7 -45,700.4

Percent acres of Alt. B (existing) -18.87% -98.95% -100% -50.01% -99%

No Action Alternative (Alt. B): Under this alternative there are approximately 35 miles of motorized 

routes in bighorn sheep habitat, which continues to cause habitat loss and the potential for other types of 

direct effects to this species (Table 18). The potential for collision loss does exist on Forest Service 

motorized routes; however, lower traffic rates and travel speeds on forest routes reduce this potential. 

Increases in road densities increases the potential for take associated with poaching. The potential 

disturbance zone (5,961 acres) along motorized routes in this analysis area continues to cause the 

potential for indirect effects. Papouchis et al. (2001) reported that their findings were consistent with 

other research that roads cause a zone of influence larger than the road itself. In high use areas some 

sheep do 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 you continue to have motorized cross country travel, dispersed camping, and big 

game retrieval allowed across the Gila National Forest. These three types of uses continue to have 

potential effects to bighorn sheep. Additionally, these three types of uses perpetuate the development of 

additional roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing for the development of greater road densities. 

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. 

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% reduction in motorized cross 

country travel. Motorized dispersed camping is reduced by 97 to 100% under all action alternatives. Area 

of potentially affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100% under Alternative E, 

99% under Alternative D and G, 50% under Alternative F, and 19% under Alternative C (Table 18).

Motorized areas are locations where we have had traditional uses like motorized 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.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

31

Miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat within the analysis area are 

reduced by approximately 54% under Alternative E; 31% under Alternative D; 26% under Alternative G; 

5% under Alternative F; and 1% 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:

Table 19 displays the effects determination for bighorn sheep listed as a Forest Service sensitive species.

Table 19. Bighorn sheep Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative

Sensitive 

Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. 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.

Mule Deer

Table 20: Mule deer analysis area - existing condition and proposed changes by alternative

Mule Deer Habitat* Analysis 

Area on NFS land = 1,628,703 

acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Total NFS routes and trails (miles) 1,617.24 1,656.85 1,272.07 1,020.73 1,370.30 1,367.82

Percent miles of Alt. B (existing) 2% -21% -37% -15% -15%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including ROW/Assert) 

(miles (mi.) and acres (ac.)

76.96 mi.

21,437.54 

ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

U.S. Hwy, State Hwy, County Roads 

(miles (mi.) and acres (ac.)

393.77 mi. 

61,155.13ac

.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed Camping (acres) 1,207,266 -1,165,617.9 -1,174,308.2 -1,207,266.2 -1,168,913.9 -1,171,095.6

Percent acres of Alt. B (existing) -97% -97% -100% -97% -97%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles (acres) 14.45 0.00 -14.45 -14.45 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only (acres) 0.26 0.00 -0.26 -0.26 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval (acres) 1,207,266 -234,103.8 -1,174,308.2 -1,207,266.2 -549,684.5 -1,171,095.6

Percent acres of Alt. B (existing) -19% -97% -100% -46% -97%

No Action Alternative (Alt. B): Under this alternative there are 1,617 miles of motorized routes in deer 

habitat (Table 20). These routes continue to cause habitat loss and the potential for other types of direct 

effects to this species. The potential for collision loss does exist on Forest Service routes; however, lower 

traffic rates and travel speeds on forest routes reduce this potential. Increases in road densities increases 

the potential for take associated with poaching. The potential disturbance zone (259,155 acres) along 

motorized routes in this analysis area continues to cause the potential for indirect effects. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

32

Under this alternative you continue to have motorized cross country travel, dispersed camping, and big 

game retrieval allowed across the Gila National Forest. These three types of uses continue to have 

potential effects to deer. Additionally, these three types of uses perpetuate the development of additional 

roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing for the development of greater road densities. 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. 

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% reduction in motorized cross 

country travel. Motorized dispersed camping is reduced by 97 to 100% under all action alternatives. Area 

of potentially affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100% under Alternative E, 

97% under Alternative D and G, 46% under Alternative F, and 19% under Alternative C (Table 20).

Motorized areas are locations where we have had traditional uses like motorized camping and OHV use. 

Under Alternatives D and E there is a reduction of 14.5 acres of potentially 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 37% under Alternative E; 21% under Alternative D; and 15% under Alternative 

F and G. Under Alternative C motorized routes are increased by 2%. 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:

Table 21 displays the effects determination for ungulates listed as Gila National Forest management 

indicator species.

Table 21: Mule deer Gila National Forest management indicator species determination by alternative

Management 

Indicator Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Mule deer NA NA NA NA NA

Rationale for 

determination

Under all action alternatives, the potential effects to deer and deer habitat are reduced, particularly 

under alternative E. The potential to affect individuals and minor amounts of habitat under all action 

alternatives still exist; 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.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

33

Wide Ranging Carnivores

Table 22 identifies the carnivores assessed in this section.

Table 22: Wide-ranging carnivores - species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection

Species Analyzed Rationale For Selection

Mexican gray wolf Federally listed as Endangered with a designation of Experimental Population

Mountain lion Game species identified as species of concern during scoping

Black bear Game species identified as species of concern during scoping

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 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, but this type of information is lacking for wolves and mountain lions. For wolves the literature 

related to motorized use effects is associated with road densities. Road density is the indicator that is used 

to analyze the potential for harvest and disturbance to wolves under the different alternatives. For 

mountain lions route miles will be used as the indicator for both direct and indirect effects, since no 

literature was located related to disturbance zones. For black bears route miles will be used as the 

indicator for potential harvest effects and 200 meters for a potential disturbance effects (see black bear 

write-up). 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 the 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.

Mexican Gray Wolf (Federally Listed as endangered with a designation of Experimental Population 

on the Gila) - Claar et al. (1999) states that wolves are habitat generalist 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 motorized 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) states that findings from many of these studies that looked at large 

well established wolf populations may not be applicable to fragmented, recovering populations in western 

states. Wolf populations in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Montana have become more habituated to humans 

through time since recolonization has occurred in these recovering populations (Claar et al. 1999, and 

Thiel et al. 1998). 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

34

Mexican Gray Wolves are the southernmost occurring, rarest, and most genetically distinct gray wolf in 

North America. They historically occurred in the mountainous regions of the Southwest from throughout 

portions of southern Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas into central Mexico. Mexican Gray Wolves were 

extirpated in the United States by aggressive predator control programs. Gray wolves were once common 

in the Gila National Forest, New Mexico (Frey, 1995).

On January 12, 1998, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service published an Endangered Species Act section 

10(j) rule for the Mexican Gray Wolf that provided for the designation of specific populations of listed 

species in the United States as “experimental populations”. The Mexican Gray Wolf is in the process of 

being reintroduced 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 non-essential 

experimental population, pursuant to section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act as amended.

The Mexican Wolf Reintroduction EIS (1996) did not recognize road densities on the Gila National Forest 

as problem. This EIS did recognize roads adjacent to dens as a concern. To mitigate the potential for 

motorized recreation to affect wolf dens the Gila will continue to issue closure orders adjacent to these 

areas as recommended by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (see design criteria). Again, road density 

changes will be the indicator that is used to analyze the potential harvest and disturbance affects under the 

different alternatives, and the analysis area will be the 5th code watershed (Table 24 and Table 25). 

Mountain Lion (Game Species identified as a species of concern during scoping) - This species is 

adapted to thrive in a wide variety of habitats (Claar et al. 1999). Human development and disturbance are 

a long term threat to this species. Research in Arizona documented that lions selected areas with lower 

road densities than average in two areas, but in another area tolerated higher road densities (Van Dyke et 

al. 1986). Increased access for lion hunters poses one of the greatest road associated threats to mountain 

lions (Claar et al. 1999). Route miles will be the indicator that is used to analyze the potential harvest and 

disturbance affects under the different alternatives, and the analysis area will be mountain lion core 

habitats as mapped by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (Table 24 and Table 25).

Black Bear (Game Species identified as a species of concern during scoping) - This species habitat 

can generally be categorized as forested lands with suitable amounts food (Claar et al. 1999). Bears are 

natural scavengers and seek food opportunistically therefore they readily become habituated to human 

food sources. Claar et al. (1999) does report that habitat quality is the ultimate limiting factor for bear 

density. They also state that harvest can affect these densities. Claar et al. (1999), documents that black 

bears may react to increases in road densities by shifting their home range to an area of lower density. 

Claar et al. (1999) report that black bears prefer to stay a minimum of 50 yards away from a road, except 

when feeding. Kasworm and Manley (1990) found that in NW Montana bears avoided areas within 274 m 

of a road. Route miles will be the indicator used to analyze the potential for harvest, and a zone of 

influence of 200m will be the indicator used to analyze the potential disturbance affects, and the analysis 

area will be black bear core habitats as mapped by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (Table 

24 and Table 28).

Wide Ranging Carnivore Summary:

Table 23 lists road associated and motorized trail/ORV factors related to wide ranging carnivores and the 

focal species that represent this group (Gaines et al. 2003); analysis factors based on the analysis factor 

discussed above; and the indicator that will be used to compare the different levels of affect between the 

different alternatives.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

35

Table 23: Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators

Focal 

Group

Road Associated 

Factors

Motorized Trail/ORV 

Associated Factors1

Combined Analysis 

Factors Analysis Indicator

Wide-ranging 

carnivores

Hunting

Poaching, Collisions, 

Trapping

Hunting

Poaching 

Trapping

Harvest/Direct Effects Route Density

Disturbance, 

Displacement, 

Avoidance, Harassment

Disturbance, 

Displacement, 

Avoidance, Harassment

Disturbance/Indirect 

Effects

Miles/Route Density or 

Disturbance Zone 

Summarized In Acres For 

Black Bears

Table 24 summarizes the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area that will be used to 

analyze the effects of the different alternatives to wide ranging carnivores.

Table 24: 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 Harvest 

Indicator

Disturbance 

Zone Analysis Area

Wolf Motorized Trail/ORV Use Route 

Density Route Density 5th Code Watersheds Outside of Wilderness

Mountain lion Motorized Trail/ORV and 

Roads Route Miles Route Miles Core Mountain Lion Habitat Mapped by NMDGF

Black bear Motorized Trail/ORV and 

Roads Route Miles 200 meters Core Black Bear Habitat Mapped by NMDGF

Wide-ranging Carnivores – Effects by Alternative

Mexican Gray Wolf

Table 25: Analysis Area - existing condition and proposed changes by alternative (difference in miles per 

square mile from alternative B)

Mexican Gray Wolf Analysis 

Area - Summary of Miles of 

USFS Routes & Trails per 

Square Mile of 5th Code 

Watersheds within the Gila 

NF Administrative Boundary

Alt. B Existing 

Effects

Miles/Sq. Mile

Alt. C

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. E

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. F

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. G

Change 

in 

Effects

Avg. of FS Routes & Trails on Gila 

Admin. HUCs 0.98 0.03 -0.26 -0.43 -0.19 -0.19

Average Percent Change 3.08 -26.4 -44.1 -19.4 -19.8

HUC 1302020804

Nester Draw

264.4 Total Sq. Miles 

(3.3% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.62 -0.05 -0.19 -0.49 -0.19 -0.19

Percent Change -3.2 -11.9 -30.2 -11.9 -11.9
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

36

Mexican Gray Wolf Analysis 

Area - Summary of Miles of 

USFS Routes & Trails per 

Square Mile of 5th Code 

Watersheds within the Gila 

NF Administrative Boundary

Alt. B Existing 

Effects

Miles/Sq. Mile

Alt. C

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. E

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. F

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. G

Change 

in 

Effects

HUC 1302020806

Y Canyon

152.3 Total Sq. Miles 

(57.8% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.26 -0.02 -0.32 -0.58 -0.24 -0.26

Percent Change -1.6 -25.3 -45.7 -18.9 -20.4

HUC 1302020807

Patterson Lake

324.1 Total Sq. Miles 

(38.5% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.78 -0.01 -0.56 -0.76 -0.45 -0.47

Percent Change -0.3 -31.5 -43.1 -25.4 -26.4

HUC 1302021106

Headwaters Alamosa Creek

402.2 Total Sq. Miles 

(16.1% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.92 -0.40 -0.46 -0.48 -0.44 -0.44

Percent Change -44.0 -50.6 -52.5 -47.5 -47.5

HUC 1303010101

Cuchillo Negro Creek

369 Total Sq. Miles 

(33.3% USFS -- 0.9% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.62 -0.07 -0.17 -0.20 -0.13 -0.13

Percent Change -10.8 -26.7 -32.2 -21.1 -21.1

HUC 1303010102

Palomas Creek-Rio Grande

366.6 Total Sq. Miles 

(24.7% USFS -- 55.4% 

of USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.36 -0.02 -0.14 -0.16 -0.05 -0.05

Percent Change -6.5 -39.9 -45.3 -14.3 -14.3

HUC 1303010103

Percha Creek

120.9 Total Sq. Miles 

(34% USFS -- 22.1% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.49 -0.01 -0.14 -0.16 -0.07 -0.07

Percent Change -2.4 -29.1 -32.6 -14.6 -14.6

HUC 1303010104

Caballo Reservoir

386 Total Sq. Miles 

(21.5% USFS -- 82.2% 

of USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.13 0.00 -0.04 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01

Percent Change -3.7 -29.8 -29.8 -7.9 -7.9

HUC 1303010202

Cuervo Arroyo_Rio Grande

354.6 Total Sq. Miles 

(17.1% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.51 0.03 -0.11 -0.14 -0.04 -0.04

Percent Change 6.0 -22.6 -28.6 -8.7 -8.7
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

37

Mexican Gray Wolf Analysis 

Area - Summary of Miles of 

USFS Routes & Trails per 

Square Mile of 5th Code 

Watersheds within the Gila 

NF Administrative Boundary

Alt. B Existing 

Effects

Miles/Sq. Mile

Alt. C

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. E

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. F

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. G

Change 

in 

Effects

HUC 1303020201

Gallinas Canyon-Mimbres River

321.7 Total Sq. Miles 

(74.7% USFS -- 13.4% 

of USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.73 0.14 -0.18 -0.32 -0.11 -0.11

Percent Change 19.1 -24.5 -44.0 -14.5 -14.5

HUC 1303020202

Headwaters San Vicente Draw

225.3 Total Sq. Miles 

(20.4% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.82 -0.10 -0.22 -0.21 -0.20 -0.20

Percent Change -11.7 -26.2 -25.3 -24.2 -24.2

HUC 1303020203

Outlet San Vicente Draw

251 Total Sq. Miles 

(1.1% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.59 0.91 -0.53 -1.21 -0.42 -0.42

Percent Change 57.1 -33.5 -76.1 -26.1 -26.1

HUC 1303020204

Lampbright Draw

143.9 Total Sq. Miles 

(2.9% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 2.37 -0.01 -1.17 -1.19 -1.04 -1.04

Percent Change -0.6 -49.5 -50.2 -44.1 -44.1

HUC 1303020205

Lampbright Draw-Mimbres River

194.5 Total Sq. Miles 

(16.7% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.44 0.01 -0.15 -0.16 -0.02 -0.01

Percent Change 2. -32.8 -35.3 -3.8 -2.3

HUC 1303020208

Macho Creek

334 Total Sq. Miles 

(1.7% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Percent Change N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

HUC 1303020213

Upper Seventysix Draw

178.8 Total Sq. Miles 

(1.3% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.56 0.18 -0.15 -0.33 -0.15 -0.15

Percent Change 11.4 -9.7 -21.02 -9.7 -9.7

HUC 1303020214

Cow Spring Draw-Seventysix 

Draw

288.4 Total Sq. Miles 

(1.7% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.95 0.18 0.01 -0.29 0.01 0.01

Percent Change 18.9 0.7 -30.5 0.6 0.6
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

38

Mexican Gray Wolf Analysis 

Area - Summary of Miles of 

USFS Routes & Trails per 

Square Mile of 5th Code 

Watersheds within the Gila 

NF Administrative Boundary

Alt. B Existing 

Effects

Miles/Sq. Mile

Alt. C

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. E

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. F

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. G

Change 

in 

Effects

HUC 1502000103

Coyote Creek

230.5 Total Sq. Miles 

(9.5% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.44 -0.03 -0.65 -0.82 -0.47 -0.47

Percent Change -1.8 -44.9 -57.0 -32.3 -32.3

HUC 1502000301

Rito Creek

437.3 Total Sq. Miles 

(14.2% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.68 -0.08 -0.48 -0.77 -0.48 -0.48

Percent Change -4.8 -28.6 -45.6 -28.8 -28.8

HUC 1502000302

Upper Largo Creek

153.6 Total Sq. Miles 

(82.1% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.24 -0.01 -0.30 -0.40 -0.30 -0.30

Percent Change -0.9 -24.3 -32.3 -23.8 -23.8

HUC 1502000305

Agua Fria Creek

342.1 Total Sq. Miles 

(36.8% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.96 0.00 -0.19 -0.26 -0.13 -0.15

Percent Change 0.3 -19.5 -26.9 -13.6 -15.6

HUC 1502000307

LA Draw-Cienega Amarilla

250.4 Total Sq. Miles 

(5.3% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.99 0.00 -0.50 -0.67 -0.46 -0.50

Percent Change 0.2 -25.3 -33.8 -23.2 -25.3

HUC 1504000101

Railroad Canyon

139.2 Total Sq. Miles 

(15.8% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.32 0.08 -0.20 -0.75 0.06 0.06

Percent Change 5.8 -14.9 -57.1 4.6 4.6

HUC 1504000102

Corduroy Draw

173.6 Total Sq. Miles 

(62.8% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.48 -0.06 -0.42 -0.55 -0.14 -0.14

Percent Change -3.9 -28.8 -36.9 -9.6 -9.6

HUC 1504000103

Beaver Creek

230.7 Total Sq. Miles 

(66.4% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.98 0.00 -0.31 -0.44 -0.12 -0.12

Percent Change -0.3 -31.6 -44.5 -12.7 -11.8
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

39

Mexican Gray Wolf Analysis 

Area - Summary of Miles of 

USFS Routes & Trails per 

Square Mile of 5th Code 

Watersheds within the Gila 

NF Administrative Boundary

Alt. B Existing 

Effects

Miles/Sq. Mile

Alt. C

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. E

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. F

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. G

Change 

in 

Effects

HUC 1504000104

Headwaters East Fork Gila River

303 Total Sq. Miles 

(100% USFS -- 48.7% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.46 -0.01 -0.13 -0.19 -0.05 -0.05

Percent Change -1.9 -28.6 -41.5 -11.2 -11.2

HUC 1504000105

Middle Fork Gila River

341.9 Total Sq. Miles 

(100% USFS -- 49.7% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.87 0.00 -0.26 -0.48 -0.18 -0.17

Percent Change -0.3 -29.7 -54.5 -20.7 -19.9

HUC 1504000106

West Fork Gila River

162.4 Total Sq. Miles 

(100% USFS -- 97.4% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Percent Change -1.7 -7.0 -7.0 -1.7 -1.7

HUC 1504000107

Outlet East Fork Gila River

163.1 Total Sq. Miles 

(100% USFS -- 90.8% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Percent Change 1.1 -3.0 -3.4 -3.1 -3.1

HUC 1504000108

Sapillo Creek

173 Total Sq. Miles 

(100% USFS -- 37.7% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.02 0.04 -0.32 -0.54 -0.20 -0.21

Percent Change 3.7 -31.3 -52.9 -19.1 -20.4

HUC 1504000109

Sapillo Creek-Gila River

296.7 Total Sq. Miles 

(96.1% USFS -- 93.4% 

of USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.04 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01

Percent Change -12.9 -23.5 -24.4 -24.9 -16.6

HUC 1504000201

Bear Creek

162.5 Total Sq. Miles 

(65.3% USFS -- 0.5% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.48 0.00 -0.12 -0.14 -0.11 -0.11

Percent Change -0.2 -25.2 -29.6 -23.3 -23.3

HUC 1504000202

Duck Creek

226.6 Total Sq. Miles 

(12.2% USFS -- 28.2% 

of USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.61 -0.12 -0.66 -0.96 -0.61 -0.61

Percent Change -7.3 -41.3 -59.5 -37.8 -37.8

HUC 1504000203

Mangas Creek

204.1 Total Sq. Miles 

(41.7% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

40

Mexican Gray Wolf Analysis 

Area - Summary of Miles of 

USFS Routes & Trails per 

Square Mile of 5th Code 

Watersheds within the Gila 

NF Administrative Boundary

Alt. B Existing 

Effects

Miles/Sq. Mile

Alt. C

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. E

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. F

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. G

Change 

in 

Effects

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.11 0.45 -0.15 -0.58 0.03 0.01

Percent Change 40.0 -13.1 -51.9 2.9 1.0

HUC 1504000204

Sycamore Creek-Upper Gila River

190.4 Total Sq. Miles 

(3.3% USFS -- 1.1% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.48 0.02 -0.19 -0.22 -0.21 -0.21

Percent Change 3.2 -39.4 -46.0 -43.9 -43.9

HUC 1504000205

Blue Creek

139 Total Sq. Miles 

(3.9% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 0.00 0.00

Percent Change 0.0 0.0 -100 0.0 0.0

HUC 1504000206

Blue Creek-Upper Gila River

291.4 Total Sq. Miles 

(25.6% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.63 0.13 -0.18 -0.25 -0.13 -0.13

Percent Change 19.9 -28.5 -40.1 -20.5 -20.5

HUC 1504000208

Apache Creek-Gila River

370.8 Total Sq. Miles 

(5.3% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00

Percent Change 0.0 0.0 -65.3 0.0 0.0

HUC 1504000302

Headwaters Burro Cienega

170.6 Total Sq. Miles 

(16.7% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.36 0.07 -0.37 -0.73 -0.35 -0.35

Percent Change 5.1 -27.1 -53.9 -25.7 -25.7

HUC 1504000303

Outlet Burro Cienega

279.7 Total Sq. Miles 

(0.2% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Percent Change N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

HUC 1504000304

Lordsburg Draw

345.6 Total Sq. Miles 

(19.5% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.28 0.12 -0.33 -0.51 -0.30 -0.30

Percent Change 9.1 -25.8 -40.0 -23.7 -23.7

HUC 1504000401

Headwaters Tularosa River

352.2 Total Sq. Miles 

(99.6% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.36 0.01 -0.25 -0.43 -0.18 -0.20
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

41

Mexican Gray Wolf Analysis 

Area - Summary of Miles of 

USFS Routes & Trails per 

Square Mile of 5th Code 

Watersheds within the Gila 

NF Administrative Boundary

Alt. B Existing 

Effects

Miles/Sq. Mile

Alt. C

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. E

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. F

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. G

Change 

in 

Effects

Percent Change 1.0 -18.2 -31.3 -13.0 -14.5

HUC 1504000402

OutletTularosa River

287.8 Total Sq. Miles 

(100% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.31 0.04 -0.32 -0.68 -0.14 -0.14

Percent Change 2.9 -24.7 -52.1 -11.0 -10.4

HUC 1504000403

Centerfire Creek-San Francisco 

River

417.4 Total Sq. Miles 

(84.2% USFS -- 0% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.23 0.00 -0.29 -0.46 -0.20 -0.24

Percent Change 0.1 -23.9 -37.5 -16.5 -19.5

HUC 1504000404

Deep Creek-San Francisco River

239.6 Total Sq. Miles 

(100% USFS -- 1.6% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.82 0.03 -0.16 -0.31 -0.11 -0.10

Percent Change 3.1 -20.1 -37.3 -13.1 -11.9

HUC 1504000405

Upper Blue River

309.4 Total Sq. Miles 

(14.1% USFS -- 5.1% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.92 0.00 -0.19 -0.42 -0.10 -0.09

Percent Change -0.2 -20.6 -45.3 -10.4 -9.8

HUC 1504000406

Pueblo Creek-San Francisco River

353.7 Total Sq. Miles 

(92.4% USFS -- 24.9% 

of USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 0.60 0.03 -0.05 -0.12 -0.03 -0.03

Percent Change 5.3 -9.0 -19.8 -5.6 -5.7

HUC 1504000407

Lower Blue River

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC

309.5 Total Sq. Miles 

(0.1% USFS -- 25% of 

USFS in Wilderness)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Percent Change N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

HUC 1504000408

Mule Creek-San Franciso River

381.9 Total Sq. Miles 

(50.7% USFS -- 13.5% 

of USFS in Wilderness)

Total FS Routes and Trails on FS 

Portion of HUC 1.03 -0.05 -0.31 -0.45 -0.24 -0.29

Percent Change -5.3 -29.7 -43.8 -23.7 -28.0
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

42

Table 26: Mexican gray wolf – summary of effects by alternative

Mexican Gray Wolf Analysis Area 

- Summary

Existing 

Effects 

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. E 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. F 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Average of NFS routes and trails on 

Gila Admin. HUCs miles/mile2 0.98 0.03 -0.26 -0.43 -0.19 -0.19

Average percent change 3.08% -26.4% -44.1% -19.4% -19.8%

Average of acres of camping on Gila 

Admin. HUCs 49,863.7 -47,655.9 -48,141.5 -49,863.7 -47,783.8 -47,945.2

Average percent change -96% -97% -100% -96% -96%

Average acres of game retrieval Gila 

Admin. HUCs 49,863.7 -7,443.1 -48,141.5 -49,863.7 -19,117.7 -47,945.2

Average percent change -15% -97% -100% -38% -96%

Average acres of motorized area Gila 

Admin. HUCs 27 0 -27 -27 0 0

Average percent change 0% -100% -100% 0% 0%

No Action Alternative (Alt. B) (Table 25): Under the existing condition the average road density across 

the Gila National Forest is approximately 1 mile per square mile. Claar et al. (1999) states, wolves are 

habitat generalist 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 densities 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 reduce this potential. Increases in road densities increases 

the potential for take associated with poaching. Poaching on the Gila 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. 

Under this alternative you continue to have motorized cross country travel and dispersed camping allowed 

across the Gila National Forest. These two types of uses continue to have the potential to have negative 

impacts to the Mexican Gray Wolf. Additionally, these two types of uses 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 0.98 miles per square mile (Table 25). 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. 

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G) (Table 25): Under all action alternatives 

motorized cross country travel is no longer allowed. The change from the existing condition is a 100% 

reduction in motorized cross country travel. Since no cross country travel is allowed in the analysis area 

there would be no effect to the MGW (Mexican Gray Wolf) or its habitat from this activity. 

Differences among the Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G) (Table 25): Within the forty nine 5th 

code watersheds that occur in whole or partially within the boundary of the Gila National Forest miles of 

motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat within the analysis area are reduced by 

approximately 44% under Alternative E; 26% under Alternative D; 19% under Alternative F, and 20% 

under Alternative G. Under Alternative C there is a 3.1% increase in the average routes per 5th code 

watershed (see Table for specific numbers). Under Alternative C motorized routes are increased in 22 of 

the 49 watersheds above the no action alternative; in 10 of these watersheds the road density remains 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

43

under 1 mile per square mile, in 8 the road density remains under 1.5 mile per square mile, in 3 the road 

density remains under 2 mile per square mile, and in one the road density is above 2 miles per square 

mile. In 1of the 49 5th code watersheds you see an increase in road densities in Alternative D, F, and G, 

and in 2 additional 5th codes you see an increase in Alternatives F and G. The road density in the Cow 

Spring Draw-Seventysix Draw 5th code watershed under the existing condition is 0.95 miles per square 

mile; Alternative E reduces the road density to approximately 0.7 miles per square mile; Alternative D, F, 

and G increase it to 0.96 miles per square mile; and Alternative C increases it to 1.13 miles per square 

mile. The road density in the Railroad Canyon 5th code watershed under the existing condition is 1.32 

miles per square mile; Alternative E reduces the road density to approximately 0.6 miles per square mile; 

Alternative D to 1.1 miles per square mile; Alternatives F and G increase it to 1.1 miles per square mile; 

and Alternative C increases it to 1.4 miles per square mile. The road density in the Mangas Creek 5th 

code watershed under the existing condition is 1.11 miles per square mile; Alternative E reduces the road 

density to approximately 0.5 miles per square mile; Alternative D to 0.96 miles per square mile; 

Alternatives F increase it to 1.14 miles per square mile; Alternatives G increase it to 1.12 miles per square 

mile; and Alternative C increases it to 1.56 miles per square mile. Besides in Alternative C, in none of the 

remaining 46 of the 49 5th code watershed do any of the other action alternatives increase route densities 

above the existing condition. The greater the reduction in miles of routes 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 disperse camp in alternatives 

C to G is reduced by 95.6% to 100% within the analysis area.

Designated motorized dispersed recreation and areas are locations where we have had traditional uses like 

motorized camping and OHV use. Under Alternatives E and D these activities are not allowed. Under 

Alternative C, F, and G you have motorized areas in 5 of the 49 5th code watersheds that are affecting 

approximately 27 acres of habitat. Under Alternatives E and D there would be less direct and indirect 

effect to the MGW from this activity. 

The area of potentially affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced on average by 100% 

under Alternative E, 97% under Alternative D, 38% under Alternative F, 96% under Alternative G, and 

15% under Alternative C.

Findings:

Table 27 displays the effects determination for the federally listed Mexican gray wolf.

Table 27: Mexican gray wolf federally listed species determination by alternative

Federally Listed 

Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. 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 degree than alternative E. Alternative C eliminates cross-country travel, but the change related to 

route density is very small, maintaining conditions that are similar to the no-action alternative. In 

comparison to the existing condition the relative risk to this species is reduced the most by alternative E 

then D, G, F, and C, respectively. 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
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

44

Black Bear and Mountain Lion 

Table 28: Black Bear Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Change by Alternative

Total NMGF Core 

Black Bear 

Habitat

on USFS = 

2,825,466 ac.

Existing Effects

Alt B (No 

Action)

Change in 

Effects 

Alt C

Change in 

Effects 

Alt D

Change in 

Effects 

Alt E

Change in 

Effects 

Alt F

Change in 

Effects

Alt G

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 -

ML 5

3,772.07 mi.

534,527.88 ac.

-278.90 mi.

-41,010.04 ac.

-1,394.51 mi.

-180,598.5 ac.

-1,967.58 mi.

-259,920.6 ac.

-1,052.31 mi.

-134,705.0 ac.

-1,079.98 mi.

-137,753.9 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

10.92 mi.

2,222.37 ac.

7.91 mi.

1,662.77 ac.

3.39 mi.

676.39 ac.

8.07 mi.

1,720.29 ac.

8.07 mi.

1,720.29 ac.

Administrative 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

127.38 mi.

22,362.35 ac.

263.86 mi.

48,134.18 ac.

343.26 mi.

60,555.50 ac.

224.76 mi.

41,473.27 ac.

223.53 mi.

41,156.25 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

5.20 mi.

1,325.87 ac.

5.48 mi.

1,958.11 ac.

1.85 mi.

384.52 ac.

4.38 mi.

1,101.52 ac.

5.05 mi.

1,325.51 ac.

Add Admin. 

Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

22.36 mi.

4,708.10 ac.

21.06 mi.

4,512.81 ac.

1.20 mi.

280.16 ac.

20.62 mi.

4,413.00 ac.

21.06 mi.

4,512.81 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

8.05 mi.

1,142.74 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to 

OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

34.49 mi.

5,478.79 ac.

56.41 mi.

9,419.35 ac.

1.57 mi.

232.47 ac.

78.47 mi.

12,520.65 ac.

80.03 mi.

12,822.42 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

15.79 mi.

2,460.97 ac.

-0.80 mi.

-124.90 ac.

-7.25 mi.

-1,138.89 ac.

-15.79 mi.

-2,460.97 ac.

-0.80 mi.

-124.90 ac.

-0.80 mi.

-124.90 ac.

Closed Road to OHV 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

26.07 mi.

4,423.93 ac.

10.45 mi.

1,883.09 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

18.57 mi.

3,208.24 ac.

18.57 mi.

3,208.24 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

4.45 mi.

675.76 ac.

7.28 mi.

1,162.14 ac.

6.61 mi.

1,030.87 ac.

4.45 mi.

675.76 ac.

4.45 mi.

675.76 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

109.83 mi.

17,257.20 ac.

31.15 mi.

4,907.56 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

46.20 mi.

7,374.93 ac.

44.36 mi.

7,114.21 ac.

Total FS Routes and 

Trails (miles) 3,787.86 3,848.86 2,797.75 2,162.37 3,140.28 3,112.20

% in Miles of Alt.B 

(Existing) 1.61% -26.14% -42.91% -17.10% -17.84%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

142.63 mi.

30,304.65 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, 

County Road

545.14 mi.

84,080.52 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized 

Dispersed Camping 

(acres)

2,044,477.17 -1,954,997.3 -1,975,999.4 -2,044,477.2 -1,961,051.5 -1,967,672.6
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

45

Total NMGF Core 

Black Bear 

Habitat

on USFS = 

2,825,466 ac.

Existing Effects

Alt B (No 

Action)

Change in 

Effects 

Alt C

Change in 

Effects 

Alt D

Change in 

Effects 

Alt E

Change in 

Effects 

Alt F

Change in 

Effects

Alt G

% in Acres of Alt. B 

(Existing) -95.62% -96.65% -100% -95.92% -96.24%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All 

Vehicles (acres) 21.79 0.00 -21.79 -21.79 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area -

OHV Only (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 2,044,477.17 -321,323.96 -1,975,999.4 -2,044,477.2 -816,948.5 -1,967,672.6

% in Acres of Alt. B 

(Existing) -15.72% -96.65% -100% -39.96% -96.24%

Table 29: Mountain Lion Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Change by Alternative

Total NMGF Core Mtn. 

Lion Habitat

on USFS = 2,807,901 ac.

Existing 

Effects

Alt B (No 

Action

Change in 

Effects Alt C

Change in 

Effects Alt D

Change in 

Effects Alt E

Change in 

Effects Alt F

Change in 

Effects Alt G

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

(miles) 2,926.40 -263.94 -1,140.84 -1,599.73 -867.37 -885.08

Reopen Closed ML 1 (miles) 0.00 10.80 8.10 3.47 8.16 8.16

Administrative Route (miles) 0.00 121.50 224.69 292.78 196.83 194.83

Add Unauthorized Route

(miles) 0.00 6.07 4.65 1.66 5.35 5.86

Add Admin. Unauthorized

(miles) 0.00 17.74 17.80 2.93 16.06 16.51

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection (miles) 0.00 0.00 7.98 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

(miles) 0.00 33.59 57.57 1.57 74.20 75.76

Existing ATV Trail (miles) 15.62 -0.80 -7.08 -15.62 -0.80 -0.80

Closed Road to OHV Trail

(miles) 0.00 28.61 12.86 0.00 20.88 20.88

Administrative Trail (miles) 0.00 4.45 6.96 6.35 4.45 4.45

Add Unauthorized Trail (miles) 0.00 115.05 29.70 0.00 47.16 45.31

Total FS Routes and Trails 

(miles) 2,942.02 3,015.10 2,164.42 1,635.43 2,446.95 2,427.91

% in Miles of Alt. B (Existing)

(miles) 2.48% -26.43% -44.41% -16.83% -17.47%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

46

Total NMGF Core Mtn. 

Lion Habitat

on USFS = 2,807,901 ac.

Existing 

Effects

Alt B (No 

Action

Change in 

Effects Alt C

Change in 

Effects Alt D

Change in 

Effects Alt E

Change in 

Effects Alt F

Change in 

Effects Alt G

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert) (miles) 100.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road (miles) 377.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 1,995,764.00 -1,928,001.90 -1,945,237.31 -1,995,764.00 -1,933,682.09 -1,939,577.47

% in Acres of Alt. B (Existing) -96.60% -97.47% -100% -96.89% -97.18%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles

(acres) 9.33 0.00 -9.33 -9.33 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only

(acres) 2.26 0.00 -2.26 -2.26 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 1,995,764.00 -357,044.24 -1,945,237.31 -1,995,764.00 -886,965.46 -1,939,577.47

% in Acres of Alt. B (Existing)

(acres) -17.89% -97.47% -100% -44.44% -97.18%

No Action Alternative (Alt. B): Under this alternative there are approximately 3,788 miles of motorized 

routes in the black bear analysis area (Table 28) and 2,942 miles of motorized routes in the mountain lion 

analysis area (Table 29). These routes continue to cause habitat loss and the potential for other types of 

direct effects to this species. Lower traffic rates and travel speeds on forest routes reduce the potential for 

collision loss; however, increases in road densities increases the potential for take associated with hunting 

and poaching. In the black bear analysis area the potential disturbance zone of 536,989 acres along 

motorized routes continue 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 densities increase so does 

the potential to cause indirect effects to mountain lions adjacent to motorized routes. 

Under this alternative you continue to have motorized cross country travel, dispersed camping, and big 

game retrieval allowed across the Gila National Forest. These three types of uses continue to have 

potential effects to black bears and mountain lions. Additionally, these three types of uses perpetuate the 

development of additional roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing for the development of greater 

road densities. So under this alternative through time the potential for the direct loss of individuals and 

habitat would increase, as would the potential for disturbance affects to these species. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G) (Table 28 and Table 29): Under all action alternatives motorized 

cross country travel is no longer allowed. The change from the existing condition is a 100% reduction in 

motorized cross country travel. In the black bear analysis area motorized dispersed camping is reduced by 

approximately 96 to 100% under all action alternatives; and in the mountain lion analysis area it is 

reduced by 97 to 100%. For black bears the area of potentially affected habitat for motorized big game 

retrieval is reduced by 100% under Alternative E, 97% under Alternative D, 96% under Alternative G, 

40% under Alternative F, and 16% under Alternative C. For mountain lions the area of potentially affected 

habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100% under Alternative E, 97% under Alternative 

D and G, 44% under Alternative F, and 18% under Alternative C.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

47

Motorized areas are locations where we have had traditional uses like motorized camping and OHV use. 

In the bear analysis area under Alternatives D and E there is a reduction of approximately 22 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 9 

acres of potentially 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 bear analysis area 

are reduced by approximately 43% under Alternative E; 26% under Alternative D; 7% under Alternative 

F; and 18% under Alternative G. Under Alternative C motorized routes are increased by approximately 

2%. Within the lion analysis area these effects are reduced by approximately 44% under Alternative E; 

26% under Alternative D; 17% under Alternative F; and 17.5% under Alternative G. Under Alternative C 

motorized routes are increased by 2.5%. 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 except C the potential effects to black bears and mountain lions 

are reduced, particularly under Alternatives E. Alternative C increases the level of effect above the 

existing condition related to motorized routes, but eliminates cross country travel which benefits both 

these species. Under these alternatives the potential to affect individuals still exist, but none will affect the 

viability of these species or the viability of any other wide ranging carnivore on the Gila. In comparison 

to the existing condition the relative risk to these species is reduced the most by Alternative E then D, G, 

F, and C, respectively.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

48

Small Mammals

Table 30 identifies the small mammals assessed in this section.

Table 30: Small mammal species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection

Species Analyzed Rationale For Selection

Lesser long-nosed bat Endangered

Hooded skunk Forest Service (FS) Sensitive Species

Botta’s pocket gopher FS Sensitive Species

Gunnison’s prairie dog FS Sensitive Species

White Mountain 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 

wet land 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.

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. 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, 2002), 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 

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 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

49

(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 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 (Table 32). 

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. 

Lesser long-nosed bat (Federally Listed as Endangered Species Representative of Desert 

Shrub/Grasslands Vegetation Cover Types in Burro Mountains of the Gila N.F.) – This species is 

found in a variety of vegetation communities including desert scrub, desert grasslands, Madrean oak 

woodlands, thorn scrub, and tropical deciduous forests (USFWS, 2012). In the U.S. portion of its range 

this species primarily uses desert scrub habitat (USFWS, 2001). Their diet consists of nectar and pollen 

from the night-blooming flowers of agaves, saguaro and organ pipe cacti, and flowering trees. They also 

feed on the pulp of cactus fruit (Bhatia, 2008). This species has also been documented using hummingbird 

feeders; the failure of agaves to flower in Arizona in 2006 resulted in an increased number of reports of 

nectar-feeding bats at hummingbird feeders (USFW, 2007). Female lesser long-nosed bats migrate north, 

following the blooming desert flowers in the spring, into southern Arizona and New Mexico. The range of 

this species includes southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico, western Mexico, Baja California 

del Sur and into Central America (Arizona Desert Museum, 2008). Roosts are typically within caves and 

mines, but can include buildings, bridges, and trees. The adult males tend to roost in different locations 

than the adult females and babies (USFWS, 2012). This species tends to roost in large colonies, and tend 

to migrate along nectar trails or corridors, following the availability of food resources. Bhatia, 2008 

reports that this species forages at night typically between midnight and 02:00 am in the morning and 

migrates short and long distances to find forage. On the Gila surveys for this species and other nectar 

feeding bats were completed in the 1990s and early 2000s, in the Burro Mountain region of Forest. The 

experienced bat surveyors were unable to document this species; surveyed areas included abandoned 

mines and stands of blooming agave. This same surveyor was working on private land within the 

administrative boundary of the Gila National Forest in the Burro Mountains mist-netting for insectivorous 

bats and captured six male lesser long-nosed bats. Area residents contacted confirmed that nectar-feeding 

bats had been and continued to use hummingbird feeder from 2010 to 2012. These captures represent a 

range expansion of approximately 120 km from known summer roosts in southern, N.M (Western Bat 

Working Group, 2011). 

No occurrence records occur on the forest. No known roosts or potential roosts habitat is known to occur 

on the forest (survey of abandoned mines has been occurring and no nectar feeding bats have been 

documented. This species has not been documented foraging on the forest (agave habitat and other cacti 

flowing plant habitat is limited on the forest). It is likely that this species is coming from off forest 

roosting areas to use the hummingbird feeder on private land; again, this species is known to travel long 

distances to forage. USFW, 2007 five year review of this species identified habitat loss as threat to this bat 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

50

but did not specifically mention any road threats. For the analysis of this species the analysis indicators 

(road miles and acres of potential disturbance) will analyze the change in these habitats by alternative 

from the existing condition (Table 32 and Table 33). 

Hooded skunk (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Desert Shrub/Grasslands, and 

Pinon-Juniper/Shrub Oak Woodlands Vegetation Cover Types) – This species appears to be more 

common in desert and semi desert habitats, but specimens have been taken in the Ponderosa pine forests. 

They can also be found in the riparian communities consisting of sycamore, cottonwood and rabbitbrush. 

In Arizona they prefer rocky slopes, base of cliffs and/or rocky sides of arroyos. They also prefer 

intermediate elevations above the deserts but not the high mountains (BISON-M, 2008). This species is 

fairly common on the Gila National Forest (USDA, 2009).

Botta’s pocket gopher (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Desert Shrub/Grasslands, 

and Piñon-Juniper/Shrub Oak Woodlands Vegetation Cover Types) – Pocket gophers generally live 

where they can find good soils for excavation, which could mean any environment from the desert up into 

the mountains. They may be especially common in riparian areas, washes, farms and golf courses. They 

are active year round. Signs of gophers include a mound of pushed up soil, which marks a temporary den 

opening. Tunnel systems stretching for over 150 yards are not unusual. One study in Utah estimated that a 

single gopher moved as much as 1,130 kilograms of soil per year (a bit over 1 ton of soil). A typical 

tunnel will consist of a subway system with numerous forks and side branches for food storage, fecal 

matter, and nesting. The deepest parts of the tunnel system are between one and three yards underground. 

Gophers block tunnel entrances with dirt, to prevent predator entry. This species is fairly common on the 

Gila National Forest (USDA, 2009).

The Hooded skunk and Botta’s pocket gopher have been selected as focal species for small mammals that 

occur in Desert shrub/grasslands, and pinon-juniper/shrub oak woodlands. For the analysis of this species 

the analysis indicators (road miles and acres of potential disturbance) will analyze the change in these 

habitats by alternative from the existing condition (Table 32 and Table 37).

Gunnison’s prairie dog (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Plains and Mountain 

Grasslands Vegetation Cover Types) – This species occurs in New Mexico in the following habitat 

type(s): The mixed shrub habitat type occurs in lower elevations below the mesas (elevation less than 

6700 ft. or 2043 m). Broom snakeweed is the dominant plant species. Rubber rabbitbrush and fourwing 

saltbush are interspersed with sparse stand of big sagebrush. The sagebrush habitat type is found below 

the mesas and is composed of dense stands of big sagebrush. Some small areas are dominated by blue 

grama grass, western wheatgrass, cheatgrass, and squirreltail grass. Bare ground is prevalent in some 

areas (BISON-M, 2013). The juniper habitat type which is located in the Zuni River valley bottom is 

dominated by one seed juniper with an occasional pinon pine and alligator juniper. Shrubs scattered 

throughout this type include big sagebrush, broom snakeweed, and rubber rabbitbrush. Grasses in this 

type include blue grama grass, crested wheatgrass, red three-awn, cheatgrass, sixweeks fescue, Indian 

ricegrass, and squirreltail grass (grazing has been heavy in juniper areas). These animals live in grasslands 

in the northern and western part of the state where the black-tailed prairie dogs do not occur. Gunnison's 

prairie dogs have been found to inhabit Great Basin Desert Scrub habitat in New Mexico (BISON-M, 

2013). The southern limit of this species is reached in the Mogollon Mountains of southwestern New 

Mexico, may be extirpated or is uncommon on the Gila National Forest (USDA, 2009).

White Mountains Ground Squirrel (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Plains and 

Mountain Grasslands Vegetation Cover Types) - The thirteen-lined ground squirrel is a grassland 

species that is common only in the shortgrass plains of the northeastern part of New Mexico. Where there 

are relict grasslands in the foothills and valleys of certain mesic mountain ranges, small isolated colonies 

are sometimes found, for example, in the Sacramento Mountains, around the periphery of the San 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

51

Augustin Plains, and in the White Mountains of Arizona. V. Bailey (1932) reported them common in 

parks in the ponderosa forest of the Sacramentos, but we have found them very hard to observe and very 

uncommon in any montane areas (USDA Forest Service, 2009). This species is uncommon on the Gila 

National Forest.

The Gunnisons’s prairie dog and White Mountain ground squirrel have been selected as focal species for 

small mammals that occur in plains and mountain grasslands. For the analysis of this species the analysis 

indicators (road miles and acres of potential disturbance) will analyze the change in these habitats by 

alternative from the existing condition (USDA, 2009)(Table 32 and Table 38).

Southern red-backed vole (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Spruce Fir Vegetation 

Cover Type) – The Southern red-backed vole is a good indicator of cool, mesic sites within highelevation spruce-fir forests. Standing water has not been present in the vicinity of any localities where 

specimens have been collected for this species in Catron and Socorro counties (BISON-M 2009). They 

are often common in mature lodgepole pine stands or in mixed spruce-fir forests with good cone 

production and an abundance of surface litter including stumps, logs, and exposed roots of fallen trees. In 

such habitats chickarees are often abundant and red-backed voles frequently use the middens of the 

squirrels for cover and as a food source. Red- backed voles also use aspen woodlands, grassy meadows, 

willow riparian areas, talus, and krummholz (BISON-M, 2009). Within the Gila they have been 

documented in the Mogollons around rock slides in deep forested habitat on north-facing slopes, both at 

Willow Creek and along the road between Willow Creek and Mogollon. Other specimens have been taken 

at Mogollon Baldy, Apache Cabin, Bill Lewis Cienega and McKnight Cabin (USDA, 2009).

This species has been selected as a focal species for small mammals that occur in spruce fir habitats. For 

the analysis of this species the analysis indicators (road miles and acres of potential disturbance) will 

analyze the change in these habitats by alternative from the existing condition (Table 32 and Table 35).

Long-tailed vole (Forest Service Sensitive Species, and Gila Management Indicator Species 

Representative of Wet Meadow, Wetland, and High Elevation Riparian Vegetation Cover Types) -

Long-tailed voles are commonly found in mixed conifer and spruce-fir forests associated with meadows 

(USDA 2009). They are good indicators of permanent water in montane forests and are most abundant 

where there is grassy vegetation present on the forest floor. They can also be found in riparian areas 

associated with cottonwood/willow habitat at higher elevations and rockslides. They are common in areas 

of natural disturbance such as wildfire and/or areas that have been recently cut (BISON-M 2009). In New 

Mexico they are very dependent on well-developed mesic meadows and montane forests. On the Gila 

National Forest the Long-tailed vole has been found near Willow Creek in the Mogollon Mountains and 

in the Mimbres (USDA 2009).

