Wildlife Specialist report

effects to the species and its habitat is relative to the amount of miles and stream
crossings reduced in the analysis areas.
The area of potentially affected habitat for motorized big game retrieval is reduced by
100% under Alternative E, 98% under Alternative D, 42% under Alternative F, 97%
under Alternative G, and 12.5% under Alternative C.
Findings:
Table 40: Chiricahua leopard frog federally listed species determination by alternative
Federally
Listed
Species
Chiricahua
leopard frog
Rationale for
determination
Alt. B
Existing
Condition
Determination by Alternative
Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G
MALAA MALAA MALAA MALAA MALAA
Under alternative E, the change results in a much higher benefit to the
species and its habitat, than the other action alternatives. The remaining
four alternatives do change the uses within analysis areas, reducing the
risk of potential effects in the following order: alternative D, F, G, and C.
This change in use does cause less adverse effects than roads and trails
open under the no-action alternative. All action alternatives propose
some level of administrative use, reducing the potential level of effect
relative to the change. The change to administrative use reduces traffic
levels; therefore providing long-term beneficial effects by reducing the
potential to cause the direct mortality of frogs. However, even low levels
of use through occupied habitat still has the potential to cause
harvest/take. Under alternatives F and C, the area open to big game
retrieval is still relatively high compared to the other action alternatives.
Many of the remaining Chiricahua leopard frog locations on the forest
occur in popular hunting areas, so it is reasonable to expect some level of
game retrieval within the analysis area. Leopard frogs are associated with
riparian/aquatic type habitats that are more susceptible to damage by
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.
*MALAA- May affect likely to adversely affect determination
63