Wildlife Specialist report

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; the lower traffic rates and
travel speeds on forest routes 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.
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 the dispersal distances of this species (39,828 ac.). 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 71 miles that are currently
identified within the dispersal distance analysis area. So under this alternative through
time the potential for the direct loss of individuals and habitat would increase, as would
the potential for disturbance effects to the species and habitat.
Effect Common to all Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Under these
alternatives motorized cross country travel (see assumption) is no longer allowed. Under
all action alternatives the change from the existing condition is a 100% reduction in
motorized cross country travel. The authorization to allow disperse camp in these
alternatives is reduced by 97% to 100% within the analysis area. No motorized areas are
designated within this analysis area. Since no cross country travel and no motorized
areas are located in the analysis area there would be no effect to the CLF or its habitat
from these activities.
Differences among the Action Alternatives (C, D, E, F, and G): Miles of motorized
routes and trails and acres of potentially affected habitat within the analysis area are
reduced by approximately 48% (-35 miles) under Alternative E; 16% (-11 mi.) under
Alternative D; 9% (-7 mi.) under Alternative F, 5% (-3 mi.) under Alternative G, and 1%
(-1 mi.) under Alternatives C (see Tables 35 for specific numbers). Under the existing
condition you have 65 stream crossings within the analysis area. This number is reduced
by 56% under Alternative E to 31 crossings; by 32.5% under Alternative D to 48 stream
crossings; by 27% under Alternative F to 52 crossings; by 11% under Alternative G to 63
stream crossings; and by 10% under Alternative C to 64 crossings. Under Alternative E
23 of the stream crossing go to administrative use only; under Alternatives D, F, and G
21 go to administrative use only; and under Alternative C 20 go to administrative use.
The greater the reduction in miles of motorized routes and number of motorized stream
crossing in the analysis areas the less the potential for direct and indirect effects.
Additionally, the more of these miles and crossings that go to administrative use only the
less the potential for direct and indirect effects. The reduction in direct and indirect
62