Rosemont 2008 Ranid Survey 04/24/09 with Updated Figure 2
57.5 MB1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Rosemont Copper Company (Rosemont) proposes to develop an open-pit copper mine, with associated processing facilities and waste disposal sites, within the Rosemont Holdings, which encompass patented and unpatented claims and fee lands within privately owned, USDA Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management lands on the northeast side of the Santa Rita Mountains (Figure 1). Rosemont has authorized WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand), to conduct a variety of baseline biological studies within the Rosemont Holdings. This report summarizes the results of WestLand’s 2008 surveys for Chiricahua leopard frogs (Lithobates [Rana] chiricahuensis) within and in the vicinity of the Rosemont Holdings.
2. NATURAL HISTORY AND STATUS OF LOWLAND AND CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROGS
Seven species of ranids (six native and one introduced) are recognized in Arizona (Sredl et al. 1997). Three of these species are known from within the vicinity of the Rosemont Holdings: two native species, the lowland leopard frog (Lithobates [Rana] yavapaiensis) and the Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates [Rana] chiricahuensis), and one introduced species, the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana).
Lowland and Chiricahua leopard frogs are members of the Pantherana clade (Rana pipiens complex). The Center for North American Herpetology (2008) adopted a change in genus from Rana to Lithobates as recommended in Frost et al. (2006), in which Rana was partitioned worldwide and in North America into two genera. This change has not been recognized by the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (2009), which continues to place all of these frogs in the genus Rana.
2.1. CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (LITHOBATES [RANA] CHIRICAHUENSIS)
The Chiricahua leopard frog is a medium to large, stocky frog with adult snout to vent lengths between 2.0 and 5.4 inches (5.0 and 13.5 cm) (AGFD 2006a). The basic color of this frog is green to brown, with a green head and face (Appendix A, Photo 1). The upper lip stripe is faint or absent in front of the eye. The eyes are relatively high on the head and are upturned (Appendix A, Photo 2) (Brennan and Holycross 2006). The Chiricahua leopard frog is distinguished from other leopard frogs by rougher skin with more tubercles and by smaller and more numerous dorsal spots. In addition, it has cream-colored tubercles (spots) on a dark background on the rear of the thigh (Appendix A, Photo 3) and dorsolateral folds that are interrupted and deflected medially (AGFD 2006a). This frog is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. It is also considered a Wildlife Species of Special Concern by the state of Arizona, and it is listed as a Forest Service Sensitive Species.
The Chiricahua leopard frog is one of the most aquatic of the ranid frogs, requiring permanent or nearly permanent water sources. This frog may be found in streams, rivers, backwaters, ponds, and stock tanks that are free from introduced fish, crayfish, and bullfrogs. The primary habitat for this species is oak and pine woodlands and it is known to range into chaparral, grassland, and desert habitats (AGFD 2006a). This ranid frog adapts to man-made aquatic systems, including earthen stock tanks, irrigation systems, wells, abandoned swimming pools, ornamental backyard ponds, and mine adits located within or near its primary habitat (AGFD 2006a). In Arizona, earthen cattle tanks are an important source of habitat for leopard frogs (Sredl 1997).
 |
The Chiricahua leopard frog has a geographic range that extends from central Arizona and southwestern New Mexico south into the Sierra Madre Occidental of Mexico into western Jalisco. In Arizona, the range includes two separate and distinct areas. The northern population extends from montane regions of central Arizona, runs east along the Mogollon Rim, and continues into the mountains of western and southwestern New Mexico. The southern population is limited to areas south of the Gila River, in the mountains and valleys of southeastern Arizona, and extending into Sonora along the eastern slope of the Sierra Madre Occidental (AGFD 2006a). It is possible that these two populations could be recognized as distinct species. The elevation range is variously described as 3,500 to 7,900 feet (AGFD 2006a), 3,050 to 8,890 feet (also AGFD 2006a), 3,500 to 8,530 feet (Stebbins 2003), 3,480 to 6,600 feet (Sredl 1997), or 3,280 to 8,530 feet (BISON-M 2009).