Arizona montane vole (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Wet Meadow, Wetland, 

and High Elevation Riparian Vegetation Cover Types) – Throughout its range in Arizona this vole 

inhabits dense damp to wet grassy areas at high alpine like elevations. It is found primarily in the 

mountains and can extend above timberline (AZGFD 2004). In New Mexico their occurrence is found in 

wet sedge, grass meadows bordering marshes and open water and in mesic meadows with dense tall grass 

surrounded by Ponderosa Pine and Mixed conifer (BISON-M 2009). In Catron County this species has 

been documented near Center Fire Bog and Jenkins Creek (USDA 2009).

Long-tailed vole and Arizona montane vole have been selected as focal species for small mammals that 

occur in wetlands, wet meadows, and high elevation perennial riparian habitats. For the analysis of this 

species the analysis indicators (road miles and acres of potential disturbance) will analyze the change in 

these habitats by alternative from the existing condition (Table 32 and Table 40).
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

52

Beaver (Gila Management Indicator Species Representative of Low, Middle and High Elevation 

Riparian Vegetation Cover Types) – Beaver occur in association with aquatic habitats including large 

rivers, streams, ponds and lakes. In small stream situations, beaver will build dams to form a pond in 

which the lodge is constructed. In large rivers, lakes and ponds, beaver build lodges in shallow water or 

dig dens in banks. In low elevation riparian habitats in South Dakota, beaver favor lodge sites with lower 

cattle grazing and deeper water close to steep banks (BISON-M 2010). Availability of food, particularly 

aspen, is an important determinant of habitat suitability for beavers. Dams are normally constructed of 

branches of riparian trees. However, other material may be utilized. For example, beaver occur at Apache 

Creek marsh in Catron County, New Mexico (Frey 1995). Three essential habitat features have been 

identified: 1) a water supply at least equal to that which will flow freely through a one-inch pipe, 2) an 

ample food supply of trees and other plant materials, and 3) a location where disturbance by man is at a 

minimum (USDA, 2010). Aquatic habitat physical features.--Numerous physical features of lakes and 

streams influence suitability for occupation by beaver (BISON-M 2010). Certain sites with special 

topographic or edaphic conditions may permit continuous occupation by beavers. These sites provide a 

source of colonists for temporary occupation of patches of early successional deciduous trees, especially 

aspen, created by fire or other disturbance (BISON-M 2010).

This species has been selected as a focal/management indicator species for small mammals that occur in 

low, middle, and high elevation riparian habitats with perennial water. For the analysis of this species the 

analysis indicators (road miles and acres of potential disturbance) will analyze the change in these 

habitats by alternative from the existing condition (Table 32 and Table 39).

White-nosed coati (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Low and Middle Elevation 

Riparian Vegetation Cover Types) –In the southwestern U.S. this species is typically found in canyons, 

usually near water, within oak-sycamore-walnut, oak-pine, or shrub-grass communities (NatureServe 

2009). White-nosed coatis in Arizona concentrate in riparian habitats, primarily in the piñion-oak-juniper 

woodlands, and may live in natural retreats such as rock crevices, cavities among tree roots, and caves or 

mines. In New Mexico, coatis inhabit canyons characterized by riparian vegetation such as sycamore and 

oaks. Elevation ranges from 1670 to 9450 ft (508-2879 m) with most sightings at intermediate altitudes 

from 5250 to 6900 ft (1600-2100 m) (Gompper 1995, BISON-M 2009). This species is a fairly common 

species on the Gila National Forest in the Burro Mountains, Gila River up to about the Forks 

Campground Area, San Francisco River Valley up to about Glenwood, and within the major tributaries of 

these larger rivers. 

Western red bat (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Low and Middle Elevation 

Riparian Vegetation Cover Types) – Day roosts are typically in edge habitats adjacent to streams or 

open fields, in orchards, and sometimes in urban areas. They are associated with intact riparian habitat 

(particularly mature cottonwood, sycamore, oak, and walnut forest) below 6,500 feet elevation. Roost 

sites are generally obscured from view except from below, allowing the bat to drop downward for flight, 

and are generally located on the south or southwest side of a tree. Hibernation sites are largely unknown, 

but it is thought they burrow into leaf litter or dense grass, similar to eastern red bats (Bat Conservation 

International 2009). Summer habitat associations include: coniferous forest; closed pinyon-juniper 

woodlands; open encinal oak; Great Basin shrublands; Mohave and Sonoran desert scrub; Chihuahuan 

desert grassland; short grass steppe; deciduous riparian forest including cottonwood, sycamore, walnut, 

and oak; dry and irrigated agricultural lands; mines and quarries; and urban habitats (USDA 2009).

Arizona gray squirrel (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Low and Middle 

Elevation Riparian Vegetation Cover Types) – This gray squirrel inhabits hardwood, mixed oak and 

pine forests. They are found in river valleys and canyons, and where black walnuts and acorns are 

abundant. Also found in cottonwood and sycamore groves. They make leaf nests in trees (USDA 2009). 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

53

The Arizona gray squirrel is primarily limited to the deciduous riparian forest on the Gila. On the Forest 

an individual was collected in Mogollon at the upper limit of its range (at 7,000 feet) from a ponderosa 

pine area (BISON-M 2009). 

White-nosed coati, Western red bat, and Arizona gray squirrel have been selected as focal species for 

small mammals that occur in low and middle elevation riparian areas. For the analysis of this species the 

analysis indicators (road miles and acres of potential disturbance) will analyze the change in low and 

middle elevation riparian habitat by alternative from the existing condition (Table 32 and Table 41).

Small Mammal Summary:

Table 31 lists road associated and motorized trail factors related to small mammals for focal species that 

represent this group (Gaines et al. 2003); analysis factors based on the analysis factor discussed above; 

and the indicator that will be used to compare the different levels of affect between the different 

alternatives. 

Table 31: Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators

Focal 

Group/ 

Species

Road Associated 

Factors

Motorized Trail 

Associated Factors

Combined Analysis 

Factors Analysis Indicator

Small 

Mammals Collisions, Trapping Collisions Harvest/Direct Effects Miles

Disturbance, 

Displacement, Avoidance, 

Harassment

Disturbance, 

Displacement, Avoidance, 

Harassment

Disturbance/Indirect 

Effects

Disturbance Zone 

Summarized In Acres

Table 32 summarizes the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area that will be used to 

analyze the effects of the different alternatives to small mammals. 

Table 32: 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

Lesser long-nosed bat Motorized trail/ORV 

use Route miles 250 meters Desert shrub/Grasslands habitat within the Burro Mountains

Hooded skunk

Botta’s pocket gopher

Motorized trail/ORV 

use Route miles 250 meters Desert shrub/Grasslands, and piñon-juniper/Shrub oak woodland

Gunnison’s prairie dog

White Mountain ground 

squirrel

Motorized trail/ORV 

and roads Route miles 250 meters Plains and mountain grasslands

Southern red-backed vole Motorized trail/ORV 

and roads Route miles 250 meters Spruce/Fir

Long-tailed vole

Arizona montane vole

Motorized trail/ORV 

and roads Route miles 250 meters Wet meadow, wetland, and high elevation riparian

Beaver Motorized trail/ORV 

and roads Route miles 250 meters Low, middle, and high elevation riparian

White-nosed coati

western red bat

Arizona gray squirrel

Motorized trail/ORV 

and roads Route miles 250 meters Low and middle elevation riparian
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

54

Small Mammals-Effects by Alternative 

Lesser Long-nosed Bat

Table 33. Lesser Long-Nosed Bat Habitat Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Change by 

Alternative

Lesser Long-nosed Bat 

Habitat (Burros Mountains 

Desert Shrub/Grassland) 

Analysis Area Habitat on 

USFS = 15,457 Ac.

Existing 

Effects

Alt B (No 

Action)

Change in 

Effects 

Alt C

Change in 

Effects

Alt D

Change 

in Effects 

Alt E

Change 

in Effects 

Alt F

Change 

in Effects 

Alt G

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

77.88 mi. -3.58 mi. -26.68 mi. -33.43 mi. -25.68 mi. -25.68 mi.

5,973.67 -329.40 -2,042.34 -2,402.22 -1,976.37 -1,976.37

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.21 mi.

222.60

4.60 mi.

483.50

4.60 mi.

483.50

4.60 mi.

482.18

4.60 mi.

482.18

Add Unauthorized Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.52 mi.

34.97

0.09 mi.

4.96

0.09 mi.

4.96

0.52 mi.

34.97

0.09 mi.

4.96

Add Admin. Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.34 mi.

36.59

0.77 mi.

66.59

0.77 mi.

66.59

0.34 mi.

36.59

0.77 mi.

66.59

Seasonal - Resource Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.10 mi.

18.75 ac.

2.0 mi.8

305.86 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.32 mi.

367.16 ac.

2.32 mi.

367.16 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

3.56 mi.

341.75 ac.

2.05 mi.

250.09 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.05 mi.

260.85 ac.

2.05 mi.

260.85 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

9.39 mi.

899.66 ac.

2.40 mi.

240.10 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

7.48 mi.

601.21 ac.

6.16 mi.

557.33 ac.

Total FS Routes and Trails

(miles) 77.88 90.44 63.20 49.92 69.51 68.20

% in Miles of Alt. B (Existing) 16.12% -18.86% -35.91% -10.75% -12.43%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

6.56 mi.

1,052.10 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road

20.86 mi.

2,282.07 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

55

Lesser Long-nosed Bat 

Habitat (Burros Mountains 

Desert Shrub/Grassland) 

Analysis Area Habitat on 

USFS = 15,457 Ac.

Existing 

Effects

Alt B (No 

Action)

Change in 

Effects 

Alt C

Change in 

Effects

Alt D

Change 

in Effects 

Alt E

Change 

in Effects 

Alt F

Change 

in Effects 

Alt G

Motorized Dispersed Camping

(acres) 14,398.66 -12,327.73 -12,335.50 -14,398.66 -12,301.11 -12,297.30

% in Acres of Alt. B (Existing) -85.62% -85.67% -100.00% -85.43% -85.41%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval

(acres) 14,398.66 -1,700.74 -12,335.50 -14,398.66 -6,055.51 -12,297.30

% in Acres of Alt. B (Existing) -11.81% -85.67% -100.00% -42.06% -85.41%

No Action Alternative (Alt. B)(Table 33): Under this alternative there are approximately 78 miles of 

motorized routes in this analysis area. These routes continue to cause habitat loss. The potential for other 

types of direct effects to this bat or any other nectar feeding bat are very low. Russell et al., 2009 

documented 0.6% highway mortality rate in an area with high traffic rates and a large number of bats 

emerging from their roost location. The potential for collision loss or poaching loss is low on Forest 

Service motorized routes because of the low traffic rates, low travel speeds, comparatively speaking low 

bat number, and this species is only active at night. 

The potential disturbance area within this analysis area is approximately 5,974 acres. The habitat along 

existing routes has already been modified; therefore, in most cases ongoing existing uses may proceed 

with the same intensity with little risk of disturbing this species. Increases in the level of use on these 

routes through time would increase the potential for indirect effects. 

Under this alternative you continue to have motorized cross country travel and dispersed camping allowed 

across the Gila National Forest. These two types of uses continue to have the potential to impact longnosed bat habitat. Additionally, these two types of uses perpetuate the development of additional roads 

and OHV routes; potentially allowing for the development of more routes than the 78 miles that are 

currently identified in this analysis area. So under this alternative through time the potential for the direct 

loss habitat would increase. 

Effect Common to all Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G) (Table 33): Under these alternatives 

motorized cross country travel is no longer allowed. The authorization to allow dispersed camping in 

these alternatives is reduced by 85% to 100% in areas with potential long-nosed bat habitat. No motorized 

areas are designated in this analysis area. Under all action alternatives the change from the existing 

condition is a 100% reduction in motorized cross country travel. It is also important to note that there is 

no suspected or known suitable foraging or roosting habitat on National Forest in this analysis area. The 

lack of these habitat characteristics further limits the potential to cause direct and indirect effects to this 

species. Since no motorized areas are located in this analysis area under any of the alternatives none of 

these actions will have an effect to this species or its habitat. In this analysis area the area of potentially 

affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100% under Alternative E, 86% under 

Alternative D, 42% under Alternative F, 85% under Alternative G, and 12% under Alternative C.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

56

Differences among the Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G)(Table 33): Miles of motorized routes and 

trails and acres of potentially affected habitat are reduced by approximately 36% in this analysis area 

under Alternative E; 19% under Alternative D; 11% under Alternative F, and 12% under Alternative G 

(see Analysis Tables for specific numbers). The greater the reduction in the miles of routes in this analysis 

area the less potential for direct and indirect effects to this species and its potential habitat. Miles of 

motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat increase by 16% under Alternative C. 

Since these are new miles and acres of disturbance there is a greater potential to cause direct and indirect 

to this species and it potential habitat under Alternative C. 

Findings

Table 34 displays the effects determination for the federally listed lesser long-nosed bat.

Table 34: Lesser Long-nosed Bat federally listed species determinations by alternative

Federally Listed 

Species

Alt. B

Existing 

Condition

Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Lesser long-nosed bat *MANLAA No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect

*MANLAA - May affect not likely to adversely affect determination

Southern Red-backed Vole Habitat (Spruce Fir) Analysis Area

Table 35: Southern Red-backed Vole Habitat Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Change by 

Alternative

Southern Red-backed 

Vole Habitat (Spruce Fir) 

Analysis Area on USFS = 

898 Acres (all in 

Wilderness)

Existing 

Effects

Alt B (No 

Action)

Change in 

Effects 

Alt C

Change in 

Effects 

Alt D

Change 

in Effects 

Alt E

Change in 

Effects 

Alt F

Change in 

Effects 

Alt G

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

(miles) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Reopen Closed ML 1 (miles) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Route (miles) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Unauthorized Route

(miles) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Admin. Unauthorized 

(miles) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Seasonal/Resource Protect. 

(miles) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

(miles) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Existing ATV Trail (miles) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Closed Road to OHV Trail

(miles) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Trail (miles) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Unauthorized Trail (miles) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

57

Southern Red-backed 

Vole Habitat (Spruce Fir) 

Analysis Area on USFS = 

898 Acres (all in 

Wilderness)

Existing 

Effects

Alt B (No 

Action)

Change in 

Effects 

Alt C

Change in 

Effects 

Alt D

Change 

in Effects 

Alt E

Change in 

Effects 

Alt F

Change in 

Effects 

Alt G

Total FS Routes and Trails

(miles) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

% in Miles of Alt. B (Existing) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cumulative Effects (miles) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Dispersed Camping

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Areas (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

No Action Alternative (Alt. B)(Table 35): Under the existing condition for the southern red-backed 

vole/Spruce Fir Analysis Area no habitat occurs outside designated wilderness area; therefore, motorized 

routes are not having an effect in this analysis area or on the species associated with this habitat. 

Under this alternative you continue to have motorized cross country travel, dispersed camping, and big 

game retrieval allowed across the Gila National Forest, but since these uses are not allowed in wilderness 

areas the no action alternative is not having an effect on this species. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G)(Table 35): Again, under the existing condition for the Southern 

red-backed vole no habitat occurs outside designated wilderness area, and none of the action alternatives 

propose motorized use that would affect this habitat type; therefore, none of the action alternative would 

affect in this analysis area or the species associated with this habitat. 

Findings

Table 36 displays the effects determination for the southern red-backed vole.

Table 36: Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative

Forest Service Sensitive 

Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Southern red-backed vole *NI NI NI NI NI

Rationale for determination

Since no motorized use occurs in spruce fir habitat the potential to affect individuals of this 

species does not exists; therefore, a determination of “no impact” is made for all action 

alternatives. None of the alternatives would affect the viability of this species. None of the 

alternatives would cause a trend toward Federal listing.

*NI – No Impact
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

58

Hooded Skunk and Botta’s Pocket Gopher

Table 37: Hooded skunk and Botta’s pocket gopher analysis area - existing condition and proposed changes 

by alternative

Hooded Skunk -

Botta's Pocket

Gopher Habitat* 

Analysis Area on 

NFS land = 

1,628,703 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 -

ML 5

1,614.28 mi.

319,708.09 ac. 

-183.69 mi.

-40,394.84 ac.

-617.53 mi.

-115,663.84 ac.

-782.18 mi.

-148,212.87 ac.

-528.16 mi.

-98,019.18 ac.

-529.79

-98,832.02 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

8.37 mi.

2,072.89 ac.

6.47 mi.

1,612.08 ac.

2.96 mi.

663.14 ac.

6.47 mi.

1,612.08 ac.

6.47 mi.

1,612.08 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

84.65 mi.

23,397.18 ac.

156.33 mi.

41,949.68 ac.

176.27 mi.

47,554.35 ac.

136.75 mi.

37,687.48 ac.

136.73 mi.

37,395.44 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

4.52 mi.

1,590.12 ac.

3.39 mi.

1,924.60 ac.

0.87 mi.

330.76 ac.

4.33 mi.

1,471.32 ac.

4.03 mi.

1,513.51 ac.

Add Admin. 

Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

8.96 mi.

3,234.44 ac.

10.46 mi.

3,427.34 ac.

2.54 mi.

652.07 ac.

8.88 mi.

3,071.41 ac.

9.33 mi.

3,205.63 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

11.19 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

21.86 mi.

6,207.15 ac.

53.85 mi.

12,434.53 ac.

0.96 mi.

251.66 ac.

68.81 mi.

15,941.62 ac.

69.67 mi.

16,160.95 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

2.96 mi.

664.65 ac.

0.00 mi.

-44.13 ac.

-1.89 mi.

-438.32 ac.

-2.96 mi.

-664.65 ac.

0.00 mi.

-44.13 ac.

0.00 mi.

-44.13 ac.

Closed Road to OHV 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

19.69 mi.

4,636.49 ac.

11.99 mi.

2,624.12 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

13.51 mi.

3,097.01 ac.

13.51 mi.

3,097.01 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

3.40 mi.

743.51 ac.

5.53 mi.

1,291.38 ac.

5.03 mi.

1,162.99 ac.

3.40 mi.

743.51 ac.

3.40 mi.

743.51 ac.

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

71.86 mi.

15,745.12 ac.

26.23 mi.

5,278.70 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

39.07 mi.

7,940.93 ac.

37.2 3 mi.

7,632.40 ac.

Total FS Routes and 

Trails (miles) 1,617.24 1,656.85 1,272.07 1,020.73 1,370.30 1,367.82

% in Miles of Alt.B 

(Existing) 2.45% -21.34% -36.88% -15.27% -15.42%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

76.96 mi.

29,259.96 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, 

County Road

393.77 mi.

76,534.25 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 1,207,266.24 -1,165,617.89 -1,174,308.15 -1,207,266.24 -1,168,913.87 -1,171,095.60
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

59

Hooded Skunk -

Botta's Pocket

Gopher Habitat* 

Analysis Area on 

NFS land = 

1,628,703 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -96.55% -97.27% -100% -96.82% -97.00%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All 

Vehicles (acres) 14.19 0.00 -14.19 -14.19 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV 

Only (acres) 0.26 0.00 -0.26 -0.26 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 1,207,266.24 -234,103.82

-

1,174,30

8.15

-1,207,266.24 -549,684.46 -1,171,095.60

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -19.39% -97.27% -100% -45.53% -97.00%

Gunnison’s Prairie Dog and White Mountain Ground Squirrel 

Table 38: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Gunnison's Prairie 

Dog - White Mtn. 

Ground Squirrel 

Habitat* Analysis 

Area on NFS land 

= 232,217 acres

Existing 

Effects 

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F Change 

in Effects

Alt. G Change 

in Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 

5

621.21 mi.

94,684.30 ac.

-37.69 mi.

-5,535.06 ac.

-167.97 mi.

-21,262.36 ac.

-221.68 mi.

-29,432.76 ac.

-132.98 mi.

-16,817.77 ac.

-134.72 mi.

-16,760.15 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.56 mi.

518.72 ac.

2.06 mi.

432.88 ac.

0.53 mi.

130.20 ac.

2.06 mi.

432.88 ac.

2.06 mi.

432.88 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

25.99 mi.

4,746.04 ac.

52.49 mi.

11,344.05 ac.

56.45 mi.

12,033.26 ac.

43.75 mi.

9,637.57 ac.

43.79 mi.

9,575.54 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.01 mi.

250.27 ac.

0.93 mi.

234.90 ac.

0.79 mi.

110.42 ac.

1.01 mi.

223.43 ac.

1.01 mi.

250.48 ac.

Add Admin. 

Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

5.08 mi.

1,446.49 ac.

5.30 mi.

1,508.22 ac.

0.22 mi.

85.39 ac.

5.08 mi.

1,446.49 ac.

5.08 mi.

1,446.49 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.31 mi.

69.88 ac.

1.69 mi.

334.14 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.71 mi.

325.52 ac.

1.71 mi.

325.52 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.31 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

-0.31 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.87 mi.

216.51 ac.

0.17 mi.

42.85 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.17 mi.

42.85 ac.

0.17 mi.

42.85 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

60

Gunnison's Prairie 

Dog - White Mtn. 

Ground Squirrel 

Habitat* Analysis 

Area on NFS land 

= 232,217 acres

Existing 

Effects 

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F Change 

in Effects

Alt. G Change 

in Effects

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.04 mi.

16.17 ac.

0.11 mi.

33.67 ac.

0.04 mi.

16.17 ac.

0.04 mi.

16.17 ac.

0.04 mi.

16.17 ac.

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.91 mi.

148.12 ac.

0.81 mi.

126.06 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.81 mi.

126.83 ac.

0.81 mi.

126.83 ac.

Total FS Routes and 

Trails (miles) 621.21 mi. 620.28 mi. 516.80 mi. 457.56 mi. 542.85 mi. 541.15 mi.

% in Miles of Alt.B 

(Existing) -0.15% -16.81% -26.34% -12.61% -12.89%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

65.60 mi.

13,393.18 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, 

County Road

191.70 mi.

32,033.40 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 221,523.57 -206,062.72 -209,143.33 -221,523.57 -206,142.42 -207,318.43

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -93.02% -94.41% -100% -93.06% -93.59%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All 

Vehicles (acres) 1.47 0.00 -1.47 -1.47 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV 

Only (acres) 3.05 0.00 -3.05 -3.05 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 221,523.57 -11,579.92 -209,143.33 -221,523.57 -43,480.83 -207,318.43

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -5.23% -94.41% -100% -19.63% -93.59%

Beaver

Table 39: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Beaver Habitat* Analysis 

Area on NFS land = 

34,452 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F Change 

in Effects

Alt. G Change 

in Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 -

ML 5

200.49 mi.

13,318.48 ac.

-63.42 mi.

-3,087.42 ac.

-116.31 mi.

-6,111.63 ac.

-139.42 mi.

-7,727.00 ac.

-90.43 mi.

-4,799.87 ac.

-94.03 mi.

-5,004.14 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.40 mi.

130.25 ac.

0.02 mi.

49.60 ac.

0.01 mi.

23.34 ac.

0.02 mi.

49.60 ac.

0.02 mi.

49.60 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

34.58 mi.

2,489.85 ac.

45.26 mi.

3,783.90 ac.

51.92 mi.

4,140.92 ac.

42.00 mi.

3,430.31 ac.

40.45 mi.

3,352.23 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.57 mi.

136.12 ac.

0.46 mi.

149.95 ac.

0.18 mi.

35.27 ac.

0.23 mi.

85.19 ac.

0.79 mi.

178.17 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

61

Beaver Habitat* Analysis 

Area on NFS land = 

34,452 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F Change 

in Effects

Alt. G Change 

in Effects

Add Admin. Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

3.11 mi.

189.39 ac.

1.80 mi.

147.23 ac.

0.38 mi.

49.06 ac.

1.80 mi.

147.23 ac.

1.80 mi.

147.23 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

7.07 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

12.24 mi.

497.20 ac.

7.22 mi.

276.33 ac.

0.61 mi.

40.80 ac.

14.99 mi.

667.37 ac.

14.99 mi.

668.05 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

2.55 mi.

213.50 ac.

-0.74 mi.

-47.10 ac.

-1.56 mi.

-117.62 ac.

-2.55 mi.

-213.50 ac.

-0.74 mi.

-47.10 ac.

-0.74 mi.

-47.10 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.88 mi.

138.89 ac.

0.12 mi.

52.41 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.47 mi.

91.20 ac.

0.47 mi.

91.20 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.78 mi.

41.55 ac.

1.30 mi.

72.51 ac.

1.30 mi.

72.51 ac.

0.78 mi.

41.55 ac.

0.78 mi.

41.55 ac.

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

8.52 mi.

337.00 ac.

0.01 mi.

7.54 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.01 mi.

7.54 ac.

0.01 mi.

7.54 ac.

Total FS Routes and Trails 

(miles) 203.04 200.95 141.35 115.47 172.16 167.56

% in Miles of Alt.B (Existing) -1.03% -30.38% -43.13% -15.21% -17.47%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

36.38 mi.

4,800.64 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road

61.63 mi.

8,268.13 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 22,948.14 -20,507.85 -21,463.79 -22,948.14 -21,063.15 -21,326.34

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -89.37% -93.53% -100% -91.79% -92.93%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles 

(acres) 0.04 0.00 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval 

(acres) 22,948.14 -3,998.41 -21,463.79 -22,948.14 -8,868.72 -21,326.34

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -17.42% -93.53% -100% -38.65% -92.93%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

62

Long-tailed Vole and Arizona Montane Vole

Table 40: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Long-tailed Vole - Arizona 

Montane Vole Habitat 

(Wet Meadow, Wetland 

and High Elevation 

Riparian) Analysis Area 

on NFS land = 6,020 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B 

Alt. C 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

21.12 mi.

2,112.32 ac.

-1.09 mi.

-102.22 ac.

-8.81 mi.

-685.56 ac.

-11.52 mi.

-978.95 ac.

-6.14 mi.

-540.26 ac.

-5.61 mi.

-501.62 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.18 mi.

88.27 ac.

2.07 mi.

405.54 ac.

1.56 mi.

382.65 ac.

1.19 mi.

365.42 ac.

0.67 mi.

316.13 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

5.25 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Admin. Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

13.48 ac.

0.00 mi.

13.48 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

13.48 ac.

0.00 mi.

13.48 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.08 mi.

6.85 ac.

0.08 mi.

6.85 ac.

0.08 mi.

6.85 ac.

0.08 mi.

6.85 ac.

0.08 mi.

6.85 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.34 mi.

11.89 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Total FS Routes and Trails 

(miles) 21.12 20.63 14.46 11.24 16.26 16.26

% in Miles of Alt.B (Existing) -2.28% -31.54% -46.75% -23.01% -23.01%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

1.23 mi.

393.95 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road

1.33 mi.

267.31 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 3,363.58 -3,006.71 -3,104.85 -3,363.58 -3,009.80 -3,041.13
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

63

Long-tailed Vole - Arizona 

Montane Vole Habitat 

(Wet Meadow, Wetland 

and High Elevation 

Riparian) Analysis Area 

on NFS land = 6,020 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B 

Alt. C 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -89.39% -92.31% -100% -89.48% -90.41%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 3,363.58 -417.84 -3,104.85 -3,363.58 -965.90 -3,041.13

% in Acres of Alt. B (Existing) -12.42% -92.31% -100% -28.72% -90.41%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

64

White-nosed Coati, Western Red Bat, and Arizona Gray Squirrel

Table 41: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

White-nosed Coati, 

Western Red Bat, Arizona 

Gray Squirrel Habitat 

(Low and Middle 

Elevation) Analysis Area 

on NFS Land = 30,142 

acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D Change 

in Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

191.01 mi.

12,688.84 ac.

-62.88 mi.

-3,051.77 ac.

-111.99 mi.

-5,876.87 ac.

-134.70 mi.

-7,370.53 ac.

-87.49 mi.

-4,630.56 ac.

-91.61 mi.

-4,883.31 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.40 mi.

130.25 ac.

0.02 mi.

49.60 ac.

0.01 mi.

23.34 ac.

0.02 mi.

49.60 ac.

0.02 mi.

49.60 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

34.53 mi.

2,451.32 ac.

44.23 mi.

3,672.84 ac.

51.41 mi.

4,075.15 ac.

41.16 mi.

3,319.26 ac.

40.13 mi.

3,290.46 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.57 mi.

136.12 ac.

0.46 mi.

149.95 ac.

0.18 mi.

35.27 ac.

0.23 mi.

85.19 ac.

0.79 mi.

178.17 ac.

Add Admin. Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

3.11 mi.

189.39 ac.

1.80 mi.

147.23 ac.

0.38 mi.

49.06 ac.

1.80 mi.

147.23 ac.

1.80 mi.

147.23 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

7.07 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

12.16 mi.

490.35 ac.

7.14 mi.

269.47 ac.

0.53 mi.

33.95 ac.

14.91 mi.

660.52 ac.

14.91 mi.

661.20 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

2.55 mi.

213.50 ac.

-0.74 mi.

-47.10 ac.

-1.56 mi.

-117.62 ac.

-2.55 mi.

-213.50 ac.

-0.74 mi.

-47.10 ac.

-0.74 mi.

-47.10 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.88 mi.

138.89 ac.

0.12 mi.

52.41 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.47 mi.

91.20 ac.

0.47 mi.

91.20 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.78 mi.

41.55 ac.

1.30 mi.

72.51 ac.

1.30 mi.

72.51 ac.

0.78 mi.

41.55 ac.

0.78 mi.

41.55 ac.

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

8.18 mi.

325.11 ac.

0.01 mi.

7.54 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.01 mi.

7.54 ac.

0.01 mi.

7.54 ac.

Total FS Routes and Trails

(miles) 193.55 191.53 135.07 110.11 164.70 160.11

% in Miles of Alt.B (Existing) -1.04% -30.22% -43.11% -14.91% -17.28%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

35.47 mi.

4,706.99 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road

60.47 mi.

8,100.82 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

65

White-nosed Coati, 

Western Red Bat, Arizona 

Gray Squirrel Habitat 

(Low and Middle 

Elevation) Analysis Area 

on NFS Land = 30,142 

acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D Change 

in Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 21,153.04 -18,773.71 -19,688.83 -21,153.04 -19,328.62 -19,588.85

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -88.75% -93.08% -100% -91.38% -92.61%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles

(acres) 0.04 0.00 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval

(acres) 21,153.04 -3,587.65 -19,688.83 -21,153.04 -7,986.47 -19,588.85

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -16.96% -93.08% -100% -37.76% -92.61%

No Action Alternative (Alt. B) (Table 37, Table 38, Table 39, Table 40, and Table 41): For upland 

species of small mammals under this alternative there are approximately 1,617 miles of motorized routes 

in the hooded skunk and Botta’s pocket gopher analysis area, and 621 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 approximately 203 miles of motorized routes in 

the beaver analysis area; 21 miles of motorized routes in the long-tailed and Arizona montane vole 

analysis area; and 194 miles of motorized routes in the white-nosed coati, western red bat, and Arizona 

gray squirrel analysis area. These routes continue to cause habitat loss and the potential for direct effects 

like vehicle collision, poaching, and trapping to these species. The potential for collision loss does exist 

on Forest Service routes; however, lower traffic rates and travel speeds on forest routes reduce this 

potential. The potential disturbance zone for hooded skunks and Botta’s pocket gopher is approximately 

320,373 acres, and 94,684 acres for Gunnison’s prairie dog and White Mountain ground squirrel. The 

potential disturbance zone for beaver is approximately 13,318 acres, 2,112 acres for long-tailed and 

Arizona montane voles, and 12,902 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 you continue to have motorized cross country travel, dispersed camping, and big 

game retrieval allowed across the Gila National Forest. These three types of uses continue to have 

potential effects to upland, riparian, and wetland species of small mammals. Additionally, these three 

types of uses perpetuate the development of additional roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing for 

the development of higher road densities. 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 affects to 

these species. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G) (Table 37, Table 38, Table 39, Table 40, and Table 41): Under 

all action alternatives motorized cross country travel is no longer allowed. The change from the existing 

condition is a 100% reduction in motorized cross country travel. In the hooded skunk and Botta’s pocket 

gopher analysis area motorized dispersed camping is reduced by approximately 97 to 100% under all 

action alternatives; Gunnison’s prairie dog and White Mountain ground squirrel analysis area 93 to 100%; 

beaver analysis area 89 to 100%; long-tailed and Arizona montane vole analysis area 89 to 100%; and 89 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

66

to 100% 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% 

under Alternative E, 92 to 97% under Alternative D, 90 to 97% under Alternative G, 20 to 46% under 

Alternative F, and 5 to 19% under Alternative C.

Motorized areas are locations where we have had traditional uses like motorized camping and OHV use. 

Under all action alternatives in the vole analysis areas no areas currently exist and none have been 

designated. For the remaining analysis areas in this group under existing conditions you have from less 

than 0.5 acres to 14 acres in motorized areas. All action alternatives remove all the acreage from 

motorized areas for each of the analysis’s areas in this group.

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 approximately 26 to 37% under Alternative 

E; 17 to 21% under Alternative D; 13 to 15% under Alternative F, and 13 to 15% under Alternative G. 

Under Alternative C motorized routes are increased by 2.5% in the Hooded Skunk and Botta’s pocket 

gopher analysis area, and reduced by less than 0.2% 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 approximately 43 to 47% under Alternative 

E; 30 to 32% under Alternative D; 15 to 23% under Alternative F, and 17 to 23% under Alternative G. 

Under Alternative C there is a 1% to 2% reduction in riparian analysis areas for small mammals. 

In the shrub and woodland communities used by hooded skunks and Botta pocket gophers Alternative E 

adds approximately 9 miles; Alternatives D 59 miles; Alternative F 72 miles; Alternative G 71 miles; and 

Alternative C 113 miles. Many of these are unauthorized, user created routes that are being used, since the 

entire Forest is currently open to cross country travel. In the Plains and Mountain grassland communities 

used by prairie dogs and White Mountain ground squirrels Alternative E adds approximately 1.5 miles; 

Alternatives D, F and G 9 miles; and Alternative C 10 miles. In the low, middle and high elevation 

riparian communities used by beavers Alternative E adds approximately .4 miles; Alternatives D, F, and G 

approximately 2 miles; and Alternative C 14 miles. In the Wet Meadow, Wetland and High Elevation 

riparian analysis area used by the Long-tailed vole and Arizona Montane vole no routes are added under 

Alternatives D, E, F, or G; and 0.4 miles are added under Alternative C. In the low and middle elevation 

riparian analysis area used by the White-nosed Coati, Western Red Bat, and Arizona Gray Squirrel 

Alternative E adds approximately 0.6 miles; Alternatives D, and F 2 miles; Alternative G 3 miles; and 

Alternative C 14 miles of routes. As stated above many of these routes are currently being used since the 

entire Forest is currently open to cross country travel; therefore, currently they are causing direct and 

indirect effect to the species that use these habitat types. Overall in all the analysis areas for small 

mammals Alternatives D to G reduce the total routes by 13 to 47%. Alternative C provides the least 

amount of benefit to this group of species reducing the number of routes by 0.2 to 2.3% in the different 

analysis area, and in the Desert Shrub and Pinon-Juniper/shrub oak woodland actually increasing the 

number of routes by approximately 2.5%.

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. In analysis areas where Alternative C increases the number of routes above 

the existing condition there will be an increase in the amount of direct and indirect effects from motorized 

routes.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

67

Findings

Table 42 displays the effects determination for small mammals designated as Forest Service sensitive 

species.

Table 42: Small mammal Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative

Sensitive Species

Alt. B -

Existing 

Condition

Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. 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

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 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. In comparison to the existing condition the 

relative risk to these species are reduced the most by alternative E then D, G, F, and C, 

respectively. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

68

Table 43 displays the effects determination for small mammals designated as Gila National Forest 

management indicator species.

Table 43: Long-tailed vole and beaver Gila National Forest management indicator species determination by 

alternative

Management Indicator 

Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. 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 and minor amounts of habitat under all 

action alternatives still exists; but none will adversely affect population levels or habitat trends 

for these two species. 

*NA – No adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Amphibians and Reptiles

Table 44 identifies the amphibians and reptiles assessed in this section.

Table 44: Amphibian and reptile species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection

Species Analyzed Rationale For Selection

Chiricahua leopard frog Federally Listed “Threatened” Species

Mexican gartersnake FS Sensitive Species

Arizona toad FS Sensitive Species

Narrow-headed gartersnake FS Sensitive Species

Reticulate Gila monster FS Sensitive Species

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. 

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, habitat fragmentation, 

and herpetofauna have even been documented to suffer from vehicle noise (Table 45). Soil disturbance 

can negatively affect amphibians and reptiles. Temporary pools of water on roadways have been 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

69

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 46).

Chiricahua Leopard Frog [(CLF)/Federally “Threatened” Species] – Aquatic habitats used by this 

species include a variety of natural and human-constructed waters between elevations of 3,281 and 8,890 

feet. Aquatic habitats include rivers, permanent streams and permanent pools in intermittent streams, 

beaver ponds, cienegas (i.e., wetlands), springs, and earthen livestock tanks. They are also occasionally 

found in livestock drinkers, irrigation sloughs or ditches, wells, abandoned swimming pools, ornamental 

ponds, and mine adits (Southwest Endangered Species Act Team 2008). 

On the Gila National Forest we have 8 reasonable dispersal areas (populations) consider occupied. 

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.

This species has a complex life cycle consisting of eggs and larvae that are entirely aquatic and adults that 

are primarily aquatic (Southwest Endangered Species Act Team 2008). Each stage of the frogs’ life 

history has its own set of environmental or habitat requirements that influence its susceptibility to changes 

in its habitat, but in general Chiricahua leopard frogs need permanent to semi-permanent water that is 

free, or nearly so, of non-native aquatic predators (Southwest Endangered Species Act Team 2008). 

However, frogs are known to move among aquatic sites and can be found in upland sites, roadside 

puddles, and habitats that only hold water briefly during these movements. This emphasizes the 

importance of considering the broad spectrum of suitable habitats during project design and effects 

analyses. 

The recovery plan (USFWS 2007: 24-32) identifies numerous diseases; presently, one of the most serious 

of these is Chytridiomycosis, a highly virulent pathogen caused by the fungus Batrachochytrium 

dendrobatidis (Bd). Chytridiomycosis has been implicated in the deaths of frogs and the decline and 

extinction of frog populations (Daszak et al. 1999) including Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

Movement patterns by Chiricahua leopard frogs 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 (USFWS 2007: 14). Historically, it is likely that perennial corridors were 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

70

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 (USFWS 

2007: 14-15; R. Jennings, pers. comm. 2006). Based on observations of various ranids in Arizona and 

New Mexico (USFWS 2007: 14-15), reasonable dispersal distances for the species are (1) one mile 

overland, (2) three miles along intermittent drainages, and (3) five miles along permanent water courses 

(USFWS 2007: D-2,3), or some combination thereof. 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 in the process of analyzing if and how a particular action may affect 

Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

Chiricahua leopard frog Summary - For Chiricahua leopard frogs, defining the action area of a 

proposed project must consider the reasonable dispersal capabilities of the species, and the 

likelihood/extent of any downstream or upstream effects that might arise from the proposed action. For 

this species miles of road within the reasonable dispersal distances from occupied sites will be the 

indicator that is used to analyze the potential for harvest and disturbance under the different alternatives 

(Table 46, Table 47, and Table 48). Reasonable dispersal distances for the frog from occupied habitats to 

sites being evaluated for occupancy include: a) within 1 mile overland, b) within 3 miles along an 

ephemeral or intermittent drainage, or c) within 5 miles along a perennial stream, or some combination 

thereof. The Gila has completed an extensive amount of survey work for this species over the 9 years; 

over this period of time the number of populations on the Gila haves continued to decline as a result of 

Chytridiomycosis. 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 will provide the bases needed to determine the potential 

affects to this species from the different alternatives. 

Mexican Gartersnake (Forest Service Sensitive Species (federally proposed) Representative of Low 

Elevation Riparian Vegetation Cover Types) – Despite the variety of terrestrial habitats that this species 

has been documented in, Mexican gartersnakes are typically an aquatic species. They are associated with 

marshes (rush/bulrush/sedge/cattail), lowland riparian (cottonwood/sycamore), and springs. The aquatic 

components of their habitats are characterized by shallow, slow-moving, and at least partially vegetated 

waters. Mexican gartersnakes forage along the banks of water bodies. An important component of suitable 

Mexican gartersnake habitat is a stable prey base. They feed primarily upon native fish, but also 

supplement their diet with vertebrates such as lizards, small rodents, salamanders, and hylid frogs 

(treefrogs), and earthworms, leeches, and slugs. Recently this species has been documented to occur in 

the Gila Bird Area of the Forest.

This species has been selected as focal species for reptiles that occur in low elevation riparian areas. For 

the analysis of this species the analysis indicators (road miles and acres of potential disturbance) will 

analyze the change in low elevation riparian habitat by alternative from the existing condition (Forest 

Service 2010)(Table 46 and Table 50).

Arizona Toad (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Low, Middle, and High Elevation 

Riparian Vegetation Cover Types) - Arizona toads are usually associated with permanent ponds or 

rocky streams with relatively shallow water flowing over sandy or rocky bottoms. The species may also 

inhabit small streams and rivers, and temporary woodland pools (BISON-M 2009). It is generally found 

in unaltered sycamore or cottonwood riparian areas. Normally breeds in early spring, February-July 

(earlier at lower elevations) shortly after the snow melt in New Mexico, and often while there is still ice 

on the ponds (Degenhardt et al. 1996, BISON-M 2009). Unlike many toads in New Mexico, B. 

miscroscaphus does not depend upon spring or summer rains to stimulate breeding activity. This may be a 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

71

result of breeding in streams and ponds where there is usually permanent water. Adults are primarily 

nocturnal except during the breeding season, and estivate/hibernate in burrows dug within soil, fallen logs 

or other debris (BISON-M 2009). 

This species has been selected as focal species for amphibians that occur in low, middle, and high 

elevation riparian areas. For the analysis of this species the analysis indicators (road miles and acres of 

potential disturbance) will analyze the change in low, middle, and high elevation riparian habitat by 

alternative from the existing condition (Table 46 and Table 51).

Narrow Headed Gartersnake (Forest Service Sensitive Species (federally proposed) Representative

of Low, Middle, and High Elevation Riparian Vegetation Cover Types) - In New Mexico, the snake is 

known from the Gila and San Francisco watersheds within Hidalgo, Grant, and Catron counties in 

southwestern New Mexico. This species is considered highly aquatic, even for gartersnakes (Degenhardt 

et al. 1996). The species is found in clear water along the edges of riffles and pools of permanent and 

semi-permanent rocky streams. In New Mexico, the snake is found most associated with abundant 

streamside vegetation, presumably used for basking and for escape opportunities. This snake basks on 

rocks, boulders, and vegetation along stream banks, seeking shelter in crevices and under rocks. 

Hibernation takes place well above the flood line, in rocky outcroppings, during late fall and winter 

(Forest Service 2010). This species occurs along many of the perennial drainages on the Forest. 

This species has been selected as focal species for reptiles that occur in low, middle, and high elevation 

riparian areas. For the analysis of this species the analysis indicators (road miles and acres of potential 

disturbance) will analyze the change in low, middle, and high elevation riparian habitat by alternative 

from the existing condition (Table 46 and Table 51).

Reticulate Gila Monster (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Desert 

Shrub/Grassland Vegetation Cover Types) - In New Mexico, this species occurs in desert scrub and, 

more rarely, woodland and grassland habitats most commonly associated with rocky regions of mountain 

foothills and canyons. It is found from sea level to about 5000 ft in elevation (Stebbins 2003). Dominant 

vegetation often includes creosote bush, mesquite, acacia, ocotillo, and snakeweed. The seasonal activity 

period extends from March to November, although Gila monsters can be encountered basking at shelter 

entrances during the winter and early spring. Above ground travels range from a few meters around 

shelter entrances, to forays over 1.5 km, and these lizards can also climb (Degenhardt 1996.

This species has been selected as focal species for reptiles that occur in desert shrub, and grassland 

vegetation areas. For the analysis of this species the analysis indicators (road miles and acres of potential 

disturbance) will analyze the change in desert shrub and grassland habitat by alternative from the existing 

condition (Table 46 and Table 52).

Amphibian and Reptile Summary:

Table 45 lists road associated and motorized trail/ORV factors related to amphibian and reptile focal 

species that represent this group (Gaines et al. 2003); analysis factors based on the analysis factor 

discussed above; and the indicator that will be used to compare the different levels of affect between the 

different alternatives.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

72

Table 45: Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators for 

amphibians and reptiles

Road Associated 

Factors

Motorized Trail/ORV 

Associated Factors1

Combined Analysis 

Factors Analysis Indicator

Collisions, Collection Collisions3

Collection Harvest/Direct Effects Route Miles

Disturbance, 

Displacement, 

Avoidance, Harassment

Disturbance, Displacement, 

Avoidance, Harassment Disturbance/Indirect Effects Disturbance Zone Summarized In Acres

Table 46 summarizes the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area that will be used to 

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

Table 46: 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 AnalysisArea

Chiricahua leopard 

frog

Motorized trail/ORV 

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 and the 

area within the 

disturbance zone.

Mexican gartersnake Motorized trail/ORV 

and roads Route miles 250 meters Low elevation riparian

Arizona toad

Narrow-headed 

gartersnake

Motorized trail/ORV 

and roads Route miles 250 meters Low, middle, and high elevation riparian

Retculate Gila 

monster

Motorized trail/ORV 

and roads Route miles 250 meters Desert shrub/Grassland
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

73

Reptiles and Amphibians-Effects by Alternative

Chiricahua Leopard Frog

Table 47: Chiricahua leopard frog analysis area - existing condition and proposed changes by alternative

Chiricahua Leopard 

Frog Reasonable 

Dispersal Analysis 

Area (8 reasonable 

dispersal areas) on 

NFS lands = 78,504 

acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes (miles)

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5 81.78 -10.79 -26.60 -50.20 -19.69 -16.47

Reopen Closed ML 1 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59

Administrative Route 0.00 9.76 13.52 14.16 12.04 12.04

Add Unauthorized Route 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Admin. Unauthorized 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Seasonal Resource 

Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Trails (miles)

Existing Road to OHV Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Existing ATV Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Closed Road to OHV Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Trail 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Unauthorized Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total FS Routes and Trails 81.78 81.35 69.97 46.34 74.72 77.94

%in Miles of Alt. B 

(Existing) -1% -14% -43% -9% -5%

Cumulative Effects (miles)

Private Rd Including 

ROW/Assert 9.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

US Hwy, State Hwy, 

County Rd 17.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Routes Crossing Streams

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5 

(number of) 76 -21 -43 -68 -39 -23

Administrative Route 

(number of) 0 20 21 25 21 21

Total FS Routes & Trails 

Crossings (number of) 76 75 54 33 58 74

% Change of Alt. B 

(Existing) -1% -29% -57% -24% -3%

Private Rd. Stream 

Crossings (number of) 1 0 0 0 0 0
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

74

Chiricahua Leopard 

Frog Reasonable 

Dispersal Analysis 

Area (8 reasonable 

dispersal areas) on 

NFS lands = 78,504 

acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 43,599.82 -42,101.93 -42,516.70 -43,599.82 -42,223.96 -42,184.97

% in Acres of Alt. B 

Existing -97% -98% -100% -97% -97%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All 

Vehicles (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV 

Only (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 43,599.82 -5,489.36 -42,516.70 -43,599.82 -18,498.68 -42,184.97

% in Acres of Alt. B 

Existing -13% -98% -100% -42% -97%

Table 48: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Chiricahua Leopard Frog Critical 

Habitat on NFS land = 3,259 acres 

(outside of wilderness)

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. E 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. F 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. G 

Change 

in Effects

Motorized Routes (miles)

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5 5.22 -2.24 -2.69 -3.51 -2.63 -2.63

Reopen Closed ML 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Route 0.00 2.24 2.30 2.24 2.24 2.24

Add Unauthorized Route 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Admin. Unauthorized 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Seasonal Resource Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Trails (miles)

Existing Road to OHV Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Existing ATV Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Closed Road to OHV Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Unauthorized Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total FS Routes & Trails (miles) 5.22 5.22 4.83 3.94 4.83 4.83

% in Miles of Alt.B Existing 0% -7% -24% -7% -7%

Cumulative Effects (miles)

Private Rd (Including ROW/Assert) 1.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

US Hwy, State Hwy, County Road 4.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

75

Chiricahua Leopard Frog Critical 

Habitat on NFS land = 3,259 acres 

(outside of wilderness)

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. E 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. F 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. G 

Change 

in Effects

Routes Crossing Streams

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5 (number of) 22 -16 -16 -17 -16 -16

Administrative Route (number of) 0 16 16 16 16 16

Total FS Routes & Trails Crossings 

(number of) 22 22 22 21 22 22

% Change of Alt. B (Existing) 0% 0% -5% 0% 0%

Private Rd. Stream Crossings (number of) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Motorized Dispersed Camping (acres) 1,873 -1,849 -1,868 -1,873 -1,862 -1,849

% in Acres of Alt. B (Existing) -99% -99.7% -100% -99% -99%

Motorized Areas (acres)

Motorized Area - All Vehicles (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval (acres) 1,873 -227 -1,868 -1,873 -951 -1,849

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -12% -99.7% -100% -51% -99%

No Action Alternative (Alt. B) (Table 47 and Table 48): Under this alternative there are approximately 

82 miles of motorized routes within a reasonable dispersal area of occupied chiricahua leopard frog sites, 

and 76 stream crossings within the this dispersal zone. In designated critical habitat there are 

approximately 5 miles of routes and 22 stream crossings. The literature documents that a large number of 

amphibians and reptiles are killed on roadways (Maxwell and Hokit 1999). Fharig et al (1995) did 

document that the higher the traffic intensity the greater the number of dead frogs and toads. ORVs have 

also been documented to cause direct mortality (Maxwell and Hokit 1999). Motor vehicles on roads and 

ORVs also affect habitat quality, habitat 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 even 

under lower travel speeds; even though these lower traffic rates and speeds do reduce this potential. The 

potential for take associated with poaching also exist. Increase in the level of use on these routes through 

time would increase the potential for direct and indirect effects. These miles of routes and stream 

crossings also modify, and cause the loss of habitat.