The Chiricahua leopard frog has experienced declines in populations in recent decades, particularly in the White Mountains, but also in southeastern Arizona (Sredl 1997). Potential native predators on adults or tadpoles include native fishes, garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.), great blue heron (Ardea heroidias), coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cineroargenteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), coati (Nasua narica), black bear (Ursa americana), badger (Taxidea taxus), skunk (Mephitis sp.), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and mountain lion (Puma concolor) (AGFD 2006a). Non-native predators, including bullfrog (Rana catesbiana), crayfish (Orconectes virilis), and sport fish, are also significant threats. Another recognized threat is the loss of aquatic habitat from human actions, including drying, damming, diverting, siltation, and heavy grazing (AGFD 2006a). Possibly the most serious threat to the Chiricahua leopard frog is chytridiomycosis, an infection caused by the chytrid fungus, first documented in this species in 1992, and first reported in Arizona in 1998 (AGFD 2006a). Nine amphibian species in Arizona have now been affected by this fungus, including seven species of leopard frog, one salamander, and one treefrog (AGFD 2006a).
2.2. LOWLAND LEOPARD FROG (LITHOBATES [RANA] YAVAPAIENSIS)
The lowland leopard frog is a relatively small ranid, ranging from 1.8 to 3.4 inches (4.6 to 8.6 cm) in length from snout to vent (AGFD 2006b). It is typically brown in color, although some individuals are green, and it has a yellowish coloration along its posterior and the underside of its legs. In contrast with the Chiricahua leopard frog, the rear of the thigh has a dark brown and light reticulate pattern (AGFD 2006b). This species has no listing status under the Endangered Species Act. It is considered a Wildlife Species of Special Concern by the state of Arizona, and is listed as a Forest Service Sensitive Species.
The lowland leopard frog is known from central and southwestern Arizona below the Mogollon Rim, southwestern New Mexico, and probably northern Sonora, Mexico, and northwestern Chihuahua, Mexico (AGFD 2006b). In Arizona, this species is found in central and southeastern Arizona, and it is known to be present in the Santa Rita Mountains (AGFD 2006b). Where its range overlaps with the Chiricahua leopard frog, these species may hybridize. Hybridization has been reported in the Santa Rita Mountains in California Gulch and in Big Casa Blanca Canyon (AGFD 2006b), approximately 3 miles and approximately 10 miles south of the Rosemont Holdings, respectively. The elevation range is variously described as 480 to 8,200 feet (AGFD 2006b), sea level to 5,577 feet (Stebbins 2003), 480 to 5,960 feet (Sredl 1997), or below 5,500 feet (BISON-M 2009).
Lowland leopard frogs are generalists that inhabit aquatic systems from desert grasslands to pinyonjuniper vegetation communities (AGFD 2006b). They breed in a variety of natural and human-made aquatic systems. Natural systems include rivers, permanent streams, permanent pools in intermittent streams, beaver ponds, cienegas (i.e., wetlands), and springs. Human-made systems include earthen cattle tanks, livestock drinkers, canals, irrigation sloughs, wells, mine adits, abandoned swimming pools, and ornamental backyard ponds. Most historical localities are small to medium-sized streams and rivers. In lotic habitats, they are concentrated at springs, near debris piles, at heads of pools, and near deep pools associated with root masses (AGFD 2006b).
Shallow water with emergent and perimeter vegetation provides basking habitat and deep water, root masses, undercut banks, and debris piles provide potential hibernacula and refuge from predators (AGFD 2006b). In semi-permanent aquatic systems, the lowland leopard frog may survive the loss of surface water by retreating into deep mud cracks, mammal burrows, or rock fissures (AGFD 2006b). Studies have shown an association between juveniles and adult stages and pool size, and found juveniles were more frequently associated with small pools and marshy areas while adults were more frequently associated with large pools (AGFD 2006b).
The lowland leopard frog occurs within its range year round but is only active during warmer months. In Arizona, frogs breed primarily from January to May with additional breeding in some populations from summer to early fall after summer rains commence (AGFD 2006b). Females deposit spherical egg masses attached to underwater vegetation, bedrock, or gravel (AGFD 2006b).
As with many other species of amphibians, populations of the lowland leopard frog are declining. This species has apparently been extirpated from southwestern Arizona, and it is declining in southeastern Arizona (AGFD 2006b). It was thought to be extirpated from New Mexico until a single specimen was found in 2000 in Guadalupe Canyon, near the Arizona border (BISON-M 2009). Populations in central Arizona are relatively stable (Sredl 1997). Some recognized threats to lowland leopard frog populations are habitat modification and loss from activities such as damming, draining, and diverting water and cattle grazing (AGFD 2006b). Non-native predators and competitors, including the American bullfrog, several fishes, and crayfish, exacerbate the pressure on their populations. In addition, chytrid fungus has been implicated in the decline of many populations of various amphibian species in Arizona, and has been documented in lowland leopard frogs in Arizona (AGFD 2006b).