Under this alternative you continue to have motorized cross country travel and dispersed camping allowed 

across the Gila National Forest. These two types of uses continue to have the potential to impact the 

Chiricahua leopard Frog in habitats that are located within designated critical habitat (1,873 ac.), and 

within the dispersal distances of this species (43,600 ac.). Additionally, these two types of uses perpetuate 

the development of additional roads and OHV routes; potentially allowing for the development of more 

routes and stream crossings. 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. 

Effect Common to all Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G)(Table 47 and Table 48): 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% reduction in motorized cross country travel. 

The authorization to allow disperse camp in these alternatives reduces the potential affects from this 

activity by 97% to 100% within the dispersal analysis area and 99 to 100% in designated critical habitat. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

76

No motorized areas are designated within these two analysis areas. Since no cross country travel and no 

motorized areas are located in the analysis area there would be no effect to the CLF or its habitat from 

these activities. 

Differences among the Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G)(Table 47 and Table 48): Miles of 

motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat within the dispersal analysis area are 

reduced by approximately 43% (-36 miles) under Alternative E; 14% (-12 mi.) under Alternative D; 9% (-

7 mi.) under Alternative F, 5% (-4 mi.) under Alternative G, and 1% (-1 mi.) under Alternatives C (see 

Tables for specific numbers). Miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat 

within the designated critical habitat analysis area are reduced by approximately 24% under Alternative E; 

7% in alternatives D, F, and G; and 0% under Alternatives C (see Tables or specific numbers). Under the 

existing condition you have 76 stream crossings within the dispersal analysis area. This number is 

reduced by 57% under Alternative E to 33 crossings; by 29% under Alternative D to 54 stream crossings; 

by 24% under Alternative F to 58 crossings; by 3% under Alternative G to 74 stream crossings; and by 

1% under Alternative C to 75 crossings. Under Alternative E 25 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. Converting these routes to administrative routes greatly reduces 

the potential use; therefore, reducing the potential for direct effects. Under the existing condition you 

have 22 stream crossings within the designated critical habitat analysis area. Alternative E reduces the 

number of stream crossings by one; none of the other action alternative reduces the number of stream 

crossings in this analysis area. They all convert the majority of these crossings to administrative routes. In 

Alternatives C, D, E, F, and G 16 of the crossings go to administrative use only. 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 designated critical habitat is relative to the amount of miles and 

stream crossings reduced and the reduction in use on these routes.

The area of potentially affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval within the dispersal analysis area 

is reduced by 100% under Alternative E, 98% under Alternative D, 42% under Alternative F, 97% under 

Alternative G, and 13% under Alternative C. The area of potentially affected habitat for motorized big 

game retrieval within the designated critical habitat analysis area is reduced by 100% under Alternative E, 

99.7% under Alternative D, 51% under Alternative F, 99% under Alternative G, and 12% under 

Alternative C. 

Findings

Table 49 displays the effects determination for the federally listed Chiricahua leopard frog and its 

designated critical habitat.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

77

Table 49: Chiricahua leopard frog federally listed species determination by alternative

Federally 

Listed Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Chiricahua 

leopard frog MALAA MALAA MALAA MALAA MALAA

Chiricahua 

leopard frog 

designated 

critical habitat

MANLAA MANLAA MANLAA MANLAA MANLAA

Rationale for 

species 

determination

Under alternative E, the change results in a 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 has the potential to cause direct effects, 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 

cross-country 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.

Rationale for 

critical habitat 

determination

All action alternatives reduce the level of effect to Chiricahua leopard frog critical habitat. Alternative E 

reduces the number of stream crossing by one, and the remainder of the alternative change 2.24 to 3.51 

miles to administrative use only; reducing 16 stream crossing in each alternative to administrative use. 

Under all alternatives the level of effect is greatly reduced to critical habitat. Although these changes in 

motorized are primarily beneficial, authorized motorized use that will continue has some adverse effects 

on critical habitat. 

Active sediment transport along the road will be reduced in correlation to reduced amount of use. 

However, since the road prism will remain intact, surface runoff that is intercepted by existing road 

prisms will continue to transport some sediment along roads and directly in the stream channel in areas. 

Similarly, stream crossings will persist. Additional sediment from roads and changes to vegetative habitat 

associated with stream crossings is known to have potential adverse effects to Chiricahua leopard frog 

breeding habitat in terms of water quality and cover. 

The primary constituent elements of designated critical habitat are expected to remain intact and serve 

their intended function for potential breeding and dispersal considering that motorized use will be 

reduced from current levels, only a small amount of habitat is affected, and the use occurs on road 

prisms that are already present.

For these reasons, a determination of “May affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” is made for designated 

Chiricahua leopard frog critical habitat.

*MALAA- May affect likely to adversely affect determination
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

78

Mexican Gartersnake

Table 50: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Mexican Gartersnake 

Habitat (Low Elevation 

Riparian) Analysis Area 

on NFS Land = 9,283 

acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5 54.09 mi.

3,983.04 ac.

-17.32 mi.

-1,189.58 ac.

-30.01 mi.

-2,234.42 ac.

-36.44 mi.

-2,653.44 ac.

-21.56 mi.

-1,786.29 ac.

-28.15 mi.

-2,088.02 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.39 mi.

90.26 ac.

0.00 mi.

9.61 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

9.61 ac.

0.00 mi.

9.61 ac.

Administrative Route 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

15.23 mi.

1,205.12 ac.

19.99 mi.

1,848.12 ac.

20.28 mi.

1,868.09 ac.

19.24 mi.

1,733.40 ac.

18.90 mi.

1,723.14 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.38 mi.

105.41 ac.

0.27 mi.

96.54 ac.

0.00 mi.

4.56 ac.

0.05 mi.

54.48 ac.

0.61 mi.

147.47 ac.

Add Admin. Unauthorized 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.12 mi.

23.41 ac.

0.12 mi.

23.41 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.12 mi.

23.41 ac.

0.12 mi.

23.41 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.96 mi.

83.15 ac.

0.07 mi.

5.88 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

21.43 ac.

0.00 mi.

21.43 ac.

Existing ATV Trail 0.28 mi.

25.10 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

-0.28 mi.

-25.10 ac.

-0.28 mi.

-25.10 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.71 mi.

64.50 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.30 mi.

16.80 ac.

0.30 mi.

16.80 ac.

Administrative Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi. 

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Unauthorized Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00

0.00 ac.

Total FS Routes and Trails

(miles) 54.37 55.85 44.53 37.93 52.52 46.14

% in Miles of Alt.B (Existing) 2.72% -18.09% -30.24% -3.39% -15.13%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

14.65 mi.

2,254.08 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road

24.79 mi.

3,452.09 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 6,944.62 -6,184.38 -6,722.36 -6,944.62 -6,506.50 -6,709.25

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -89.05% -96.80% -100% -93.69% -96.61%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

79

Mexican Gartersnake 

Habitat (Low Elevation 

Riparian) Analysis Area 

on NFS Land = 9,283 

acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All 

Vehicles (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 6,944.62 -997.42 -6,722.36 -6,944.62 -2,567.47 -6,709.25

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -14.36% -96.80% -100% -36.97% -96.61%

Arizona Toad and Narrow Headed Gartersnake 

Table 51: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Arizona Toad -

Narrow Headed 

Gartersnake Habitat 

(Low, Middle and High 

Elevation Riparian) 

Analysis Area on

USFS Land = 34,452 

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5 200.49 mi.

13,318.48 ac.

-63.42 mi.

-3,087.42 ac.

-116.31 mi.

-6,111.63 ac.

-139.42 mi.

-7,727.00 ac.

-90.43 mi.

-4,799.87 ac.

-94.03 mi.

-5,004.14 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.40 mi.

130.25 ac.

0.02 mi.

49.60 ac.

0.01 mi.

23.34 ac.

0.02 mi.

49.60 ac.

0.02 mi.

49.60 ac.

Administrative Route 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

34.58 mi.

2,489.85 ac.

45.26 mi.

3,783.90 ac.

51.92 mi.

4,140.92 ac.

42.00 mi.

3,430.31 ac.

40.45 mi.

3,352.23 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.57 mi.

136.12 ac.

0.46 mi.

149.95 ac.

0.18 mi.

35.27 ac.

0.23 mi.

85.19 ac.

0.79 mi.

178.17 ac.

Add Admin. Unauthorized 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

3.11 mi.

189.39 ac.

1.80 mi.

147.23 ac.

0.38 mi.

49.06 ac.

1.80 mi.

147.23 ac.

1.80 mi.

147.23 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

7.07 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

12.24 mi.

497.20 ac.

7.22 mi.

276.33 ac.

0.61 mi.

40.80 ac.

14.99 mi.

667.37 ac.

14.99 mi.

668.05 ac.

Existing ATV Trail 2.55 mi.

213.50 ac.

-0.74 mi.

-47.10 ac.

-1.56 mi.

-117.62 ac.

-2.55 mi.

-213.50 ac.

-0.74 mi.

-47.10 ac.

-0.74 mi.

-47.10 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.88 mi.

138.89 ac.

0.12 mi.

52.41 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.47 mi.

91.20 ac.

0.47 mi.

91.20 ac.

Administrative Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.78 mi.

41.55 ac.

1.30 mi.

72.51 ac.

1.30 mi.

72.51 ac.

0.78 mi.

41.55 ac.

0.78 mi.

41.55 ac.

Add Unauthorized Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

8.52 mi.

337.00 ac.

0.01 mi.

7.54 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.01 mi.

7.54 ac.

0.01 mi.

7.54 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

80

Arizona Toad -

Narrow Headed 

Gartersnake Habitat 

(Low, Middle and High 

Elevation Riparian) 

Analysis Area on

USFS Land = 34,452 

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Total FS Routes and 

Trails (miles) 203.04 200.95 141.35 115.47 172.16 167.56

Percent in Miles of Alt. B 

(Existing) -1.03% -30.38% -43.13% -15.21% -17.47%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

36.38 mi.

4,800.64 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, 

County Road

61.63 mi.

8,268.13 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 22,948.14 -20,507.85 -21,463.79 -22,948.14 -21,063.15 -21,326.34

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -89.37% -93.53% -100% -91.79% -92.93%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All 

Vehicles (acres) 0.04 0.00 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV 

Only (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 22,948.14 -3,998.41 -21,463.79 -22,948.14 -8,868.72 -21,326.34

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -17.42% -93.53% -100% -38.65% -92.93%

Reticulate Gila Monster 

Table 52: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Reticulate Gila 

Monster Habitat 

(Desert 

Shrub/Grassland) 

Analysis Area on 

USFS Land = 26,067 

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5 92.21 mi.

8,573.46 ac.

-4.47 mi.

-616.93 ac.

-31.28 mi.

-3,052.67 ac.

-38.55 mi.

-3,555.20 ac.

-28.90 mi.

-2,641.46 ac.

-28.68 mi.

-2,785.08 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.06 mi.

26.48 ac.

0.00 mi.

6.89 ac.

0.00 mi.

6.89 ac.

0.00 mi.

6.89 ac.

0.00 mi.

6.89 ac.

Administrative Route 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.97 mi.

420.22 ac.

7.36 mi.

1,060.10 ac.

6.69 mi.

985.13 ac.

5.83 mi.

913.90 ac.

5.61 mi.

862.28 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.70 mi.

106.52 ac.

0.27 mi.

70.11 ac.

0.20 mi.

45.69 ac.

0.70 mi.

106.52 ac.

0.27 mi.

78.33 ac.

Add Admin. Unauthorized 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.71 mi.

130.04 ac.

1.14 mi.

168.27 ac.

0.77 mi.

74.82 ac.

0.71 mi.

130.04 ac.

1.14 mi.

160.04 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

81

Reticulate Gila 

Monster Habitat 

(Desert 

Shrub/Grassland) 

Analysis Area on 

USFS Land = 26,067 

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.10 mi.

18.75 ac.

2.28 mi.

377.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.53 mi.

438.29 ac.

2.53 mi.

438.29 ac.

Existing ATV Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

3.58 mi.

375.83 ac.

2.06 mi.

278.02 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.06 mi.

288.78 ac.

2.06 mi.

288.78 ac.

Administrative Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Unauthorized Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

9.39 mi.

899.67 ac.

2.40 mi.

240.10 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

7.48 mi.

601.21 ac.

6.16 mi.

557.33 ac.

Total FS Routes and 

Trails (miles) 92.21 105.25 76.45 61.31 82.62 81.31

% in Miles of Alt.B 

(Existing) 14.14% -17.09% -33.51% -10.40% -11.82%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

10.05 mi.

1,822.34 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, 

County Road

35.47 mi.

4,436.84 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Areas

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 23,476.04 -20,851.30 -21,090.69 -23,476.04 -20,843.61 -20,973.64

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -88.82% -89.84% -100% -88.79% -89.34%

Motorized Area - All 

Vehicles (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV 

Only (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 23,476.04 -2,679.96 -21,090.69 -23,476.04 -9,330.32 -20,973.64

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -11.42% -89.84% -100% -39.74% -89.34%

No Action Alternative (Alt. B)(Table 50, Table 51, and Table 52): Under the existing condition for 

reptiles and amphibians there are approximately 54 miles of motorized routes in the Mexican gartersnake 

analysis area, 203 motorized routes in the Arizona toad and narrow headed gartersnake analysis area, and

92 miles of motorized routes in the Reticulate Gila monster analysis area. The literature documents that a 

large number of amphibians and reptiles are killed on roadways (Maxwell and Hokit 1999). Fharig et al 

(1995) did document that the higher the traffic intensity the greater the number of dead frogs and toads. 

ORVs have also been documented to cause direct mortality (Maxwell and Hokit 1999). Motor vehicles on 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

82

roads and ORVs also affect habitat quality, habitat 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 even under lower travel speeds; even though lower traffic rates and speeds do reduce this potential. 

The potential for take associated with poaching also exists. Increase in the level of use on these routes 

through time would increase the potential for direct and indirect effects. These miles of routes and stream 

crossings also modify, and cause the loss of habitat.

The potential disturbance zone for Mexican gartersnake is approximately 4,008 acres, 13,352 acres for 

Arizona toad and narrow headed gartersnake, and 8,573 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 you continue to have motorized cross country travel, dispersed camping, and big 

game retrieval allowed across the Gila National Forest. These three types of uses continue to have 

potential effects to upland, riparian, and wetland species of reptiles and amphibians. Additionally, these 

three types of uses perpetuate the development of additional roads and motorized trails; potentially 

allowing for the development of higher road densities. 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 affects to these species. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G) (Table 50, Table 51, and Table 52): Under all action alternatives 

motorized cross country travel (see assumption) is no longer allowed. The change from the existing 

condition is a 100% reduction in motorized cross country travel. In the Mexican gartersnake, Arizona toad 

and narrow headed gartersnake, and Gila monster analysis areas motorized dispersed camping is reduced 

by 89 to 100% under all action alternatives. For these focal species the area of potentially affected habitat 

for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100% under Alternative E, 90 to 97% under Alternative D, 

37 to 40% under Alternative F, 90 to 97% under Alternative G, and 14 to 17% under Alternative C.

Motorized areas are locations where we have had traditional uses like motorized camping and OHV use. 

In the Mexican Gartersnake and Gila monster analysis areas no areas currently exist and no areas have 

been designated. In the Arizona toad and Narrow headed gartersnake analysis area under the existing 

condition you have 0.04 acres in a motorized area; all action alternatives eliminate this area in this 

analysis area. Since none of the alternatives maintain motorized areas within these analysis areas there 

will be no direct or indirect effect to this group of species from activities associated with motorized areas.

Miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat within the analysis area for 

reptiles and amphibians are reduced by 30 to 43% under Alternative E; 17 to 30% under Alternative D; 3 

to 15% under Alternative F, and 12 to 17% under Alternative G. Under Alternative C motorized routes are 

increased by 14% in the Gila monster analysis area, 3% in the Mexican gartersnake analysis area, and 

reduced by 1% in the Arizona toad and narrow headed gartersnake analysis area.

In the low elevation riparian analysis area used by the Mexican gartersnake Alternative E adds 

approximately 0 miles; Alternatives D 0.4 miles; Alternative F 0.5 miles; Alternative G 1 mile; and 

Alternative C 2.6 miles. Many of these are unauthorized, user created routes that are being used, since the 

entire Forest is currently open to cross country travel. In the low, middle and high elevation riparian 

analysis area used by Arizona toads and narrow headed gartersnakes Alternative E adds approximately 0.6 

miles, Alternatives D 2.4 miles, Alternative F 2.5 miles, Alternative G 3.1 miles; and Alternative C 14.5 

miles. In the desert shrub/grassland analysis area used by the Gila monster Alternative E adds 

approximately 1 mile, Alternatives D 5.9 miles, Alternative F 11 miles, Alternative G 10 miles, and 

Alternative C 14.4 miles. As stated above many of these routes are currently being used since the entire 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

83

Forest is currently open to cross country travel; therefore, currently they are causing direct and indirect

effect to the species that use these habitat types. Overall in these three analysis areas for reptiles and 

amphibians Alternatives D to G reduce the total routes by 3 to 43%. Alternative C provides the least 

amount of benefit to this group of species reducing the number of routes by 1% in the low, middle and 

high riparian analysis area, and in the remaining analysis areas actually increasing the number of routes 

by 3 to 14%.

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. In analysis areas where Alternative C increases the number of routes above 

the existing condition there will be an increase in the amount of direct and indirect effects from motorized 

routes.

Findings

Table 53 displays the effects determination for amphibians and reptiles listed as Forest Service sensitive 

species.

Table 53: Amphibian and reptile Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative

Sensitive Species Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. 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% 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 these 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. In comparison to the 

existing condition the relative risk to these species are reduced the most by Alternative E 

then D, G, F, and C, respectively.

*MI – May impact

Avian Analysis

Analyses for this document in regard to avian species are based on an extensive literature review, the Gila 

National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986), The Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 

1995 and 2012), Northern Goshawk Management Recommendations (GTR RM-217 1992), 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 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

84

road mortality to bird species were historically most prevalent, with more recent ornithological analyses 

focusing on habitat fragmentation, habitat 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 1990). 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 to be 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: 

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

Table 54 identifies the raptorial birds assessed in this section.

Table 54: Raptor species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection

Species Analyzed Rationale For Selection

Mexican spotted owl1

Federally Listed “Threatened” Species with designated critical habitat, 

Management Indicator Species Representative of Mixed Conifer Habitat 

Cover Type, and NM PIF High Priority Species.

Northern goshawk2 FS Sensitive Species, Management Indicator Species Representative of 

Ponderosa Pine Habitat Cover Type, and NM PIF High Priority Species 

Peregrine falcon3 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

1. 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, Flammulated owl, and red-faced warbler. The 

disturbance zone for these upland birds is similar to that of the Mexican spotted owl).

2. 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, Virginia’s warbler, Grace’s warbler, Pygmy nuthactch, 

Lewis’s woodpecker, and Red-faced warbler).

3. 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, and White-throated swift).
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

85

Human activities can impact raptorial birds (hawks, falcons, and owls) by physically harming or killing 

birds, altering habitats, or by 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 (Holmes et al. 1993; Richardson 

and Miller 1997). 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, Grubb et al. 1998). 

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 pre-dates the species’ successful nesting activity in a given 

area. Therefore, in most cases, ongoing existing uses may proceed with the same intensity with little risk 

of disturbing birds of prey (USFWS 2007). 

Mexican Spotted Owl [(MSO)/Federally “Threatened” Species with designated critical habitat, 

Management Indicator Species Representative of Mixed Conifer Habitat Cover Type, and NM PIF 

High Priority Species with Known Management Areas Defined on the GNF] - The MSO occurs in 

varied habitat, consisting of mature montane forest and woodland, shady wooded canyons, and steep 

canyons. In forested habitat, uneven-aged stands with a high canopy closure, high tree density, and a 

sloped terrain appear to be key habitat components. They can also be found in mixed conifer and pine-oak 

vegetation types. Generally nests are in older forests of mixed conifer or ponderosa pine/Gambel oak. 

Nests are found in live trees in natural platforms (e.g., dwarf mistletoe brooms), snags, and on canyon 

walls. Elevation ranges from 1,249 to 2,743 m (4,100 to 9,000 ft). The MSO Recovery Plan divided the 

range of the owl into 5 geographic areas called “Ecological Management Units” (EMUs). Two EMUs 

partially occur within the boundary of the Gila National Forest the Basin and Range West and the Upper 

Gila Mountains. No known owl PACs occur in the Basin and Range West EMU. The Upper Gila 

Mountains EMU contains the largest known number of MSOs of all the EMUs with 55% of known MSO 

Territories in 1995 (USFWS 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 287 Protected Activity Centers (PACs); and approximately 604,825 

acres of designate critical habitat outside of wilderness areas. The Gila has the highest number of PACs 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 (70,295 ac. non-wilderness and 56,103 ac 

wilderness). Ganey et al, (2008) suggest that the Gila region is a source population for MSOs and that the 

species is highly correlated with both cliff/rock habitat, and mixed conifer habitat cover type. Mixed 

conifer and pine-oak forests are identified in the MSO Recovery Plan as the habitat type in this RU where 

MSOs are primarily found. 

The MSO Recovery Plan (USFWS 2012) states that recreation activities may affect MSOs 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.

“Depending on the extent, intensity, and duration, recreational disturbance may have negative 

impacts on owl habitat. For example, the number of people who drive OHVs off road has 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

86

increased over 109% in the U.S. since completing the 1995 Recovery Plan (Cordell 2004). In 

addition, from 1997 to 2001, the number of OHVs in use increased by almost 40%, OHV drivers 

increased by 36%, and OHV driving hours increased by 50% (68 FR 19975; April 23, 2003). The 

significant increase in OHV use, OHV-associated impacts to natural resources, and a desire to 

provide better OHV management have precipitated development of Travel Management Plans for 

all NFS lands as well as implementation of a 2009 Arizona OHV Law (SB1167). These actions 

illustrate that both Federal and state agencies have identified OHV recreational activity as a 

concern.” 

The 1995 USFWS plan also states that noise produced from vehicles may disturb spotted owls at 

important nesting and roost sites. On a local scale, roads and trails through PACs may fragment habitat 

continuity, alter natural movement patterns, and increase disturbance to resident owls. Roads in nest/roost, 

forested, and riparian recovery habitat may also result in loss of habitat components (e.g., large logs, large 

snags, hardwoods) as people access these areas for fuelwood cutting, and in sensitive riparian areas, roads 

and trail can inhibit hydrological processes that affect proper functioning ecological conditions (USFWS 

2012). 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 MSO. During a study investigating noise effects to MSOs, Delaney et al. (1999) found that owls did 

not flush from roosts or nests when chainsaws 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, 2004). A study investigating 

noise disturbance from helicopters on the Lincoln National Forest indicated that a 105 meter buffer zone 

for helicopter over flights would minimize MSO 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 GNF analysis will focus on two factors: 

1. To analyze the potential for harvest/direct disturbance effects of motorized activities to MSOs we 

will measure road miles within PACs, MSO 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 

with in PACs, Critical habitat, and Mixed Conifer vegetation types as it pertains to the existing 

condition and to the change proposed in each alternative.

Northern Goshawk (Regionally Sensitive Species, Management Indicator Species Representative of 

Ponderosa Pine Habitat Cover Type, and NM PIF High Priority Species with Known Management 

Areas Defined on the GNF) - Northern goshawks occupy a variety of habitats including mature 

coniferous and deciduous forests, typically from approximately 4,750 to 9,120 ft in elevation (AZGF, 

2003). The principal forest types occupied by the goshawk in the Southwest are ponderosa pine, mixedspecies, and spruce-fir. Nest sites are generally in stands of larger trees with dense canopy cover, and 

generally in larger tracts of forests over smaller tracts. Reynolds (1983), reports that goshawks apparently 

prefer to nest within 1/4 mile of water in forest blocks > 80 ha in size which contain small openings. In 

Arizona, goshawk’s nest most commonly in ponderosa pine forests along the Mogollon Rim (AZGF, 

2003). On the Gila National Forest, nests have also typically been located in ponderosa pine vegetation. 

A Post-fledging Family Area (PFA) is the area of concentrated use by the goshawk family after the young 

leave the nest (Reynolds et al, 1992). The PFA surrounds the nest and is approximately 600 acres. Fifty 

eight (58) PFAs have been identified on the GNF. The Forest Plan Amendment standards and guidelines 

state: Limit human activity in PFAs during the breeding season; limit human activities in or near nest 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

87

sites and post-fledgling family areas during the breeding season; manage road densities at the lowest level 

possible. 

Certain kinds of human disturbances to goshawk nests have been speculated to cause nest abandonment 

(Reynolds et al. 1992). A study investigating effects of logging truck noise caused no discernible 

behavioral response by goshawks at distances greater than 400 m from nest sites (Grubb et al. 1998). 

Gaines et al (2003) suggest that the nesting period and post-fledgling periods for goshawks be critically 

evaluated for disturbance affects. The PFA is an area of use from the time the young fledge to the time 

when they are no longer dependent on the adults for food. Managers recommend a 400 to 500 meter 

radius to buffer goshawk nest sites in order to protect them from disturbance during the breeding season 

(Call 1979 and Jones 1979). Loss of goshawk habitat due to fragmentation from roads bisecting forested 

areas was identified as a detrimental effect to the species due to reduction in prey base (Wisdom et al. 

2000). This species is sensitive to changes in canopy closure and habitat fragmentation (Forest Service 

2010, and BISON-M 2010). To analyze effects to this species from the existing condition and the change 

proposed in each alternative of the Travel Management Project on the GNF analysis will focus on two 

factors:

1. To analyze the potential for direct effects of motorized activities to Northern Goshawks we will 

measure road miles within PFAs, and within the Ponderosa Pine vegetation type as these densities 

pertain to the existing condition and the change proposed in each alternative. 

2. To analyze disturbance effects we will use a disturbance zone of 400 meters within PFAs, and 

within the Ponderosa Pine vegetation type as it pertains to the existing condition and the change 

proposed in each alternative. 

Peregrine Falcon (Regionally Sensitive Species and NM PIF High Priority Species with Known 

Management Areas Defined on the GNF) - This raptor takes virtually all of their prey on the wing, 

typically after a stoop or dive from above (Bison M 2010). Prey consists almost entirely of birds, these 

ranging in size from swallows to ducks and large shorebirds. Jays, woodpeckers, swifts, mourning doves 

and pigeons are among the commonly-taken prey species. In New Mexico, the American subspecies, 

F.p.anatum, breeds locally in mountain areas and migrates essentially statewide; the tundra subspecies, 

F.p.tundrius, is a very rare migrant through the state (Bison M 2010). Peregrine falcons are uncommon 

permanent residents that breed on the GNF (Bison M 2010). In New Mexico Peregrine Falcons are found 

on rocky, steep cliffs near water (Bison M 2010). They prefer elevations from 6500 - 8599 ft but may be 

found from 3500 - 9000 feet (Bison M 2010). In New Mexico, the breeding territories of Peregrine 

Falcons center on cliffs that are in wooded/forested habitats, with large "gulfs" of air nearby in which 

these predators can forage (Bison M 2010). Most suitable peregrine habitat on National Forest System 

lands in New Mexico was mapped and designated in 1986, but refinement of suitability criteria and 

reevaluation of designated habitat are ongoing tasks (Johnson, 1994). Management practices have 

progressed further, since 1986 by incorporating a series of zones, called a Peregrine Falcon Management 

area in which different activities may be permitted at different times of the year. The GNF has 14 

designated Peregrine Falcon Management Areas. Peregrine Falcon habitat management in New Mexico 

focuses on conserving habitat quality and minimizing disturbance (Johnson, 1994). A review of the 

literature indicates that 800-3400 meters, depending on topography from nests sites is the reported 

distance by which recreation activities will cause disturbance effects to this species (Call, 1979, Johnson 

1994, Richardson and Miller, 1997, Hamann et al, 1999). To analyze effects to this species from the 

proposed action and each alternative of the Travel Management Project on the GNF analysis will focus on 

two factors: 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

88

1. To analyze the potential for harvest effects of motorized activities to Peregrine Falcons we will 

measure changes in miles of road within Peregrine Falcon Management Areas, as these miles 

pertain to the existing condition and the change proposed in each alternative. 

2. To analyze potential disturbance effects we will use a disturbance zone of 2200 meters (median 

distance described above) from known nests within Peregrine Falcon Management Areas as it 

pertains to the existing condition and the change proposed in each alternative. 

Bald Eagle (Regionally Sensitive Species Representative of Lake Habitat, and Protected Under the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1962) – Over the last three years a pair of Bald Eagles have 

attempted to nest at Quemado Lake, the success of these nesting attempts is unknown; no other nest are 

currently known to occur on the GNF. This species commonly roosts communally, especially in winter 

(NatureServe Explorer 2009). Most eagles that breed in Canada and the northern U.S. move south for 

winter. Bald Eagles migrate widely over most of North America (NatureServe Explorer 2009). They 

winter along oceans or in areas where carrion is present (Birds of North America 2009). They are nearly 

always found near water, along rivers, lakes, or the sea coast and coastal marshes, reservoirs, and large 

lakes (Birds of North America 2009). Mid-winter surveys conducted annually by the New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) showed that the number of bald eagles wintering in New 

Mexico steadily increased during the preceding 15 years, from an annual average of 220 birds in the early 

1980's to 450 by the mid 1990's (Bison-M 2009). Only two pairs of bald eagles currently nested in the 

state (at the time of publication) (Bison-M 2009). In New Mexico on the Gila National Forest Bald Eagles 

congregate during the winter at Snow Lake and Lake Roberts. The independent biological consulting 

agency Geo-Marine was contracted to survey the Gila National Forest (GNF) for Bald Eagles in the 

winter season of 2008-2009. Results of the GNF survey indicate that 2-4 Bald Eagles wintered around 

Lake Roberts, and 26 wintered around the Snow Lake area (Preliminary Survey Report Data from GeoMarine 2009, and personal communication with Robin Ives, Field Biologist for Geo-Marine Inc.). The 

National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS, 2007) offer recommendations for avoiding 

disturbance at foraging areas and communal roost sites, though no distances are discussed in this 

document for communal roost site disturbance. Richardson and Miller (1997) show vehicle disturbance 

distances from 9-990 meters though no mention of non-breeding, roosting eagles is discussed. Given the 

literatures lack of discussion on this temporal period of communal roosting, and the USFWS 

recommendations it is likely that at the locations on the GNF where Bald Eagles communally roost during 

the winter months, (Lake Roberts, Snow Lake, and Quemado Lake) a roads buffer of 500 meters from 

known roost sites should provide adequate conditions to keep vehicles from disturbing eagles at these 

locations. The USFWS (2007) recommendations also state that eagles are unlikely to be disturbed by 

routine use of roads, homes, and other facilities where such use pre-dates the eagles’ 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 bald eagles (USFWS, 2007). To analyze effects to this species from 

the proposed action and each alternative of the Travel Management Project on the GNF analysis will 

focus on two factors: 

1. To analyze the potential for harvest effects of motorized activities to Bald Eagles we will measure 

road miles within 500 meters of lake habitat with known bald eagle sites, as these densities 

pertain to the existing condition and the change proposed in each alternative. 

2. To analyze potential disturbance effects we will use a disturbance zone of 500 meters from known 

Bald Eagle sites as it pertains to the existing condition and the change proposed in each 

alternative. 

Golden Eagle [(Aquila chrysaetos Canadensis)/ NM Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) 

Representative of Plain/Mountain Grasslands and Dessert Shrub/Grassland Habitat Cover Type, 

Protected Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1962] - Golden Eagles occur in 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

89

generally open country, in prairies, arctic and alpine tundra, open wooded country, and barren areas, 

especially in hilly or mountainous regions. The species nests on rock ledges of cliffs or in large trees (e.g., 

oak or eucalyptus in California, white pine in eastern North America). The pairs may have several 

alternate nests, and may use the same nest in consecutive years or shift to alternate nests used in different 

years (NatureServe Explorer 2010). The Golden Eagle breeds in open and semi-open habitats from near 

sea level to 3,630 m (Birds of North America 2010). Golden Eagles occur primarily in mountainous 

canyon land, rim-rock terrain of open deserts and grassland areas of western United States. The Golden 

Eagle typically forages in open habitats: grasslands or steppe like vegetation. During Migration in the 

western United States and Canada this species may hunt over wetlands, agricultural areas, and grassy 

foothills. In western Canada, they may select areas with strong thermal activity and uplifts for energyefficient migration (Birds of North America 2010). Golden Eagles winter primarily in humid temperate 

and dry eco-region domains from southern Alaska and Canada to central Mexico. Golden Eagles are fairly 

common breeding permanent residents to the GNF (Zimmerman, 1995). While Zimmerman (1995) 

included this species as a fairly common breeding resident to the GNF, no known nests have been 

reported by leading ornithologists working on the GNF, (Roland Shook, Personal Communication) or by 

the Raptor Biologist for Hawks Aloft, New Mexico (Personal Communication, Ron Kellermueller 

03/17/2010). Further, Kellermueler stated that while incidents of Ponderosa Pine nesting was documented 

on Bison M, he currently knows of no occupied Golden Eagle territories in New Mexico in Ponderosa 

Pine Habitat. He stated that the habitat type preferred by this species in New Mexico is Plains Grassland 

and Dessert Shrub (Kellermueler personal communication 03/17/2010). Holmes et al (1993), document 

vehicle disturbance to wintering Golden Eagles up to 190 meters. To analyze effects to this species from 

the proposed action and each alternative of the Travel Management Project on the GNF analysis will 

focus on two factors: 

1. To analyze the potential for harvest/direct disturbance effects of motorized activities to Golden 

Eagles we will measure road miles within Plains Grassland and Desert Shrub/Grassland 

vegetation types, as these densities pertain to the existing condition and the change proposed in 

each alternative. 

2. To analyze disturbance/indirect effects we will use a disturbance zone of 200 meters from 

Plains/Mountain Grassland and Desert Shrub/Grassland vegetation cover types as it pertains to 

the existing condition and the change proposed in each alternative. 

Raptor Summary:

Table 55 list road associated and motorized trail/ORV factors related to raptor focal species that represent 

this group (Gaines et al. 2003); analysis factors based on the analysis factor discussed above; and the 

indicator that will be used to compare the different levels of affect between the different alternatives. 

Table 55: Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators for raptors

Road Associated Factors1 Motorized Trail/ORV 

Associated Factors

Combined Analysis 

Factors Analysis Indicator

Collisions Collection

Poaching

Collisions

Collection

Poaching

Harvest/Direct Effects Route Miles

Disturbance, Displacement, 

Avoidance, Harassment

Disturbance, Displacement, 

Avoidance, Harassment

Disturbance/Indirect 

Effects

Disturbance Zone 

Summarized In Acres

Table 56 summarizes the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area that will be used to 

analyze the effects of the different alternatives to raptors. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

90

Table 56: 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

Mexican Spotted 

Owl Motorized Trail and Roads Route Miles 105m

PACs

Critical Habitat

Mixed Conifer

Northern Goshawk Motorized Trail/ORV and 

Roads

Route 

Miles 400m

PFAs

Ponderosa Pine

Peregrine Falcon Motorized Trail/ORV and 

Roads

Route 

Miles 2200m Peregrine Nest Area

Bald Eagle Motorized Trail/ORV and 

Roads

Route 

Miles 500m Quemado Lake, Snow Lake, and Lake 

Roberts

Golden Eagle Motorized Trail/ORV and 

Roads

Route 

Miles 200m Desert Shrub/Grassland 

Raptors – Effects by Alternative

Mexican Spotted Owl 

Table 57: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Mexican Spotted 

Owl Protected 

Activity Centers 

(PACs) Analysis 

Area MSO PACs 

on USFS lands = 

287

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D Change 

in Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 -

ML 5

244.72 mi.

19392.80 ac.

-4.29 mi.

-351.67 ac.

-133.80 mi.

-10344.58 ac.

-184.82 mi.

-14465.75 ac.

-72.15 mi.

-5489.47 ac.

-73.36 mi.

-5587.77 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

4.94 ac.

0.00 mi.

4.94 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

4.94 ac.

0.00 mi.

4.94 ac.

Administrative Route 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.55 mi.

66.00 ac.

6.51 mi.

638.04 ac.

20.52 mi.

1720.43 ac.

5.19 mi.

521.40 ac.

4.04 mi.

411.01 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Admin. 

Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.07 mi.

95.37 ac.

1.07 mi.

95.37 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.07 mi.

95.37 ac.

1.07 mi.

95.37 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

7.02 mi.

534.09 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.21 mi.

93.74 ac.

2.26 mi.

189.70 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.21 mi.

99.28 ac.

1.21 mi.

99.28 ac.

Existing ATV Trail 0.36 mi.

37.66 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

-0.26 mi.

-26.52 ac.

-0.36 mi.

-37.66 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

91

Mexican Spotted 

Owl Protected 

Activity Centers 

(PACs) Analysis 

Area MSO PACs 

on USFS lands = 

287

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D Change 

in Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Closed Road to OHV 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.24 mi.

177.08 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.24 mi.

177.08 ac.

2.24 mi.

177.08 ac.

Administrative Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

6.52 mi.

506.73 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.73 mi.

135.86 ac.

1.73 mi.

135.86 ac.

Total FS Routes and 

Trails (miles) 245.08 252.38 127.87 80.42 184.36 182.01

Percent in Miles of 

Alt. B (Existing) 3% -48% -67% -25% -26%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

1.13 mi.

107.92 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, 

County Road

22.13 mi.

1,769.69 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 132,729.44 -128,781.92 -131,184.17 -132,729.44 -129,261.42 -130,157.64

Percent in Acres of 

Alt. B (Existing) -97% -99% -100% -97% -98%

Motorized Areas

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 132,729.44 -16,387.74 -131,184.17 -132,729.44 -49,900.63 -130,157.64

Percent in Acres of 

Alt. B (Existing) -12% -99% -100% -38% -98%

Table 58: Mexican Spotted Owl Critical habitat analysis area – existing condition and proposed change table 

by alternative

Mexican Spotted 

Owl Critical 

Habitat Analysis 

Area on USFS 

lands = 604,825

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 

- ML 5

1,303.72 mi.

100,736.89 ac.

-32.64 mi.

-2,575.31 ac.

-485.60 mi.

-35,836.96 ac.

-824.99 mi.

-62,260.36 ac.

-319.30 mi.

-23,136.99 ac.

-323.38 mi.

-23,437.18 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 

1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.37 mi.

237.53 ac.

2.20 mi.

215.04 ac.

1.46 mi.

138.14 ac.

2.37 mi.

237.53 ac.

2.37 mi.

237.53 ac.

Administrative 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

15.24 mi.

1,357.47 ac.

44.29 mi.

3,990.78 ac.

88.55 mi.

7,644.01 ac.

36.75 mi.

3,335.55 ac.

35.24 mi.

3,199.48 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

92

Mexican Spotted 

Owl Critical 

Habitat Analysis 

Area on USFS 

lands = 604,825

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Add Unauthorized 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.07 mi.

22.52 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Admin. 

Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.43 mi.

133.78 ac.

1.43 mi.

133.78 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.43 mi.

133.78 ac.

1.43 mi.

133.78 ac.

Seasonal -

Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

8.05 mi.

637.84 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to 

OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.35 mi.

113.81 ac.

3.76 mi.

317.01 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

5.38 mi.

436.32 ac.

6.83 mi.

563.18 ac.

Existing ATV Trail 6.69 mi.

561.59 ac.

-0.80 mi.

-66.03 ac.

-4.52 mi.

-378.15 ac.

-6.69 mi.

-561.59 ac.

-0.80 mi.

-66.03 ac.

-0.80 mi.

-66.03 ac.

Closed Road to 

OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

6.78 mi.

563.33 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

6.78 mi.

563.33 ac.

6.78 mi.

563.33 ac.

Administrative Trail 0.0 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.22 mi.

22.37 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

43.28 mi.

3,511.49 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

3.87 mi.

308.30 ac.

3.87 mi.

308.30 ac.

Total FS Routes 

and Trails (miles) 1,310.41 1,347.42 880.31 568.74 1,046.89 1,042.75

Percent in Miles of 

Alt. B (Existing) 2.8% -32.8% -56.6% -20.1% -20.4%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd 

(Including 

ROW/Assert)

8.84 mi.

906.17 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, 

County Road

82.50 mi.

6,691.98 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized 

Dispersed Camping

(acres

604,771.03 -577,378.24 -584,603.66 -604,771.03 -578,282.56 -580,834.47

Percent in Acres of 

Alt. B (Existing) -95% -97% -100% -96% -96%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area -

All Vehicles (acres) 1.20 0.00 -1.20 -1.20 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area -

OHV Only (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big 

Game Retrieval

(acres)

604,771.03 -77,797.34 -584,603.66 -604,771.03 -220,106.67 -580,834.47

Percent in Acres of 

Alt. B (Existing) -13% -97% -100% -36% -96%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

93

Table 59: Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat (Mixed Conifer) Analysis Area - existing condition and proposed 

changes by alternative

Mexican Spotted 

Owl Habitat 

Mixed Conifer 

Analysis Area on 

USFS = 126,399

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 

- ML 5

91.87 mi.

8,531.15 ac.

-0.73 mi.

-122.91 ac.

-34.64 mi.

-2,986.19 ac.

-55.03 mi.

-4,819.06 ac.

-19.47 mi.

-1,626.21 ac.

-19.77 mi.

-1,647.00 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 

1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

2.93 ac.

0.00 mi.

1.94 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

2.93 ac.

0.00 mi.

2.93 ac.

Administrative 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.19 mi.

40.53 ac.

1.06 mi.

147.49 ac.

7.30 mi.

702.95 ac.

1.03 mi.

140.35 ac.

1.02 mi.

139.43 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

3.02 ac.

0.00 mi.

3.02 ac.

0.00 mi.

3.02 ac.

0.00 mi.

3.02 ac.

0.00 mi.

3.02 ac.

Add Admin. 

Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.99 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.99 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.99 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.99 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.53 mi.

135.51 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to 

OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

1.43 ac.

2.79 mi.

226.61 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.04 mi.

18.74 ac.

0.11 mi.

27.83 ac.

Existing ATV Trail 2.69 mi.

241.73 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

-2.08 mi.

-175.04 ac.

-2.69 mi.

-241.73 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Closed Road to 

OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.35 mi.

21.30 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.30 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.35 mi.

21.30 ac.

0.35 mi.

21.30 ac.

Administrative Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

10.49 mi.

874.61 ac.

0.18 mi.

15.18 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.18 mi.

15.49 ac.

0.18 mi.

15.49 ac.

Total FS Routes 

and Trails (miles) 94.56 104.86 63.40 44.15 76.68 76.45

% in Miles of Alt.B 

(Existing) 10.89% -32.96% -53.31% -18.91% -19.15%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd 

(Including 

ROW/Assert)

0.74 mi.

88.69 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, 

County Road

6.39 mi.

646.46 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized 

Dispersed Camping

(acres)

70,053.19 -67,941.16 -68,323.64 -70,053.19 -68,051.63 -68,278.37

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -96.99% -97.53% -100% -97.14% -97.47%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

94

Mexican Spotted 

Owl Habitat 

Mixed Conifer 

Analysis Area on 

USFS = 126,399

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area -

All Vehicles 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area -

OHV Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big 

Game Retrieval 70,053.19 -11,647.18 -68,323.64 -70,053.19 -29,612.24 -68,278.37

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -16.63% -97.53% -100% -42.27% -97.47%

No Action Alternative (Alt. B)(Table 56, Table 57, Table 58, and Table 59): Under this alternative there 

are approximately 245 miles of motorized routes in PACs, 1,310 miles in designated MSO critical habitat, 

and 95 miles in mixed conifer habitat. These routes continue to cause habitat loss. The potential for other 

types of direct effects to the MSO are relatively low. The potential for collision loss or poaching loss is 

relatively low on Forest Service motorized routes, because of lower traffic rates and travel speeds and the 

tendency for this species to be more active at night. On motorized routes with higher speeds and more 

traffic MSO collision losses have been documented (Ward 2013 personnel communication). 

The potential disturbance area in PACs is approximately 19,430 acres, MSO critical habitat 101,298 

acres, and mixed conifer habitat 8,773 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 pre-dates the species successful nesting activity in a given area. Therefore, in 

most cases ongoing existing uses may proceed with the same intensity with little risk of disturbing birds 

of prey (USF&W, 2007). Increases in the level of use on these routes through time would increase the 

potential for indirect effects. 

Under this alternative you continue to have motorized cross country travel and dispersed camping allowed 

across the Gila National Forest. These two types of uses continue to have the potential to impact MSO 

PAC habitat, designated critical habitat, and yet to be identified PACs in un-surveyed mixed conifer 

habitat. Additionally, these two types of uses perpetuate the development of additional roads and OHV 

routes; potentially allowing for the development of more routes than the 245 miles that are currently 

identified in PACs, 1,310 miles in designated MSO critical habitat, and 95 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) (Table 56, Table 57, Table 58, and Table 

59): Under these alternatives motorized cross country travel is no longer allowed. The authorization to 

allow disperse camping in these alternatives is reduced by 95% to 100% in areas with MSO habitat. No 

motorized areas are designated in MSO PACs or mixed conifer habitat. Under all action alternatives the 

change from the existing condition is a 100% reduction in motorized cross country travel. It is also 

important to note that Mexican spotted owls typically nest and roost in narrow/steep canyons with a dense 

canopy cover and a large amount of dead and down material. These nesting and roosting characteristics 

further limit the potential to cause direct and indirect effects to MSO and MSO habitat from dispersed 

camping. In MSO critical habitat under the existing condition approximately one acre of a motorized area 

occurs in this habitat; under Alternatives C, F, and G our analysis shows that this one acre of disturbance 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

95

remains, and is removed under Alternatives D and E. This disturbance does not affect any of the primary 

constituent elements in designated critical habitat. Since no motorized areas are located in PACs or mixed 

conifer habitat, and the one acre within the boundary of critical habitat does not affect the primary 

constituent elements, none of these actions will have an effect to MSOs or MSO habitat. 

In these analysis areas the area of potentially affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced 

by 100% under Alternative E, 97 to 99% under Alternative D, 36 to 42% under Alternative F, 96 to 98% 

under Alternative G, and 12 to 17% under Alternative C.

Differences among the Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G) (Table 56, Table 57, Table 58, and Table 

59): Miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat are reduced by 53% to 

67% in all analysis areas under Alternative E; 33% to 48% under Alternative D; and 19% to 26% under 

Alternatives F and G (see MSO Analysis Tables for specific numbers). Additionally, under Alternative E 

more of the routes are only open to administrative use which also reduces the potential for direct and 

indirect effects. Under Alternative D you have a seasonal restriction and administrative routes in areas 

that have several established PACs adding more protection to nesting MSOs. The greater the reduction in 

miles and acres of potentially affected habitat in these analysis areas the less direct and indirect effects; 

the reduction in direct and indirect effects to the species and its habitat is relative to the amount of miles 

reduced in these analysis areas. Miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected 

habitat increase by 3% to 11% in all analysis area under Alternative C. Since these are new miles and 

acres of disturbance there is a greater potential to cause direct and indirect to this species and it habitat 

under Alternative C. 

Alternative E adds 0 miles of currently closed or unauthorized routes in the PAC analysis area. Alternative 

D adds 1.1 miles of an unauthorized route to within the boundary of a PAC, but this route is designed for 

administrative use only. This same route is also designated for administrative use only in Alternatives F 

and G; but, under these two alternatives you have an additional 4 miles of unauthorized or closed routes 

converted to open to OHV use. Alternative C adds 1.1 miles of administrative route, 2 miles of currently 

closed motorized trail and 6.5 miles of unauthorized routes to the PAC analysis area. Alternative C is the 

only one of the action alternatives that increases the overall miles of routes, and this occurs in each 

analysis area. 

In mixed conifer habitat Alternative C adds 10.8 miles of currently closed or unauthorized routes, 

Alternative E no miles, Alternative D 0.2 miles, and Alternatives F and G 0.4 miles. In critical habitat 

alternatives D to G adds or reopens 0.7 to 6.8 miles of routes. Alternative C adds approximately 54 miles 

of which only 1.4 miles goes to administrative use. Alternative E adds 1.5 miles of closed road to critical 

habitat that is open to all the public. Alternative D adds 3.7 miles of routes of which 1.4 miles becomes 

designated to administrative use only. Alternative F and G add 14.5 miles of routes of which 1.4 miles 

becomes designated to administrative use only. The opening or reopening of these routes has the 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. 

Many of the added unauthorized or closed routes are user created or if closed are still being used since the 

entire Forest is currently open to cross country travel; therefore, currently they are causing direct and 

indirect effect to this species where MSO occur in these three analysis areas. By designating those routes 

or converting the use from motor vehicle to ORV vehicles these changes do have the potential to increase 

the direct and indirect effects to this species. Overall in these three analysis areas for the MSO 

Alternatives D to G reduce the total routes by 19 to 67%. Alternative C provides the least amount of 

benefit to this species this alternative increases the number of routes above the existing condition in all 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

96

three analysis areas; therefore, there will be an increase in the amount of direct and indirect effects from 

motorized routes. 

The greater the reduction in miles in each analysis area 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 area being analyzed. 

Findings

Table 60, Table 61, and Table 62 display the effects determinations for the federally listed Mexican 

spotted owl and the Mexican spotted owl listed as a Gila National Forest management indicator species 

and New Mexico Partners in Flight high-priority species.

Table 60: Mexican spotted owl federally listed species and critical habitat determinations by alternative

Federally Listed 

Species

Alt. B

Existing 

Condition

Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Mexican spotted owl *MALAA MALAA **MANLAA MALAA MALAA

Mexican spotted owl 

critical habitat MALAA MALAA MALAA 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 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. Alternatives E 

does not add any closed roads in protected activity centers, and does not increase, but rather 

decreases disturbance in occupied habitat; therefore, a determination of “may affect, not likely to 

adversely affect” is made for this alternative. Alternatives D, F, and G add closed and currently 

unauthorized routes to Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers, critical habitat, and mix conifer 

habitat providing for the potential for new direct and disturbance effects. Alternative C adds 3 to 11% 

closed and/or currently unauthorized routes above the existing condition to Mexican spotted owl 

protected activity centers, critical habitat, and 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. Even though alternatives C, D, F, and G would 

have long-term beneficial effects to the Mexican spotted owl and its habitat, the adding of routes can 

cause adverse effects, requiring that a “may affect likely to adversely affect” determination be made 

for these four 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. 

Rationale for critical 

habitat 

determination

Alternatives C, D, E, F, and G add closed and/or currently unauthorized routes to Mexican spotted owl 

critical habitat providing for the potential for new direct and disturbance effects to primary constituent 

elements. Again, alternative C is the only alternative that allows for an actual increase in miles of routes 

above the existing condition; this alternative provides for the greatest potential to adversely affect 

critical habitat. Alternatives C, D, E, 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 alternatives.

*MALAA - May affect likely to adversely affect determination

**MANLAA - May affect not likely to adversely affect determination
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

97

Table 61: Mexican spotted owl Gila National Forest management indicator species determination by 

alternative

Management 

Indicator Species

Alt. B

Existing 

Condition

Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Mexican spotted 

owl

Adverse 

Affects *NA NA NA NA

Rationale For 

Determination

Alternative C increases the total miles of routes in occupied habitat and designated critical habitat adversely 

affecting habitat conditions for this species. Under alternatives D, E, F, and G, the potential effects to the 

MSO and MSO habitat are reduced, particularly under alternative E. The potential to affect individuals and 

minor amounts of habitat under all action alternatives still exist; but none will adversely affect the population 

levels or habitat trends.

*NA – No adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Table 62: New Mexico Partners in Flight (NMPIF) high-priority species determination by alternative

NMPIF High 

Priority Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Mexican spotted 

owl1

Adverse 

Affect *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. The potential to affect individuals under all these 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. Alternative C, there is an 

increase in motorized routes in the analysis areas; adversely affecting additional habitat. 

1Species with the same determination by alternative – Williamson’s sapsucker, Flammulated Owl, and Red-faced warbler

*NA – No adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Northern Goshawk 

Table 63: PFA Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Northern Goshawk 

PFA Analysis Area 

on USFS = 34,360 

ac.

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 

- ML 5

97.32 mi.

20,413.78 ac.

-2.37 mi.

-180.34 ac.

-59.83 mi.

-10,171.80 ac.

-70.73 mi.

-12,570.55

ac.

-34.22 mi.

-4,951.33 ac.

-33.30 mi.

-4,710.89 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 

1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

14.98 ac.

0.00 mi.

14.98 ac.

0.00 mi.

14.98 ac.

0.00 mi.

14.98 ac.

0.00 mi.

14.98 ac.

Administrative 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.58 mi.

294.43 ac.

7.44 mi.

2,940.52 ac.

6.33 mi.

2,581.51 ac.

2.17 mi.

1,102.32 ac.

1.54 mi.

862.84 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.44 mi.

260.19 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.44 mi.

260.19 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Admin. 

Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.44 mi.

260.19 ac.

0.44 mi.

260.19 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.44 mi.

260.19 ac.

Seasonal -

Resource Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

98

Northern Goshawk 

PFA Analysis Area 

on USFS = 34,360 

ac.

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to 

OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.80 mi.

1,016.29 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

3.01 mi.

1,050.97 ac.

3.01 mi.

1,050.97 ac.

Existing ATV Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Closed Road to 

OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.69 mi.

861.31 ac.

1.63 mi.

585.61 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.63 mi.

585.61 ac.

1.63 mi.

585.61 ac.

Administrative Trail 0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

7.56 mi.

2,692.18 ac.

0.18 mi.

230.63 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.61 mi.

784.08 ac.

0.45 mi.

450.09 ac.

Total FS Routes 

and Trails (miles) 97.32 106.23 49.97 33.36 71.96 71.09.

% in Miles of Alt.B 

(Existing) 9.16% -48.65% -65.72% -26.05% -26.95%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd 

(Including 

ROW/Assert)

0.02 mi.

1,465.11 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, 

County Road

17.26 mi.

4,987.86 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized 

Dispersed 

Camping (acres)

32,701.46 -30,670.00 -31,754.97 -32,701.46 -30,790.07 -31,053.48

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -93.79% -97.11% -100% -94.16% -94.96%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All 

Vehicles (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area -

OHV Only (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big 

Game Retrieval

(acres)

32,701.46 -186.75 -31,754.97 -32,701.46 -6,360.32 -31,053.48

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -0.57% -97.11% -100% -19.45% -94.96%

Table 64: Ponderosa Pine Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Northern 

Goshawk 

Ponderosa 

Pine Analysis 

Area on USFS 

= 1,163,459 

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 

2 - ML 5

1,972.12 mi.

457,258.64 ac.

-63.78 mi.

-17,473.05 ac.

-695.65 mi.

-119,834.68 ac.

-1,068.83 mi.

-198,393.35 ac.

-470.74 mi.

-73,407.77 ac.

-493.34 mi.

-75,879.46 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

99

Northern 

Goshawk 

Ponderosa 

Pine Analysis 

Area on USFS 

= 1,163,459 

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Reopen Closed 

ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.65 mi.

1,729.22 ac.

2.32 mi.

1,481.29 ac.

0.55 mi.

475.81 ac.

2.49 mi.

1,635.91 ac.

2.49 mi.

1,635.91 ac.

Administrative 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

25.69 mi.

11,604.37 ac.

80.99 mi.

36,525.30 ac.

130.57 mi.

50,435.21 ac.

63.88 mi.

29,232.45 ac.

64.13 mi.

29,239.27 ac.

Add 

Unauthorized 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.02 mi.

752.21 ac.

0.99 mi.

1,523.70 ac.

0.00 mi.

69.82 ac.

0.38 mi.

402.46 ac.

0.78 mi.

683.31 ac.

Add Admin. 

Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

9.34 mi.

4,771.10 ac.

9.33 mi.

4,638.15 ac.

0.24 mi.

139.36 ac.

9.33 mi.

4,638.15 ac.

9.33 mi.

4,638.15 ac.

Seasonal -

Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

5.69 mi.

1,139.21 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to 

OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.08 mi.

71.07 ac.

2.30 mi.

888.44 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.70 mi.

1,101.38 ac.

3.33 mi.

1,292.90 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

7.60 mi.

2,522.18 ac.

-0.05 mi.

-122.42 ac.

-1.73 mi.

-799.73 ac.

-7.60 mi.

-2,522.18 ac.

-0.05 mi.

-122.42 ac.

-0.05 mi.

-122.42 ac.

Closed Road to 

OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

6.80 mi.

2,054.76 ac.

1.24 mi.

486.85 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

6.75 mi.

2,036.15 ac.

6.75 mi.

2,036.15 ac.

Administrative 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.24 mi.

60.68 ac.

0.33 mi.

115.89 ac.

0.24 mi.

68.74 ac.

0.24 mi.

60.68 ac.

0.24 mi.

60.68 ac.

Add 

Unauthorized 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

32.08 mi.

9,854.50 ac.

6.23 mi.

1,876.05 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

12.73 mi.

4,102.49 ac.

12.73 mi.

4,102.49 ac.

Total FS Routes 

and Trails 1,979.72 1,993.78 1,391.76 1,034.88 1,607.42 1,586.10

% in Miles of 

Alt.B (Existing) 0.71% -29.70% -47.73% -18.81% -19.88%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd 

(Including 

ROW/Assert)

24.21 mi.

17,150.17 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State 

Hwy, County 

Road

108.46 mi.

43,645.34 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized 

Dispersed 

Camping (acres)

895,845.14 -849,990.67 -860,491.05 -895,845.14 -852,163.94 -856,147.21

% in Acres of 

Alt.B (Existing) -94.88% -96.05% -100% -95.12% -95.57%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

100

Northern 

Goshawk 

Ponderosa 

Pine Analysis 

Area on USFS 

= 1,163,459 

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area -

All Vehicles

(acres)

7.99 0.00 -7.99 -7.99 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area -

OHV Only (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big 

Game Retrieval

(acres)

895,845.14 -97,953.39 -860,491.05 -895,845.14 -292,477.59 -856,147.21

% in Acres of 

Alt.B (Existing) -10.93% -96.05% -100% -32.65% -95.57%

Peregrine Falcon 

Table 65: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

2,200-meter Buffers of 14 

Peregrine Falcon Nests on 

USFS = 47,161 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes (miles)

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5 19.49 0.00 -7.12 -13.51 -3.10 -5.00

Reopen Closed ML 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Route 0.00 0.00 0.06 4.44 0.33 0.20

Add Unauthorized Route 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Admin. Unauthorized 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Seasonal - Resource Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Trails (miles)

Existing Road to OHV Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Existing ATV Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Closed Road to OHV Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Unauthorized Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total FS Routes and Trails 

(miles) 19.49 19.49 12.43 10.42 16.72 14.68

% in Miles of Alt.B (Existing) 0.00% -36.19% -46.52% -14.22% -24.67%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert) (miles) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road (miles) 3.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

101

2,200-meter Buffers of 14 

Peregrine Falcon Nests on 

USFS = 47,161 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Dispersed Camping

(acres) 20,764.44 -20,221.20 -20,511.78 -20,764.44 -20,221.20 -20,511.78

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -97.38% -98.78% -100% -97.38% -98.78%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval

(acres) 20,764.44 -5,644.03 -20,511.78 -20,764.44 -11,688.49 -20,511.78

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -27.18% -98.78% -100% -56.29% -98.78%

Bald Eagle 

Table 66: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Bald Eagle Lake Habitat 

500-meter Buffer on 

USFS = 2,154 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

6.87 mi.

1,693.67 ac.

-0.07 mi.

-2.68 ac.

-0.75 mi.

-144.83 ac.

-0.75 mi.

-202.35 ac.

-0.75 mi.

-144.83 ac.

-0.75 mi.

-144.83 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.06 mi.

107.41 ac.

0.53 mi.

291.33 ac.

0.53 mi.

291.33 ac.

0.53 mi.

291.33 ac.

0.53 mi.

291.33 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Admin. Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.0 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

102

Bald Eagle Lake Habitat 

500-meter Buffer on 

USFS = 2,154 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Total FS Routes and Trails 

(miles) 6.87 6.86 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66

% in Miles of Alt.B (Existing) -0.14% -3.17% -3.17% -3.17% -3.17%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road

3.86 mi.

952.63 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 1,963.28 -1,957.61 -1,957.61 -1,963.28 -1,957.61 -1,957.61

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -99.71% -99.71% -100% -99.71% -99.71%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All 

Vehicles (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 1,963.28 0.00 -1,957.61 -1,963.28 -137.83 -1,957.61

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) 0.00% -99.71% -100% -7.02% -99.71%

Golden Eagle 

Table 67: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Golden Eagle Habitat 

(Desert 

Shrub/Grassland) 

Analysis Area Total 

Habitat on USFS = 

26,067 Acres

Existing Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 

5

92.21 mi.

7,360.96 ac.

-4.47 mi.

-509.78 ac.

-31.28 mi.

-2,593.40

ac.

-38.55 mi.

-3,051.91

ac.

-28.90 mi.

-2,260.02 ac.

-28.68 mi.

-2,357.46 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.06 mi.

18.98 ac.

0.00 mi.

3.34 ac.

0.00 mi.

3.34 ac.

0.00 mi.

3.34 ac.

0.00 mi.

3.34 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.97 mi.

343.30 ac.

7.36 mi.

876.61 ac.

6.69 mi.

805.91 ac.

5.83 mi.

735.18 ac.

5.61 mi.

696.41 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.70 mi.

84.34 ac.

0.27 mi.

50.96 ac.

0.20 mi.

34.67 ac.

0.70 mi.

84.34 ac.

0.27 mi.

59.18 ac.

Add Admin. 

Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.71 mi.

99.26 ac.

1.14 mi.

132.81 ac.

0.77 mi.

59.78 ac.

0.71 mi.

99.26 ac.

1.14 mi.

124.59 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

103

Golden Eagle Habitat 

(Desert 

Shrub/Grassland) 

Analysis Area Total 

Habitat on USFS = 

26,067 Acres

Existing Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.10 mi.

14.55 ac.

2.28 mi.

308.68 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.53 mi.

358.12 ac.

2.53 mi.

358.12 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Closed Road to OHV 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

3.58 mi.

313.65 ac.

2.06 mi.

227.69 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.06 mi.

232.13 ac.

2.06 mi.

232.13 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

9.39 mi.

763.82 ac.

2.40 mi.

199.38 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

7.48 mi.

502.28 ac.

6.16 mi.

458.14 ac.

Total FS Routes and 

Trails (miles) 92.21 105.25 76.45 61.31 82.62 81.31

% in Miles of Alt.B 

(Existing) 14.14% -17.09% -33.51% -10.40% -11.82%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

10.05 mi.

1,477.46 ac.

0.24 mi.

14.43 ac.

0.24 mi.

14.43 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.24 mi.

14.43 ac.

0.24 mi.

14.43 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, 

County Road

35.47 mi.

3,811.80 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 23,476.04 -20,851.30 -21,090.69 -23,476.04 -20,843.61 -20,973.64

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -88.82% -89.84% -100% -88.79% -89.34%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All 

Vehicles (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV 

Only (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 23,476.04 -2,679.96 -21,090.69 -23,476.04 -9,330.32 -20,973.64

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -11.42% -89.84% -100% -39.74% -89.34%

Northern Goshawk, Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, and Golden Eagle

No Action Alternative (Alt. B)(Table 63, Table 64,Table 65, Table 66, and Table 67): Under the existing 

condition for raptors there are approximately 97 miles of motorized routes in the Northern goshawk PFA 

analysis area, 1,980 miles of motorized routes in the Northern goshawk ponderosa pine analysis area, 19.5 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

104

miles of motorized routes in the peregrine falcon analysis area, 7 miles of motorized routes in the bald 

eagle analysis area, and 92 miles of motorized routes in the golden eagle analysis area. These routes 

continue to cause habitat loss and the potential for direct effects like poaching, and collection. The 

potential disturbance zone for goshawks in the PFA analysis area is approximately 20,414 acres, 459,781 

acres in the goshawk ponderosa pine analysis area, 19.5 miles of road in the peregrine falcon analysis 

area, 1,694 acres in the bald eagle analysis area, and 7,361 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 pre-dates the species’ successful 

nesting activity in a given area. Therefore, in most cases ongoing existing uses may proceed with the 

same intensity with little risk of disturbing birds of prey (USF&W, 2007). Increases in the level of use on 

these routes through time would increase the potential for indirect effects. 

Under this alternative you continue to have motorized cross country travel, dispersed camping, and big 

game retrieval allowed across the Gila National Forest. These three types of uses continue to have the 

potential to affect raptors. Additionally, these three types of uses perpetuate the development of additional 

roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing for the development of higher road densities. 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 affects to these species. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G) (Table 63, Table 64, Table 65, Table 66, and Table 67): Under 

all action alternatives motorized cross country travel is no longer allowed. The change from the existing 

condition is a 100% reduction in motorized cross country travel. In the goshawk PFA analysis area 

motorized dispersed camping is reduced by 94 to 100% under all action alternatives; goshawk ponderosa 

pine analysis area 95 to 100%; peregrine falcon analysis area 97 to 100%; bald eagle analysis area 99.7 to 

100%; and 89 to 100% 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% under Alternative E, 90 to 99.7% 

under Alternative D, 7 to 56% under Alternative F, 89 to 99.7% under Alternative G, and 0 to 27% under 

Alternative C. The wide range of change between focal species under Alternative F is more specifically, a 

reduction of 7% in the bald eagle analysis area; 19.5% reduction in the goshawk PFA analysis area; 33% 

reduction in the goshawk ponderosa pine analysis area; 56% reduction in the peregrine falcon analysis 

area; and 40% reduction in the golden eagle analysis area.

Motorized areas are locations where we have had traditional uses like motorized camping and OHV use. 

For all focal species, except for the goshawk ponderosa pine analysis area, there are currently no areas 

and no areas have been designated under any of the action alternatives. In the goshawk ponderosa pine 

analysis area currently there are 8 acres of habitat being affect by a motorized area. Alternative E and D 

eliminate these acres of affected habitat, and the remaining action alternatives propose no change from the 

existing condition. 

Under Alternative D, E, F, and G miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected 

habitat is reduced respectively by 49, 66, 26, and 27% in the goshawk PFA analysis area; 30, 48, 19, and 

20% in goshawk ponderosa pine analysis area; 36, 47, 14 and 25% in peregrine analysis area; 3, 3, 3, and 

3% in the bald eagle analysis area; and 17, 34, 10 and 12% 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% in the goshawk PFA analysis area; <1% in goshawk ponderosa pine analysis area; by 0% in peregrine 

analysis area; and 14% in the golden eagle analysis area. Under this alternative miles of motorized routes 

and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat is reduced by <1% in the bald eagle analysis area. 

For the focal species and their associated analysis areas Alternative E adds approximately 0 to 1 mile of 

route, Alternative D adds 0 to 20 miles, Alternative F adds 0 to 32 miles, Alternative G adds 0 to 32 miles, 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

105

and Alternative C adds 0 to 52 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 

currently allows cross country travel some proposed routes even though unauthorized are currently being 

used. By designating unauthorized routes to open or converting the use from motor vehicle to ORV 

vehicles these changes do have the potential to increase the direct and indirect effects to these species. 

The greater the reduction in miles in each analysis area 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 area being analyzed.

Findings

Table 68, Table 69, and Table 70 display the determinations for raptorial birds that are listed as Forest 

Service sensitive species; management indicator species; and New Mexico Partners in Flight high-priority 

species.

Table 68: Raptorial birds Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative

Sensitive Species Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. 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 both goshawk analysis areas. 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 69: Northern goshawk Gila National Forest management indicator species determination by alternative

Management 

Indicator Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. 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 and minor amounts of habitat under all action 

alternatives still exist; but none will adversely affect the population levels or habitat trends. 

*NA – No adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Table 70: Raptor New Mexico Partners in Flight (NMPIF) high-priority species determination by alternative

NMPIF High-Priority 

Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Northern goshawk1 *NA NA NA NA NA

Peregrine falcon2 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 both 

goshawk, and the golden eagle analysis area. The potential to affect individuals under all action 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

106

NMPIF High-Priority 

Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

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.

1 Species with the same determination by alternative – Flammulated owl.

2 Species with the same determination by alternative – Praire falcon, and White-throated Swift.

*NA – No adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Primary Cavity Nesters/Excavators

Table 71 identifies the hairy woodpecker as the species selected to be analyzed as a primary cavity 

nester/excavator bird species. It is a management indicator species representative of ponderosa pine and 

mixed conifer snag component

Table 71: 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

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. 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 type 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 type was used as it pertains to the existing 

condition and the change proposed in each alternative. 

Hairy Woodpecker (Management Indicator Species Representative of Ponderosa Pine and Mixed 

Conifer Snag Component) - The Hairy Woodpecker is an indicator of high seral stage ponderosa pine 

and mixed conifer because the older age classes within these vegetation types provide snags and an 

abundance of insects. The Hairy Woodpecker uses tree cavities for roosting and winter cover. Overall, the 

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 presence of suitable cavity trees is a 

more important consideration (Bushman and Therre, 1988). It nests in holes dug mostly by the male in 

live or dead trees or shrubs, at an average height of 29.5 feet (9 meters) above ground. In most areas, it 

favors dying parts of live trees, especially where fungal heart rot has softened the heartwood. Limiting 

factors for the Hairy Woodpecker include predation and habitat modification. Snags (25cm or more in 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

107

DBH) an average of five snags/hectare are assumed optimal for woodpecker reproduction, but may not be 

adequate for foraging. With over 1,282,858 acres of ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer vegetation on the 

Gila National Forest, snag habitat is abundant for this species. Again the Hairy Woodpecker is the focal 

species for this group/guild of species. 

Cavity Nester Summary:

Table 72 list road associated and motorized trail/ORV factors related to cavity nester focal species that 

represent this group; analysis factors based on the analysis factor discussed above; and the indicator that 

will be used to compare the different levels of affect between the different alternatives. 

Table 72: Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators

Focal 

Group

Road Associated 

Factors

Motorized Trail/ORV 

Associated Factors

Combined Analysis 

Factors Analysis Indicator

Cavity 

Nesters Nesting Loss Nesting Loss Harvest/Direct Effects Miles

Disturbance, Displacement, 

Avoidance, Harassment

Disturbance, Displacement, 

Avoidance, Harassment

Disturbance/Indirect 

Effects

Disturbance Zone 

Summarized In Acres

Table 73 summarizes the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area that will be used to 

analyze the effects of the different alternatives to cavity nesters. 

Table 73: 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/ORV Use Route Miles 60 m Ponderosa Pine

Mixed Conifer

Cavity Nesting Birds-Effects by Alternative

Hairy Woodpecker 

Table 74: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Hairy Woodpecker 

Habitat 

(Ponderosa Pine 

and Mixed Conifer) 

Analysis Area 

Total Habitat on 

USFS = 1,289,858 

acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 -

ML 5

2,063.99 mi.

96,898.05 ac.

-64.51 mi.

-3,323.19 ac.

-730.28 mi.

-33,603.29 ac.

-1,123.86 mi.

-51,826.77 ac.

-490.22 mi.

-22,461.28 ac.

-513.11 mi.

-23,474.66 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.65 mi.

146.93 ac.

2.32 mi.

124.29 ac.

0.55 mi.

32.62 ac.

2.49 mi.

135.05 ac.

2.49 mi.

135.05 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

108

Hairy Woodpecker 

Habitat 

(Ponderosa Pine 

and Mixed Conifer) 

Analysis Area 

Total Habitat on 

USFS = 1,289,858 

acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

25.88 mi.

1,394.63 ac.

82.05 mi.

4,309.02 ac.

137.88 mi.

6,987.90 ac.

64.91 mi.

3,423.69 ac.

65.15 mi.

3,433.35 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.02 mi.

58.85 ac.

0.99 mi.

70.78 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.70 ac.

0.38 mi.

25.37 ac.

0.78 mi.

48.29 ac.

Add Admin. 

Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

9.34 mi.

496.42 ac.

9.33 mi.

481.52 ac.

0.24 mi.

10.85 ac.

9.33 mi.

481.52 ac.

9.33 mi.

481.52 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

7.22 mi.

332.21 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.08 mi.

9.10 ac.

5.08 mi.

244.99 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.74 mi.

157.38 ac.

3.44 mi.

197.20 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

10.28 mi.

500.01 ac.

-0.05 mi.

-5.39 ac.

-3.80 mi.

-189.68 ac.

-10.28 mi.

-500.01 ac.

-0.05 mi.

-5.39 ac.

-0.05 mi.

-5.39 ac.

Closed Road to OHV 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

7.15 mi.

356.83 ac.

1.24 mi.

72.85 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

7.10 mi.

353.52 ac.

7.10 mi.

353.52 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.24 mi.

13.66 ac.

0.33 mi.

19.95 ac.

0.24 mi.

13.82 ac.

0.24 mi.

13.66 ac.

0.24 mi.

13.66 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

42.57 mi.

2,073.32 ac.

6.41 mi.

313.83 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

12.91 mi.

622.44 ac.

12.91 mi.

622.44 ac.

Total FS Routes and 

Trails (miles) 2,074.28 2,098.63 1,455.16 1,079.03 1,684.10 1,662.55

% in Miles of Alt.B 

(Existing) 1.17% -29.85% -47.98% -18.81% -19.85%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

24.94 mi.

1,408.10 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, 

County Road

114.85 mi.

5,914.40 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 965,898.33 -917,931.84 -928,814.69 -965,898.33 -920,215.57 -924,425.58

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -95.03% -96.16% -100% -95.27% -95.71%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All 

Vehicles (acres) 7.99 0.00 -7.99 -7.99 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV 

Only (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

109

Hairy Woodpecker 

Habitat 

(Ponderosa Pine 

and Mixed Conifer) 

Analysis Area 

Total Habitat on 

USFS = 1,289,858 

acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 965,898.33 -109,600.56 -928,814.69 -965,898.33 -322,089.83 -924,425.58

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -11.35% -96.16% -100% -33.35% -95.71%

No Action Alternative (Alt. B)(Table 74): Under the existing condition for this focal species and its 

associated analysis area there are approximately 2,074 miles of motorized routes. These routes continue to 

cause habitat loss and the potential for direct effects like collision, poaching, and collection. The potential 

disturbance zone for this species and its associated analysis area is approximately 97,398 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 you continue to have motorized cross country travel, dispersed camping, and big 

game retrieval allowed across the Gila National Forest. These three types of uses continue to have 

potential effect cavity nesting birds. Additionally, these three types of uses perpetuate the development of 

additional roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing for the development of higher road densities. 

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 affects to these species. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G)(Table 74): Under all action alternatives motorized cross country 

travel is no longer allowed. The change from the existing condition is a 100% reduction in motorized 

cross country travel. Motorized dispersed camping is reduced by 95 to 100% under all action alternatives. 

Motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100% under Alternative E, 96% under Alternative D and G, 

33% under Alternative F, and 11% under Alternative C.

Motorized areas are locations where we have had traditional uses like motorized camping and OHV use. 

In this analysis area currently there are 8 acres of habitat being affect by a motorized area. Alternative D 

and E eliminate these acres of affected habitat, and the remaining action alternatives propose no change 

from the existing condition.

Under Alternative D, E, F, and G miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected 

habitat are reduced, respectively by approximately 30%, 48%, 19%, and 20% in this analysis area. Under 

Alternative C miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat are increased 

by 1%.

For the focal species and their associated analysis areas Alternative E adds approximately 1 mile of 

routes; Alternative D adds 20 miles, Alternative F 32 miles, Alternative G 33 miles, and Alternative C 

adds 63 miles of unauthorized routes. Alternatives D, E, F, and G do not allow for an actual increase in 

the total miles of routes through the associated analysis areas; additionally, these alternatives convert 

approximately 65 to 138 miles of routes to administrative use only routes. Alternative C allows for a 1% 

increase. Because the Gila currently allows cross country travel some proposed routes even though 

unauthorized are currently being used. By designating unauthorized routes to open or converting the use 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

110

from motor vehicle to ORV vehicles these changes do have the potential to increase the direct and indirect 

effects to this species. 

The greater the reduction in miles in each analysis area 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 area being analyzed.

Findings 

Table 75 displays the effects determination for the hairy woodpecker that is listed a Gila National Forest 

management indicator species.

Table 75: Hairy woodpecker Gila National Forest management indicator species determination by alternative

Management 

Indicator Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Hairy woodpecker1 *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 affect individuals and minor amounts of habitat under all 

action alternatives still exist; but none will adversely affect the population levels or habitat trends. 

The potential to affect individuals under all these 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. 

1 Species with the same determination by alternative – Lewis’s woodpecker.

*NA – No adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Riparian Birds

Table 76 identifies the riparian birds assessed in this section. 

Table 76: Riparian bird species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection

Species Analyzed Rationale For Selection

Southwestern willow flycatcher Federally “Endangered” species with designated critical habitat, and NMPIF highpriority species

Northern gray hawk FS Sensitive Species

Western yellow-billed cuckoo1 FS Sensitive Species (federally proposed) and NMPIF high-priority species in low and 

middle elevation riparian areas.

Arizona Bell’s vireo1 FS Sensitive Species and NMPIF high-priority species in low and middle elevation 

riparian areas.

Albert’s towhee1 FS Sensitive Species and NMPIF high-priority species in low and middle elevation 

riparian areas.

Gila woodpecker FS Sensitive Species 

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 Species, and NMPIF high-priority species in low and 

middle elevation riparian areas.

Painted Redstart2 NMPIF high-priority species for high elevation riparian

Neotropic cormorant3 FS Sensitive Species and focal species of NMPIF high-priority species for lakes.

Wilson’s Phalarope4 NMPIF high-priority species for wetland/wet meadow habitat
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

111

Species Analyzed Rationale For Selection

Bobolink4 NMPIF high-priority species for wetland/wet meadow habitat

1The 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 (Lucy’s Warbler, Bank Swallow, Lewis 

Woodpecker, Red-headed Woodpecker, and Painted Bunting).

2The 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, and Veery).

3The lakes 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 (American Bittern and Snowy Plover).

4The wet meadow and montane grassland 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.

Avian species that occupy riparian habitat on the Gila National Forest can be affected by vehicular traffic 

and roads (Table 77) 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 Brown-headed 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 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 75–175 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 (Table 78).

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher [(SWWF) Federally “Endangered” Species with Designated 

Critical Habitat, and NM PIF High Priority Species with Known Territories on the GNF] - The 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (SWWF)/ breeds in dense riparian habitats in southwestern North 

America, and winters in southern Mexico, Central America, and northern South America (USFWS, 2002). 

The subspecies was listed as endangered effective March 29, 1995 (USFWS, 2002). The SWWF breeds in 

relatively dense riparian tree and shrub communities associated with rivers, swamps, and other wetlands, 

including lakes (e.g., reservoirs) (USFWS, 2002). The size of the New Mexico population in 2007 was 

estimated at 800-900 birds, based on the 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% of the global population is thought to occur in New Mexico 

(NMPIF, 2010). On the Gila National Forest we have had two sites that have been consistently occupied 

for over 10 years along the Gila River. These two areas are in locations known as the Gila Bird 

Management Area (GBMA) and the Fort West ditch site. In 2008 seven territories were found at the 

GBMA 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. In 2011 and 2012 the site was occupied, but no breeding was documented. In 2013 our 

initial data indicates that birds our breeding. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

112

The 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 GBMA 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 SWWF under the different alternatives (Table 78).

Northern Gray hawk (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Low to Middle Elevation 

Riparian Vegetation Cover Type) - Gray hawks inhabit lowland riparian woodlands, desert riparian 

deciduous woodland, and marshes (USDA 2009). Woodlands, especially of cottonwoods, that occur 

where desert streams provide sufficient moisture for a narrow band of trees and shrubs along the margins 

are preferred (USDA 2009). In New Mexico the species was reported in the Gila and Mimbres valleys and 

once at San Simon Cienaga, Hidalgo Co. (Hubbard , 1977). If one accepts alleged records of eggs or 

young from the Grant County area as an indication of this species' former status, recent data suggest that 

this breeding population has now become extirpated. However, occasional birds are still reported in the 

state, presumably as stragglers from Arizona, Texas, or Mexico (BISON-M 2009). 

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Forest Service Sensitive Species [federally proposed] and Partners 

In Flight High Priority Migratory Bird Species Representative of Low to Middle Elevation 

Riparian Vegetation Cover Type) - Yellow-billed Cuckoo occupies a wide array of vegetation types 

across its large geographic range, but generally prefers open woodland with clearings and low, dense, 

scrubby vegetation. In the southwestern United States, it is most associated with riparian woodlands 

dominated by Fremont cottonwood or dense mesquite. Cuckoos prefer mature or late-successional 

cottonwood/willow associations with a dense understory. In parts of the west, they also breed in orchards 

adjacent to river bottoms. Habitat in New Mexico may be primarily native, mixed native and exotic, or 

primarily exotic plant species, the latter including riparian salt cedar, orchards, and ornamental/shade 

plantings In New Mexico, Yellow-billed Cuckoos breed along the major river valleys, including the San 

Juan, Rio Grande, Pecos, Canadian, San Francisco, and Gila Rivers The species also occurs in numerous 

smaller drainages plus isolated wetlands, isolated woodlands, and suburban plantings. It is found 

statewide but is far more common in the southern half of New Mexico (Bison- M2009). 

Arizona Bell’s Vireo (Forest Service Sensitive Species and Partners In Flight High Priority 

Migratory Bird Species Representative of Low to Middle Elevation Riparian Vegetation Cover 

Type) - Across its range, Bell's Vireo breeds in dense, lowland shrub and understory vegetation, including 

riparian areas, second-growth forests and mesquite brushlands (NM Partners in Flight Online Resource 

2009). Dense shrubby vegetation appears to be a fundamental requirement of Bell's Vireo habitat; 

overhead canopy cover, patch size, and proximity to water may also be important (NM Partners in Flight 

Online Resource 2009). The subspecies V. b. arizonae summers locally in the lower Gila Valley and in 

Guadalupe Canyon (Hidalgo Co.), with occasional birds in the lower San Francisco Valley and at San 

Simon Cienaga in Hidalgo Co. Bell's vireos summer locally in the south northward to the lower Gila, 

lower and middle Rio Grande and lower Pecos valleys -- occasionally north in the lower San Francisco 

Valley and casual elsewhere and are considered rare to fairly common. This species breeds in North 

America and winters primarily south of the US-Mexico border. Bell's vireo is a rare summer resident that 

breeds in Gila National Forest. They are summer residents and they probably occur in the riparian and 

wooded lowland areas (including cienegas). The V.b. arizonae race occurs in southwestern New Mexico, 

with known populations in the lower Gila Box, San Simon Cienaga and Guadalupe Canyon (NM Partners 

in Flight 2009).
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

113

Abert’s Towhee (Forest Service Sensitive Species and Partners In Flight High Priority Migratory 

Bird Species Representative of Low to Middle Elevation Riparian Vegetation Cover Type) - The 

Abert’s Towhee occupies dense brush and woodland areas in the Sonoran Desert, primarily riparian areas 

or adjacent to dense agricultural edges (NM Partners In Flight Online Resource 2009). Its preferred 

streamside habitat consists of well-developed cottonwood-willow gallery forest with a dense understory 

of shrubs (NM Partners In Flight Online Resource 2009). In New Mexico, this species is especially 

common along the edges of mature mixed broadleaf forest along the Gila River (NM Partners In Flight 

Online Resource 2009). It is uncommon to nonexistent in early successional habitats such as pure Russian 

olive or willow (NM Partners In Flight Online Resource 2009). Along the Gila, nests have been observed 

in mesquite, boxelder, Russian olive, New Mexico locust and Fremont cottonwood (NM Partners In 

Flight Online Resource 2009). Abert’s Towhees also occur in desert riparian deciduous woodlands or 

marsh woodlands, especially of cottonwoods, that occur where desert streams provide sufficient moisture 

for a narrow band of deciduous trees and shrubs along the margins (BISON-M 2009). In New Mexico, 

Abert's towhees are known only in the Gila Valley and at San Simon Cienaga, Grant and Hidalgo 

counties, where they inhabit riparian thickets and similar habitats. Albert’s Towhees are rare permanent 

residents that breed in Gila National Forest (BISON-M 2010).

Gila Woodpecker (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Low to Middle Elevation 

Riparian Vegetation Cover Type) - The Gila Woodpecker is a characteristic species of Sonoran Desert 

regions of the United States and Mexico (NM Partners in Flight 2009). It is found in river bottoms with 

mesquite or cottonwood groves and dry washes (NatureServe Explorer 2012). In New Mexico, Gila 

Woodpeckers are confined to lower elevation woodlands, especially those dominated by mature 

cottonwoods and/or sycamores, along stream courses (BISON-M 2009). Gila woodpeckers are residents 

in the lower Gila Valley and in Guadalupe Canyon and are considered rare to fairly common (BISON-M 

2009). Gila woodpeckers are rare summer residents that breed in Gila National Forest (Zimmerman 

1995).

Common Ground Dove (Forest Service Sensitive and Partners In Flight High Priority Migratory 

Bird Species Representative of Low to Middle Elevation Riparian Vetation Cover Type) - Common 

Ground Doves are found in woodlands, especially of cottonwoods, that occur where desert streams 

provide sufficient moisture for a narrow band of trees and shrubs along the margins (BISON-M 2009). 

They are often associated with Sonoran Desert Scrub. Open to dense vegetation of shrubs, low trees, and 

succulents dominated by paloverde (Cercidium microphyllum), pricklypear (Opuntia spp.), and giant 

saguaro (Cereus giganteus) (BISON-M 2009). They are also associated with Chihuahuan Desert Scrub. 

Open stands of creosote bush and large succulents (Ferocactus pringlei, Echinocactus platyaconthus) in 

southern New Mexico and southwest Texas (BISON-M 2009). Common ground-doves prefer native 

shrublands and weedy areas, including such habitats in riparian areas (BISON-M 2009). In New Mexico 

this minute dove is typically found in agricultural and undeveloped areas at elevations below 1650 m, 

usually occurring as individuals, pairs, or family groups (BISON-M 2009). Much of its time is spent 

walking about on the ground, gleaning the seeds and other plant materials that are the major foods 

(BISON-M 2009). When not foraging, the birds generally perch quietly and inconspicuously in shrubs or 

low in trees--although in the breeding season males call for extended periods of time (NatureServe 

Explorer 2009). Common Ground Doves are found in desert riparian deciduous woodland, and marshes 

(BISON-M 2009). This dove is a very local, mainly warm-season (April-September) visitor to the 

southernmost part of the state, including presently at San Simon Cienaga (Hidalgo Co.) The common 

ground-dove was formerly resident in southern New Mexico, but is now apparently only a rare visitor 

here (BISON-M 2009).

Black Hawk (Forest Service Management Indicator Species, Forest Service Sensitive Species, and 

Partners In Flight High Priority Migratory Bird Representative of Low and Middle Elevation 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

114

Riparian Habitat) - The Common black-hawk is a primary indicator of low/mid riparian habitat. 

Common black hawks are characteristically found in the Southwest in cottonwood (Populus spp.) and 

other woodlands along permanent lowland streams. Desert Riparian Deciduous Woodland, Marsh. 

Woodlands, especially of cottonwoods, that occurs where desert streams provide sufficient moisture for a 

narrow band of trees and shrubs along the margins. Breeding Common Black Hawks require mature, 

well-developed riparian forest stands (e.g., cottonwood bosques) that are located near permanent streams 

where principal prey species are available (Bison-M 2010). The Common Black Hawk nests and forages 

in tall riparian gallery trees (usually cottonwoods) near flowing water. Nests are 4 to 30 meters above the 

ground (12 to 100 feet). Common black-hawks do forage in open woodlands. Black Hawks are fairly 

common summer breeding residents in the Gila National Forest (Zimmerman, 1995). In New Mexico this 

species is generally an uncommon summer resident (March to October, rarely November), being most 

numerous in the Gila Basin where several pairs are known to nest. No serious decline had been definitely 

documented in New Mexico, but without doubt populations of this bird had decreased as habitat had been 

lost or altered (BISON-M 2010). The Black Hawk occurs more irregular in the Rio Grande Valley. On the 

Gila National Forest this species is most likely to occur in larger sized drainages in lower elevations, but 

has also been documented at mid elevation levels. In 1994-95, R.W. Skaggs surveyed the San Francisco, 

Gila, and Mimbres basins for the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, and estimated a population 

of 60-80 pairs (BISON-M 2010). Forest personnel have noted this species in the west, middle, and east 

forks of the Gila River, mainstem of the Gila River, San Francisco River, Mimbres River, Animas River. 

Some of the other drainages on the Gila that are believed to have habitat include: the mainstem, south and 

north forks of Negrito Creek; the mainstem, south and north forks of the Tularosa River; Sapillo Creek; 

Main and South Diamond Creeks; Black Canyon; and Seco Creek. This species has habitat on all Ranger 

Districts of the Gila National Forest. 

Painted Redstart [(Myioborus pictus)/NM Partners In Flight High Priority Species Representative 

of High Elevation Riparian Habitat Cover Types] – Primarily a Mexican species that breeds in upland 

riparian areas of southern Arizona and New Mexico. It breeds locally in Mogollon highlands north to the 

San Francisco River and Magdalena Mountains, east to the Black Range, and south to Peloncillo and 

Animas Mountains (Hubbard 1977). Painted Redstarts may be rare to fairly common in middle- and 

upper-elevation riparian woodlands, and adjacent pine-oak woodlands. In the United States portion of its 

range the species generally prefers areas with rugged slopes and deeply-shaded canyon bottoms. In 

northern Arizona, habitat was described as riparian woodlands with dense overstories, thick undergrowth, 

and permanent or semi-permanent water (Marshall and Balda 1974). 

The redstart arrives in New Mexico in late March, begins breeding activities in mid-April, and remains 

through early September. Nests are placed on the ground, under rocks, tree roots, or overhanging grass 

clumps. Nest areas are usually sloping banks or rocky canyon walls near running water (DeGraaf et al. 

1991, Barber et al. 2000). Painted Redstart nests are occasionally parasitized by Brown-headed Cowbirds, 

but this is thought to be infrequent.

Populations in New Mexico may be threatened by any loss (e.g., catastrophic/uncharacteristic fire) or 

alteration of quality breeding habitat in upland riparian areas. Habitat loss in wintering areas may also be 

a concern. Painted Redstarts have shown sensitivity to human disturbance around the nest, including 

research activities and recreational land use (Barber et al. 2000).

Neotropic cormorant (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Lake Habitat and Focal 

species for NM PIF high priority lake species) - Neotropic cormorants nest near or over water, in 

vegetation such as dead snags or trees. Nesting Neotropic Cormorants require stands of trees or shrubs in 

or near water and that are free from human disturbance (BISON-M 2009). In New Mexico, cormorants 

are generally found on larger bodies of water such as reservoirs, where they prey on fish--probably 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

115

mainly "rough" species in New Mexico (BISON-M 2009). They swim and dive readily, drying their 

wings in spread-eagle posture outside the water (BISON-M 2009). Cormorants fly in level flight, forming 

V's or lines when in flocks. Water depths in areas frequented by the Neotropic Cormorant tend, perhaps, 

to be somewhat shallower than those occupied by the Double-crested Cormorant (Bison M 2009). The 

expanse of open water is probably a major stimulus in attracting these birds (BISON-M 2009). The 

Neotropic Cormorant reaches its northernmost breeding limits in New Mexico, where it is resident in the 

lower Rio Grande Valley. The Neotropic Cormorant is a rare transient of the Gila National Forest 

(Zimmerman, 1995)

Wilson’s Phalarope [(Phalaropus tricolor)/ Focal Species for NM Partners in Flight Representative 

of Wet Meadow/Wetland Vegetation Cover Type] – Wilsons’s phalaropes are rare transients through the 

Gila National Forest. In New Mexico these phalaropes are found on water at lower and middle elevations 

(2800 ft to 7500 ft), They occur along rivers, riparian woodlands and subalpine marshes (BISON-M 

2010). Spring migrants use shallow wetlands in the central United Sates.

Bobolink [(Dolichonyx oryzivorus)/ Focal Species for NM Partners in Flight Representative of Wet 

Meadow/Wetland Vegetation Cover Type] - Isolated breeding outposts are near Springerville, Arizona 

and Los Ojos, New Mexico. On the Gila Bird Checklist this species is identified as a casual or accidental 

species on or closely adjacent to the Forest. Nests tend to be located in wet areas, though with some 

drainage (Wittenberger 1978). The nest is typically placed on the ground at the base of a large forb in 

areas of higher than average grass density. Predation on eggs and nestlings and nest exposure to adverse 

weather and flooding are probably the most significant mortality factors (Martin and Gavin 1995). 

Bobolinks tend to avoid nesting close to woodland, forest, crop field or road edges (Bollinger and Gavin 

2004, Renfrew et al. 2005).

Riparian Summary:

Table 77 list road associated and motorized trail/ORV factors related to riparian bird focal species that 

represent this group (Gaines et al. 2003); analysis factors based on the analysis factor discussed above; 

and the indicator that will be used to compare the different levels of affect between the different 

alternatives. 