3. METHODS
3.1. IDENTIFICATION OF SURVEY FOCUS AREAS
WestLand focused survey efforts within areas that have the potential to support surface water in the planned Rosemont Project footprint and surrounding areas (Figures 1 and 2 [map pocket]). To determine areas with potential to support surface water in the vicinity of the Rosemont Holdings, WestLand reviewed USGS topographic mapping, 2007 aerial imagery provided by Cooper Aerial, and monitoring data for springs and seeps within the Rosemont Holdings provided by the project hydrologist. Known features with the potential to support surface water within the Project footprint were visited to determine if surface water was present. If surface water was present, surveys for Chiricahua leopard frog were conducted.
3.2. SURVEY PROTOCOL
3.2.1. Visual Encounter Survey Method
Surveys were conducted from August 7 to September 16, 2008, and were completed under Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) License Number SP637280 using protocols developed by AGFD and recommended by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for this species. At each survey site supporting surface water for each visit, a Chiricahua Leopard Frog Visual Encounter Survey Form was completed to document survey findings in accordance with the FWS recommended survey protocol. When possible, surveys were conducted at night to optimize the likelihood of observing frogs when they are most active. At most sites, diurnal surveys were conducted for safety reasons. Sites supporting surface water that were surveyed during the day were surveyed twice when possible.
Surveys of lentic systems included thoroughly scanning the perimeter with binoculars and listening for frog calling prior to approaching the surface water feature. The perimeter of the surface water feature was then traversed on foot while slowly looking for frogs, tadpoles, and egg masses and listening for audible plops as frogs retreated below the water surface. Special attention was given to sites where frogs might find cover, including vegetation, rocks, and downed branches. A dip net was used to search for the presence of amphibian larvae, fish, and aquatic insects. A dip net was also used to capture frogs to confirm identification.
Surveys of lotic systems included moving upstream from a starting point and searching banks, surrounding vegetation, and water for a minimum of ¼ mile (400 m) along the stream channel. Special attention was given to sites where frogs might find cover, including vegetation, rocks, and downed branches. A dip net was used to search for the presence of amphibian larvae, fish, and aquatic insects and to capture frogs to confirm identification.
In each of these survey procedures, observations of potential predators were recorded, including aquatic insects, other amphibians, garter snakes, and wading birds. The search also focused on exotic predators or competitors, including bullfrogs, crayfish, and sport fish. Data were also collected on water temperature, pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), and turbidity.
In some cases when Chiricahua leopard frogs were found, sites were revisited to determine whether the frog still occupied that site, but in these instances the frogs were not captured and handled.
3.2.2. Call Playback Search Method
A CD playback system was used to locate or elicit responses from frogs when frogs were observed but could not be captured. Chiricahua leopard frog calls were recorded from a master CD provided by AGFD at the 2005 Chiricahua Leopard Frog Certification Workshop (taken from Davidson [1996]) and calls were recorded over for continual calling. Calls were played onsite with a handheld CD player for 1 minute followed by a 2- to 5-minute listening period. This method was used until frogs were identified based on their response to the recorded leopard frog call.
3.2.3. Disease Prevention
Chytridiomycosis, an amphibian skin disease caused by the chytrid fungus, is known to infect at least nine species of amphibians in Arizona, including the Chiricahua leopard frog and the lowland leopard frog. In order to prevent the spread of this fungus, appropriate measures generally following the Declining Amphibians Population Task Force Field Work Code of Practice (dated 2002) were taken. Quaternary ammonia, following label instruction for dilution, was used to sterilize surveyor shoes and all equipment used at each site before and after each survey.
4. DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY AREAS
During the course of this effort, WestLand surveyed 25 lentic systems in the northern end of the Santa Rita Mountains, from about 4 miles (6 km) north of Mount Fagan to the Greaterville vicinity. In addition, WestLand visited approximately 20 miles (32 km) of ephemeral and intermittent stream channels in search of habitat for ranids. Seven lotic systems totaling approximately 12 miles (19 km) were surveyed for ranids. These sites ranged from the lower (northern) end of Davidson Canyon to the lower end of Box Canyon. The lentic systems surveyed are described, with locations, in Table 1. The lotic systems and locations are described in Table 2.