Table 77: Summary of potential motorized route effects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators

Focal 

Group

Road Associated 

Factors

Motorized Trail/ORV 

Associated Factors

Combined Analysis 

Factors Analysis Indicator

Riparian 

Birds

Collisions Nesting Loss

Poaching

Collisions

Nesting Loss

Poaching

Harvest/Direct Effects Miles

Disturbance, Displacement, 

Avoidance, Harassment

Disturbance, Displacement, 

Avoidance, Harassment

Disturbance/Indirect 

Effects

Disturbance Zone 

Summarized In Acres

Table 78 summarizes the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area that will be used to 

analyze the effects of the different alternatives to riparian birds. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

116

Table 78: 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

Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher Motorized Trail/ORV Use 

Route Miles

Number of stream 

crossings

100m Occupied Sites

Critical Habitat

Northern Gray Hawk

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Arizona Bell’s Vireo

Abert’s Towhee

Gila Woodpecker

Common Ground Dove

Black Hawk

Motorized Trail/ORV and 

Roads Route Miles 100m

Low and Middle 

Elevation Riparian

Painted Redstart Motorized Trail/ORV and 

Roads Route Miles 100m High Elevation Riparian

Neotropic Cormorant Motorized Trail/ORV and 

Roads Route Miles 100m Lake 

Wilson’s Phalarope

Bobolink

Motorized Trail/ORV and 

Roads Route Miles 100m Wetland and Wet Meadow

Riparian Bird-Effects by Alternative

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

Table 79: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher Occupied Sites (3 

occupied areas) Analysis Area 

on USFS lands = 234 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. G 

Change 

in Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

0.73 mi.

56.37 ac.

-0.57 mi.

-33.13 ac.

-0.68 mi.

-47.59 ac.

-0.68 mi.

-51.26 ac.

-0.68 mi.

-47.59 ac.

-0.68 mi.

-47.59 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 (miles and 

acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.57 mi.

33.13 ac.

0.68 mi.

46.28 ac.

0.68 mi.

46.28 ac.

0.68 mi.

46.28 ac.

0.68 mi.

46.28 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route (miles and 

acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Admin. Unauthorized (miles 

and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Seasonal - Resource Protection

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail (miles 

and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

117

Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher Occupied Sites (3 

occupied areas) Analysis Area 

on USFS lands = 234 acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change 

in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. G 

Change 

in Effects

Existing ATV Trail (miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Closed Road to OHV Trail (miles 

and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Trail (miles and 

acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Unauthorized Trail (miles and 

acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total FS Routes and Trails (miles) 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73

% in Miles of Alt. B (Existing) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including ROW/Assert) 0.00 mi.

0.19 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, County Rd

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Dispersed Camping 61.96 -57.51 -57.51 -61.96 -57.51 -57.51

% in Acres of Alt.B Existing -92.81% -92.81% -100% -92.81% -92.81%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area All Vehicles 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval 61.96 0.00 -57.51 -61.96 0.00 -57.51

% in Acres of Alt.B Existing 0.00% -92.81% -100% 0.00% -92.81%

Table 80: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher Critical Habitat 

Analysis Area

on USFS lands = 1,547 

acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

3.02 mi.

239.55 ac.

-1.13 mi.

-77.61 ac.

-2.01 mi.

-154.06 ac.

-2.06 mi.

-159.78 ac.

-2.01 mi.

-151.86 ac.

-2.00 mi.

-140.26 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 (miles 

and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.07 mi.

102.63 ac.

1.45 mi.

146.74 ac.

1.45 mi.

135.93 ac.

1.45 mi.

146.74 ac.

1.44 mi.

135.53 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Admin. Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.16 mi.

16.59 ac.

0.16 mi.

16.59 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.16 mi.

16.59 ac.

0.16 mi.

16.59 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

118

Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher Critical Habitat 

Analysis Area

on USFS lands = 1,547 

acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Seasonal Resource Protection

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Existing ATV Trail (miles and 

acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Closed Road to OHV Trail

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Trail (miles and 

acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Unauthorized Trail (miles 

and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total FS Routes and Trails

(miles) 3.02 3.12 2.62 2.41 2.62 2.62

% in Miles Alt. B (Existing) 3.20% -13.12% -20.16% -13.12% -13.12%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

1.46 mi.

155.50 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road

1.37 mi.

168.58 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed Camping 949.02 -894.75 -896.06 -949.02 -896.06 -896.06

% in Acres Alt.B Existing -94.28% -94.42% -100% -94.42% -94.42%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area All Vehicles

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area OHV Only

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval

(acres) 949.02 -64.55 -896.06 -949.02 -240.97 -896.06

%in Acres Alt.B Existing -6.80% -94.42% -100% -25.39% -94.42%

Routes Crossing Streams

Number of Open Existing ML 2 

- ML 5 9 -6 -7 -7 -7 -7

Number of Administrative 

Routes 0 6 7 7 7 7

Number of Add Admin. 

Unauthorized 0 1 1 0 1 1

Total FS Routes & Trails 

Crossings 9 10 10 9 10 10

% Change of Alt.B Existing 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.11
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

119

No Action Alternative (Alt. B)(Table 79 and Table 80): Under this alternative 0.7 miles of motorized 

routes occur within the 3 occupied areas, and 3 miles within designated southwestern willow flycatcher 

(SWWF) 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 is approximately 56 acres, and within SWWF critical habitat 240 acres; this acreage 

continues to cause the potential for indirect effects. Knight and Cole (1991) 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 you continue to have motorized cross country travel and dispersed camping allowed 

across the Gila National Forest outside of designated wilderness areas and other special management 

areas. These two types of uses continue to have the potential to impact approximately 62 acres of 

occupied sites; and 949 acres of designated critical habitat. Additionally these two types of uses 

perpetuate the development of additional roads and OHV routes; potentially allowing for the development 

of more routes than the 0.7 miles that are currently identified in occupied sites, and 3 miles in designated 

SWWF 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. No stream crossings occur in occupied sites, but 9 occur within designated critical habitat.

Effect Common to all Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G)(Table 79 and Table 80): Under these 

alternatives motorized cross country travel is no longer allowed. Under all action alternatives the change 

from the existing condition is a 100% reduction in motorized cross country travel. Under these 

alternatives no motorized areas have been designated. The authorization to allow disperse camping in 

occupied sites is reduced by approximately 93 to 100% and 94 to 100% 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 miles 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 

miles in occupied sites is now only available to administrative use. In Alternative C the change is a 

conversion of approximately 0.6 miles of the 0.7 miles to administrative use, leaving just over 0.1 miles 

open to the public. 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) (Table 79 and Table 80): In SWWF 

critical habitat miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat are reduced by 

20% in Alternative E; 13% under Alternatives D, F, and G; and 3% under Alternatives 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 the 3 miles of the existing routes open to the public to go to 

approximately 2; approximately 1 mile goes to administrative use only. Under Alternative C 1.1 miles go 

to administrative use only. Under the existing condition you have 9 stream crossings open to the public. 

Under Alternatives C, D, E, and F an additional administrative route crossing is added for a total of 10 

total crossings; 7 go to administrative crossings only under Alternative C and 8 under alternatives D, E, 

and F. No administrative crossing is added under Alternative G, and 7 of the 9 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 and use reduced in these analysis areas. Going to administrative use reduces the level of affect to 

both the species and its habitat. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

120

In occupied habitat the area of potentially affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 

100% under Alternative E, 93% under alternatives D and G, and is unchanged from the existing condition 

(Alternative B) in Alternatives C and F. In designated critical habitat potentially affected habitat for 

motorized big game retrieval is reduced by 100% under Alternative E, 94% under Alternatives D and G, 

25% in Alternative F, and 7% under Alternatives C. 

For this listed species none of the action alternatives added any unauthorized or closed routes to the 

occupied site analysis area. None of the action alternatives allow for an actual increase in the total miles 

of routes through the associated analysis areas. Within designated critical habitat Alternatives C, D, F, and 

G add approximately 0.2 miles of unauthorized route to administrative use only. None of the action 

alternatives allow for an actual increase in the total miles of routes through the critical habitat analysis 

area; except Alternative C which allows for 0.1 increases above the existing condition. This tenth of a 

mile is designated for administrative use only. 

Findings

Table 81 displays the effects determination for the federally listed Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and 

it’s designated critical habitat. 

Table 82 displays the effects determination for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher as a high priority 

migratory bird species. 

Table 81:Southwestern Willow Flycatcher federally listed species and critical habitat determinations by 

alternative

Federally Listed 

Species

Alt. B 

Existing 

Condition

Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. 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 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 cross-country 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 are reduced to an insignificant and discountable level; therefore, a determination of “may 

affect, not likely to adversely affect” is made for these the 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.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

121

Table 82: Southwestern willow flycatcher New Mexico Partners in Flight high-priority species determination 

by alternative

NMPIF High Priority 

Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher *NA NA NA NA NA

Rationale For 

Determination

Under alternatives C, D, E, F, and G, the potential effects to this species are reduced. These 

alternatives will not negatively affect population levels. 

*NA – No adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Painted Redstart

Table 83. Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Painted Redstart Habitat 

(High Elevation Riparian) 

Analysis Area on USFS = 

4,310 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

9.48 mi.

449.86 ac.

-0.54 mi.

-27.60 ac.

-4.32 mi.

-180.35 ac.

-4.72 mi.

-249.44 ac.

-2.94 mi.

-146.49 ac.

-2.42 mi.

-112.80 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 (miles 

and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.05 mi.

15.89 ac.

1.04 mi.

69.61 ac.

0.51 mi.

35.92 ac.

0.84 mi.

63.50 ac.

0.31 mi.

29.81 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route 

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Admin. Unauthorized 

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection (miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

0.00

0.00 ac.

0.08

3.91 ac.

0.08

3.91 ac.

0.08

3.91 ac.

0.08

3.91 ac.

0.08

3.91 ac.

Existing ATV Trail (miles and 

acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Closed Road to OHV Trail 

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Trail (miles 

and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.34 mi.

11.53 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Total FS Routes and Trails 

(miles) 9.48 9.42 6.28 5.36 7.46 7.46

% in Miles of Alt.B (Existing) -0.69% -33.74% -43.52% -21.35% -21.35%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

122

Painted Redstart Habitat 

(High Elevation Riparian) 

Analysis Area on USFS = 

4,310 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

0.90 mi. 0.00 mi. 0.00 mi. 0.00 mi. 0.00 mi. 0.00 mi.

67.14 ac. 0.00 ac. 0.00 ac. 0.00 ac. 0.00 ac. 0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road

1.17 mi. 0.00 mi. 0.00 mi. 0.00 mi. 0.00 mi. 0.00 mi.

128.28 ac. 0.00 ac. 0.00 ac. 0.00 ac. 0.00 ac. 0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 1,795.10 -1,734.14 -1,774.96 -1,795.10 -1,734.54 -1,737.49

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -96.60% -98.88% -100% -96.63% -96.79%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 1,795.10 -410.76 -1,774.96 -1,795.10 -882.24 -1,737.49

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -22.88% -98.88% -100% -49.15% -96.79%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

123

Neotropic Cormorant 

Table 84: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Neotropic Cormorant 

Habitat (Lakes) Analysis 

Area (Habitat 500 m. 

Buffer) on USFS = 2,154 

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

6.87 mi.

435.73 ac.

-0.07 mi.

-9.43 ac.

-0.75 mi.

-62.08 ac.

-0.75 mi.

-62.12 ac.

-0.75 mi.

-62.08 ac.

-0.75 mi.

-62.08 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 (miles 

and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.06 mi.

10.85 ac.

0.53 mi.

47.66 ac.

0.53 mi.

47.66 ac.

0.53 mi.

47.66 ac.

0.53 mi.

47.66 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route 

miles and acres 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Admin. Unauthorized 

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection (miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Trails 

Existing Road to OHV Trail 

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Existing ATV Trail (miles and 

acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Closed Road to OHV Trail 

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Trail (miles and 

acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Unauthorized Trail (miles 

and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total FS Routes and Trails 

(miles) 6.87 6.86 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66

% in Miles of Alt. B (Existing) -0.14% -3.17% -3.17% -3.17% -3.17%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert) (miles and 

acres)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road

3.86 mi.

265.59 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed Camping 

(acres) 1,963.28 -1,957.61 -1,957.61 -1,963.28 -1,957.61 -1,957.61

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -99.71% -99.71% -100% -99.71% -99.71%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

124

Neotropic Cormorant 

Habitat (Lakes) Analysis 

Area (Habitat 500 m. 

Buffer) on USFS = 2,154 

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval 

(acres) 1,963.28 0.00 -1,957.61 -1,963.28 -137.83 -1,957.61

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) 0.00% -99.71% -100% -7.02% -99.71%

Wilson’s Phalarope and Bobolink 

Table 85: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Wilson's Phalarope and 

Bobolink Habitat 

(Wetland/Wet Meadow) 

Analysis Area on USFS = 

1,710 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

11.63 mi.

721.82 ac.

-0.55 mi.

-23.83 ac.

-4.49 mi.

-237.76 ac.

-6.80 mi.

-347.67 ac.

-3.19 mi.

-183.39 ac.

-3.19 mi.

-194.50 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 (miles 

and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.13 mi.

12.62 ac.

1.03 mi.

77.54 ac.

1.05 mi.

82.75 ac.

0.36 mi.

51.77 ac.

0.36 mi.

51.77 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route 

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Admin. Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00

0.00 mi.

1.65

0.00 mi.

1.65

0.00 mi.

0.00

0.00 mi.

1.65

0.00 mi.

1.65

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection (miles and acres) 0.00 ac. 0.00 ac. 0.00 ac. 0.00 ac. 0.00 ac. 0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails (miles and acres)

Existing Road to OHV Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Existing ATV Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Closed Road to OHV Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Unauthorized Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total FS Routes and Trails 

(miles) 11.63 11.22 8.17 5.89 8.80 8.80

% in Miles of Alt.B (Existing) -3.58% -29.75% -49.39% -24.37% -24.37%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

125

Wilson's Phalarope and 

Bobolink Habitat 

(Wetland/Wet Meadow) 

Analysis Area on USFS = 

1,710 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

0.33

98.68

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road

0.16

39.44

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 1,568.48 -1,272.57 -1,329.89 -1,568.48 -1,275.26 -1,303.64

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -81.13% -84.79% -100% -81.31% -83.11%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 1,568.48 -7.08 -1,329.89 -1,568.48 -83.65 -1,303.64

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -0.45% -84.79% -100% -5.33% -83.11%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

126

Northern Gray Hawk, Gila Woodpecker, Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Arizona Bell’s Vireo, 

Common Ground Dove, Abert’s Towhee, and Black Hawk 

Table 86: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

N. Gray Hawk, Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo, AZ Bell's Vireo, 

Gila Woodpecker, Common 

Ground Dove, Abert’s 

Towhee, and Black Hawk 

Habitat (Low, Middle 

Riparian) Analysis Area on 

USFS land = 30,142 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

191.01 mi.

8,357.55 ac.

-62.88 mi.

-2,327.08 ac.

-111.99 mi.

-4,384.47 ac.

-134.70 mi.

-5,449.26 ac.

-87.49 mi.

-3,309.16 ac.

-91.61 mi.

-3,541.92 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.40 mi.

36.78 ac.

0.02 mi.

11.13 ac.

0.01 mi.

4.30 ac.

0.02 mi.

11.13 ac.

0.02 mi.

11.13 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

34.53 mi.

1,512.88 ac.

44.23 mi.

2,104.08 ac.

51.41 mi.

2,395.47 ac.

41.16 mi.

1,903.44 ac.

40.13 mi.

1,873.80 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.57 mi.

61.57 ac.

0.46 mi.

56.70 ac.

0.18 mi.

17.29 ac.

0.23 mi.

28.80 ac.

0.79 mi.

85.46 ac.

Add Admin. Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

3.11 mi.

129.43 ac.

1.80 mi.

94.50 ac.

0.38 mi.

23.46 ac.

1.80 mi.

94.50 ac.

1.80 mi.

94.50 ac.

Seasonal - Resource Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

2.25 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

12.16 mi.

422.23 ac.

7.14 mi.

213.89 ac.

0.53 mi.

27.04 ac.

14.91 mi.

488.41 ac.

14.91 mi.

488.41 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

2.55 mi.

161.20 ac.

-0.74 mi.

-41.64 ac.

-1.56 mi.

-88.25 ac.

-2.55 mi.

-161.20 ac.

-0.74 mi.

-41.64 ac.

-0.74 mi.

-41.64 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.88 mi.

67.97 ac.

0.12 mi.

20.45 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.47 mi.

37.65 ac.

0.47 mi.

37.65 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.78 mi.

33.20 ac.

1.30 mi.

57.29 ac.

1.30 mi.

57.29 ac.

0.78 mi.

33.20 ac.

0.78 mi.

33.20 ac.

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

8.18 mi.

266.98 ac.

0.01 mi.

3.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.01 mi.

3.00 ac.

0.01 mi.

3.00 ac.

Total FS Routes and Trails (miles) 193.55 191.53 135.07 110.11 164.70 160.11

% in Miles of Alt.B (Existing) -1.04% -30.22% -43.11% -14.91% -17.28%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

35.47 mi.

2,350.23 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, County Road

60.47 mi.

4,162.67 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

127

N. Gray Hawk, Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo, AZ Bell's Vireo, 

Gila Woodpecker, Common 

Ground Dove, Abert’s 

Towhee, and Black Hawk 

Habitat (Low, Middle 

Riparian) Analysis Area on 

USFS land = 30,142 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Dispersed Camping 

(acres) 21,153.04 -18,773.71 -19,688.83 -21,153.04 -19,328.62 -19,588.85

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -88.75% -93.08% -100% -91.38% -92.61%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles 

(acres) 0.04 0.00 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval 

(acres) 21,153.04 -3,587.65 -19,688.83 -21,153.04 -7,986.47 -19,588.85

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -16.96% -93.08% -100% -37.76% -92.61%

No Action Alternative (Alt. B)(Table 83, Table 84, Table 85, and Table 86): Under the existing condition 

for riparian birds there are approximately 7 miles of motorized routes in the neotropic cormorant analysis 

area, 9.5 miles of motorized routes in the painted redstart analysis area, 12 miles of motorized routes in 

the Wilson’s phalarope analysis area, and 194 miles of motorized routes in the low to middle elevation 

riparian bird focal species analysis area. These routes continue to cause habitat loss and the potential for 

direct effects like collision, poaching, and collection. The potential disturbance zone for cormorant areas 

is approximately 436 acres, 450 acres painted redstart area, 722 acres for Wilson’s phalarope area, and 

8,519 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. Increase 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, dispersed camping, and big 

game retrieval allowed across the Gila National Forest. These three types of uses continue to have 

potential effect riparian birds. Additionally, these three types of uses perpetuate the development of 

additional roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing for the development of higher road densities. 

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 affects to these species. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G) (Table 83, Table 84, Table 85, and Table 86): Under all action 

alternatives motorized cross country travel is no longer allowed. The change from the existing condition 

is a 100% reduction in motorized cross country travel. In the cormorant analysis area motorized dispersed 

camping is reduced by 99.7 to 100% under all action alternatives; sapsucker analysis area 97 to 100%; 

phalarope analysis area 81 to 100%; and 89 to 100% 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% under Alternative E, 85 to 99.7% under Alternative D, 5 to 49% under Alternative F, 83 

to 99.7% under Alternative G, and 0 to 23% under Alternative C. The wide range of change between focal 

species under Alternative F is a reduction of approximately 7% in the cormorant analysis area; 49% 

reduction in the sapsucker analysis area; 5% reduction in the phalarope analysis area; and 38% reduction 

in the low to middle elevation riparian bird analysis area. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

128

Motorized areas are locations where we have had traditional uses like motorized camping and OHV use. 

Under the existing condition none of the analysis areas in this group have any acres affected except in the 

low and middle elevation riparian area where there is approximately 0.04 acres affected; under all action 

alternatives no motorized areas would affect the analysis areas in this group. 

Under Alternative C, D, E, F, and G, miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected 

habitat are reduced, respectively by <1, 3, 3, 3, and 3% in the cormorant analysis area; 1, 34, 44, 21, and 

21% in sapsucker analysis area; 4, 30, 49, 24 and 24% in the phalarope analysis area; and 1, 30, 43, 15, 

and 17% in the low to middle elevation riparian bird analysis area. 

For the focal species and their associated analysis areas Alternative E adds 0 to 0.6 miles of routes; 

Alternatives D adds 0 to 2.4 miles of routes; Alternative F adds 0 to 2.5 miles of routes; Alternative G 

adds 0 to 3.1 miles; and Alternative C adds 0 to 14 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 currently allows cross country travel some proposed routes even though unauthorized 

are currently being used. By designating unauthorized routes to open or converting the use from motor 

vehicle to ORV vehicles these changes do have the potential to increase the direct and indirect effects to 

this group of species.

The greater the reduction in miles in each analysis area 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 area being analyzed.

Findings

Table 87 displays the effects determination for riparian birds designated as a Forest Service sensitive 

species. 

Table 88 displays the effects determination for the Black Hawk that is designated as a Gila National 

Forest management indicator species. 

Table 89 displays the effects determination for riparian birds that are high priority migratory bird species.

Table 87: Riparian bird Forest Service sensitive species determinations by alternative

Sensitive Species Alt. B Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. 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

Abert’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; 

particularly for the low to middle elevation species under Alternatives E and D, to a lesser 

degree for Alternatives F and G, and only a small amount under Alternative C. 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
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

129

Table 88: Black hawk Gila National Forest management indicator species determinations by alternative

Management Indicator 

Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. 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 and minor amounts of habitat under all action alternatives still 

exist; but none will adversely affect the population levels or habitat trends.

*NA – No adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Table 89: Riparian bird New Mexico Partners in Flight high-priority species determinations by alternative

NMPIF High Priority 

Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Yellow-billed Cuckoo1 *NA NA NA NA NA

Arizona Bell’s Vireo1 NA NA NA NA NA

Abert’s towhee1 NA NA NA NA NA

Common ground dove1 NA NA NA NA NA

Black hawk1 NA NA NA NA NA

Painted Redstart2 NA NA NA NA NA

Neotropic Cormorant NA NA NA NA NA

Wilson’s Phalarope3 NA NA NA NA NA

Boboline3 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. 

1 Species with the same determination by alternative – Lucy’s warbler, Bank Swallow, Lewis Woodpecker, Red-headed 

Woodpecker, and Painted Bunting.

2 Species with the same determination by alternative – Black Swift, and Veery

3American Bittern, and Snowy Plover.

*NA – No adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Forested, Woodland, and Grassland Areas

Table 90 displays the species assessed in this section.

Table 90: Forested, woodland and grassland bird species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection

Species Analyzed Rationale For Selection

Burrowing Qwl 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 Titmouse Gila MIS Species representative for Piñon-Juniper/Shrub Oak Woodland

Gray Vireo3 FS Sensitive Species, and NMPIF High Priority Species

1The 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 (Pygmy Nuthatch, Red-faced Warbler, Olive Warbler, and Virginia’s Warbler).

2The desert shrub and grassland analysis area for this focal species will be used to determine potential effects to other NMPIF highpriority species that occur in this habitat type (Scaled Quail, Crissal Thrasher, Painted Bunting, and Black-throated Sparrow).

3The 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 (Virginia’s Warbler, Lazuli Bunting, Black-chinned 

Sparrow, Piñon Jay, and Juniper Titmouse).
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

130

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 (brown-headed 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). Wear and Greis, 2002 Summary Report documents that “Linear 

corridors, such as roads and power lines, can exclude sensitive forest wildlife from the adjoining habitat 

for distances ranging up to 330 feet or more. Effects to sensitive forest birds are of more concern in 

fragmented landscapes.” 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 effects of motorized activities to birds from forested 

and grassland areas road miles within forest and grassland, vegetation cover types were 

measured.

2. To analyze disturbance/indirect effects, a disturbance zone of 75 to 100 m. from roads within 

forested and grassland vegetation cover types was used as it pertains to the proposed action and to 

each alternative (Table 92).

Plains titmouse (Management Indicator Species, and Forest Service Sensitive Species 

Representative of Piñon-Juniper/Shrub-Oak Woodland Habitat Cover Type) - The plain titmouse is 

an indicator of piñon-juniper/shrub-oak woodland habitats. The plain titmouse inhabits evergreen trees in 

dry woodlands of the southwest (USDA 1991). It usually builds nests in natural cavities or old 

woodpecker holes, primarily in oak trees but it is capable of excavating its own cavity in rotted wood. 

Trend estimates on the forest indicate an increasing trend in Plain Titmouse on the GNF. Limiting factors 

for the Plain Titmouse include cavities in snags and hollow trees. With approximately 1,643,096 acres of 

woodland vegetation type on the Gila National Forest, cavities are expected to be abundant for this 

species. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

131

Gray Vireo (Forest Service Sensitive Species and Partners In Flight High Priority Migratory Bird 

Representative of Piñon Juniper/Shrub-Oak Woodland Vegetation Cover Type) - The breeding 

habitat of this species is generally open woodlands/shrublands featuring evergreen trees and shrubs of 

various kinds. Junipers (Juniperus spp.) are the dominant element in most areas of occurrence in New 

Mexico, although oaks (Quercus spp.) are also frequent in the southern part of the range (USDA 2009). In 

New Mexico, gray vireos have been reported in rocky hills covered with sparse bushes and scrub, in 

juniper, hackberry and Grave's oak (NatureServe Explorer 2009). In northwestern New Mexico, the 

species is found at elevations from 5800 - 7200 feet in broad-bottomed canyons (flat or gently sloped 

valleys) below or near ridge-top/rock outcrop/cliff head walls of canyons or gently sloped bowls in piñonjuniper woodland (NatureServe Explorer 2009). The piñon-juniper is sometimes dense canopied woods 

and at other times widely-spaced trees creating parkland. Trees are generally mature ranging from 12 to 

25 feet in height (NatureServe Explorer 2009). There is often considerable bare soil between herbaceous 

plants forming ground cover, and at the upper elevations where they occur, ponderosa pine is sparsely 

situated among piñons and junipers (NatureServe Explorer 2009). This vireo, like other members of this 

family, is an insectivore, and it occurs in New Mexico only in the warmer months (April-September). 

Gray vireos breed in close ecological proximity to solitary and Bell's (V. bellii) vireos, the former 

occurring as low as piñon-juniper woodland, while the latter are typically in lowland riparian areas. Gray 

Vireos are rare summer residents of Gila National Forest (Zimmerman 1995). 

Costa’s Hummingbird (Forest Service Sensitive Species, and Focal Species NM PIF High Priority 

Species Representative of Chihuahuan Desert shrub/grassland Vegetation Cover Type) - Costa's 

hummingbirds inhabit microphyll shrubland and canyons at lower elevations (2800 - 5500 ft; BISON-M 

2010). Typically, this species inhabits deserts or desert-like washes, mesas or side-hills, especially where 

sages of different kinds, encelias, yuccas, and cholla cactuses [sic] abound (Birds of North America 

Online 2009). This species occurs in spring and early summer in Guadalupe Canyon (Hidalgo Co.), which 

is the key habitat area in the state.

White-eared Hummingbird (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Ponderosa Pine 

Vegetation Cover Type) - This species typically occurs in montane habitats in Mexico, and in the United 

States it has been found in similar types--including pine (Pinus spp.) forest and in oak (Quercus spp.) and 

pine-oak woodland and adjacent riparian sites, (BISON-M 2010). The species is associated with scrubby 

growth, especially undergrowth of oak forest; pine woods; pine-oak forest, high mountain fir forest; forest 

edge; partially open mountain country with scattered trees and shrubs; gardens; vacant lots with scattered 

shrubs and flowers (NatureServe Explorer 2009). Nests for this species are usually in shrubs (Guatemala) 

or in fairly low trees (e.g., in oaks in some areas of Mexico; NatureServe Explorer 2009). White Eared 

Hummingbirds inhabit evergreens and riparian woodlands at middle elevations (5000 - 7500 ft; BISONM 2010). The White Eared Hummingbird prefers generally moist montane canyons (BISON-M 2010). In 

New Mexico, this species has only recently been found, but it may have been overlooked in the past 

particularly as the range in which it occurs is infrequently visited and has not been studied in detail 

(Bison-M 2010). In the years 1993 to 1995 there were records from two sites in the Pinos Altos 

Mountains (Zimmerman 1995).

Burrowing Owl (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Grassland Vegetation Cover 

Type) - Burrowing owl habitat is dry, open, short grass, and treeless plains, often associated with 

burrowing mammals. Optimum habitat for burrowing owls is typified by short vegetation and presence of 

fresh small mammal burrows (NatureServe Explorer 2013). It is found in open grasslands, especially 

prairie, plains, and savanna, sometimes in open areas such as vacant lots near human habitation (e.g., 

campuses, airports, golf courses, perimeter of agricultural fields, banks of irrigation canals; NatureServe 

Explorer 2013). In Northern Great Plains of U.S., preferred grassland on aridic ustoll and typic boroll soil 

types where vegetation was heavily grazed by small mammals (NatureServe Explorer 2013). Burrowing 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

132

owls spend much time on the ground or on low perches such as fence posts or dirt mounds (NatureServe 

Explorer 2013). Nests of burrowing owls are often in colonies in the West, in abandoned burrows of 

prairie dogs or ground squirrels or of woodchucks, foxes, badgers, armadillos, where the owl enlarges and 

modifies nest burrow by digging with feet (BISON-M 2009). The nest location and type of nest that 

burrowing owls tend to select their burrows in are areas with other burrows, close to roads, surrounded by 

bare ground or short grass. Most often they use burrows dug by mammals such as ground squirrels, 

badgers, prairie dogs, marmots, skunks, armadillos, kangaroo rats, and tortoises. Western burrowing owls 

can excavate holes where burrowing mammals are absent. Incubation is done by the female only; In New 

Mexico, this begins when first egg is laid. The male feeds the female in early morning and evening. The 

female comes out only briefly at these times. Intensified land use, primarily the conversion of grasslands 

for agricultural purposes and urban development, has resulted in widespread loss and fragmentation of 

nesting habitat. Eradication programs for the prairie dog and ground squirrel, pesticide use and food 

availability are also contributing factors to the population decline. Burrowing owls are uncommon 

summer residents that breed in GNF (Zimmerman, 1995). The New Mexico Game and Fish Department 

published guidelines and recommendations for burrowing owl surveys and mitigation in 2007. They 

recommend the following mitigation actions to avoid negative impacts to the species:

• No disturbance should occur within 50 m of occupied burrows during the non-breeding season 

(September through February) or within 75 m during the breeding season (March through 

August)(Table 92). 

Forested, Woodland, and Grassland Bird Summary:

Table 91 lists road associated and motorized trail/ORV factors related to song bird focal species that 

represent this group (Gaines et al. 2003); analysis factors based on the analysis factor discussed above; 

and the indicator that will be used to compare the different levels of affect between the different 

alternatives. 

Table 91: Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators

Focal 

Group

Road Associated 

Factors

Motorized Trail/ORV 

Associated Factors

Combined Analysis 

Factors Analysis Indicator

Forested, 

Woodland, 

and 

Grassland 

Birds

Collisions Nesting Loss

Poaching

Collisions

Nesting Loss

Poaching

Harvest/Direct Effects Route Miles

Disturbance, Displacement, 

Avoidance, Harassment

Disturbance, Displacement, 

Avoidance, Harassment

Disturbance/Indirect 

Effects

Disturbance Zone 

Summarized In Acres

Table 92 summarizes the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area that will be used to 

analyze the effects of the different alternatives to song birds.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

133

Table 92: Summary of the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area used to analyze the 

effects of the different alternatives to forested, woodland and grassland birds

Focal Species Motorized Activity Harvest

Indicator

Disturbance

Zone

Analysis

Area

Plains Titmouse

Gray Vireo

Motorized Trail/ORV Use and 

Roads

Route 

Miles 100m

Piñon -Juniper/

Shrub Oak Woodland

Costa’s Hummingbird Motorized Trail/ORV and 

Roads

Route 

Miles 100m Desert Shrub/Grassland 

White-eared Hummingbird Motorized Trail/ORV and 

Roads

Route 

Miles 100m Ponderosa Pine

Burrowing Owl Motorized Trail/ORV and 

Roads

Route 

Miles 75m Plains and Mountain Grassland 

Birds From Forested, Woodland, and Grassland Areas – Effects by Alternative

Burrowing Owl 

Table 93: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Burrowing Owl Habitat 

(Plains and Mountain 

Grassland) Analysis Area 

on USFS lands = 232,217 

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

621.21 mi.

34,107.46 ac.

-37.69 mi.

-2,009.66 ac.

-167.97 mi.

-8,688.19 ac.

-221.68 mi.

-11,632.79 ac.

-132.98 mi.

-6,785.24 ac.

-134.72 mi.

-6,851.81 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.56 mi.

158.68 ac.

2.06 mi.

132.20 ac.

0.53 mi.

35.73 ac.

2.06 mi.

132.20 ac.

2.06 mi.

132.20 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

25.99 mi.

1,465.21 ac.

52.49 mi.

3,161.68 ac.

56.45 mi.

3,407.85 ac.

43.75 mi.

2,626.16 ac.

43.79 mi.

2,625.87 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.01 mi.

54.89 ac.

0.93 mi.

53.60 ac.

0.79 mi.

38.06 ac.

1.01 mi.

54.41 ac.

1.01 mi.

54.89 ac.

Add Admin. Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

5.08 mi.

373.33 ac.

5.30 mi.

388.09 ac.

0.22 mi.

20.05 ac.

5.08 mi.

373.33 ac.

5.08 mi.

373.33 ac.

Seasonal - Resource Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.31 mi.

17.74 ac.

1.69 mi.

112.68 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.71 mi.

115.87 ac.

1.71 mi.

115.87 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.87 mi.

69.41 ac.

0.17 mi.

13.33 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.17 mi.

13.33 ac.

0.17 mi.

13.33 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.04 mi.

5.21 ac.

0.11 mi.

8.93 ac.

0.04 mi.

5.21 ac.

0.04 mi.

5.21 ac.

0.04 mi.

5.21 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

134

Burrowing Owl Habitat 

(Plains and Mountain 

Grassland) Analysis Area 

on USFS lands = 232,217 

Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.91 mi.

55.03 ac.

0.81 mi.

48.94 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.81 mi.

49.40 ac.

0.81 mi.

49.40 ac.

Total FS Routes and Trails (miles) 621.21 620.28 516.80 457.56 542.85 541.15

Percent in Miles of Alt. B 

(Existing) -0.15% -16.81% -26.34% -12.61% -12.89%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

65.60 mi.

4,030.03 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, County Road

191.70 mi.

10,850.30 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed Camping 

(acres) 221,523.57 -206,062.7 -209,143.3 -221,523.6 -206,142.4 -207,318.4

Percent in Acres of Alt. B 

(Existing) -93.02% -94.41% -100% -93.06% -93.59%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles 

(acres) 1.47 0.00 -1.47 -1.47 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only 

(acres) 3.05 0.00 -3.05 -3.05 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval 

(acres) 221,523.57 -11,579.9 -209,143.3 -221,523.6 -43,480.8 -207,318.4

Percent in Acres of Alt. B 

(Existing) -5.23% -94.41% -100% -19.63% -93.59%

Costa’s Hummingbird 

Table 94: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Costa's Hummingbird 

Habitat (Desert 

Shrub/Grassland) Analysis 

Area on USFS lands = 

26,067 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

92.21 mi.

4,682.29 ac.

-4.47 mi.

-274.01 ac.

-31.28 mi.

-1,571.77 ac.

-38.55 mi.

-1,913.76 ac.

-28.90 mi.

-1,408.61 ac.

-28.68 mi.

-1,421.09 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.06 mi.

7.10 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.13 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.13 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.13 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.13 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.97 mi.

184.46 ac.

7.36 mi.

483.19 ac.

6.69 mi.

433.73 ac.

5.83 mi.

380.41 ac.

5.61 mi.

362.20 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.70 mi.

43.72 ac.

0.27 mi.

20.08 ac.

0.20 mi.

13.99 ac.

0.70 mi.

43.72 ac.

0.27 mi.

26.10 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

135

Costa's Hummingbird 

Habitat (Desert 

Shrub/Grassland) Analysis 

Area on USFS lands = 

26,067 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Add Admin. Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.71 mi.

48.72 ac.

1.14 mi.

72.36 ac.

0.77 mi.

38.28 ac.

0.71 mi.

48.72 ac.

1.14 mi.

66.33 ac.

Seasonal - Resource Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac..

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.10 mi.

6.68 ac.

2.28 mi.

164.14 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.53 mi.

185.06 ac.

2.53 mi.

185.06 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

3.58 mi.

185.46 ac.

2.06 mi.

125.78 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.06 mi.

125.78 ac.

2.06 mi.

125.78 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

9.39 mi.

467.47 ac.

2.40 mi.

124.31 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

7.48 mi.

320.99 ac.

6.16 mi.

279.47 ac.

Total FS Routes and Trails (miles) 92.21 105.25 76.45 61.31 82.62 81.31

Percent in Miles of Alt. B 

(Existing) 14.14% -17.09% -33.51% -10.40% -11.82%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

10.05 mi.

774.46 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, County Road

35.47 mi.

2,291.84 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed Camping 

(acres) 23,476.04 -20,851.30 -21,090.69 -23,476.04 -20,843.61 -20,973.64

Percent in Acres of Alt. B 

(Existing) -88.82% -89.84% -100% -88.79% -89.34%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval 

(acres) 23,476.04 -2,679.96 -21,090.69 -23,476.04 -9,330.32 -20,973.64

Percent in Acres of Alt. B 

(Existing) -11.42% -89.84% -100% -39.74% -89.34%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

136

White-eared Hummingbird 

Table 95: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

White-eared 

Hummingbird Habitat 

(Ponderosa Pine) 

Analysis Area on USFS 

lands = 1,163,459 ac.

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5 1,972.12 mi.

149,691.69 ac.

-63.78 mi.

-5,485.01 ac.

-695.65 mi.

-50,647.76 ac.

-1,068.83 mi.

-78,281.58 ac.

-470.74 mi.

-33,948.01 ac.

-493.34 mi.

-35,487.77 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.65 mi.

271.43 ac.

2.32 mi.

223.51 ac.

0.55 mi.

60.88 ac.

2.49 mi.

243.74 ac.

2.49 mi.

243.74 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

25.69 mi.

2,419.97 ac.

80.99 mi.

7,425.50 ac.

130.57 mi.

11,306.00 ac.

63.88 mi.

5,863.80 ac.

64.13 mi.

5,881.64 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.02 mi.

103.13 ac.

0.99 mi.

148.29 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.76 ac.

0.38 mi.

47.76 ac.

0.78 mi.

88.39 ac.

Add Admin. Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

9.34 mi.

888.34 ac.

9.33 mi.

850.78 ac.

0.24 mi.

15.43 ac.

9.33 mi.

850.78 ac.

9.33 mi.

850.78 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

5.69 mi.

402.33 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.08 mi.

15.25 ac.

2.30 mi.

195.85 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.70 mi.

248.43 ac.

3.33 mi.

310.75 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

7.60 mi.

624.24 ac.

-0.05 mi.

-13.95 ac.

-1.73 mi.

-162.73 ac.

-7.60 mi.

-624.24 ac.

-0.05 mi.

-13.95 ac.

-0.05 mi.

-13.95 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

6.80 mi.

578.22 ac.

1.24 mi.

131.15 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

6.75 mi.

576.78 ac.

6.75 mi.

576.78 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.24 mi.

22.01 ac.

0.33 mi.

32.21 ac.

0.24 mi.

22.52 ac.

0.24 mi.

22.01 ac.

0.24 mi.

22.01 ac.

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

32.08 mi.

2,607.82 ac.

6.23 mi.

515.52 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

12.73 mi.

1,032.50 ac.

12.73 mi.

1,032.50 ac.

Total FS Routes and Trails 

(miles) 1,979.72 1,993.78 1,391.76 1,034.88 1,607.42 1,586.10

% in Miles of Alt.B (Existing) 0.71% -29.70% -47.73% -18.81% -19.88%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

24.21 mi.

2,591.75 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road

108.46 mi.

9,826.80 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 895,845.14 -849,990.67 -860,491.05 -895,845.14 -852,163.94 -856,147.21

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -94.88% -96.05% -100% -95.12% -95.57%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

137

White-eared 

Hummingbird Habitat 

(Ponderosa Pine) 

Analysis Area on USFS 

lands = 1,163,459 ac.

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All 

Vehicles (acres) 7.99 0.00 -7.99 -7.99 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 895,845.14 -97,953.39 -860,491.05 -895,845.14 -292,477.59 -856,147.21

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -10.93% -96.05% -100% -32.65% -95.57%

Plains Titmouse, and Gray Vireo 

Table 96: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Plains Titmouse and 

Gray Vireo Habitat 

(Pinon-Juniper/Shrub 

Oak Woodland) 

Analysis Area on USFS 

lands = 1,602,637 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5 1,522.07 mi.

125,247.07 ac.

-179.22 mi.

-15,887.31 ac.

-586.25 mi.

-48,000.66 ac.

-743.63 mi.

-60,858.20 ac.

-499.27 mi.

-40,803.11 ac.

-501.11 mi.

-41,107.89 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

8.31 mi.

723.24 ac.

6.47 mi.

565.81 ac.

2.96 mi.

243.87 ac.

6.47 mi.

565.81 ac.

6.47 mi.

565.81 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

81.68 mi.

7,998.17 ac.

148.97 mi.

14,162.92 ac.

169.58 mi.

16,103.37 ac.

130.92 mi.

12,642.08 ac.

131.13 mi.

12,604.69 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

3.82 mi.

430.13 ac.

3.12 mi.

462.75 ac.

0.67 mi.

86.75 ac.

3.63 mi.

402.05 ac.

3.77 mi.

405.93 ac.

Add Admin. Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

8.24 mi.

966.01 ac.

9.31 mi.

1,028.28 ac.

1.77 mi.

188.84 ac.

8.17 mi.

920.24 ac.

8.18 mi.

945.00 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.55 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

21.76 mi.

2,266.10 ac.

51.57 mi.

4,548.35 ac.

0.96 mi.

88.47 ac.

66.28 mi.

5,933.20 ac.

67.14 mi.

5,999.22 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

2.96 mi.

225.29 ac.

0.00 mi.

-7.31 ac.

-1.89 mi.

-151.61 ac.

-2.96 mi.

-225.29 ac.

0.00 mi.

-7.31 ac.

0.00 mi.

-7.31 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

16.11 mi.

1,492.02 ac.

9.93 mi.

836.94 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

11.45 mi.

975.06 ac.

11.45 mi.

975.06 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

3.40 mi.

282.46 ac.

5.53 mi.

476.40 ac.

5.03 mi.

431.81 ac.

3.40 mi.

282.46 ac.

3.40 mi.

282.46 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

138

Plains Titmouse and 

Gray Vireo Habitat 

(Pinon-Juniper/Shrub 

Oak Woodland) 

Analysis Area on USFS 

lands = 1,602,637 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

62.46 mi.

5,532.00 ac.

23.83 mi.

1,926.58 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

31.60 mi.

2,768.78 ac.

31.07 mi.

2,670.71 ac.

Total FS Routes and Trails 

(miles) 1,525.03 1,551.60 1,195.62 959.41 1,287.68 1,286.52

% in Miles of Alt. B (Existing) 1.74% -21.60% -37.09% -15.56% -15.64%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

66.91 mi.

7,807.42 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road

358.30 mi.

28,375.24 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 1,183,790 -1,144,767 -1,153,217 -1,183,790 -1,148,070 -1,150,122

% in Acres of Alt. B (Existing) -96.70% -97.42% -100% -96.98% -97.16%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All 

Vehicles (acres) 14.19 0.00 -14.19 -14.19 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only 

(acres) 0.26 0.00 -0.26 -0.26 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 1,183,790 -231,424 -1,153,217 -1,183,790 -540,354 -1,150,122

% in Acres of Alt. B (Existing) -19.55% -97.42% -100% -45.65% -97.16%

No Action Alternative (Alt. B)(Table 93, Table 94, Table 95, and Table 96): Under the existing condition 

for non-game birds there are approximately 621 miles of motorized routes in the burrowing owl analysis 

area, 92 miles of motorized routes in the Costa’s hummingbird analysis area, 1,980 miles of motorized 

routes in the White-eared hummingbird analysis area, and 1,525 miles of motorized routes in the plains 

titmouse/Gray vireo analysis area. These routes continue to cause habitat loss and the potential for direct 

effects like collision, poaching, and collection. The potential disturbance zone for burrowing owls is 

approximately 34,107 acres, 4,682 acres in Costa’s hummingbird area, 150,316 acres for White-eared 

hummingbird area, and 125,472 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. Increase 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, dispersed camping, and big 

game retrieval allowed across the Gila National Forest. These three types of uses continue to have 

potential effect non-game upland birds. Additionally, these three types of uses perpetuate the development 

of additional roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing for the development of higher road densities. 

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 affects to these species. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

139

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G) (Table 93, Table 94, Table 95, and Table 96): Under all action 

alternatives motorized cross country travel is no longer allowed. The change from the existing condition 

is a 100% reduction in motorized cross country travel. In the burrowing owl analysis area motorized 

dispersed camping is reduced by approximately 93 to 100% under all action alternatives; Costa’s 

humming bird analysis area 89 to 100%; white-eared hummingbird analysis area 95 to 100%; and 97 to 

100% 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% under Alternative E, 90 to 97% 

under Alternative D, 20 to 46% under Alternative F, 90 to 97% under Alternative G, and 5 to 20% under 

Alternative C.

Motorized areas are locations where we have had traditional uses like motorized camping and OHV use. 

In the burrowing owl analysis area currently there are approximately 5 acres of habitat being affect by a 

motorized area; 8 acres of habitat in the white-eared humming bird area; and 14 acres of habitat in the 

plains titmouse/gray vireo analysis area. Alternative 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, respectively by approximately 17, 26, 13, and 13% in the burrowing owl analysis 

area; 17, 34, 10, and 12% in Costa’s analysis area; 30, 48, 19 and 20% in the white-eared analysis area; 

and 22, 37, 16, and 16% in the plains titmouse/gray vireo analysis area. Alternative C adds approximately 

13 miles of routes above the existing condition in the Costa’s analysis area, 14 miles in the white-eared 

analysis area, and 27 miles in the plains titmouse/gray vireo analysis area. In the burrowing owl analysis 

area Alternative C reduces the miles of motorized routes by approximately 1 mile. Alternative C is the 

only alternative that allows for an actual increase in miles of routes through the associated analysis areas.

New previously closed or unauthorized routes added under the different alternatives for the focal species 

and their associated analysis are 0 to 5 miles under Alternative E, 3 to 46 miles under Alternative D, 1 to 

59 miles under Alternative F, 1 to 57 miles under Alternative G, and 1 to 97 miles under Alternative C. 

Again, Alternative C is the only alternative that allows for an actual increase in miles of routes through 

the associated analysis areas. Because the Gila currently allows cross country travel most proposed routes 

even though unauthorized are currently being used. By designating unauthorized routes to open or 

converting the use from motor vehicle to ORV vehicles these changes do have the potential to increase the 

direct and indirect effects to this group of species. 

The greater the reduction in miles in each analysis area 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 area being analyzed.

Findings

The following tables display the effects determination for the riparian bird species are listed as Forest 

Service sensitive species (Table 97), Gila National Forest management indicator species (Table 98), and 

New Mexico Partners in Flight high-priority species (Table 99).
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

140

Table 97: Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative

Sensitive Species

Alt. B

Existing 

Condition

Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. 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. For this group of focal species direct and 

indirect effects are reduced the most under Alternative E, then D, G, F, and C. 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 98: Gila National Forest management indicator species determination by alternative

Management 

Indicator Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. 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 crosscountry travel. The potential to affect individuals and minor amounts of habitat under all action 

alternatives still exist; but none will adversely affect the population levels or habitat trends.

*NA – No adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Table 99: New Mexico Partners in Flight high-priority species determination by alternative

NMPIF High 

Priority Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

White-eared 

Hummingbird1 *NA NA NA NA NA

Costa’s 

Hummingbird2 NA NA NA NA NA

Gray Vireo3 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 crosscountry 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. 

1 Species with the same determination by alternative – Pygmy Nuthatch, Red-faced Warbler, Virgina’s Warbler, and Grace’s 

Warbler.

2Species with the same determination by alternative – Scaled Quail, Crissal Thrasher, Painted Bunting, and Black-throated Sparrow

3 Species with the same determination by alternative – Virginia’s Warbler, Lazuli Bunting, Black-chinned Sparrow, Pinyon Jay, and 

Juniper Titmouse.

*NA – No adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Game Birds

Table 100 displays the game bird species assessed in this section. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

141

Table 100: Game bird species selected to be analyzed and rationale for selection

Species Analyzed Rationale For Selection

Mearn’s Quail Gila MIS Species

Merriams’ Wild Turkey Game Species identified as species of concern during scoping

Blue Grouse NMPIF High Priority Species representative of Spruce Fir Vegetation

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 communities with relatively open tree canopies out to 2 kilometers from the forest 

edge (New Mexico Partners in Flight 2013). 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 102).

Mearn’s quail (Management Indicator Species and Regionally Sensitive Species Representative of 

Plains/Mountain Grassland Vegetation Cover Type) - The Mearns’ quail is an indicator of plains and 

mountain grassland vegetation cover types. Mearns’ quail are present in most of the mountain ranges in 

southeastern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, southwestern Texas and northwestern Mexico. The 

species inhabits warm, temperate forests and woodlands. Their principal habitat is open oak or pine-oak 

woodland areas with an understory of grassland savanna in foothills and montane areas between 5,000 

and 10,000 feet (USDA 2001). They seldom go far from pine-oak woodlands due to dependence on 

succulent, bulb-producing forbs that grow in the understory. Mearns’ quail feed exclusively on the ground 

using their long, curved claws to scratch and dig for bulbs and tubers. Their annual diet is basically 50-

75% bulbs from Oxalis and flat sedge (nut grass); the remainder is made up of seeds and insects (USDA 

2001). Acorns become important during years they are produced but cannot be relied upon annually. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

142

Mearns’ quail are able to procure enough moisture in the foods they eat and are not dependent on free 

water (USDA 2001).

Quail populations fluctuate from year to year for a number of reasons, primarily local weather conditions 

and predators. Limiting factors for quail populations include predation, habitat modification and annual 

precipitation. Excessive cover removal can affect the species by limiting nest building habitat and escape 

cover. Brown (1982) suggested that forage utilization in wooded and open grassland within about 46 m of 

tree overstory must be below the 51-55% range to compensate for dry years. While the 40-45% level 

provides a slight safety margin and should adequately compensate for minor fluctuations in forage 

production during most years, the 35-40% range is preferable as it provides some additional protection for 

years of extremely low forage production (Brown, 1982). The maintenance of good grass cover is 

extremely important to this quail species. Mearns’ quail are known for their habit of holding extremely 

tight in cover when approached. It is not uncommon to nearly step on these cryptic birds before they

flush. Removing too much cover removes this bird’s primary defense mechanism and thus decreases 

survival (Dixon and Knight, 1993). They need grass cover taller than 1 foot; prefer areas containing 70% 

or more tall grass cover, and cannot survive in areas with only 40-50% grass cover (NMPIF 2001). 

The NMDGF manages quail through annual small game hunting licenses. The species is hunted in New 

Mexico from November through February, which is another factor affecting Mearns’ quail population 

levels. Drought and overgrazing are thought to be the factors most critical to Mearns quail populations in 

New Mexico due to impacts on food resources and ground cover (Dixon and Knight, 1993). Harsh and/or 

prolonged winter storms also can cause population declines. Mearns’ quail populations also depend upon 

nesting success. Chick survival appears to be strongly influenced by spring and summer moisture, 

however heavy rains immediately following hatching can lead to high chick mortality (Dixon and Knight, 

1993). Mearns’ quail are uncommon, breeding residents of the Gila National Forest (Zimmerman 1995). 

Censusing for Mearns’ quail has begun on the Forest (Montoya pers. Com), with coveys detected on all 

five transects conducted on the Black Range District of the GNF. Further, over the past five years the 

species has been observed in various locations where they were previously unknown. More numerous and 

larger coveys of Mearns’ quail have been seen on the Reserve, Wilderness, Black Range and Silver City 

Ranger Districts (Jerry Monzingo, Supervising Office Fishery Biologist, pers. comm.; Russell Ward, 

Range and Wildlife Assistant Staff, Gila National Forest, pers. comm.; Justin Schofer, Reserve District 

Wildlife Biologist). 

Merriam’s Wild Turkey [(Meleagris gallopavo merriami)/ Game species] - Merriam’s wild turkey is an 

indicator of mixed conifer, and ponderosa pine cover types. Wild turkey habitat consists of forest and 

open woodland, scrub oak, deciduous and mixed deciduous-coniferous areas, especially in mountainous 

regions. This species is also known to occur in agricultural areas, which may provide important food 

resources in winter. Wild turkeys roost in trees at night. Severe winters and/or lack of winter habitat are 

important limiting factors in many areas (NatureServe, 2013). Wild turkeys normally nest on the ground, 

usually in open areas at the edge of woods; they rarely nest in trees. Wild turkeys feed on seeds, nuts, 

acorns, fruits, grains, buds, and young grass blades. During summer months, they eat many insects and 

may also eat some small vertebrates (frogs, toads, snakes, etc). They usually forage on the ground. In 

New Mexico, most mountain ranges support healthy, self-sustaining populations of Merriam’s turkey. 

This subspecies typically roosts in ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, white fir, limber pine, western white pine, 

cottonwoods, large oaks, and piñon pine. 

Blue Grouse [(Dendragapus obscurus)/ NM PIF High Priority Species Representative of Spruce-Fir 

Vegetation Cover Type] –The species inhabits coniferous forest, especially fir, mostly in open situations 

with a mixture of deciduous trees. The species spends winter, usually at higher elevations than summer 

habitat, in conifer forest of various categories of age and density. Blue grouse roost in large conifers with 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

143

dense foliage. Limiting factors for blue grouse populations include predation, habitat modification, and 

inclement weather during brooding. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish manages blue 

grouse through annual hunting permits. Hunting is another factor that affects population levels. Blue 

grouse populations appear to be stable (USDA 2001). 

Game Bird Summary:

Table 101 lists road associated and motorized trail/ORV factors related to game bird focal species that 

represent this group (Gaines et al. 2003); analysis factors based on the analysis factor discussed above; 

and the indicator that will be used to compare the different levels of affect between the different 

alternatives. 

Table 101: Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators

Focal 

Group

Road Associated 

Factors1

Motorized Trail/ORV 

Associated Factors1

Combined Analysis 

Factors Analysis Indicator2

Game 

Birds

Hunting

Collisions Nesting Loss

Poaching

Hunting

Collisions

Nesting Loss

Poaching

Harvest/Direct Effects Route Miles

Disturbance, Displacement, 

Avoidance, Harassment

Disturbance, Displacement, 

Avoidance, Harassment

Disturbance/Indirect 

Effects

Disturbance Zone 

Summarized In Acres

Table 102 summarizes the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area that will be used to 

analyze the effects of the different alternatives to game birds. 

Table 102: 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/ORV Use Route 

Miles 300m Plains and Mountain Grassland

Merriam’s Wild Turkey Motorized Trail/ORV and Roads Route 

Miles 300m

Ponderosa Pine 

Mixed Conifer

Blue Grouse Motorized Trail/ORV and Roads Route 

Miles 300m Spruce Fir
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

144

Game Birds-Effects by Alternative

Mearn’s Quail 

Table 103: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative 

Mearn's Quail Habitat 

(Plains and Mountain 

Grassland) Analysis 

Area on USFS lands = 

232,217 ac.

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

621.21 mi.

108,938.22 ac.

-37.69 mi.

-6,250.27 ac.

-167.97 mi.

-23,363.44 ac.

-221.68 mi.

-32,596.31 ac.

-132.98 mi.

-18,570.35 ac.

-134.72 mi.

-18,451.86 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.56 mi.

632.49 ac.

2.06 mi.

527.45 ac.

0.53 mi.

163.96 ac.

2.06 mi.

527.45 ac.

2.06 mi.

527.45 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

25.99 mi.

5,653.91 ac.

52.49 mi.

13,901.56 ac.

56.45 mi.

14,687.47 ac.

43.75 mi.

11,854.67 ac.

43.79 mi.

11,761.97 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.01 mi.

323.36 ac.

0.93 mi.

301.62 ac.

0.79 mi.

129.89 ac.

1.01 mi.

285.51 ac.

1.01 mi.

324.10 ac.

Add Admin. Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

5.08 mi.

1,782.16 ac.

5.30 mi.

1,855.50 ac.

0.22 mi.

97.11 ac.

5.08 mi.

1,782.16 ac.

5.08 mi.

1,782.16 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.31 mi.

86.16 ac.

1.69 mi.

381.23 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.71 mi.

378.58 ac.

1.71 mi.

378.58 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

0.00 mi.

1.13 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

-0.04 ac.

0.00 mi.

-1.13 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.87 mi.

246.82 ac.

0.17 mi.

52.15 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.17 mi.

52.15 ac.

0.17 mi.

52.15 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.04 mi.

19.78 ac.

0.11 mi.

42.67 ac.

0.04 mi.

19.82 ac.

0.04 mi.

19.78 ac.

0.04 mi.

19.78 ac.

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.91 mi.

177.04 ac.

0.81 mi.

148.42 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.81 mi.

149.28 ac.

0.81 mi.

149.28 ac.

Total FS Routes and Trails 

(miles) 621.21 620.28 516.80 457.56 542.85 541.15

% in Miles of Alt.B (Existing) -0.15% -16.81% -26.34% -12.61% -12.89%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

65.60 mi.

16,092.51

0.00 mi.

0.00

0.00 mi.

0.00

0.00 mi.

0.00

0.00 mi.

0.00

0.00 mi.

0.00

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road

191.70 mi.

37,300.65 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

145

Mearn's Quail Habitat 

(Plains and Mountain 

Grassland) Analysis 

Area on USFS lands = 

232,217 ac.

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 221,523.57 -206,062.72 -209,143.33 -221,523.57 -206,142.42 -207,318.43

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -93.02% -94.41% -100% -93.06% -93.59%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles 

(acres) 1.47 0.00 -1.47 -1.47 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only 

(acres) 3.05 0.00 -3.05 -3.05 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 221,523.57 -11,579.92 -209,143.33 -221,523.57 -43,480.83 -207,318.43

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -5.23% -94.41% -100% -19.63% -93.59%

Merriam’s Wild Turkey 

Table 104: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Merriam's Wild 

Turkey Habitat 

(Ponderosa Pine 

and Mixed Conifer) 

Analysis Area 

on USFS lands = 

1,289,857 ac.

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E Change 

in Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 -

ML 5

2,063.99 mi.

397,434.03 ac.

-64.51 mi.

-14,602.04 ac.

-730.28 mi.

-114,615.97 ac.

-1,123.86 mi.

-185,278.40 ac.

-490.22 mi.

-71,331.25 ac.

-513.11 mi. ac.

-74,024.01 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.65 mi.

1,197.03 ac.

2.32 mi.

1,007.54 ac.

0.55 mi.

315.36 ac.

2.49 mi.

1,116.97 ac.

2.49 mi.

1,116.97 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

25.88 mi.

8,594.24 ac.

82.05 mi.

26,566.16 ac.

137.88 mi.

38,618.31 ac.

64.91 mi.

21,283.16 ac.

65.15 mi.

21,292.64 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.02 mi.

485.75 ac.

0.99 mi.

942.25 ac.

0.00 mi.

46.42 ac.

0.38 mi.

258.38 ac.

0.78 mi.

443.76 ac.

Add Admin. 

Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

9.34 mi.

3,355.03 ac.

9.33 mi.

3,240.69 ac.

0.24 mi.

83.93 ac.

9.33 mi.

3,240.69 ac.

9.33 mi.

3,240.69 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

7.22 mi.

1,304.61 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.08 mi.

53.55 ac.

5.08 mi.

1,300.71 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

2.74 mi.

889.56 ac.

3.44 mi.

1,089.01 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

10.28 mi.

2,623.28 ac.

-0.05 mi.

-85.62 ac.

-3.80 mi.

-1,052.72 ac.

-10.28 mi.

-2,623.28 ac.

-0.05 mi.

-85.62 ac.

-0.05 mi.

-85.62 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

146

Merriam's Wild 

Turkey Habitat 

(Ponderosa Pine 

and Mixed Conifer) 

Analysis Area 

on USFS lands = 

1,289,857 ac.

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E Change 

in Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Closed Road to OHV 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

7.15 mi.

1,711.49 ac.

1.24 mi.

395.12 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

7.10 mi.

1,698.01 ac.

7.10 mi.

1,698.01 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.24 mi.

47.36 ac.

0.33 mi.

84.04 ac.

0.24 mi.

51.98 ac.

0.24 mi.

47.36 ac.

0.24 mi.

47.36 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

42.57 mi.

9,871.88 ac.

6.41 mi.

1,527.53 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

12.91 mi.

3,166.73 ac.

12.91 mi.

3,166.73 ac.

Total FS Routes and 

Trails (miles) 2,074.28 2,098.63 1,455.16 1,079.03 1,684.10 1,662.55

% in Miles of Alt. B 

(Existing) 1.17% -29.85% -47.98% -18.81% -19.85%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

24.94 mi.

11,749.79 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, 

County Road

114.85 mi.

34,148.74 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed 

Camping (acres) 965,898.33 -917,931.84 -928,814.69 -965,898.33 -920,215.57 -924,425.58

% in Acres of Alt. B 

(Existing) -95.03% -96.16% -100% -95.27% -95.71%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All 

Vehicles (acres) 7.99 0.00 -7.99 -7.99 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV 

Only (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 965,898.33 -109,600.56 -928,814.69 -965,898.33 -322,089.83 -924,425.58

% in Acres of Alt. B 

(Existing) -11.35% -96.16% -100% -33.35% -95.71%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

147

Blue Grouse

Table 105: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Blue Grouse Habitat (Spruce 

Fir) Analysis Area on USFS = 

898 Acres (all in Wilderness)

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. D 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. E 

Change 

in Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change 

in Effects

Motorized Routes (miles)

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Reopen Closed ML 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Route 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Unauthorized Route 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Admin. Unauthorized 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Seasonal - Resource Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Trails (miles)

Existing Road to OHV Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Existing ATV Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Closed Road to OHV Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Unauthorized Trail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total FS Routes and Trails (miles) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

% in Miles of Alt.B (Existing) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including ROW/Assert) 

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

US Hwy, State Hwy, County Road 

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Dispersed Camping 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

148

No Action Alternative (Alt. B)(Table 103, Table 104, and Table 105): Under the existing condition for 

the Blue Grouse/Spruce Fir Analysis Area no habitat occurs outside designated wilderness area; therefore, 

motorized routes are not having an effect in this analysis area or on the species associated with this habitat 

(Table 105). Under the existing condition for the remaining game birds there are 621 miles of motorized 

routes in the Mearn’s quail analysis area (Table 103), and 2,074 miles of motorized routes in the 

Merriam’s wild turkey analysis area (Table 104). These routes continue to cause habitat loss and the 

potential for direct effects like collision, hunting, and poaching. The potential disturbance zone in the 

Mearn’s quail analysis area is108,939 acres, and 400,057 acres in Merriam’s wild turkey analysis area. 

Within these potential disturbance zones 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 you continue to have motorized cross country travel, dispersed camping, and big 

game retrieval allowed across the Gila National Forest. These three types of uses continue to have 

potential effect to upland game birds. Additionally, these three types of uses perpetuate the development 

of additional roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing for the development of higher road densities. 

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 affects to these species. 

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G)(Table 103, Table 104, and Table 105): Again, under the existing 

condition for the Blue Grouse/Spruce Fir Analysis Area no habitat occurs outside designated wilderness 

area, and none of the action alternatives propose motorized use that would affect this habitat type; 

therefore, none of the action alternative would affect in this analysis area or the species associated with 

this habitat. 

Under all action alternatives motorized cross country travel is no longer allowed. The change from the 

existing condition is a 100% reduction in motorized cross country travel. In the Mearn’s quail analysis 

area motorized dispersed camping is reduced by approximately 93 to 100% under all action alternatives; 

and 95 to 100% 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% under Alternative E, 94 to 96% 

under Alternative D, 20 to 33% under Alternative F, 94 to 96% under Alternative G, and 5 to 11% under 

Alternative C. 

Motorized areas are locations where we have had traditional uses like motorized camping and OHV use. 

In the Mearn’s Quail analysis area currently there are approximately 5 acres of habitat being affect by a 

motorized area; and 8 acres of habitat in the Merriam’s wild turkey analysis area. Alternative E and D 

eliminate these acres of affected habitat, and the remaining action alternatives propose no change from the 

existing condition. 

Under Alternative D, E, F, and G, miles of motorized routes and trails and acres of potentially affected 

habitat are reduced, respectively by 17, 26, 13, and 13% in the Mearn’s quail analysis area, and 30, 48, 

19, and 20% in the Merriam’s wild turkey analysis area. Alternative C adds approximately 24 miles of 

routes above the existing condition in the Merriam’s wild turkey analysis area. In the Mearn’s quail 

analysis area the Alternative C reduces the mile of motorized routes by approximately 1 mile. Alternative 

C is the only alternative that allows for an actual increase in miles of routes through the associated 

analysis areas.

New previously closed or unauthorized routes added under the different alternatives for the focal species 

and their associated analysis are approximately 1 to 1.5 miles under Alternative E, 9 to 20 miles under 

Alternative D, 9 to 32 miles under Alternative F, 9 to 33 miles under Alternative G, and 10 to 63 miles 

under Alternative C. Again, Alternative C is the only alternative that allows for an actual increase in miles 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

149

of routes through the associated analysis areas. Because the Gila currently allows cross country travel 

most proposed routes even though unauthorized are currently being used. By designating unauthorized 

routes to open or converting the use from motor vehicle to ORV vehicles these changes do have the 

potential to increase the direct and indirect effects to this group of species. 

The greater the reduction in miles in each analysis area 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 area being analyzed.

Findings

The following tables display the effects determination for game bird species listed as Gila National Forest 

management indicator species (Table 106), a species identified in scoping the Merriam’s wild turkey 

(Table 107) and a New Mexico Partners in Flight high-priority species (Table 108). 

Table 106: Gila National Forest management indicator species determination by alternative

Management 

Indicator Species

Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. 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. For this 

species direct and indirect effects are reduced the most under Alternative E, then D, G, F, and C. The 

potential to affect individuals and minor amounts of habitat under all action alternatives still exist; but 

none will adversely affect the population levels or habitat trends.

*NA – No adverse effects to the population or habitat trends

Table 107: Merriam’s wild turkey determination by alternative

Game Species Alt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. 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. For this species direct and indirect effects are reduced the most under Alternative E, 

then D, G, F, and C. 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 108: New Mexico Partners in Flight high-priority species determination by alternative

NMPIF HighPriority SpeciesAlt. B

Existing Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. 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 that occurs 

in this vegetation type. 

*NE – No effect

Insects

Table 109 displays the insect species assessed in this section.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

150

Table 109: 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

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 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 two-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 (one- or two-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 stream course) all insect orders showed an 

increase in numbers. All mayfly species also showed an increase in numbers from pre-disturbance 

conditions to post-disturbance 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 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

151

(1969) found that stream turbidity returned to pre-crossing 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 215 meters from roads was used as it 

pertains to the proposed action and to each alternative (Table 111).

A notodontid moth [(Euhyparpax rosea) (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Desert 

Shrub/Piñon-Juniper/Shrub Oakland/Ponderosa pine Vegetation Cover Types)] – According to 

NatureServe, this species is probably an oak feeder like the related H. aurora. For the family the larvae of 

most species feed on trees and shrubs, and some attack orchard trees. Many specialize on plants 

containing toxic substances. Family members are most commonly found on shrubs, trees, and leguminous 

plants, probably oak-juniper or oak-pine-juniper in our area (Forest Service 2010).

Nitocris Fritillary [(Speyeria nokomis nitocris) (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of 

Wet Meadow/Wetland/High Elevation Riparian Vegetation Cover Types) – The species is found in 

lush Canadian zone meadows, near seeps, marshes, and along streams. The adults show a preference for 

feeding upon red thistles of various species. For the species the host plant for caterpillars is Viola

nephrophylla. The species occurs at elevations of 5,400-8,500 feet in the Mogollon and White Mountains 

of Arizona and the extension of the Mogollon Mountains into New Mexico. It also if found in isolated 

pockets in a few other New Mexico locations (Forest Service 2010). 

A may fly [(Lachlania dencyannae) (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of Middle 

Elevation Riparian Vegetation Cover Type (Only within the Gila River drainage)] – The East Fork of 

the Gila River at its junction with the Gila River, where larvae have been taken, is a warm, turbid and 

rapid stream, mostly 6 inches to 2 feet deep with a 6 to 10 foot width. The stream is unshaded for most of 

the day. Larvae cling to woody debris and vegetation caught in the crevices of rocks (Forest Service 

2010). High gradient medium sized rivers are considered as habitat for the species. 

Dashed Ringtail [(Erpetogomphus heterodon) (Forest Service Sensitive Species Representative of 

Wet Meadow/Wetland/High Elevation Riparian Vegetation Cover Types) – The species is found in 

higher altitude rivers and streams with swift current and mixed rocky or cobble and sand bottoms above 

1,000m (3,200 ft) (Forest Service 2010). 

Insect Summary:

Table 110 lists road associated and motorized trail/ORV factors related to insect focal species that 

represent this group (Gaines et al. 2003); analysis factors based on the analysis factor discussed above; 

and the indicator that will be used to compare the different levels of affect between the different 

alternatives.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

152

Table 110. Summary of potential motorized route affects, analysis factors, and analysis indicators

Focal 

Group/ 

Species

Road Associated 

Factors

Motorized Trail/ORV 

Associated Factors

Combined Analysis 

Factors Analysis Indicator

Insects Collisions 

Collisions Harvest/Direct Effects Route Miles

Disturbance, 

Displacement, Avoidance,

Harassment

Improved Habitat

Disturbance, 

Displacement, Avoidance, 

Harassment

Improved Habitat

Disturbance/Indirect 

Effects

Disturbance Zone 

Summarized In Acres

Table 111 summarizes the harvest indicator, disturbance indicator, and analysis area that will be used to 

analyze the effects of the different alternatives to insects. 

Table 111: 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 Disturb Zone Analysis Area

A notodontid moth Motorized Trail/ORV 

Use Route Miles 215m

Desert Shrub/

Piñon-Juniper/Shrub 

Oakland/Ponderosa pine

Nitocris Fritillary (butterfly) Motorized Trail/ORV 

and Roads Route Miles 215m Wet Meadow, Wetland, & 

High Elevation Riparian

A may fly Motorized Trail/ORV 

and Roads Route Miles 215m

Middle Elevation Riparian 

(Only within the Gila 

Draainage)

Dashed Ringtail (Dragonfly) Motorized Trail/ORV 

and Roads Route Miles

215m

Wet Meadow, Wetland, & 

High Elevation Riparian
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

153

Insect – Effects by Alternative

A May Fly 

Table 112: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

A May Fly Habitat (Low 

Elevation Riparian) 

Analysis Area on USFS = 

9,283 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

54.09 mi.

3,616.26 ac.

-17.32 mi.

-1,105.82 ac.

-30.01 mi.

-2,048.25 ac.

-36.44 mi.

-2,441.25 ac.

-21.56 mi.

-1,612.29 ac.

-28.15 mi.

-1,912.23 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.39 mi.

70.75 ac.

0.00 mi.

5.40 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

5.40 ac.

0.00 mi.

5.40 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

15.23 mi.

1,097.88 ac.

19.99 mi.

1,652.37 ac.

20.28 mi.

1,666.35 ac.

19.24 mi.

1,544.68 ac.

18.90 mi.

1,536.37 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.38 mi.

93.84 ac.

0.27 mi.

82.55 ac.

0.00 mi.

1.10 ac.

0.05 mi.

43.12 ac.

0.61 mi.

133.27 ac.

Add Admin. Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.12 mi.

20.14 ac.

0.12 mi.

20.14 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.12 mi.

20.14 ac.

0.12 mi.

20.14 ac.

Seasonal - Resource Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.96 mi.

74.80 ac.

0.07 mi.

3.55 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

16.91 ac.

0.00 mi.

16.91 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

0.28 mi.

23.18 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

-0.28 mi.

-23.18 ac.

-0.28 mi.

-23.18 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.71 mi.

58.50 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.30 mi.

15.32 ac.

0.30 mi.

15.32 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Total FS Routes and Trails

(miles) 54.37 55.85 44.53 37.93 52.52 46.14

% in Miles of Alt.B (Existing) 2.72% -18.09% -30.24% -3.39% -15.13%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

14.65 mi.

1,995.40 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road

24.79 mi.

3,055.62 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

154

A May Fly Habitat (Low 

Elevation Riparian) 

Analysis Area on USFS = 

9,283 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Dispersed Camping 

(acres) 6,944.62 -6,184.38 -6,722.36 -6,944.62 -6,506.50 -6,709.25

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -89.05% -96.80% -100% -93.69% -96.61%

Motorized Areas (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval 

(acres) 6,944.62 -997.42 -6,722.36 -6,944.62 -2,567.47 -6,709.25

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -14.36% -96.80% -100% -36.97% -96.61%

Nitocris Frtillary 

Table 113: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative 

Nitocris Fritillary Habitat 

(Wet Meadow/Wetland 

and High Elevation 

Riparian) Analysis Area 

on USFS = 6,020 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

21.12 mi.

1,921.38 ac.

-1.09 mi.

-93.35 ac.

-8.81 mi.

-650.49 ac.

-11.52 mi.

-919.98 ac.

-6.14 mi.

-518.88 ac.

-5.61 mi.

-483.77 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 (miles 

and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.18 mi.

77.05 ac.

2.07 mi.

344.27 ac.

1.56 mi.

319.83 ac.

1.19 mi.

307.92 ac.

0.67 mi.

260.54 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

1.34 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Add Admin. Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

8.99 ac.

0.00 mi.

8.99 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

8.99 ac.

0.00 mi.

8.99 ac.

Seasonal - Resource Protection 

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.08 mi.

6.49 ac.

0.08 mi.

6.49 ac.

0.08 mi.

6.49 ac.

0.08 mi.

6.49 ac.

0.08 mi.

6.49 ac.

Existing ATV Trail (miles and 

acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Closed Road to OHV Trail 

(miles and acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Administrative Trail (miles and 

acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.34 mi.

11.62 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

155

Nitocris Fritillary Habitat 

(Wet Meadow/Wetland 

and High Elevation 

Riparian) Analysis Area 

on USFS = 6,020 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Total FS Routes and Trails 

(miles) 21.12 20.63 14.46 11.24 16.26 16.26

% in Miles of Alt.B (Existing) -2.28% -31.54% -46.75% -23.01% -23.01%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

1.23 mi.

343.98 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road

1.33 mi.

244.86 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed Camping 

(acres) 3,363.58 -3,006.71 -3,104.85 -3,363.58 -3,009.80 -3,041.13

% in Acres of Alt. B (Existing) -89.39% -92.31% -100% -89.48% -90.41%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval 

(acres) 3,363.58 -417.84 -3,104.85 -3,363.58 -965.90 -3,041.13

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -12.42% -92.31% -100% -28.72% -90.41%

Dashed Ringtail

Table 114: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

Dashed Ringtail Habitat 

(Wet Meadow/Wetland 

and High, Middle and Low 

Elevation Riparian) 

Analysis Area on USFS = 

36,163 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5

212.12 mi.

13,698.64 ac.

-63.97 mi.

-2,997.49 ac.

-120.80 mi.

-6,226.45 ac.

-146.22 mi.

-7,921.36 ac.

-93.62 mi.

-4,862.20 ac.

-97.23 mi.

-5,077.54 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.40 mi.

104.27 ac.

0.02 mi.

38.92 ac.

0.01 mi.

18.69 ac.

0.02 mi.

38.92 ac.

0.02 mi.

38.92 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

34.71 mi.

2,312.67 ac.

46.29 mi.

3,643.19 ac.

52.97 mi.

3,995.84 ac.

42.36 mi.

3,279.07 ac.

40.80 mi.

3,202.10 ac.

Add Unauthorized Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.57 mi.

121.65 ac.

0.46 mi.

130.04 ac.

0.18 mi.

28.91 ac.

0.23 mi.

70.93 ac.

0.79 mi.

161.08 ac.

Add Admin. Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

3.11 mi.

186.64 ac.

1.80 mi.

145.41 ac.

0.38 mi.

43.98 ac.

1.80 mi.

145.41 ac.

1.80 mi.

145.41 ac.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

156

Dashed Ringtail Habitat 

(Wet Meadow/Wetland 

and High, Middle and Low 

Elevation Riparian) 

Analysis Area on USFS = 

36,163 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Seasonal - Resource Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

6.02 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

12.24 mi.

480.43 ac.

7.22 mi.

263.53 ac.

0.61 mi.

38.77 ac.

14.99 mi.

621.97 ac.

14.99 mi.

621.97 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

2.55 mi.

205.64 ac.

-0.74 mi.

-46.87 ac.

-1.56 mi.

-112.88 ac.

-2.55 mi.

-205.64 ac.

-0.74 mi.

-46.87 ac.

-0.74 mi.

-46.87 ac.

Closed Road to OHV Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

1.88 mi.

126.60 ac.

0.12 mi.

48.99 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.47 mi.

83.42 ac.

0.47 mi.

83.42 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.78 mi.

39.66 ac.

1.30 mi.

67.81 ac.

1.30 mi.

67.81 ac.

0.78 mi.

39.66 ac.

0.78 mi.

39.66 ac.

Add Unauthorized Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

8.52 mi.

324.98 ac.

0.01 mi.

6.47 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.01 mi.

6.47 ac.

0.01 mi.

6.47 ac.

Total FS Routes and Trails 

(miles) 214.67 212.17 149.53 121.36 180.96 176.36

% in Miles of Alt.B (Existing) -1.17% -30.35% -43.47% -15.70% -17.84%

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

36.70 mi.

4,550.45 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, County 

Road

61.79 mi.

7,561.83 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Dispersed Camping 

(acres) 24,516.62 -21,780.42 -22,793.68 -24,516.62 -22,338.42 -22,629.98

% in Acres of Alt.B (Existing) -88.84% -92.97% -100% -91.12% -92.30%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All Vehicles 

(acres) 0.04 0.00 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area - OHV Only 

(acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game Retrieval 

(acres) 24,516.62 -4,005.49 -22,793.68 -24,516.62 -8,952.37 -22,629.98

% in Acres of Alt. B (Existing) -16.34% -92.97% -100% -36.52% -92.30%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

157

A Notodontide Moth 

Table 115: Analysis Area - Existing Condition and Proposed Changes by Alternative

A Notodontide 

Moth Habitat 

(Desert 

Shrub/Grassland, 

PiñonJuniper/Shrub 

Oak Woodland, 

Ponderosa Pine) 

Analysis Area on 

USFS lands = 

2,792,162 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Motorized Routes

Open Existing ML 2 -

ML 5

3,586.40 mi.

568,730.28 ac.

-247.47 mi.

-45,993.39 ac.

-1,313.18 mi.

-192,437.23 ac.

-1,851.01 mi.

-273,239.58 ac.

-998.91 mi.

-145,106.78 ac.

-1,023.13 mi.

-148,358.56 ac.

Reopen Closed ML 1 

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

11.01 mi.

2,454.06 ac.

8.79 mi.

1,950.46 ac.

3.51 mi.

743.64 ac.

8.96 mi.

2,004.87 ac.

8.96 mi.

2,004.87 ac.

Administrative Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

110.34 mi.

25,343.34 ac.

237.33 mi.

52,749.98 ac.

306.84 mi.

65,284.91 ac.

200.63 mi.

45,493.09 ac.

200.86 mi.

45,301.62 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Route

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

5.54 mi.

1,570.69 ac.

4.37 mi.

2,041.75 ac.

0.87 mi.

288.72 ac.

4.71 mi.

1,338.62 ac.

4.82 mi.

1,476.27 ac.

Add Admin. 

Unauthorized

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

18.30 mi.

4,906.21 ac.

19.79 mi.

4,982.07 ac.

2.78 mi.

582.58 ac.

18.22 mi.

4,684.30 ac.

18.66 mi.

4,794.03 ac.

Seasonal - Resource 

Protection

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

5.69 mi.

726.61 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized Trails

Existing Road to OHV 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

21.94 mi.

5,322.39 ac.

56.15 mi.

11,023.93 ac.

0.96 mi.

211.40 ac.

71.51 mi.

14,195.92 ac.

72.99 mi.

14,504.16 ac.

Existing ATV Trail

10.56 mi.

1,907.27 ac.

-0.05 mi.

-87.29 ac.

-3.61 mi.

-759.81 ac.

-10.56 mi.

-1,907.27 ac.

-0.05 mi.

-87.29 ac.

-0.05 mi.

-87.29 ac.

Closed Road to OHV 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

26.50 mi.

5,117.68 ac.

13.23 mi.

2,495.94 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

20.27 mi.

3,809.28 ac.

20.27 mi.

3,809.28 ac.

Administrative Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

3.64 mi.

673.10 ac.

5.86 mi.

1,159.59 ac.

5.26 mi.

1,031.00 ac.

3.64 mi.

673.10 ac.

3.64 mi.

673.10 ac.

Add Unauthorized 

Trail

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

103.93 mi.

18,894.95 ac.

32.46 mi.

5,587.59 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

51.80 mi.

9,003.60 ac.

49.96 mi.

8,727.19 ac.

Total FS Routes and 

Trails (miles) 3,596.96 3,650.63 2,663.83 2,055.61 2,977.72 2,953.92

% in Miles of Alt.B 

(Existing) 1.49% -25.94% -42.85% -17.22% -17.88%
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

158

A Notodontide 

Moth Habitat 

(Desert 

Shrub/Grassland, 

PiñonJuniper/Shrub 

Oak Woodland, 

Ponderosa Pine) 

Analysis Area on 

USFS lands = 

2,792,162 Acres

Existing 

Effects

Alt. B

Alt. C 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. D 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. E 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. F 

Change in 

Effects

Alt. G 

Change in 

Effects

Cumulative Effects

Private Rd (Including 

ROW/Assert)

101.17 mi.

30,897.71 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

US Hwy, State Hwy, 

County Road

502.24 mi.

88,373.91 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

0.00 mi.

0.00 ac.

Motorized 

Dispersed Camping 

(acres)

2,103,111.37 -2,015,608.56 -2,034,799.19 -2,103,111.37 -2,021,077.81 -2,027,242.81

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -95.84% -96.75% -100% -96.10% -96.39%

Motorized Areas

Motorized Area - All 

Vehicles (acres) 22.18 0.00 -22.18 -22.18 0.00 0.00

Motorized Area -

OHV Only (acres) 0.26 0.00 -0.26 -0.26 0.00 0.00

Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (acres) 2,103,111.37 -332,057.21 -2,034,799.19 -2,103,111.37 -842,162.05 -2,027,242.81

% in Acres of Alt.B 

(Existing) -15.79% -96.75% -100% -40.04% -96.39%

No Action Alternative (Alt. B)(Table 112, Table 113, Table 114, and Table 115): Under the existing 

condition for insects there are approximately 54 miles of motorized routes in the A May Fly analysis area 

(Table 112), 21 miles of motorized routes in the Nitocris Fritillary analysis area (Table 113), 215 miles of 

motorized routes in the Dashed Ringtail analysis area (Table 114), and 3,597 miles of motorized routes in 

the A Notodontide Moth analysis area (Table 115). These routes continue to cause habitat loss and the 

potential for direct effects like collision, and collection. The potential disturbance zone for A May Fly is 

3,639 acres, 1,921 acres in Nitocris Fritillary area, 13,904 acres for Dashed Ringtail area, and 570,638 

acres for the A Notodontide Moth analysis area. Within these potential disturbance zones motorized routes 

continue to cause the potential for disturbance, and displacement. Increase 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, dispersed camping, and big 

game retrieval allowed across the Gila National Forest. These three types of uses continue to have 

potential effect insects. Additionally, these three types of uses perpetuate the development of additional 

roads and motorized trails; potentially allowing for the development of higher road densities. 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 affects to these species. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

159

Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G)(Table 112, Table 113, Table 114, and Table 115): Under all 

action alternatives motorized cross country travel is no longer allowed. The change from the existing 

condition is a 100% reduction in motorized cross country travel. In the A May Fly analysis area motorized 

dispersed camping is reduced by 90 to 100% under all action alternatives; Nitocris Fritillary analysis area 

89 to 100%; Dashed Ringtail analysis area 89 to 100%; and 96 to 100% 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% under Alternative E, 92 to 97% under Alternative D, 29 to 40% under 

Alternative F, 90 to 97% under Alternative G, and 12 to 16% under Alternative C.

Motorized areas are locations where we have had traditional uses like motorized camping and OHV use. 

In the A May Fly, Nitocris Fritillary, and Dashed Ringtail analysis areas there are 0 acres of habitat being 

affect by a motorized area under all alternatives. In the A Notodontide Moth analysis area there are 25 

acres of habitat 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, respectively by approximately 18, 30, 3, and 15% in the A May Fly analysis area; 32, 

47, 23, and 23% in Nitocris Fritillary area; 30, 43, 16 and 18% in the Dashed Ringtail analysis area; and 

26, 43, 17, and 18% in the A Notodontide Moth analysis area. Alternative C adds approximately 1.5 mile 

of unauthorized routes above the existing condition in the A May Fly analysis area, eliminates 0.5 miles in 

the Nitocris Fritillary analysis area, eliminates 2.5 miles in the Dashed Ringtail, and adds 53 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. 

New previously closed or unauthorized routes added under the different alternatives for the focal species 

and their associated analysis are approximately 0 to 7 miles under Alternative E, 0 to 79 miles under 

Alternative D, 0 to 104 miles under Alternative F, 0 to 103 miles under Alternative G, and <1 to 165 miles 

under Alternative C. The A Nototdontide Moth Habitat (Desert shrub/Grassland, Piñon-Juniper/Shrub 

Oak Woodland, and Ponderosa Pine vegetation types) is the species in this group that will have the 

highest level of miles added to its analysis area (see tables). Since this species has the potential to occur in 

several vegetation types and the other focal species in this group have narrower ranges of potential habitat 

that is the reason for the big difference in miles of routes between analysis areas. Again, Alternative C is 

the only alternative that allows for an actual increase in miles of routes in this focal group. Because the 

Gila currently allows cross country travel most proposed routes even though unauthorized are currently 

being used. By designating unauthorized routes to open or converting the use from motor vehicle to ORV 

vehicles these changes do have the potential to increase the direct and indirect effects to this group of 

species. 

The greater the reduction in miles in each analysis area 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 area being analyzed.

Findings

The following table displays the effects determination for insect species listed as Forest Service sensitive 

species (Table 116). 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

160

Table 116: Insect Forest Service sensitive species determination by alternative

Sensitive Species Alt. B Existing 

Condition Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. 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 alternatives would cause a trend toward Federal listing.

*MI – May impact

San Francisco River WSA Analysis Area – Affects Analysis

During the comment period for the Draft EIS, many concerns and issues related to motor vehicle use and 

access to the lower San Francisco River were received. The concerns and issues generated the need for 

the Forest to specifically address and analyze the effects of the alternatives in this particular area and 

associated routes.

The area of concern identified by the public is the section of the lower San Francisco River within the San 

Francisco River Wilderness Study Area (WSA); primarily, from its confluence with the Big Dry drainage 

down to its confluence with Mule Creek. Under the existing condition motorized routes cross this major 

drainage 37 times and parallel the drainage the remainder of the distance within the flood plain. Several 

intersecting routes also occur in this area. The flow regimes of the San Francisco are primarily 

unrestricted by major impoundments or diversions; therefore, channel configurations are widely variable 

and the vegetation communities are typically represented by healthy riparian communities. Within this 

analysis area the primary vegetation type has been classified as lower riparian vegetation. A very small 

amount of piñon-juniper/shrub oak woodland habitat also occurs on the terraces within the canyon 

bottom. 

Species groups (focal groups) that are currently being affected include:

• Large Ungulates – primarily, deer but this area may occasionally be used by elk and big horn sheep.

• Wide Ranging Carnivores - including bears, mountain lions, and potentially wolves on occasion.

• Small Mammals – Hooded skunk, Botta’s pocket gopher, White-nosed coati, Western red bat, and 

Arizona gray squirrel.

• Amphibians and Reptiles – Arizona toad, and narrow-headed gartersnake.

• Raptorial Birds – Northern Goshawk, Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, and Golden Eagle (these species 

may occasionally forage in the area, but no known roost or nesting areas occur).

• Riparian Birds – Northern Gray Hawk, Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Arizona Bell’s Vireo, Abert’s 

Towhee, Gila Woodpecker, Common Ground Dove, and Black Hawk.

• Woodland Birds – Plains Titmouse, and Gray Vireo.

• Game Birds – Wild Turkey. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

161

Summary:

Overall, Alternatives D, E, and G greatly reduce the potential risk of direct and indirect impacts to species 

and species groups identified above within the San Francisco River WSA, as motorized access would 

either be eliminated in its entirety (Alternative E) within the WSA, or limited to Dry Creek and small spur 

roads at the confluence of Big Dry Creek and the San Francisco River (Alternatives D and G) (Table 117). 

Alternatives C and F provide little to no reduction in risk of direct and indirect impacts to the species 

identified above, as motorized access would continue down Big Dry Creek and along the San Francisco 

River for over eight miles and there would continue to be 37 stream crossings along this section of the 

San Francisco River. 

Table 117 identifies miles of route changes by alternative in the Lower San Francisco WSA, and Table 

118 identifies acres of change in lower riparian type habitat within this WSA. 

Table 117: Lower San Francisco WSA Route Miles by Alternative

Habitat Route Miles Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F Alt G

Low Riparian 7.60 7.40 0.68 0.00 7.40 0.68

01-Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5 7.60 7.40 0.46 0.00 7.40 0.46

04-Add Unauthorized Route 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.22

Piñion Juniper/Shrub Oak Woodland 0.67 0.67 0.09 0.00 0.67 0.09

01-Open Existing ML 2 - ML 5 0.67 0.67 0.02 0.00 0.67 0.02

04-Add Unauthorized Route 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.07

Grand Total 8.27 8.07 0.77 0.00 8.07 0.77

Table 118: Affected Lower Riparian Type Habitat by Alternative

Habitat Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F Alt G

Low Riparian Habitat Acres 341 329.5 24 0.00 329.5 24

Wildlife Cumulative Affects 

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) within the area of 

potentially affected habitat. The time frame considered in this analysis goes back to signing/

implementation of the current forest plan and its subsequent amendments, and actions that have the 

potential to occur over the next 5 years. In this case the area of potentially affected habitat is the entire 

Gila National Forest, and lands within the boundary of the National Forest. 

The process used to complete this analysis starts by considering habitat conditions at the start of our time 

frame for species of concern (federally listed species, FS sensitive species, MIS species, migratory bird 

species and species identified through scoping for this travel management analysis); habitat changes to 

date as a result of management actions taken within the action area; and potential habitat changes in the 

near future (Table 119). Management activities that influence effects to wildlife can include 

landownership, mining, livestock grazing, vegetation management (Prescribed fire, wildfire response, and 

non-fire related treatments), roads, recreational activities, game management, and other land disturbing 

actions that can cause effects to species and/or their habitat. Other more natural events that influence 

wildlife habitat conditions are insect and disease outbreaks, high severity wildfires, drought, and climate 

change. The effects from these events will be discussed as they relate to wildlife on the Gila and will 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

162

continue to be considered in our current and future planning and management decisions, but are not 

phenomena that as managers we have much control or influence over. 

Table 119: Primary Vegetation Types on the Forest

Vegetation Type

1986 Gila NF

Acres as 

Identified

In Forest Plan

2010 Acres as 

Identified

Through 

Mid –scale 

Vegetation Mapping

(FS Owned)

Percent 

Change 

Since 

Forest 

Plan

2013 Acres

As Id. Through 

Re-mapping to 

Consider Effects 

of Bear, Wallow, 

and WhitewaterBaldy Wildfires

Percent 

Change 

Since 

Forest 

Plan

Spruce – Fir

Not identified

believed to be

grouped with

Mixed Conifer

2,540 Unknown 898 -65%

Mixed Conifer 277,436 161,635 -42% 126,399 -54%

Ponderosa Pine 1,119,773 1,173,938 +5% 1,163,459 +4%

Piñon Juniper/Shrub Oak 

Woodland 1,591,082 1,630,930 +2% 1,602,637 +1%

Plains 

Grassland/Mountain 

Grassland

284,121 231,758 -18.5% 232,217 -18.3%

Desert Shrub/Grassland 43,454 26,029 -40% 26,067 -40%

High Riparian 26,741* 4,310 +22% 4,310 +22%

Mid Riparian * 20,859 +22% 20,859 +22%

Low Riparian * 9,283 +22% 9,283 +22%

Lake 243 Unknown 243

Wet Meadow/Wetland 1,710 Unknown 1,710

Sparsely Vegetated 5,600 Unknown 5,600

Grass - Stand 

Replacement & Seeding 18,415

Sparsely Vegetated -

Stand Replacement 58,354

*Forest Plan combined high, mid, and low riparian

Note: 1986 Forest Plan used less accurate data; therefore, some changes are due to mapping abilities.

Note: Four classifications not considered as primary vegetation types in the Forest Plan; therefore, not mapped separately in 1986 

(these include: Spruce/Fir, Lake, Wet Meadow/Wetland, and Sparsely Vegetated).

Note: Gila NF surface ownership increased in 2012 to include Bear Creek and San Francisco River private land acquisitions 

(primarily riparian acres acquired).

Note: Percent change is the last column is from the Forest Plan except for Spruce/fir which is the % change since the Mid-scale 

Vegetation Mapping.

Land Ownership 

The Gila National Forest National Forest has increased its land base since 1986. Private land inholdings 

acquired within the Forest boundary have increased important habitat types and benefited wildlife. Some 

of the more significant ones include, Aldo Leopold 1 (2,781 ac. Seco Creek), Diamond Creek (741 ac.), 

Spruce Creek Tract (99 ac.), Aldo Leopold II (401 ac.), Gila River Tract (123 ac.), Aldo Leopold III (120 

ac.), Bear Creek (1,294 ac.), and a corridor along the San Francisco River (320 ac.). Riparian habitat is 

associated with most of these acquisitions and made up the major vegetation type in most. In the desert 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

163

southwest and on a dry Forest like the Gila this habitat type is very important to the majority of species of 

concern on the Forest. 

Recreation

Dispersed recreation durning the summer and fall months is the time and type of use we get the most on 

the Gila. We have approximately 752 miles of foot trails outside of wilderness areas and another 873 

miles in wilderness areas. We have a few larger developed sites at Lake Roberts, Snow Lake and 

Quemado Lake, and several other developed and more primitive sites. Effects to species of concern and 

their habitats is very localized and can be considered insignificant and discountable from developed and 

dispersed recreation on the Gila. 

Mining

The Gila National Forest has had a long history of mining activities that have occurred, or are still 

occurring, on patented land within the Forest’s boundaries. For the most part, mining activities have 

minimal, localized impacts where they occur. These mining activities are primarily below-ground and are 

minimal to terrestrial habitat conditions and the species that use these habitats. 

Grazing

Since 1986, there have been significant improvements in grazing practices on the Gila National Forest. 

The projected livestock numbers considered in the 1986 Forest Plan are approximately 350,000 head 

months per year. However, the permitted use in 2006 through 2010 averaged less at 254,500 head months 

annually. The amount of use that was actually authorized each of those years was even lower averaging 

approximately169, 000 head months. In summary, the annual permitted use level averaged 73% of that 

projected by the Forest Plan, and the annual use that was actually authorized averaged 48% of that 

projected by the Forest Plan. In addition, livestock have been excluded from grazing on approximately 

200 additional miles of riparian habitat through fence exclosures.

Site specific analysis of livestock grazing is conducted and consulted on with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Mitigation measures have been put in place that reduce affects from grazing management on 

federally listed species. Direct and indirect effects to species of concern from grazing management have 

been diminished due to mitigation projects including exclusion of livestock from major streams, 

implementation of conservative grazing intensities, livestock dispersal improvement, and decisions that 

align grazing with changing forage production (Watershed Specialist Report).

Vegetation Management

There have been a number of vegetation management activities across the Forest over the past 25 years. 

These have included activities like commercial thinning, salvage cutting, pre-commercial thinning for 

wildlife, watershed, vegetation and forest health improvement, pre-commercial thinning, overstory 

removal, road closures, fuels reduction thinning, and prescribed fire. Timber harvest has decreased from 

the 1980s to present. Timber harvest activities across the Forest have declined by over 50%, going from 

an average of 25,000 CCF (100 cubic feet) per year in the early 1980s, to a current average of 10,000 

CCF per year. This decline started around 1993 and has continued since, for over a period of 

approximately the last 20 years. This reduction in timber harvest has, in turn, reduced the number of roads 

constructed for these activities. The Forest Plan projected harvest levels would cause habitat conditions 

for MIS to be exceeded. Since the actual annual harvest rate has been approximately 18% of that 

projected by the Forest Plan the Forest is well within its ability to maintain viable populations for all 

species of concern on the Gila. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

164

The Gila has a long history of using prescribed fire as a management tool to maintain the different 

vegetation types on the Forest. Our records show that we have used prescribed fire on over 184,000 acres. 

A limitation in the database does not allow us to determine first entry treatments from areas that have 

been treated multiple times; therefore, to some level these fires have re-burned the same acreage. Most of 

these acres burned at lower intensity levels in an effort to meet management objectives. 

The Gila has lost a high percentage of its grassland habitat due to shrub and tree encroachment.

Roads

The Forest Plan FEIS determined that MIS would be managed at levels exceeding viable populations at 

the projected open road levels. The actual open road level is 20% greater than the projected level for this 

time period. This increase in open road miles could adversely affect species of concern and their 

associated habitats through direct and indirect effects from road use. One mile per square mile is usually 

considered to be at a level that can maintain good habitat conditions for species sensitive to impacts by 

roads. 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). Gaines et.al. 2003 

rates routes at a density 1 mile/ mi2 typically low for several species. The average road density of Forest 

Service routes per 5th code watershed on the Forest is 0.98 miles per square mile within the forest 

boundary (due to the variable sizes of the habitat type polygons, ranging from very small to large, this 

information is not available by habitat type). The average road density of Forest Service routes and other 

routes (private, county, state, and federal) per 5th code watershed on the Forest is 1.2 miles per square mile 

within the forest boundary. Of the 49 5th codes on the Forest 3 have no roads, approximately 23 

watersheds are below or within an approximate 1.3 miles per square mile, 19 are at around 1.5 miles per 

square mile, and 4 are above 2.0 miles per square mile. We do have areas on the forest that are considered 

high for some species; however, the majority of these are dirt routes, small spur routes, or two track trails 

that get very little use. With the level of traffic on most of these routes in all but a very few localized areas 

the density of motorized routes within the forest boundary are not at a level of concern to species of 

concern. Most action alternatives except C reduce the level of motorized routes below the existing 

condition.

Climate Change

The Southwestern Region of the Forest Service recently released “Southwestern Region Climate Change 

– Trends and Forest Planning February 2010. The following information is summarized from this report:

“In the Southwest, climate modelers agree there is a drying trend that will continue well into the 

latter part of 21st century (IPCC 2007; 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, and the 1950s Southwest Drought). 

The current drought conditions “may very well become the new climatology of the American 

Southwest within a time frame of years to decades”.

A new U.S. Forest Service report predicts that most of the Southwest, parts of California and the southern 

and central Great Plains will be the most vulnerable areas in the nation to water shortages during the next 

60 years. 

The National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC) has overseen the 

development of a Draft Climate Report that was recently released for public comment (January 2013). 

Summarized below are some of the findings from the report.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

165

“The Southwest is the hottest and driest region in the U.S., where the availability of water has 

defined its landscapes, history of human settlement, and modern economy. Climate changes pose 

challenges for an already parched region that is expected to get hotter and, in its southern half, 

significantly drier. Widespread tree death and fires, which already have caused billions of dollars 

in economic losses, are projected to increase, forcing wholesale changes to forest types, 

landscapes, and the communities that depend on them. Climate change is increasing the 

vulnerability of forests to ecosystem change and tree mortality through fire, insect infestations, 

drought, and disease outbreaks. Western U.S. forests are particularly vulnerable to increased 

wildfire and insect outbreaks. “ 

Climate models are not yet precise enough to apply to land management at the ecoregional or National 

Forest scale. This limits our ability to complete a site-specific analysis of the potential effects from 

climate change. 

Most of the evidence indicates the Gila will be drier in the future. Effects documented in the Watershed 

Specialist Report for this analysis state:

“Factors affecting tree death, such as drought, higher temperatures, and/or pests and pathogens, 

are often interrelated, which means that isolating a single cause of mortality is rare (Allen et al. 

2010; Dukes et al. 2009; McDowell et al. 2008). However, rates of tree mortality due to one or 

more of these factors have increased with higher temperatures in western forests (Van Mantgem et 

al. 2009; Williams et al. 2010) and are well correlated with both rising temperatures and 

associated increases in evaporative water demand (Williams et al. 2012). Trees die faster when 

higher temperatures accompany drought; thus a shorter drought can trigger mortality. Short 

droughts occur more frequently than long droughts, therefore the direct effect of rising 

temperatures, without a change in drought frequency, could result in substantially greater mortality 

(Adams et al. 2009). Western forests are currently considered limited by moisture and thereby 

highly susceptible to future changes in environmental conditions.

Fire naturally shapes southwestern landscapes. Indeed, many Southwest ecosystems depend on 

periodic wildfire to maintain healthy tree densities, enable seeds to germinate, and reduce pests 

(Bowman et al. 2009; Keeley and Zedler 2009). Excessive wildfire destroys homes, exposes 

slopes to erosion and landslides, threatens public health, and causes economic damage (Frisvold et 

al. 2011; Morton and Global Institute of Sustainable Forestry 2003; Richardson et al. 2011; WFLC 

2010). Given strong relationships between climate and fire, even when modified by land use and 

management, projected climate changes suggest that western forests in the United States will be 

increasingly affected by large and intense fires that occur more frequently (Bowman et al. 2009; 

Keane et al. 2009; Littell et al. 2009; Westerling et al. 2011; Williams et al. 2010).”

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. This will continue to affect the 

different vegetation types and habitats that species on the Gila depend on. The level of affect to the 

different species is unknown. As stated in the Watershed Specialist Report, forest management activities 

should strive for promoting resilience and resistance to our forest from potential impacts of climate 

change (Watershed Specialist Report); implementing management that focuses on maintenance and 

restoration of resilient native ecosystems. Even prior to the signing of the existing Forest Plan the Gila 

has had a history of not trying to suppress all natural ignitions. Wildfires have affected important 

vegetation types on the forest but at the same time may have made the remaining habitat more resilient to 

the potential effect of climate change, helping to preserve the diversity of habitat types on the Forest. The 

Forest also has a long history of using prescribed fire to maintain natural processes; again, with the intent 

of using these management actions to help maintain a more resilient ecosystem to avoid uncharacteristic 

fire type of events. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

166

Wildland Fire 

Between 1986 and 2006, wildland fires have burned approximately 785,000 acres within the Gila 

National Forest (USDA 2012). Acres burned through wildfire have averaged more than six times the 

projected Forest Plan levels. Many of these fires have been smaller in size and have actually benefited the 

resources. It is the uncharacteristically large patches of high severity fire across the landscapes that have 

the potential to adversely affect species and habitat conditions for these species. Between 2007 and 2012, 

several large events occurred on the Forest the Bear, Wallow, and Whitewater/Baldy fires burning 

approximately another 460,800 acres. Large scale high severity fires have reduced the amount of 

spruce/fir vegetation by approximately 65%, and our mixed conifer vegetation by 54%. Species most 

likely to be negatively affected by high severity fire are those that are old growth dependent (later seral 

stage vegetation) in habitat types vulnerable to fire, and aquatic species that may be indirectly adversely 

affected by changes in water quality after large fires. If the Forest continues to experience drought, 

potentially caused by climate change, within the reasonably foreseeable future we can expect to continue 

to see larger areas of high severity fire; that will result in negative effects to aquatic species and species 

dependent on later seral stage vegetation. Changes to date on the forest as a result of fire have occurred 

for a larger part in a mosaic pattern scattered across the landscape, leaving important pockets of mixed 

conifer vegetation. 

Insects/Disease 

Since 1986, the Gila National forest has experienced some noticeable western pine beetle and bark beetle 

infestation. These insect infestations have resulted in pockets of tree mortality. Data between the years 

2002 to 2006 suggest that an average of approximately 15,000 acres per year was affected by 

insect/disease mortality. This data suggested that 82% of the affected acres are in ponderosa pine, 8% in 

mixed conifer vegetation, and 10% in woodland vegetation (Gila NF 2012 MIS Report). The data also 

suggested that most of the mortality caused by insects and disease occurs in middle aged stand, and to a 

lesser degree in older aged stands. Data between 2007 and 2011 indicates a higher rate of affected stands 

averaging approximately 29,000 acres per year. If the Forest continues to experience drought, potentially 

caused by climate change, within the reasonably foreseeable future we can expect to continue to see a 

higher level of affect from insects and disease. 

Present and Future Activities

Activities currently occurring in the Gila National Forest and adjacent lands are expected to continue. 

Ongoing activities expected to continue in the near future include fuelwood and timber harvesting 

(approximately 10,000 CCF per year), prescribed burns and thinning work (approximately 10,000 acres 

per year), road and trail use, construction and maintenance, rangeland grazing, recreational activities 

including OHV use, and hazardous fuels reduction. New activities include the future decision and 

implementation of the Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Company Transmission Vegetation Management and 

Facilities Maintenance Program project, which may result in 11 to 13 miles of new road across 20 6th code 

watersheds found on the Gila. In addition, the Reserve Ranger District is in the planning stages of the 

60,000 acres Burro Analysis for Restoration of Forest Health project, which includes a variety of 

vegetation treatment activities. This project is planned for decision in 2014, with implementation 

scheduled to begin the same year. Other vegetation treatment projects within the watersheds will be 

identified as a result of the Forest’s ongoing efforts to restore fire adapted ecosystems. There has been an 

increased emphasis on the reduction of fuel loading on the forest to reduce the risk of vegetative stand 

replacement-type wildfires. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

167

Cumulative Affects Assessment and 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 actions, are at levels 

that do not cause significant affects to wildlife species or their habitat on the Forest. More specifically the 

incremental impacts of the action alternatives of travel management when added to other past, present, 

and reasonable foreseeable actions of land ownership, mining, grazing, vegetation management projects, 

and recreation activities are at levels that do not cause significant affects to species of concern identified 

in this analysis. This analysis shows that if the effects of all open roads are considered (private, county, 

state, and federal) there are localized areas of concern for species like ungulates, wide ranging carnivores, 

and the Chiricahua leopard frog. More natural occurring events like drought, potentially caused by 

climate change, have resulted in larger high intensity fires and potentially larger out breaks of insect and 

disease infestations. If a warmer and drier climate persist the level of concern increases for species that 

use spruce fir and mix conifer habitat; like the blue grouse, and Mexican Spotted Owl.

Ungulates: The incremental impacts of the action alternatives of travel management when added to other 

past, present, and reasonable foreseeable actions of land ownership, mining, grazing, vegetation 

management projects, and recreation activities are at levels that do not cause significant affects to 

ungulates. This analysis shows that if the effects of all open roads are considered (private, county, state, 

and federal) there are localized areas of concern for 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. Roads invite human activity of all sorts, creating zones of relatively higher 

use which can lead to poaching, over-hunting and over-fishing (Strittholt et al. 2006). Elk vulnerability is 

highest in areas with open roads, reduced in areas with closed roads, and lowest in roadless areas. 

Private, county, state and federal motorized routes add approximately 793 miles within the elk analysis 

area (Table 16), 79 within the pronghorn analysis area (Table 17), 7.5 miles in the bighorn sheep analysis 

area (Table 18), and 471 miles in the deer analysis area (Table 20). All action alternatives except 

Alternative C reduce the level of Forest Service motorized routes fairly significantly. Alternative C 

increases the level of motorized routes in the elk and deer analysis areas adding 0.33% (12.8 miles) and 

2% (39.6 miles) respectfully; adding to the relatively high level of private, county, and state roads within 

these analysis areas 729 miles and 470.7 miles respectfully. Under Alternative C population levels of elk 

and deer have the potential to be adversely affected by these other roads, but the alternative does not 

significantly increase the routes for ungulates. Under Alternative D, E, F, and G road densities are 

substantially reduced. A few localized areas 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. Under Alternatives C, D, E, F, and G these localized areas of higher road densities would not 

cause a significant effect to wild ungulates or any of the habitat types they depend on within the Gila 

National Forest. 

Carnivores: The incremental impacts of the action alternatives of travel management when added to 

other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable actions of land ownership, mining, grazing, vegetation 

management projects, and recreation activities are at levels that do not cause significant affects to 

carnivores. This analysis shows that if the effects of all open roads are considered (private, county, state, 

and federal) there are localized areas of concern for this group of species. 

Claar et al. (1999) documents that research related to recreational impacts on carnivores are lacking. They 

go on to state that increased access into remote habitats is a concern, particularly to carnivore species that 

usually seek secluded areas. Claar et al. (1999), state that wolves are habitat generalists and are a very 

resilient species that can coexist with people if they are tolerated by humans. They are an intelligent 

species, which allows individuals to adapt to different levels of disturbance. Individuals may be very 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

168

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 

1985). However, Claar et al. (1999) states that findings from many of these studies that looked at large 

well established wolf populations may not be applicable to fragmented, recovering populations in western 

states. Wolf populations in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Montana have become more habituated to humans 

through time since recolonization has occurred in these recovering populations (Claar et al. 1999, and 

Thiel et al. 1998). 

The Mexican Wolf Reintroduction EIS did not recognize road densities on the Gila National Forest as 

problem; however since the start of the reintroduction project in 1998, within the recovery area in Arizona 

and New Mexico illegal shootings and vehicle collisions have been the greatest source of wolf mortality. 

Of the 68 wolf deaths, between 1998 and June 1, 2009, 31 are associated with shooting and 12 with 

vehicle collision (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). 

Forest Service motorized routes within the boundary of the Gila average approximately 1.0 miles/mile2 

within the 49 5th code watersheds that occur on the Forest (Table 25). If private, county, state and federal 

routes are combined motorized route densities increase to approximately 1.1 mile/mile2 (Table 120). 

Table 120: Mexican Gray Wolf Cumulative Effects Analysis Area by Alternative

5th Code Watershed & Route Proposal 

(includes all open FS routes; Private 

Rds.; and US Hwy, State Hwy, and 

County Rds.)*

Alt B

Miles/

Mile2

Alt C

Miles/

Mile2

Alt D

Miles/

Mile2

Alt E

Miles/

Mile2

Alt F

Miles/

Mile2

Alt G

Miles/

Mile2

1302020804 Nester Draw 1.77 1.72 1.58 1.28 1.58 1.58

1302020806 Y Canyon 1.39 1.37 1.07 0.81 1.15 1.13

1302020807 Patterson Lake 1.90 1.89 1.34 1.14 1.45 1.43

1302021106 Headwaters Alamosa Creek 1.02 0.62 0.56 0.54 0.58 0.58

1303010101 Cuchillo Negro Creek 0.74 0.67 0.58 0.54 0.61 0.61

1303010102 Palomas Creek-Rio Grande 0.37 0.35 0.23 0.21 0.32 0.32

1303010103 Percha Creek 0.84 0.83 0.70 0.68 0.77 0.77

1303010104 Caballo Reservoir 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.12

1303010202 Cuervo Arroyo-Rio Grande 0.60 0.63 0.49 0.46 0.56 0.56

1303020201 Gallinas Canyon-Mimbes River 0.85 0.99 0.67 0.52 0.74 0.74

1303020202 Headwater San Vincente Draw 1.33 1.23 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.13

1303020203 Outlet San Vincente Draw 1.73 2.64 1.20 0.52 1.32 1.32

1303020204 Lampbright Draw 3.06 3.04 1.88 1.87 2.01 2.01

1303020205 Lampbright Draw-Mimbres R. 0.57 0.58 0.42 0.41 0.55 0.56

1303020213 Upper Seventysix Draw 2.17 2.35 2.02 1.85 2.02 2.02

1303020214 Cow Spring Draw-Seventysix Draw 0.95 1.13 0.95 0.66 0.95 0.95

1502000103 Coyote Creek 1.93 1.90 1.28 1.10 1.46 1.46

1502000301 Rito Creek 1.88 1.80 1.40 1.11 1.40 1.40

1502000302 Upper Largo Creek 1.37 1.36 1.07 0.97 1.07 1.07

1502000305 Agua Fria Creek 1.34 1.34 1.15 1.08 1.21 1.19
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

169

5th Code Watershed & Route Proposal 

(includes all open FS routes; Private 

Rds.; and US Hwy, State Hwy, and 

County Rds.)*

Alt B

Miles/

Mile2

Alt C

Miles/

Mile2

Alt D

Miles/

Mile2

Alt E

Miles/

Mile2

Alt F

Miles/

Mile2

Alt G

Miles/

Mile2

1502000307 LA Draw-Cienega Amarilla 2.37 2.38 1.87 1.70 1.91 1.87

1504000101 Railroad Canyon 1.60 1.67 1.40 0.85 1.66 1.66

1504000102 Corduroy Draw 1.64 1.58 1.21 1.09 1.49 1.49

1504000103 Beaver Creek 1.14 1.14 0.83 0.71 1.02 1.03

1504000104 Headwaters East Fork Gila River 0.52 0.51 0.39 0.33 0.47 0.47

1504000105 Middle Fork Gila River 0.97 0.97 0.71 0.50 0.79 0.80

1504000106 West Fork Gila River 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06

1504000107 Outlet East Fork Gila River 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

1504000108 Sapillo Creek 1.21 1.24 0.89 0.66 1.01 1.00

1504000109 Sapillo Creek-Gila River 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06

1504000201 Bear Creek 0.66 0.66 0.54 0.51 0.54 0.54

1504000202 Duck Creek 2.02 1.91 1.36 1.07 1.41 1.41

1504000203 Mangas Creek 1.44 1.88 1.29 0.86 1.47 1.45

1504000204 Sycamore Cr-Upper Gila River 1.48 1.49 1.29 1.25 1.26 1.26

1504000205 Blue Creek 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

1504000206 Blue Creek-Upper Gila River 0.82 0.94 0.64 0.57 0.69 0.69

1504000208 Apache Creek-Gila River 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.28 0.30 0.30

1504000302 Headwaters Burro Cienega 1.78 1.85 1.41 1.05 1.43 1.43

1504000304 Lordsburg Draw 1.61 1.72 1.28 1.10 1.31 1.31

1504000401 Headwaters Tularosa River 1.60 1.61 1.35 1.17 1.42 1.40

1504000402 Outlet Tularosa River 1.38 1.42 1.06 0.70 1.24 1.25

1504000403 Centerfire Cr-San Francisco River 1.58 1.58 1.29 1.12 1.38 1.34

1504000404 Deep Cr-San Francisco River 1.05 1.08 0.89 0.74 0.94 0.95

1504000405 Upper Blue River 0.98 0.97 0.79 0.56 0.88 0.89

1504000406 Pueblo Cr.-San Francisco River 1.05 1.08 1.00 0.93 1.02 1.02

1504000408 Mule Cr-San Francisco River 1.32 1.26 1.01 0.87 1.07 1.03

* 5th Code Watershed Motorized Route Density on Watershed Area within the Gila National Forest Administrative Area

(3 5th codes with no roads not included on table)

Table 121: 5th code Watersheds per Route Density Category by Alternative (49 watersheds within NF 

Boundary)

Cumulative Route Density 

Categories Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

0 to < 1.0 miles/mile2 24 21 27 33 26 27

1.1 to 1.5 miles/mile2 10 12 18 13 18 17

1.6 to 1.9 miles/mile2 11 12 3 3 3 3

> to 2.0 miles/mile2 4 4 1 0 2 2
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

170

Table 121: Alternative C increases the level of motorized routes in 18 of the 49 5th code watersheds (Table 

120). Under this alternative you have a reduction from 24 to 21 watersheds in the 0 to < 1.0 miles/mile2 

range (preferred category). Alternative D decreases the route densities in 44 watersheds and maintains the 

density in 5 of the 49 5th code watersheds on the Forest. The 5 that are maintained at the same level are 

within the 0 to < 1 mile/mile2 range. Alternative E decreases the route densities in 45 watersheds and 

maintains the density in 4 of the 5th code watersheds on the Forest. The 4 that are maintained at the same 

level are within the 0 to < 1 mile/mile2 range. Under this alternative no watersheds remain in the > 2.0 

miles/mile2 range. Alternatives F and G decreases road densities in almost all 5th codes. Two exception 

occur in these alternative where the density in 5 watershed are maintained at the same level (at < 1 

mile/mile2), and two watersheds actually minimally increase the road density but this density still remain 

at a level of about 1.5 miles per square mile. In these two alternatives you have 5 watersheds that remain 

in the two worse categories, compared to 15 under the existing condition. 

Localized areas with higher road densities will continue to maintain higher exposure rates between 

humans and wolves facilitating the potential for additional harvest of these species. Alternative C actually 

increases the potential for this to occur adversely effecting at least to a low level wolf population levels. 

Habitat conditions improve for the wolf under Alternatives E, D, G, and F, respectively above the existing 

conditions; but cumulatively you do continue to have localized areas of concern particularly under 

Alternatives F, G, and D, respectively. These localized areas of higher road densities would not cause a 

significant effect to wolves. 

Private, county, state and federal motorized routes add approximately 688 miles within the black bear 

analysis area (Table 28), and 478 miles in the mountain lion analysis area (Table 29). All action 

alternatives except Alternative C reduce the level of Forest Service motorized routes fairly significantly. 

Alternative C increases the level of motorized routes in both these analysis areas adding to the already 

relatively high level of cumulative effects. Under Alternative C population levels of black bears and 

mountain lions have the potential to be adversely affected. Under Alternatives D, E, F, and G route miles 

are substantially reduced. None of the alternatives would cause a significant effect to wide ranging 

carnivores.

Chiricahua Leopard Frog: The incremental impacts of the action alternatives of travel management 

when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable actions of land ownership, mining, grazing, 

vegetation management projects, and recreation activities are at levels that do not cause significant affects 

to this species. This analysis shows that if the effects of all open roads are considered (private, county, 

state, and federal) localized areas of concern may exists for this species. 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. Vos and Chardon (1998) documented that Moor Frog 

populations were negatively affected by density of roads within 250 meters of riparian, wetland, and 

aquatic habitats. 

On the Gila National Forest there currently 8 reasonable dispersal areas considered occupied. 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.

For this species the miles of road and number of road crossings (all ownership) within the reasonable 

dispersal distance from occupied sites were looked at for this cumulative effect analysis (Table 47 and 

Table 48). Private, county, state and federal motorized routes add approximately 26.5 miles and 1 stream 

crossing within the dispersal zone of occupied CLF sites. All action alternatives reduce the level of Forest 

Service motorized use by converting the use to administrative use only or by reducing the number of 

routes. Alternative C reduces this level by a lower level but still reduces it; the remaining action 

alternatives reduce use and the number of routes by a relatively high level. Under Alternatives C, D, E, F, 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

171

and G the number of routes are reduced, stream crossings are reduced, and use is reduced; therefore, none 

of the action alternatives would cause a significant effect to this species. 

Lesser Long-nosed Bat: Private, county, state and federal motorized routes add approximately 27.4 miles 

of motorized use within the affected habitat area of this species (Table 33); but, again this bat is only 

known to forage in the area at night when traffic levels are significantly reduced. The incremental impacts 

of the action alternatives of travel management when added to other past, present, and reasonable 

foreseeable actions of land ownership, mining, grazing, vegetation management projects, recreation 

activities and roads are at levels that do not cause significant affects to this species. Private, county, state 

and federal motorized routes add approximately 27.4 miles of motorized use within the affected habitat 

area of this species (see Lesser Long-nosed bat analysis table); but, again this bat is only known to forage 

in the area at night when traffic levels are significantly reduced.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: Private, county, state and federal motorized routes add 0 miles of 

motorized use within the affect habitat area of occupied sites, and approximately 2.8 miles of motorized 

use within the affected habitat area of SWWF critical habitat (Table 79 and Table 80). The incremental 

impacts of the action alternatives of travel management when added to other past, present, and reasonable 

foreseeable actions of land ownership, mining, grazing, vegetation management projects, recreation 

activities and roads are at levels that do not cause significant affects to this species.

Mexican Spotted Owl: Across the Gila National Forest, it is expected that there is a decreased acreage 

of mature/late seral mixed conifer important to MSO because of recent stand replacing fires including the 

Whitewater-Baldy Fire Complex in 2012 (300,000 acres), Wallow Fire and Bear Fire in 2008, and pine 

bark beetle and other forest insect epidemics in the 1990s. 

In 2012, the Whitewater-Baldy Fire complex burned among a substantial amount of MSO suitable habitat. 

According to the BAER Wildlife Resource Report prepared for the fire, approximately 101 Protected 

Activity Centers (PACs) were within the fire perimeter amounting to 56,891 acres of PACs potentially 

affected. Based on an assumption that high fire intensity over 80% of a PAC would result in total loss of 

suitable nesting habitat in the PAC, a total of 3 PACS were lost. An additional 12 PACs had a moderate 

loss of nesting habitat based on fewer acres (50% to 79%) within a PAC having high intensity fire. Since 

it is unknown whether stands suitable for nesting were retained post-fire in these 12 PACs, it is likely that 

some of these PACs will continue to provide nesting habitat while others will not. In summary, the BAER 

report shows that of the 101 PACs, 3 are considered to be at high risk of loss for the owls associated with 

that individual PAC. Another 12 PACs were considered to be at moderately high risk. Therefore, 15 of the 

PACs within the Whitewater/Baldy Complex (14%) have been seriously compromised in terms of 

supporting successfully breeding Mexican spotted owls in the future. North slopes, within or adjacent to 

PACs, that burned at low severity or were unburned may provide refugia for displaced owls. In numerous 

but not all cases, low severity or unburned areas within PACs included ponderosa pine or other MSO 

habitat types. The Report concludes that Mexican spotted owls were found to be at low risk based on the 

number of nest sites (PACs) that occur within the fire perimeter, the probability of damage or loss of the 

species or habitat within one to three years being low, and the magnitude of the consequences to this 

species and its habitat being minor overall. 

The incremental impacts of the action alternatives of travel management when added to other past, 

present, and reasonable foreseeable actions of land ownership, mining, grazing, vegetation management 

projects, and recreation activities are at levels that do not cause significant affects to this species. Private, 

county, state and federal motorized routes add approximately 23 miles of road within the Mexican Spotted 

Owl PAC analysis area (Table 57). All action alternatives except Alternative C reduce the level of Forest 

Service motorized routes within these PACs. Alternative C increases the level of motorized routes in this 

analysis area negatively affecting this habitat and potentially owls associated with these PACs. Under 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

172

Alternative D, E, F, and G route densities are reduced fairly significantly within PACs. Under Alternatives 

D, E, F, and G there would be not significant impacts to this species or the habitat associated with this 

species from the implementation of these alternatives. 

Mixed Conifer Habitat Type Analysis Area: The Gila has lost approximately 54% of this habitat type 

due to high severity wildfire and insect/disease outbreaks. Private, county, state and federal motorized 

routes add approximately 7 miles of road within this analysis area (Table 59). All action alternatives 

except Alternative C reduce the level of Forest Service motorized routes. Alternative C increases the level 

of motorized routes in this analysis area negatively affecting this habitat type and potentially the species 

associated with this habitat. Under Alternative D, E, F, and G road densities are reduced. Under 

Alternatives D, E, F, and G these localized areas of higher road densities would not cause a significant 

effect to species associated with this vegetation type. 

Spruce/Fir Habitat Type Analysis Area: The Gila has lost approximately 65% of this habitat type due to 

high severity wildfire. Private, county, state and federal motorized routes do not add any miles of routes 

within this vegetation type (see Blue Grouse Analysis Area table). None of the action alternatives have 

routes in this habitat type; therefore, none of the action alternatives would adversely affect species that 

occur in this vegetation type. 

Effects of Forest Plan Amendments 

Amendments 1 thru 6 to the forest plan may have effects because they propose changes in the 

management of specific areas of the forest. These effects, like those from the proposed action and 

alternatives, are disclosed as part of the effects analysis above.

Amendment 7 is administrative in nature and not expected to have effects as a result of this project or 

future projects. This proposed amendment, for the most part, simply updates and provides consistent 

direction for application of the Forest Plan with the Travel Management Rule.

Forest Plan and Other Laws and Regulation Compliance

Table 122 displays how each alternative complies with the Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and 

General Wildlife Species Standards and Guidelines in the Gila’s Forest Plan. 

Table 122: Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and General Wildlife Species Standards and Guidelines 

Compliance by Alternative

Topic Direction Alt. C

Compliance

Alt. D

Compliance

Alt. E

Compliance

Alt. F

Compliance

Alt. G

Compliance

Wildlife and 

Fish 1

Manage for a diverse, well-distributed 

pattern of habitats for wildlife 

populations and fish species in 

cooperation with states and other 

agencies. 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wildlife and 

Fish 2

Maintain and/or improve habitat for 

threatened or endangered species and 

work toward the eventual recovery and 

delisting of species through recovery 

plans. 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wildlife and 

Fish 3

Manage for indigenous species. Exotic 

species capable of reproducing in native 

habitats will not be introduced or allowed 

to invade National Forest System lands. 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

173

Topic Direction Alt. C

Compliance

Alt. D

Compliance

Alt. E

Compliance

Alt. F

Compliance

Alt. G

Compliance

Wildlife and 

Fish 4

Cooperate with state and other agencies 

to maintain wildlife populations within 

the habitat capability objectives stated in 

management area emphasis description. 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wildlife and 

Fish 5

Within turkey habitat management areas: 

Manage open road densities to maintain 

and restore habitat islands without 

vehicle intrusion.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wildlife and 

Fish 6

Plan and administer disturbance activities 

in known elk calving, turkey nesting, and 

raptor nesting areas so as not to disrupt 

calving and nesting success. 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wildlife and 

Fish 7

During transportation planning, road and 

trail densities will be evaluated, 

maintaining emphasized carrying capacity 

within key habitat areas for wildlife. 

• 2A (page 53) Canyon Creek, Middle 

Fork Gila River, Indian Creek

• 2B (page 59) Beaver Creek, Corduroy

Canyon

• 2D (page70) Crest Area, Bear Creek, 

Turkey Creek

• 2E (page 75) Crest Area, Turkey Run, 

Byers Run, Monument Park, 

Diamond Creek, South Fork Cuchillo 

Creek

• 2F (page 81) Animas Creek drainage, 

Crest Area

• 2G (page 86) Crest Zone, Berenda 

Canyon

• 2H (page 92) Burnt Cabin Flats, Stiver 

Canyon, Scales Canyon, Taylor 

Canyon

• 3A (page 98) Johnson Canyon, 

Pueblo Creek

• 3C (page 109) Dillman Creek, 

Freeman Mountain, Dillon Mountain, 

San Francisco River, Centerfire 

Creek, Trout Creek, Potato Patch, 

Lilly Patch

• 3D (page 115) Lake Erin, Jenkins 

Creek, Smith Creek, Toriette

• 4A (page 122) Bearwallow Park/Mtn, 

Mineral Creek, Deep Creek, Indian 

Creek, Whitewater Creek, Little 

Whitewater Creek

• 4B (page 129) San Francisco River 

and important side drainages, 

Sacaton, Sun Dial Mountain, Devils 

Park, Dry Creek, Little Dry Creek, 

Devils Creek

• 4C (page 137) San Francisco River, 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

174

Topic Direction Alt. C

Compliance

Alt. D

Compliance

Alt. E

Compliance

Alt. F

Compliance

Alt. G

Compliance

Mule Creek, Pot Holes Country, 

Sawmill Creek, Harden Cienega

• 5A (page 149) Black Mountain and 

Jordan Mesa winter ranges, Beaver 

Creek, East and Middle Fork of the 

Gila River

• 6A (page 175) Five Springs Canyon, 

Govina Canyon, Long Canyon, 

Squirrel Canyon, Upper Largo 

Canyon, Upper Wilson Canyon

• 6B (page 182) T Bar Grassland Area, 

Gilita Ridge, Moraga Canyon, Collins 

Park – Salvation Peak, Eckleeburger 

Hill, O Bar O Mountain, Negrito 

Creek, Elk Mountains, Loco 

Mountain, Cox Canyon

• 6C (page 189) Granny Canyon Area, 

Sign Camp Mountain area, Legget 

Canyon area, Negrito Creek, San 

Francisco River, Eagle Peak

• 6D (page 196) Leggett Area, Willow 

Springs Mountain, San Francisco 

River, Tularosa River, Gordon Canyon

• 7A (page 203) Gila River, Bear 

Canyon

• 7B (page 208) Jack’s Peak, Gold 

Gulch, Walking X Canyon

• 7C (page 213) Twin Sisters Creek, 

Cameron Creek

• 7D (page 218) Walnut Creek

• 7E (page 224) Goose Lake, Sheep 

Corral Creek, Gila River, Cow Creek, 

Bear Creek, Walnut Creek

• 7F (page 231) Meadow Creek, Trout 

Creek, Sapillo Creek, Gla River, 

Watson Mountain, Mogollon Creek

• 7G (page 237) 74 Mountain, Rain 

Creek, Mogollon Creek, Sacaton

• 8A (page 242) North Mesa, Brushy 

Mountain

• 9B (page 261) Slaughter Mesa, Gallo 

Mountain, Escondido Mountain, 

Mangas Mountain

• 9C (page 266) Mangas Mountain, 

Alamocito Canyon

• 9D (page 271) Sand Flat, Bull Camp, 

Gallo Mountain, Slaughter Mesa

• 9E (page 276) Apache Mountain, 

Negro Canyon, Whiskey Creek
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

175

Topic Direction Alt. C

Compliance

Alt. D

Compliance

Alt. E

Compliance

Alt. F

Compliance

Alt. G

Compliance

Wildlife -

Mexican 

Spotted Owl 1

Limit human activity in protected activity 

centers during the breeding season. *No Yes Yes **Yes **Yes

Wildlife -

Mexican 

Spotted Owl 2

Road or trail building in PACs should be 

avoided but may be permitted on a caseby-case basis. 

*No Yes Yes **Yes **Yes

Wildlife -

Mexican 

Spotted Owl 3

Generally allow continuation of the level 

of recreation activities that was occurring 

prior to listing. 

*No Yes Yes **Yes **Yes

Wildlife -

Mexican 

Spotted Owl 4

Emphasize maintenance and restoration 

of healthy riparian ecosystems through 

conformance with forest plan riparian 

standards and guidelines. Management 

strategies should move degraded riparian 

vegetation toward good condition as 

soon as possible. Damage to riparian 

vegetation, stream banks, and channels 

should be prevented. 

Wildlife -

Northern 

Goshawk 1

Limit human activity in protected activity 

centers during the breeding season. **No ***Yes Yes ***Yes ***Yes

Wildlife -

Northern 

Goshawk 2

Limit human activities in or near nest 

sites and post-fledgling family areas 

during the breeding season so that 

goshawk reproductive success is not 

affected by human activities. The 

breeding season extends from March 1 

through September 30. 

**No ***Yes Yes ***Yes ***Yes

Wildlife -

Northern 

Goshawk 3

Emphasize maintenance and restoration 

of healthy riparian ecosystems through 

conformance with forest plan riparian 

standards and guidelines. Management 

strategies should move degraded riparian 

vegetation toward good condition as 

soon as possible. Damage to riparian 

vegetation, stream banks, and channels 

should be prevented. 

Wildlife -

Northern 

Goshawk 4

Manage road densities at the lowest level 

possible. **No ***Yes Yes ***Yes ***Yes

Wildlife -

Threatened & 

Endangered 

Species 1

Manage threatened and endangered 

animal, fish and plant habitat to achieve 

delisting in a manner consistent with the 

goals established with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish in 

compliance with approved recovery 

plans.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

176

Topic Direction Alt. C

Compliance

Alt. D

Compliance

Alt. E

Compliance

Alt. F

Compliance

Alt. G

Compliance

Wildlife -

Threatened & 

Endangered 

Species 2

Consult with the New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish on forest 

projects which may affect state 

endangered wildlife species. 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wildlife -

Threatened & 

Endangered 

Species 3

Threatened, endangered and sensitive 

species habitats found during project or 

management planning phases will be 

evaluated on the basis of best 

information available. Management 

requirements needed to maintain or 

enhance habitats for these species will be 

incorporated into implementation plans 

for individual areas. Habitat requirements 

for threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species will take precedence 

over requirements for other species.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wildlife -

Threatened & 

Endangered 

Species 4

When management practices are 

proposed in or likely to affect listed 

species habitat, a Biological Assessment 

and Evaluation will be conducted to 

assess impacts and determine needs for 

consultation or conference with the Fish 

and Wildlife Service or the New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish. 

Consultation will be initiated for 

situations where listed or proposed listed 

species may or is likely to be affected. 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wildlife -

Threatened & 

Endangered 

Species 5

Monitor management within occupied 

and potential habitat of plants listed as 

threatened, endangered, or on the 

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List. 

Manage sensitive species to sustain 

viability and prevent the need for listing 

as threatened or endangered. 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Executive 

Order 13443 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

*No – Under Alternative C there is a net increase of miles of routes in MSO PACs, but the acres of potentially affected habitat is 

reduced due to the elimination of cross country travel and reduction of motorized dispersed camping.

**Yes – Under Alternative F and G there is a net reduction of miles of routes in MSO PACs, but both alternatives do allow the 

addition of 4 miles of motorized trail within the MSO PAC analysis area.

**No – Under Alternative C there is a net increase of miles of routes in goshawk PFAs, but the acres of potentially affected habitat is

reduced due to the elimination of cross country travel and reduction of motorized dispersed camping.

***Yes – Under Alternative D, F and G there is a net reduction of miles of routes in goshawk PFAs, but these alternatives do allow 

the addition of currently unauthorized motorized routes in the goshawk PFA analysis area.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment 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 of power line 

right-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. The implementation of the 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

177

action alternatives would have no new irreversible commitment of wildlife resources. See focal species 

analysis to determine the effects of these commitments to terrestrial wildlife species.

Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

179

Wildlife Literature Cited

Adams, L.W. 1984. Small mammal use of an interstate highway median strip. Journal of Applied Ecology. 

21(1):175-178.

Adams, L.W. and A.D. Geis. 1983. Effects of roads on small mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology. 

20(2):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. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/2404886.

Arizona Sonoran Desert Museum. 2008. Animal Fact Sheet: Lesser Long-nosed Bat. 

http://www.desertmuseum.org/kids/bats/Mexican%20long-nosed%20bat.php.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2004. Arizona Game and Fish Department heritage Data 

Management System. Arizona Montane vole, Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the 

Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. Last 

updated in 2004. Accessed 2009.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2003. Northern Goshawk Accepiter gentilis. Unpublished 

abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, AZ. 8 pp.

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.

Barber, D.R., P.M. Barber and P.G. Jablonski. 2000. Painted Redstart (Myioborus pictus), The Birds of 

North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the 

Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/528 doi:10.2173/bna.528.

Bat Conservation International (BCI). 2009. Western Red Bat. Species Account. Gila Supervisors Office 

Files. 

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.

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. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/2680055

Bellamy, P.E.; Shore, R.F; Ardeshir, D; Treweek, J.R. 2000. Road verges as habitat for small mammals in 

Britain. Mammal Review, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 131-139.

Bhatia, J. 2008. "Leptonycteris yerbabuenae" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed March 21, 2013 

at http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Leptonycteris_yerbabuenae/.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

180

Birds of North America. 2009a. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North 

America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/506. 

Birds of North America. 2009b. Costa's Hummingbird (Calypte costae), The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North 

America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/251. doi:10.2173/bna.251.

Birds of North America. 2010. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), The Birds of North America Online (A. 

Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America 

Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/684.

BISON-M. 2008. Hooded skunk. Biota Information System of New Mexico. Available: 

http://www.bisonm.org/ Accessed: 09/14/2009.

BISON-M. 2009a. Southern red-backed vole. Biota Information System of New Mexico. 2006. Available: 

http://www.bisonm.org/ Accessed: 09/09/2009.

BISON-M. 2009b. Long-tailed vole. Biota Information System of New Mexico. Available: 

http://www.bisonm.org/ Accessed: 09/14/2009.

BISON-M. 2009c. Arizona montane vole. Biota Information System of New Mexico. Available: 

http://www.bisonm.org/ Accessed: 09/09/2009.

BISON-M. 2009d. White-nosed Coati. Biota Information System of New Mexico Species List / Species 

Accounts. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Available 

http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/states/nm.htm.

BISON-M. 2009e. Arizona gray squirrel. Biota Information System of New Mexico Species List / Species 

Accounts. Version 01/2004. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

Available http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/states/nm.htm (Accessed: October 1, 2009).

BISON-M. 2009f. Arizona toad. Biota Information System of New Mexico Species List / Species 

Accounts. Version 10/2008. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

Available http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/states/nm.htm (Accessed: September 25, 2009).

BISON-M. 2009g. Bald Eagle. This reference information came from the BISON-M (Biota Information 

System of NM) database. The information was derived directly from data in this species account. 

See other references in this account for more information. Available at: http://www.bisonm.org/booklet.aspx?id=040370. Accessed: September 2009.

BISON-M. 2009h. Northern Gray Hawk . This reference information came from the BISON-M (Biota 

Information System of NM) database. The information was derived directly from data in this 

species account. See other references in this account for more information. Available at: 

http://www.bison-m.org/booklet.aspx?id=040810. Accessed: September 2009.

BISON-M. 2009i. Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Biota Information System of New Mexico Species List 

/ Species Accounts. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

Available http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/states/nm.htm.

BISON-M. 2009j. Gila Woodpecker. This reference information came from the BISON-M (Biota 

Information System of NM) database. The information was derived directly from data in this 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

181

species account. See other references in this account for more information. Available at: 

http://www.bison-m.org/booklet.aspx?id=040690 Accessed: September 2009.

BISON-M. 2009k. Common Ground Dove. This reference information came from the BISON-M (Biota 

Information System of NM) database. The information was derived directly from data in this 

species account. See other references in this account for more information. Available at: 

http://www.bison-m.org/booklet.aspx?id=040690 Accessed: September 2009.

BISON-M. 2009l. Neotropic Cormorant. This reference information came from the BISON-M (Biota 

Information System of NM) database. The information was derived directly from data in this 

species account. See other references in this account for more information. Available at: 

http://www.bison-m.org/booklet.aspx?id=040195. Accessed: September 2009.

BISON-M. 2010a. Beaver. Biota Information System of New Mexico Species List / Species Accounts. 

Version 01/2004. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Available 

http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/states/nm.htm (Accessed: March 3, 2010).

BISON-M. 2010b. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus and A.g. apache). This reference 

information came from the BISON-M (Biota Information System of NM) database. The 

information was derived directly from data in this species account. See other references in this 

account for more information. Available at: http://www.bison-m.org/booklet.aspx?id=041320. 

BISON-M. 2010c. Peregrine Falcon. This reference information came from the BISON-M (Biota 

Information System of NM) database. The information was derived directly from data in this 

species account. See other references in this account for more information. Available at: 

http://www.bison-m.org/booklet.aspx?id=040384. Accessed: September 2009.

BISON-M. 2010d. Aberts Towhee. This reference information came from the BISON-M (Biota 

Information System of NM) database. The information was derived directly from data in this 

species account. See other references in this account for more information. Available at: 

http://www.bison-m.org/booklet.aspx?id=042140.

BISON-M. 2010e. Common Black Hawk (Buteogallus anthrancinus). This reference information came 

from the BISON-M (Biota Information System of NM) database. The information was derived 

directly from data in this species account. See other references in this account for more 

information. Available at: http://www.bison-m.org/booklet.aspx?id=041320. 

BISON-M. 2010f. Wilson’s Phalarope. Biota Information System of New Mexico Species List / Species 

Accounts. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

BISON-M. 2010g. Costas Hummingbird. This reference information came from the BISON-M (Biota 

Information System of NM) database. The information was derived directly from data in this 

species account. See other references in this account for more information. Available at: 

http://www.bison-m.org/booklet.aspx?id=040690 

BISON-M. 2010h. White-eared Hummingbird. This reference information came from the BISON-M 

(Biota Information System of NM) database. The information was derived directly from data in 

this species account. See other references in this account for more information. Available at: 

http://www.bison-m.org/booklet.aspx?id=040955. 

BISON-M. 2010i. Burrowing Owl. This reference information came from the BISON-M (Biota 

Information System of NM) database. The information was derived directly from data in this 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

182

species account. See other references in this account for more information. Available at: 

http://www.bison-m.org/booklet.aspx?id=041320. 

BISON-M. 2013. Gunnison’s prairie dog. Biota Information System of New Mexico Species List / 

Species Accounts. Version 01/2004. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New 

Mexico. Available http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/states/nm.htm.

Bissonette, J.A.; and Rosa, S.A. 2009. Road zone effects in small-mammal communities. Ecology and 

Society, Vol. 14, Issue 1, Article 27, 15pp. Accessed at 

http//www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art27/.

Bollinger, E.K. and Gavin, T.A. 2004. Responses of Nesting Bobolinks to Habitat Edges. The Auk, Vol. 

121, No. 3. Pp. 767-776. UnionStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4090313 

Bondello, M.C. and B.H. Brattstrom. 1979. The Experimental Effects of Off-Road Vehicle Sounds On 

Three Species Of Desert Vertebrates. Report to the Bureau of Land Management. BLM Library 

Bldg. 50, Denver Federal Center. Denver, Co 89225 Contract CA-060-CT7-2737.

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. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/4089929 

Brattstrom, B.H., and M.C. Bondello. 1983. Effects of off-road vehicle noise on desert vertebrates. Pages 

167-206 in R.H. Webb and H.G. Wilshore, eds. Environmental effects of off-road vehicles. 

Impacts and management in arid regions. Springer-Verlag, New York. Available from the Gila 

National Forest, Silver City, NM.

Brennan, L.A.; Perez, R.M.; DeMaso, S.J.; Ballard, B.M.; Kuvlesky, W.P. 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.

Brocke, E.H.; J.P. O’Pwio; and K.A. Gustafson. 1988. A forest management scheme mitigating impact of 

road networks on sensitive wildlife species. Pp. 13-17 in: R. M. deGraaf and W. M. Healy 

(compilers), Is forest fragmentation a management issue in the Northeast? General Technical 

Report GTR-NE-140. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeast Forest 

Experiment Station, Radnor, PA.

Brody, A.J. and Pelton, M.R. 1989. Effects of Roads on Black Bear Movements in Western North 

Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17(1):5-10. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3782028. Accessed: 

24/06/2008 19:51

Brown, R.L. 1982. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Mearns Quail in Southeastern Arizona. Journal of 

Range Management, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp 727-732. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3898250. 

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. The Journal of Wildlife Management,Vol. 55, 

No. 2, pp. 282-290. Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/3809151.

Bull, E.L. and R.S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of Pileated Woodpeckers in 

Northeastern Oregon. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 335-345. 

Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/3809431.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

183

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. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/4089115.

Bushman, E.S. and G.D. Therress. 1988. Habitat Management Guidelines for Forest Interior Breeding 

Birds Of Coastal Maryland. Maryland Department Of Natural Resources Forest, Park, and 

Wildlife Service. Wildlife Technical Publication 88-1.

Call, M. W. 1979. Habitat Management Guides for Birds Of Prey. Tech. Note 338. U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur. 

Land Manage., Denver, Colo. 

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):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.

Daszak, P., Berger, L., Cunningham, A.A., Hyatt, A.D., Green, D.E. and Speare, R. 1999. Emerging infectious diseases and amphibian population declines. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 5, 735-748.

Degenhardt W.G., C.W. Painter, and A.H. Price. 1996. Amphibians and Reptiles of New Mexico. 

University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

DeGraaf, R.M., V.E. Scott; R.H. Hamre; L. Ernst; and S.H. Anderson. 1991. Forested and Rangeland 

Birds of the United States “Natural History and Habitat Use” USDA Forest Service Handbook 

688.

Delaney, D.K.; Grubb, T.G.; Beier, P.; Pater, L.L.; Reiser, M.H. 1999. Effects of helicopter noise on 

Mexican Spotted Owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(1), pp. 60-76.

Delaney, D.K. and Grubb, T.G. 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, 60pp.

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, 10(3):1-2. 

Dixon, C. and J. Knight. 1993. Meran’s Quail in New Mexico. New Mexico State University. L303. Gila 

National Forest Files. 

Douglass, R.J. 1977. Effects of a winter road on small mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 14, No. 

3, pp. 827-834. Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/2401814.

Dufour, P.A. 1980. Effects of Noise on Wildlife and Other Animals Review of Research Since 1971. 

United States Environment Protection Agency. Report No. 550/9-80-100.

Durst, S.L.; Sogge, M.K.; Stump, S.D.; Walker, H.A.; Kus, B.E.; and Sferra, S.J. 2008. Southwestern 

Willow Flycatcher breeding site and territory summary – 2007. U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2008-1303, 35pp.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

184

Executive Order 13186. 2001. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. Federal 

Register: 66(11) FR 3853. January 17, 2001.

Fahrig, L.; Pedlar, J,H.; Pope, S.E.; Taylor, P.D.; and Wegner, J.F. 1995. Effect of road traffic on 

amphibian density. Biological Conservation 73, pp. 177-182.

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. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/2404602

Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects. Annual Review of 

Ecological Systems. 29:207-231. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Warsaw 

University on 03/24/05.

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. Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/2641901

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. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/2641902

Frey, J.K. 1995. Mammals of the Negrito Creek Watershed, Gila National Forest, Reserve Ranger 

District, Catron County, NM. A Final Report submitted to: Gila National Forest, Reserve District 

USDA-Forest Service 1995. Gila National Forest files.

Fullerton, R., K. Kostelnik, S. Rodgers, M.L. Watson, M. Medina, P. Lopez, T.T. Baker, and L. Owen. 

2008. Off-Road Vehicle Recreation in New Mexico. The Senate Joint Memorial 40 Report. The 

Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department and The New Mexico Department of Game 

and Fish in partnership with The New Mexico Department of Agrigculture, The Range 

Improvement Task Force, and the New Mexico Tourism Department. 

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. 12pp. http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/roadeco/gagnon2007a

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, 79pp.

Ganey , J.L.; Telles,A.J.; and Ramsey, M.A. 2008. Status and ecology of Mexican spotted owls in the Gila 

Region, New Mexico. The New Mexico Botanist, Special Issue 1, September 29, 2008, pp. 34-48.

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. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/2425541

Gompper, M.E. 1995. Mammalian Species No. 487, pp. 1-10, 3 figs. Nasua narica. Published 23 June 

1995 by The Society of Mammalogists. Accessed at JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/stable/3504195.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

185

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): 302-310.

Grubb, T.G.; Pater, L.L.; and Delaney, D.K. 1998. Logging Truck Noise Near Nesting Northern 

Goshawks. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. Research Note RMRS-RN-3.

Grubb, T.G.; Bowerman, W.W.; Giesy, J.P.; and Dawson, G.A. 1992. Responses of breeding Bald Eagles, 

Haliaeetus leucocephalis, to human activities in Northcentral Michigan. The Canadian FieldNaturalist. Vol 106(4), pp. 443-453.

Gutzwiller, K.J.; Riffell, S.K.; and Anderson, S.H. 2002. Repeated human intrusion and the potential for 

nest predation by Gray Jays. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 372-380. 

Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/3803170

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. Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/4089511

Hamann, B.; Johnston,H.; Gobielle, J.; Hillis,M.; Johnson, S.; Kelly, L.; and McClelland, P. 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. Pages 3.1-

3.34.

Hayes, S.G., D.J. Leptich, and P. Zager, 2002. Proximate factors affecting male Elk hunting mortality in 

Northern Idaho. The Journal of Wildlife Management. , Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 66(2):491-499. 

Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/3803182.

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.

Holbrook, H.T. and Vaughan, M.R. 1985. Influence of Roads on Turkey Mortality. The Journal of 

Wildlife Management, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 611-614. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3801681

Holmes, T.L.; Knight, R.L.; Stegall, L.; and Craig, G.R. 1993. Responses of wintering grassland raptors to 

human disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 461-468. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/3783420

Holzapfel, C. and Schmidt, W.S. 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.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

186

Huey, L.M. 1941. Mammalian invasion via the highway. Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 383-

385. Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/1374931

Hurst, G.A. and J.G. Dickson. 1992. Roads. Page 281 from Chapter 17: Eastern Turkey in Southern PineOak Forests. In The Wild Turkey, Biology and Management, compiled and edited by G. Dickson, 

Stackpole Books.

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. Accessed 

at http//www.jstor.org/stable/2387043.

Jalkotzy, M. G., P.I. Ross, and M.D. NasserdenD. 1997. The effects of Linear Developments on Wildlife: 

A Review of Selected Scientific Literature. Report: 1-354. 1997. Calgary, Prep. for Canadian 

Association of Petroleum Producers. Arc Wildlife Services Ltd.

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. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 64(3):685-

697. Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/3802738

Johnson, H.B.; Vasek, F.C.; and Yonkers, T. 1975. Productivity, diversity and stability relationships in 

Mojave Desert roadside vegetation. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, Vol. 102, No. 3. pp. 

106-115. Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/2484732

Johnson, T.H. 1994. Peregrine Falcon Habitat Management In National Forest Of New Mexico. Gila 

National Forest Supervisor Office Files. 

Jones, S. 1979. The Accipiters – Goshawk, Cooper’s Hawk, Sharp-shinned Hawk. U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management Rep. No. 335. Denver. 51pp.

Karasin, Leslie N. 2003. All-Terrain Vehicles in the Adirondacks: Issues and Options. WCS Working 

Paper No. 21, April 2003. Available for download from http://www.wcs.org/adirondacks.

Kasworm, W.F. and T.L. Manley. 1990. Road and Trail Influences on Grizzly and Black Bears in 

Northwest Montana. Their Biology and Management, Vol. 8, A Selection of Papers from the 

Eighth International Conference on Bear Research and Management, Victoria, British Columbia, 

Canada. February 1989, (1990), pp. 79-84. Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/3872905.

Keller, M.E.; and Anderson, S.H. 1992. Avian use of habitat configurations created by forest cutting in 

Southeastern Wyoming. The Condor, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 55-65. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/1368795

Kellermueler, R. 2010. Golden Eagle distribution in New Mexico and Gila National Forest. Personal 

Communication with Reserve Ranger District Biologist, Gila National Forest. 1p.

Knight, R.L.; and D.N. Cole, D.N. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. Trans. 

56th N. A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf., pp. 238-247

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife Responses Tto Recreationists. Chapter 4, pp 51-69. In: 

Wildlife and Recreationists, Coeixstence Through Management and Research; Edited by Richard 

L. Knight and Kevin J. Gutzwiller. Island Press Washington, D.C. Covelo, California.

Kreisel, K.J. and S.J. Stein. 1999. Bird Use of Burned and Unburned Coniferous Forests During Winter. 

The Wilson Bulletin. 111(2):243-250.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

187

Lambeck, R.J. 1997. Focal species: A multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation 

Biology. 11(4): 849-856. Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/2387320

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.

Lightfoot, D.C. and Whitford, W.G. 1991. Productivity of creosotebush foliage and associated canopy 

arthropods along a desert roadside. American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 125, No. 2, pp. 310-322. 

Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/2426235

Long, R.L., S. Smith, S. Gallagher, and C. Berning. 1999. Off-the-Track: America’s National Parks under 

Siege. Bluewater Network. Available from the Gila National Forest, Silver City, NM.Files.

Loos, G. and P. Kerlinger. 1993. Road Mortality of Saw-Whit and Screech-Owls on The Cape May 

Peninsula. The Raptor Research Foundation, Inc. Journal of Raptor Research. 27(4):210-213.

Lovallo, M.J. and E.M. Anderson. 1996. Bobcat Movements and home Ranges Relative to Roads in 

Wisconsin. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 24(1):71-76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3782836. 

Accessed: 02/05/2013.

Lovich, J.E.,; and D. Bainbridge. 1999. Anthropogenic Degradation of the Southern California Desert 

Ecosystem and Prospects for Natural Recovery and Restoration. Environmental Management. 

Vol. 24, No. (3):309–326. 1999 Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 

Luckenbach, R.A. and Bury, R.B. 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. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/2403392

Lyon, L.J. 1983. Road Density Models Describing Habitat Effectiveness for Elk. Journal of Forestry. Pp. 

592-594. 

MacArthur, R.A.; R.H. Johnston; and V. Geist. 1979. Factors influencing heart rate in free-ranging 

Bighorn sheep: a physiological approach to the study of wildlife harassment. Canadian. Journal. 

of Zoology. Vol. 57:, pp. 2010-2021.

MacArthur, R.A.; R.H. Johnston; V. Geist; and R.H. Johnson. 1982. Cardiac and Behavioral Responses of 

Mountain Sheep to Human Disturbance. The Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 46, No. 2 

(Apr., 1982), pp. 351-358.

Mader, H.J. 1984. Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biological Conservation 29. 

pp. 81-96

Marshall, J. and R.P. Balda. 1974. The Breeding Ecology of the Painted Redstart. The Condor, Vol. 76, 

No. 1 Spring 1974. Pp. 89-101. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1365987 

Martin, Stephen G. and Thomas A. Gavin. 1995. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of 

North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/176 doi:10.2173/bna.176

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.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

188

Maxwell, B; and Hokit, G. 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. Pages 2.1-2.18. 

McGregor, R.L.; Bender, D.J.; and Fahrig, L. 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, 16(1):85-87. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/3782360.

Meunier, F.D.; Corbin, J.; Verheyden, C.; Jouventin, P. 1999. Effects of landscape type and extensive 

management on use of motorway roadsides by small mammals. Can. J. Zool., 77, pp. 108-117.

Miller, S.G.; Knight, R.L.; and Miller, C.K. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 162-169. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/2641318

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. 54(3):1-57. 

Milne, K.A.; and Hejl, S.J. 1989. Nest-site characteristics of White-Headed Woodpeckers. The Journal of 

Wildlife Management, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 50-55. Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/3801305.

Munguira, M.L. and Thomas, J.A. 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. Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/2404501

NatureServe Explorer. 2009a. White-nosed Coati. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life 

[web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: 2009.

NatureServe Explorer. 2009b. Bald Eagle. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web 

application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: September 2009.

NatureServe Explorer. 2009c. Common Ground Dove. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of 

life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: September 2009.

NatureServe Explorer. 2009d. Gray Vireo. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web 

application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: September 2009.

NatureServe Explorer. 2009e. White-eared Hummingbird. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia 

of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: September 2009.

NatureServe Explorer. 2010. Golden Eagle. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web 

application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: 2010.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

189

NatureServe Explorer. 2012. Gila Woodpecker. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life 

[web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

NatureServe Explorer. 2013a. Burrowing Owl. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life 

[web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: 2013.

NatureServe Explorer. 2013b. Wild Turkey. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web 

application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: 2013.

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMGF). 2007. Recommended burrowing owl survey and 

monitoring protocol. Unpubl. report. 5 p. Gila NF files.

New Mexico Partners In Flight. 2007. New Mexico Bird Conservation Plan. Version 2.1. C. Rustay and S. 

Norris, compilers. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

New Mexico Partners In Flight. 2009a. Aberts Towhee. New Mexico Avian Conservation Partners 

Website (NMACP). Available at: (http://www.nmpartnersinflight.org/abertstowhee.html). 

Accessed: October 2009.

New Mexico Partners In Flight. 2009b. Arizona Bells Vireo. New Mexico Avian Conservation Partners 

Website (NMACP). Available at: (http://www.nmpartnersinflight.org/bellsvireo.html). Accessed: 

October 2009.

New Mexico Partners In Flight. 2009c. Gila Woodpecker. Available at: 

http://www.nmpartnersinflight.org/gilawoodpecker.html Accessed August 30, 2009.

New Mexico Partners in Flight. 2010. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). 

http://www.nmpartnersinflight.org/willowflycatcher.html.

New Mexico Partners in Flight. 2013. Blue Grouse. Available 

at:http://www.nmpartnersinflight.org/bluegrouse.html.

Ouren, D.S., C. Haas, C.P. Melcher, S.C. Stewart, P.D. Ponds, N.R. 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 p.

Papouchis, C.M., F.J.Singer, 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 Payne, L.L. 1993. Breeding dispersal in Indigo Buntings: Circumstances and 

consequences for breeding success and population structure. The Condor, Vol. 95, No. 1, pp. 1-

24. Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/1369382 

Perry, C., and R. Overly. 1977. Impact of roads on big game distribution in portions of the Blue 

Mountains of Washington, 1972-1973. Applied Research Bulletin No. 11. Washington Game 

Department, Olympia, WA 38 pp.

Postovit, H.R.; and Postovit, B.C. 1987. Impacts and Mitigation Techniques. Pages 183-208 in Natl. 

Wildl. Fed. Raptor Manage. Tech. Manual, Sci. Tech. Ser. No. 10.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

190

Raphael, M.G. and White, M. 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.; Johnson-Barnard, J.; and Baker, W.L. 1996. Contribution of roads to forest fragmentation in 

the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 1098-1106. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/2387146

Reijnen, R.; Foppen, R.; ter Braak,C.; and Thissen, J. 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. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/2404428

Reijnen, R.; Foppen, R.; and Meeuwsen, H. 1996. The effects of traffic on the density of breeding birds in 

Dutch agricultural grasslands. Biological Conservation 75, pp. 255-260.

Renfrew, R.B., Ribic, C.A., and Nack, J.L. 2005. Edge Avoidance by Nesting Grassland Birds: A Futile 

Strategy in a Fragmented Landscape. The Auk, Vol. 122, No. 2. Pp 618-636. URL: 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4090451 

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P., L.Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, Jr., G Goodwin, 

R. Smith, and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the 

southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-217:90 pp.

Reynolds, Richard T. 1983. Management of western coniferous forests habitat for nesting accipiter hawks. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-102. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Richardson, C.T.; and Miller, C.K. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human 

disturbance: A review. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 634-638 Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/3783512 

Riitters, K.H. andWickham, J.D. 2003. How far to the nearest road? Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 125-129. Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/3867984

Roberts, S.D. and Porter, W.F. 1998. Relation between weather and survival of Wild Turkey nests. The 

Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 62, No. 4. Pp. 1492-1498. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/3802015

Rost, G.R. and; J.A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of Mule Deer and Elk in relation to roads. The Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 43(3): 634-641. Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/3808741.

Rowland, M.M., M. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and J.G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling in relation 

to roads. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 64(3):672-684., Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 672-684. 

Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/3802737

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, Kansas, USA. 12 pp.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

191

Russell, A.L.; C.M. Butchoski; L. Saidak; and G.F. McCracken. 2009. Road-killed bats, highway design, 

and the commuting ecology of bats. Endangered Species Research. Vol. 8: 49-60. 

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.

Scott, V. E. and Patton, D.R. 1978. Distribution, food habits and nest selection of cavity nesting birds of 

the Southwestern forests. Research Notes. 51pp.

Semlitsch, R.D. 1998. Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond-breeding Salamanders. 

Conservation Biology, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 1113-1119. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/2387584.

Shook, R. 2009a. Species list of the Gila River Bird Habitat Management Unit: mid-May 1996 through 

August 2009 (7th Edition AOU and Supplements) 2pp.

Shook, R. 2009b. The Gila River Bird Habitat Management Unit: An analysis of avian populations, midMay 1996 through August 2009. Research Report. 91 pp.

Smith, T.S., Flenders, J.T., and Winn, D.S. 1991. A Habitat Evaluation Procedure for Rocky Mountain 

Bighorn Sheep In the Intermountain West. Great Basin Naturalist 51(3), pp. 205-225.

Southwest Endangered Species Act Team (SWESA 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, New Mexico. 75 pp.

Stalmaster, M.V. and Newman, J.R. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering Bald Eagles to human 

activity. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 506-513. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/3800811

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. Petersons Field Guides. Western Reptiles and Amphibians Third Edition. Gila 

Monster Pg. 338-339.

Strittholt, J.R. and D.A. Dellasala. 2001. Importance of Roadless Areas in Biodiversity Conservation in 

Forested Ecosystems: Case Study of the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion of the United States. 

Conservation Biology 15(6): 1742-1754. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3061275 

Strittholt, J.R., Nogueron, R., Berquist, J. and Alvarez, M. 2006. Mapping Undisturbed Landscapes In 

Alaska; An Overview Report. World Resource Institue.

Swihart, R.K. and N.A Slade. 1984. Mammalogists Road Crossing in Sigmodon hispidus and Microtus 

ochrogaster. Journal of Mammalogy. 65(2):357-360. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1381184 

Accessed: 02/05/2013.

Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife Responses to Recreation and Associated Visitor Perceptions. 

Ecological Applications. 13(4):951-963. Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/4134735

Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. American 

Midland Naturalist, Vol. 113, No. 2, pp. 404-407. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/2425590.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

192

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).

Thurber, J.M., R.O. Peterson, T.D. Drummer, and S.A. Thomasma. 1994. Gray Wolf Response to Refuge 

Boundaries and Roads in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 22(1):61-68. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783224 Accessed: 30/01/2013.

Trombulak, S.C and C.A.Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic 

communities. Conservation Biology. 14(1):18-30.

Underhill, J.E. and Angold, P.G. 2000. Effects of roads on wildlife in an intensively modified landscape. 

Environ. Rev. 8: pp. 21-39.

Unsworth, J.W., L. Kuck, M.D. Scott, and E.O. Garton. 1993. Elk mortality in the Clearwater drainage of 

Northcentral Idaho. The Journal of Wildlife Management. , Vol. 57(3): 495-502. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/3809273.

USDA Forest Service. 1986. LMP-Amended. 

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Plain (Juniper) Titmouse species account. Supervisor Office Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2001a. Blue Grouse Gila National Forest Management Indicator Species Report. 

Forest Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2001b. Mearn’s Quail Gila National Forest Management Indicator Species Report. 

Forest Files.

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. 2009a. Gila National Forest Hooded Skunk Species Account. Supervisor Office 

Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Gila National Forest Botta’s Pocket Gopher Species Account. Supervisor 

Office Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Gila National Forest Gunnison’s Prairie Dog Species Account. Supervisor 

Office Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2009d. Gila National Forest White Mountain Ground Squirrel Species Account. 

Supervisor Office Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2009e. Gila National Forest Southern Red-backed Vole Species Account. 

Supervisor Office Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2009f. Gila National Forest Long-tailed Vole Species Account. Supervisor Office 

Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2009g. Gila National Forest Arizona Montane Vole Species Account. Supervisor 

Office Files.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

193

USDA Forest Service. 2009h. Gila National Forest Western Red Bat Species Account. Supervisor Office 

Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2009i. Gila National Forest Arizona Grey Squirrel Species Account. Supervisor 

Office Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2009j. Gila National Forest Northern Gray Hawk Species Account. Supervisor 

Office Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2009k. Gila National Forest Arizona Grey Vireo Species Account. Supervisor 

Office Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Gila National Forest Beaver Species Account. Supervisor Office Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Gila National Forest Narrow-headed Gartersnake Species Account. 

Supervisor Office Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2010c. Gila National Forest Sensitive Species Abstracts for Nitocris Fritillary. Gila 

National Forest Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2010d. Gila National Forest Sensitive Species Abstracts for A notodontid moth. 

Gila National Forest Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2010e. Gila National Forest Sensitive Species Abstracts for A may fly. Gila 

National Forest Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2010f. Gila National Forest Sensitive Species Abstracts for Dashed Ringtail. Gila 

National Forest Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2010g. Gila National Forest Mexican Gartersnake Species Account. Supervisor 

Office Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Whitewater/Baldy Complex BAER Resource Report. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. Gila National Forest Management Indicator Species Report. Forest Files. 

Prepared by S. Kozlowski. Unpublished report available from the Gila National Forest, Silver 

City, NM.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Recovery Plan for the Mexican spotted owl: Vol.I 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 172pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Reintroduction Of The Mexican Wolf Within Its Historic 

Range In The Southwestern United States. Final Environmental Impact Statement.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona 

and New Mexico. Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 7. January 12, 1998. 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-01-12/pdf/98-681.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Lesser long-nosed bat Status. Last Updated 2001. 

Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

194

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Recovery Plan for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/SWWF_RP.htm

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007a. 5 Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Species 

reviewed: Lesser Long-nosed Bat / Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae. Prepared for the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 45 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007b. Recovery Plan for the Chiricahua leopard frog: Vol.I 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007c. National Bald Eagle management guidelines. 25 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report #12. 

Reporting Period: January 1 – December 31, 2009. 58 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012a. 5 Featured Pollinator Lesser long-nosed bat. Prepared 

for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

http://www.fws.gov/pollinators/Features/FeaturedPollinator.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012b. Final Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix 

occidentalis lucida), First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, New Mexico, 

USA. 413 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 Degraaf, R.M. 1996. Predation on artificial nests in forested riparian buffer 

strips. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 542-550. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/3802071

Van Dyke, F.G., R.H. Brocke, and H.G. Shaw. 1986. Use of Road Track Counts as Indices of Mountain 

Lion Presence. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 50(1):102-109. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/3801497

Voss, C.C. and Chardon, J.P. 1998. Effects of habitat fragmentation and road density on the distribution 

pattern of the Moor Frog Rana arvalis. The Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 44-56. 

Accessed at http//www.jstor.org/stable/2405186

Ward, A.L. 1976. Elk behavior in relation to timber harvest operations and traffic on the Medicine Bow 

Range in South-Central Wyoming. Proceedings of the Elk-Logging-Roads Symposium. 

University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences. Forest, Wildlife and 

Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho at Moscow, 13pp.

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. Fredunberger; and D. Paull. 2001. An Assessment of the Focal-Species Approach for 

Conserving Birds in Variegated Landscapes in Southeastern Australia. Conservation Biology, 

Pages 1364-1373. Vol. 15, No 5, 2001.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

195

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.

Wear, David N. and Greis, John G. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment: summary report. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SRS-54. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 103 p.

Weimerskirch, H., S.A.; Shaffer, S.A.; G. Mabille, G.; J. Martin, J.; O. Boutard, O.; and J.L. Rouanet, J.L. 

2002. Heart rate and energy expenditure of incubating wandering albatrosses: basal levels, natural 

variation, and the effects of human disturbance. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 205: 475–

483 (2002) 475. Printed in Great Britain © The Company of Biologists Limited 2002 JEB3600.

Western Bat Working Group Newsletter, 2011. Fall 2011 Volume 7, Number 1Abstract. Range Extension 

for Lesser Long-Nosed Bat in New Mexico. Marikay Ramsey, Bureau of Land Management, 

Santa Fe, NM, marikayr@blm.gov Kathy Whiteman, Gila Conservation Education Center, Silver 

City, NM director@gcecnm.org. 

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. 

Wisdom, M.J., A.A. Ager, H.K. Preisler, N.J. Cimon, and B.K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of off-road 

recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resource Conference 69. 17 pp.

Wittenberger, J.F. 1978. The Breeding Biology of an Isolated Bobolink Population in Oregon. The 

Condor, Vol. 80, No. 4, pp 355-371. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1367186 

Wong, S., H. Parada, and P.M. Narins. 2009. Heterospecific Acoutic Interference: Effects of Calling in 

Oophaga pumilio. Published in final edited form as: Biotropica. 41(1):74–80. doi:10.1111/j.1744-

7429.2008.00452.x. 

Yarmoloy, C., M. Bayer, and V. Geist. 1988. Behavior responses and reproduction of Mule Deer, 

Odocolleus hemionus, does following experimental harassment with an all-terrain vehicle. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 102(3): 425-429.

Zimmerman, Dale A. April, 1995. Birds of the Gila National Forest: A Checklist. Prepared by the USDA 

Forest Service in cooperation with the Southwest New Mexico Audubon Society.

Zimmerman, D.A. 1968. The Gila River Valley in Southwestern New Mexico as an important wildlife 

reservoir. 11 pp. 
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

196

Wildlife Bibliography

BISON-M. 2009. Bighorn Sheep. This reference information came from the BISON-M (Biota 

Information System of NM) database. The information was derived directly from data in this 

species account. See other references in this account for more information. Available at: 

http://www.bison-m.org/booklet.aspx?id=040370. Accessed: 2009.

Call. M. 1978. Nesting habitats and surveying, techniques for common western raptors. Bureau of Land 

Management Technical Notes #316.

Gutzwiller, K.J.; Marcum, H.A.; Harvey, H.B.; Roth, J.D.; Anderson, S.H. 1998. Bird tolerance to human 

intrusion in Wyoming montane forests. The Condor, Vol. 100, No. 3, pp. 519-527. Accessed at 

http//www.jstor.org/stable/1369718

Hitchcock, S.M. 1996. Abundance and nesting success of cavity-nesting birds in unlogged and salvagelogged burned forest in northwestern Montana. M. S. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. 

Hubbard, J.P. 1974. The biota of the Pinos Altos Mountains, Southwestern New Mexico: a preliminary 

report. 23 pp.

Johnson, R.R.; Carothers, S.W.; Wertheimer, D.B. 1974. The importance of the Lower Gila River, New 

Mexico as a refuge for threatened wildlife. 23 pp. 

NatureServe Explorer. 2009. Common Black-hawk. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life 

[web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: September 2009.

NCADA2013-Public ReviewDraft.

Regan, D.M. 1961. State-wide fisheries investigations: Study on the proposed Sapillo Dam. Federal Aid 

Project F-22-R-3. Work Plan 3, Job No. I-1. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 11 pp.

Reid, Leslie M. 1999. Review of Methods to Complete Watershed Analysis on Pacific Lumber Lands in 

Northern California. 67pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1975. Gila Wilderness Management Plan. Southwestern Region 86 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1981. Aquatic Ecosystem Inventory: Macroinvertebrate Analysis. Annual Progress 

Report. Intermountain Region. Gila National Forest. 4pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1984. Aquatic Ecosystem Inventory: Macroinvertebrate Analysis. Annual Progress 

Report. Intermountain Region. Gila National Forest. 35pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Gila National Forest Common Ground Dove Species Account. Supervisor 

Office Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Gila National Forest Gila Woodpecker Species Account. Supervisor Office 

Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Gila National Forest Reticulate Gila Monster Species Account. Supervisor 

Office Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Gila National Forest White-Nosed Coati Species Account. Supervisor Office 

Files.
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

197

USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region. _n.d.. Multiple use impact survey report. An analysis of the 

interrelationship of the Hooker Dam and Reservoir and the resources and management of the Gila 

National Forest. 42 pp.

USDA Forest Service, Southwest Region. 2010.ClimateChange.

VeneKlasen, G. 2010. “Trophies back once illegal roads closed” published in Outdoor Reporter, Spring 

2010. New Mexico Wildlife Federation.

Williams, O. 1996. Personal Journal: Summary report on floristic work on the Black Range Ranger 

District of the Gila National Forest. 36 pp.

Wisdom, M.J.; Rowland, M.M.; Johnson, B.K.; and Dick, B.L. 2005. Overview of the Starkey Project: 

Mule Deer and Elk research for management benefits. Pages 17-28 in Wisdom, M. J., technical 

editor, The Starkey 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, Kansas, USA. 

Zimmerman, D.A. 1970. Birds and bird habitats on National Forest lands in the Gila River Valley, 

Southwestern New Mexico. 44 pp. 

Zimmerman, D.A. 1978. Eared Trogon – immigrant or visitor? The story of the appearance of Euptilotis 

neoxenus in the mountains of southern Arizona. American Birds, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 135-139.

Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

199

Appendix A. Gila National Forest Neotropical Migratory Birds by 

Habitat Type

Desert Migratory Birds

The following migratory bird species use desert habitat:

American Kestrel

Ash-throated Flycatcher

Barn Owl

Black-chinned Hummingbird

Black-throated Sparrow

Brewer’s Sparrow

Bronzed Cowbird

Brown-headed Cowbird

Burrowing Owl

Cactus Wren

Cassin's Kingbird

Chestnut-collared Longspur

Common Nighthawk

Common Poor-will

Chihuahuan Raven 

Cooper's Hawk

Eastern Meadowlark

Ferruginous Hawk

Golden Eagle

Greater Roadrunner

Great-horned Owl

Horned Lark

House Finch

Ladder-backed Woodpecker

Lark Bunting

Lesser Nighthawk

Loggerhead Shrike

Long-eared Owl

Merlin

Northern Harrier Northern 

Mockingbird

Peregrine Falcon

Prairie Falcon

Pyrrhuloxia

Red-tailed Hawk

Sage Sparrow

Savannah Sparrow

Scott’s Oriole

Swainson's Hawk

Turkey Vulture

Verdin

Vesper Sparrow

Western Kingbird

Western Meadowlark
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

200

Spruce-Fir Migratory Birds

The following migratory bird species use spruce fir habitat:

Acorn Woodpecker

American Goldfinch

American Kestrel

American Robin

Black-headed Grosbeak

Black Swift

Brown-headed Cowbird

Broad-tailed Hummingbird

Brown Creeper

Chipping Sparrow

Clark’s Nutcracker

Common Nighthawk

Common Poor-will

Common Raven

Cordilleran Flycatcher

Dark-eyed Junco

Dusky Flycatcher

Flammulated Owl

Golden-crowned Kinglet

Orange-crowned Warbler

Grace's Warbler

Green-tailed Towhee

Greater Pewee Great-horned Owl

Hairy Woodpecker

Hammond's Flycatcher

Hermit Thrush

Hermit Warbler

House Wren

Lark Sparrow

Lesser Goldfinch

Mexican Spotted Owl

Mountain Chickadee

Mourning Dove

Northern Flicker

Northern Goshawk

Northern Saw-whet Owl

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Olive Warbler

Peregrine Falcon

Pine Siskin

Plumbeous Vireo

Pygmy Nuthatch

Red Crossbill

Red-breasted Nuthatch

Red-faced Warbler 

Red-naped Sapsucker

Red-tailed Hawk

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

Ruby-crowned Kinglet

Rufous Hummingbird

Sharp-shinned Hawk

Steller's Jay

Swainson’s Thrush

Three-toed Woodpecker

Townsend's Solitaire

Townsend’s Warbler

Tree Swallow

Violet-green Swallow

Warbling Vireo

Western Kingbird

Western Tanager

Western Wood Pewee

Whip-poor-will

White-throated Swift

Williamson's Sapsucker

Winter Wren

Yellow-rumped Warbler

Mountain Grassland Migratory Birds

The following migratory bird species use mountain grassland habitat:

American Pipit

Burrowing Owl

Chestnut-collared Longspur

Common Nighthawk

Common Poor-will 

Common Raven

Eastern Meadowlark

Horned Lark

Lark Sparrow

Loggerhead Shrike Northern 

Harrier

Savannah Sparrow

Turkey Vulture

Vesper Sparrow

Western Meadowlark
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

201

Oak Woodland Migratory Birds

The following migratory bird species use oak woodland habitat:

Acorn Woodpecker

American Goldfinch

American Kestrel

American Robin

Ash-throated Flycatcher

Bald Eagle

Band-tailed Pigeon

Barn Owl

Barn Swallow

Bewick's Wren

Black-chinned Hummingbird

Black-headed Grosbeak

Black-chinned Sparrow

Blue Grosbeak

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher

Brewer’s Blackbird

Bridled Titmouse

Bronzed Cowbird

Brown-headed Cowbird

Bushtit

Calliope Hummingbird

Canyon Towhee

Canyon Wren

Cassin’s Finch

Cassin's Kingbird

Cassin’s Vireo

Cedar Waxwing

Chipping Sparrow

Cliff Swallow

Common Nighthawk

Common Poor-will

Common Raven

Cooper's Hawk 

Crissal Thrasher

Curve-billed Thrasher

Dark-eyed Junco

Eastern Bluebird

Elf Owl

Fox Sparrow

Golden Eagle

Gray Flycatcher

Gray Vireo

Greater Roadrunner

Great-horned Owl

Hairy Woodpecker

House Finch

Hutton’s Vireo

Ladder-backed Woodpecker

Lark Bunting

Lark Sparrow

Lazuli Bunting

Lesser Goldfinch

Lincoln’s Sparrow

Loggerhead Shrike

MacGillivray's Warbler

Mexican Jay

Mountain Bluebird

Mourning Dove

Northern Cardinal

Northern Flicker

Northern Goshawk

Northern Harrier

Northern Pygmy Owl

Orange-crowned Warbler

Peregrine Falcon

Phainopepla

Pine Siskin

Plumbeous Vireo

Prairie Falcon

Pyrrhuloxia

Red-naped Sapsucker

Red-tailed Hawk

Rock Wren

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

Ruby-crowned Kinglet

Rufous Hummingbird

Rufous-crowned Sparrow

Sage Thrasher

Say's Phoebe

Scott’s Oriole

Sharp-shinned Hawk

Short-eared Owl

Spotted Towhee

Swainson’s Hawk

Turkey Vulture

Western Bluebird

Western Kingbird

Western Screech Owl

Western Scrub Jay

Western Tanager

White-crowned Sparrow

White-throated Sparrow

White-winged Dove

Wilson’s Warbler

Zone-tailed Hawk
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

202

Oak-Juniper Migratory Birds

The following migratory bird species use oak-juniper habitat:

Acorn Woodpecker

American Goldfinch

American Kestrel

American Robin

Anna’s Hummingbird

Ash-throated Flycatcher

Bald Eagle

Band-tailed Pigeon

Barn Owl

Barn Swallow

Bewick's Wren

Black-chinned Hummingbird

Black-chinned Sparrow

Black-headed Grosbeak

Black Swift

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher

Blue Grosbeak

Blue-throated Gray Warbler

Brewer's Blackbird

Brewer's Sparrow

Broad-tailed Hummingbird

Bronzed Cowbird

Brown-headed Cowbird

Bushtit

Calliope Hummingbird

Canyon Towhee

Canyon Wren

Cassin’s Finch

Cassin’s Kingbird

Cassin’s Vireo

Cedar Waxwing

Chipping Sparrow

Cliff Swallow

Common Nighthawk

Common Poor-will

Common Raven

Cooper's Hawk

Crissal Thrasher

Curve-billed Thrasher

Dark-eyed Junco

Eastern Bluebird

Elf Owl

Fox Sparrow

Golden-crowned Sparrow

Golden Eagle

Gray Catbird

Gray Flycatcher

Gray Vireo

Greater Roadrunner

Great-horned Owl

Green-tailed Towhee

Hairy Woodpecker

House Finch

Hutton’s Vireo

Juniper Titmouse

Ladder-backed Woodpecker

Lark Sparrow

Lazuli Bunting

Lesser Goldfinch

Lincoln's Sparrow

Loggerhead Shrike

Long-eared Owl

MacGillivray’s Warbler

Magnificent Hummingbird

Mexican Jay

Mexican Spotted Owl

Mountain Bluebird

Mourning Dove

Nashville Warbler

Northern Cardinal

Northern Flicker

Northern Goshawk

Northern Harrier

Northern Mockingbird

Northern Pygmy Owl

Orange-crowned Warbler

Peregrine Falcon

Phainopepla

Pine Siskin

Plumbeous Vireo

Prairie Falcon

Pyrrhuloxia

Red-naped Sapsucker

Red-tailed Hawk

Rock Dove

Rock Wren

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

Ruby-crowned Kinglet

Rufous-crowned Sparrow 

Rufous Hummingbird

Sage Thrasher

Say's Phoebe

Scott’s Oriole

Sharp-shinned Hawk

Short-eared Owl

Spotted Towhee

Swainson's Hawk

Townsend’s Solitaire

Turkey Vulture

Verdin

Violet-green Swallow

Virginia's Warbler

Western Kingbird

Western Bluebird

Western Tanager

Western Screech Owl

Western Scrub Jay

Whip-poor-will

White-crowned Sparrow

White-throated Sparrow

White-throated Swift

White-winged Dove

Wilson’s Warbler

Zone-tailed Hawk
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

203

Piñon Juniper Migratory Birds

The following migratory bird species use piñon juniper habitat:

Acorn Woodpecker

American Goldfinch

American Kestrel

American Robin

Anna’s Hummingbird

Ash-throated Flycatcher

Bald Eagle

Band-tailed Pigeon

Barn Owl

Barn Swallow

Bell’s Vireo

Bewick's Wren

Black Swift

Black-chinned Hummingbird

Black-chinned Sparrow

Black-headed Grosbeak

Black-throated Gray Warbler

Blue Grosbeak

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher

Brewer’s Blackbird

Brewer’s Sparrow

Broad-tailed Hummingbird

Bronzed Cowbird

Brown-headed Cowbird

Bushtit

Calliope Hummingbird

Canyon Towhee

Canyon Wren

Cassin’s Finch

Cassin's Kingbird

Cassin's Vireo

Cedar Waxwing

Chipping Sparrow

Clark's Nutcracker

Cliff Swallow

Common Nighthawk

Common Poor-will

Common Raven

Cooper's Hawk

Crissal Thrasher

Curve-billed Thrasher

Dark-eyed Junco

Dusky Flycatcher

Eastern Bluebird

Elf Owl

Evening Grosbeak

Ferruginous Hawk

Fox Sparrow

Golden Eagle

Golden-crowned Kinglet

Golden-crowned Sparrow

Gray Flycatcher

Gray Vireo

Greater Roadrunner

Great-horned Owl

Green-tailed Towhee

Hammond's Flycatcher

Hepatic Tanager

House Finch

Hutton’s Vireo

Inca Dove

Juniper Titmouse

Ladder-backed Woodpecker

Lark Sparrow

Lesser Goldfinch

Lincoln’s Sparrow

Loggerhead Shrike

Long-eared Owl

MacGillivray's Warbler

Magnificent Hummingbird

Mountain Bluebird

Mourning Dove

Northern Cardinal

Northern Flicker

Northern Goshawk

Northern Mockingbird

Northern Pygmy Owl

Northern Saw-whet Owl

Orange-crowned Warbler

Peregrine Falcon

Phainopepla

Pine Siskin

Pinyon Jay

Plumbeous Vireo

Prairie Falcon

Pygmy Nuthatch

Pyrrhuloxia

Red-naped Sapsucker

Red-tailed Hawk

Rock Dove

Rock Wren

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

Ruby-crowned Kinglet

Rufous Hummingbird

Rufous-crowned Sparrow

Sage Thrasher

Say's Phoebe

Scott’s Oriole

Sharp-shinned Hawk

Short-eared Owl

Spotted Towhee

Swainson's Hawk

Townsend’s Warbler

Townsend's Solitaire

Turkey Vulture

Violet-green Swallow

Virginia's Warbler

Western Bluebird

Western Kingbird

Western Screech Owl

Western Scrub Jay

Western Tanager

Whip-poor-will

White-breasted Nuthatch

White-crowned Sparrow

White-throated Swift

White-winged Dove

Wilson's Warbler

Yellow-rumped Warbler

Zone-tailed Hawk
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

204

Ponderosa Pine Migratory Bird

The following migratory bird species use ponderosa pine habitat:

Acorn Woodpecker

American Goldfinch

American Kestrel

American Robin

Anna’s Hummingbird

Ash-throated Flycatcher

Bald Eagle

Band-tailed Pigeon

Barn Owl

Barn Swallow

Belted Kingfisher

Black Swift

Black-headed Grosbeak

Black-throated Gray Warbler

Brewer’s Sparrow

Broad-tailed Hummingbird

Brown Creeper

Brown-headed Cowbird

Calliope Hummingbird

Canyon Towhee

Canyon Wren

Cassin’s Finch

Cassin's Kingbird

Cassin's Vireo

Chipping Sparrow

Cliff Swallow

Common Nighthawk

Common Poor-will

Common Raven

Cooper's Hawk

Cordilleran Flycatcher

Dark-eyed Junco

Dusky Flycatcher

Elf Owl

Evening Grosbeak

Flammulated Owl

Golden Eagle

Golden-crowned Sparrow

Grace's Warbler

Gray Flycatcher

Greater Pewee

Great-horned Owl

Hairy Woodpecker

Hammond's Flycatcher

Hepatic Tanager

Hermit Thrush

Hermit Warbler

House Wren

Lark Sparrow

Lesser Goldfinch

MacGillivray's Warbler

Magnificent Hummingbird

Mexican Spotted Owl

Mountain Bluebird

Mountain Chickadee

Mourning Dove

Northern Flicker

Northern Goshawk

Northern Saw-whet Owl

Olive Warbler

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Peregrine Falcon

Pine Siskin

Plumbeous Vireo

Prairie Falcon

Purple Martin

Pygmy Nuthatch

Red Crossbill

Red-breasted Nuthatch

Red-faced Warbler

Red-naped Sapsucker

Red-tailed Hawk

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

Ruby-crowned Kinglet

Rufous Hummingbird

Say's Phoebe

Seller’s Jay

Sharp-shinned Hawk

Short-eared Owl

Spotted Towhee

Swainson’s Thrush

Three-toed Woodpecker

Townsend’s Warbler

Townsend's Solitaire

Tree Swallow

Turkey Vulture

Violet-green Swallow

Warbling Vireo

Western Bluebird

Western Kingbird

Western Screech Owl

Western Tanager

Western Wood Pewee

Whip-poor-will

Whip-poor-will

White-breasted Nuthatch

White-throated Swift

White-winged Dove

Williamson's Sapsucker

Yellow-rumped Warbler

Zone-tailed Hawk
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

205

Coniferous Riparian Migratory Birds

The following migratory bird species use coniferous riparian habitat:

American Dipper

American Redstart

American Robin

Anna’s Hummingbird

Band-tailed Pigeon

Bank Swallow

Belted Kingfisher

Black Phoebe

Broad-tailed Hummingbird

Common Black Hawk

Cordilleran Flycatcher

Dark-eyed Junco

Fox Sparrow

Green-tailed Towhee
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

206

Deciduous Riparian Migratory Birds

The following migratory bird species use deciduous riparian habitat:

Abert’s Towhee

Acorn Woodpecker

American Crow

American Dipper

American Goldfinch

American Kestrel

American Pipit

American Redstart

American Robin

Anna’s Hummingbird

Ash-throated Flycatcher

Bald Eagle

Band-tailed Pigeon

Bank Swallow

Barn Owl

Barn Swallow

Bell’s Vireo

Belted Kingfisher

Bewick's Wren

Black-and-white Warbler

Black-chinned Hummingbird

Black-crowned Night Heron

Black-headed Grosbeak

Black Phoebe

Black Swift

Black-throated Gray Warbler

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher

Blue Grosbeak

Blue-throated Hummingbird

Bonaparte’s Gull

Brewer's Blackbird

Bridled Titmouse

Broad-tailed Hummingbird

Bronzed Cowbird

Brown-crested Flycatcher

Brown-headed Cowbird

Bullock’s Oriole

Bushtit

California Gull

Canyon Towhee

Canyon Wren

Cassin’s Finch

Cassin's Kingbird

Cassin’s Vireo

Cedar Waxwing

Chipping Sparrow

Cliff Swallow

Common Black Hawk

Common Ground Dove

Common Merganser

Common Nighthawk

Common Poor-will

Common Raven

Common Yellowthroat

Cooper's Hawk

Cordilleran Flycatcher

Curve-billed Thrasher

Dark-eyed Junco

Double-crested Cormorant

Downy Woodpecker

Dusky Flycatcher

Eastern Bluebird

Elf Owl

European Starling

Evening Grosbeak

Fox Sparrow

Franklin’s Gull

Gila Woodpecker

Golden-crowned Sparrow

Gray Flycatcher

Great Blue Heron

Great Egret

Greater Roadrunner

Great Horned Owl

Great-tailed Grackle

Green Heron

Green-tailed Towhee

Green-winged Teal

Hairy Woodpecker

Harris’s Sparrow

Hepatic Tanager

Hermit Thrush

Hooded Merganser

Hooded Oriole

House Finch

House Wren

Hutton’s Vireo

Inca Dove

Indigo Bunting

Ladder-backed Woodpecker

Lazuli Bunting

Lesser Goldfinch

Lesser Nighthawk

Lewis's Woodpecker

Lincoln's Sparrow

Long-eared Owl

Lucy’s Warbler

MacGillivray's Warbler

Magnificent Hummingbird

Marsh Wren

Merlin

Mexican Jay

Mountain Bluebird

Mountain Chickadee

Mourning Dove

Nashville Warbler

Northern Cardinal

Northern Flicker

Northern Goshawk

Northern Harrier

Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow

Northern Waterthrush

Orange-crowned Warbler

Osprey

Painted Redstart

Peregrine Falcon

Phainopepla

Pine Siskin

Plumbeous Vireo

Purple Martin

Pyrrhuloxia

Red-faced Warbler

Red-naped Sapsucker

Red-winged Blackbird

Ring-billed Gull

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

Ruby-crowned Kinglet

Rufous-crowned Sparrow

Rufous Hummingbird

Sandhill Crane

Say's Phoebe

Sharp-shinned Hawk

Snowy Egret

Song Sparrow

Spotted Towhee

Summer Tanager

Swainson's Thrush
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

207

Swamp Sparrow

Tennessee Warbler

Townsend's Solitaire

Townsend’s Warbler

Tree Swallow

Turkey Vulture

Verdin

Vermilion Flycatcher

Violet-green Swallow

Warbling Vireo

Western Bluebird

Western Kingbird

Western Screech Owl

Western Tanager

Western Wood Pewee

White-breasted Nuthatch

White-crowned Sparrow

White-throated Sparrow

White-throated Swift

White-winged Dove

Willow Flycatcher

Wilson's Warbler

Winter Wren

Wood Duck

Yellow Warbler

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Yellow-breasted Chat

Yellow-headed Blackbird

Yellow-rumped Warbler
Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation Gila National Forest Travel Management Project

208

Marsh/Open Water Migratory Birds

The following migratory bird species use marsh/open water habitat:

American Avocet

American Bittern

American Coot

American Kestrel

American Pipit

American Wigeon

Baird’s Sandpiper

Bank Swallow

Barn Swallow

Belted Kingfisher

Black Tern

Black-bellied Plover

Black-crowned Night Heron

Black-necked Stilt

Blue-winged Teal

Bonaparte’s Gull

Brewer's Blackbird

Bufflehead

California Gull

Canada Goose

Canvasback

Chestnut-collared Longspur

Chihuahuan Raven

Cinnamon Teal

Clark’s Grebe

Clark’s Grebe

Cliff Swallow

Cliff Swallow

Common Goldeneye

Common Goldeneye

Common Ground Dove

Common Ground Dove

Common Loon

Common Loon

Common Merganser

Common Merganser

Common Moorhen

Common Moorhen

Common Snipe

Common Snipe

Common Yellowthroat

Common Yellowthroat

Double-crested Cormorant

Eared Grebe

Evening Grosbeak

Ferruginous Hawk

Forster’s Tern

Fox Sparrow

Franklin’s Gull

Gadwall

Golden Eagle

Great Blue Heron

Great Egret

Greater Roadrunner

Greater Scaup

Greater Yellowlegs

Great-tailed Grackle

Green Heron

Green-winged Teal

Hooded Merganser

Horned Lark

Killdeer

Lark Bunting

Lark Sparrow

Least Bittern

Least Sandpiper

Lesser Scaup

Lesser Yellowlegs

Lincoln’s Sparrow

Loggerhead Shrike

Long-billed Curlew

Long-billed Dowitcher

Mallard

Marbled Godwit

Marsh Wren

Merlin

Mountain Bluebird

Neotropic Cormorant

Northern Harrier

Northern Pintail

Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow

Northern Shoveler

Osprey

Pectoral Sandpiper

Red-breasted Merganser

Redhead

Red-necked Sandpiper

Red-winged Blackbird

Ring-billed Gull

Ring-necked Duck

Ross’s Goose

Rough-legged Hawk

Ruddy Duck

Sandhill Crane

Savannah Sparrow

Say's Phoebe

Semipalmated Plover

Snow Goose

Snowy Egret

Solitary Sandpiper

Song Sparrow

Sora

Spotted Sandpiper

Swamp Sparrow

Tundra Swan

Turkey Vulture

Vesper Sparrow

Virginia Rail

Western Bluebird

Western Meadowlark

Western Sandpiper

White-faced Ibis

Willet

Wilson’s Phalarope

Yellow-headed Blackbird