Table 1. Lentic Systems Surveyed for Ranid Species within the Rosemont Holdings and Vicinity.
Copies of the Chiricahua Leopard Frog Visual Encounter Survey Form for each survey are included in Appendix B.
Site locations are depicted on Figure 2.
Site Name | UTM Coordinate (NAD 27) | Description of Site | ||
Easting | Northing | |||
| 4066 Tank | 525601 | 3518450 | Small stock tank (30 by 30 ft [10 by 10 m]) in drainage south of Oak Tree Canyon, tributary to Empire Gulch, west of SR 83. Two site visits – 8/28 and 8/29/08. No floating, submerged, emergent, perimeter, or canopy vegetation. Mud/silt substrate, water heavily turbid. See Appendix A, Photo 17. | |
| Adobe Tank | 529042 | 3523939 | Stock tank (100 by 150 ft [30 by 45 m]), east of SR 83, near head of Davidson Canyon. Two site visits – 8/8 and 8/11/08. Some floating vegetation (10%), unknown submerged vegetation, no emergent vegetation. Perimeter vegetation includes seep willow and whitethorn acacia. Sparse canopy of velvet mesquite (<5%). Mud/silt substrate, heavily turbid. Black-necked gartersnake observed. See Appendix A, Photo 11. | |
| Beach Tank | 527508 | 3531106 | Small stock tank (70-ft [20-m] diameter) in unnamed drainage north of Mt. Fagan. One site visit – 9/3/08. No floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. Dense perimeter vegetation (70%) of grasses, amaranthus, cocklebur, and ipomoea. Perimeter vegetation (10-25%) of velvet mesquite and catclaw. Mud/silt substrate. Dry in early July, but had water and Scaphiopus tadpoles in late July. See Appendix A, Photo 21. | |
| “Big” Pond | 530137 | 3523997 | Large stock tank (500 by 160 ft [150 by 50 m]) in unnamed tributary of Davidson Canyon, about 1.3 km east of SR 83. One site visit – 9/16/08. No floating or submerged vegetation, but small patch of emergent vegetation (2%). Dense perimeter (90%) with grasses, mesquite, seep willow, and mimosa. Canopy vegetation limited to a single dead juniper. Mud/silt and gravel substrate, heavily turbid. Largemouth bass, channel catfish, and bluegill reported to be present. | |
| Blacktail Tank | 529814 | 3528381 | Stock tank (30 by 70 ft [10 by 20 m]), west of Cemetery Tank and southeast of Duckweed Tank. Two site visits – 8/28 and 8/29/08. Covered with floating duckweed (100%), no submerged vegetation, some emergent grass (10%). Dense grass perimeter (100%), no canopy vegetation. Mud/silt substrate with heavily turbid water. See Appendix A, Photo 12. | |
| Cemetery Tank | 531047 | 3528268 | Stock tank (100 by 150 ft [30 by 45 m]) in unnamed tributary of Davidson Canyon, west of SR 83. Three site visits – 8/28, 8/29, and 9/3/08. No submerged vegetation, but duckweed covers 20% of surface. Emergent vegetation includes grasses and willows (10- 25%). Dense perimeter vegetation of grasses (100%), and canopy includes willows and velvet mesquite (40%). Mud/silt and gravel substrate, with moderately clear water. See Appendix A, Photo 18. | |
| “Cocklebur” Charco | 530072 | 3532205 | Stock tank (80 by 70 ft [25 by 20 m]) in unnamed drainage northeast of Mt. Fagan. One site visit – 9/3/08. Dry in early September. No floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. Basin mostly filled with cocklebur. Sparse canopy of velvet mesquite and whitethorn acacia. Mud/silt substrate. See Appendix A, Photo 22. | |
| Deering Spring | 522915 | 3518996 | Spring in unnamed canyon tributary to Box Canyon east of south Sycamore Canyon. Two site visits – 8/8 and 8/28/08. Spring dry, but concrete trough may hold perennial water. No floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. No perimeter vegetation. Canopy vegetation (90%) includes oak, velvet mesquite, and juniper. Concrete substrate, water extremely clear. See Appendix A, Photo 19. | |
| “Duckweed” Tank | 529296 | 3529227 | Stock tank (70 by 70 ft [20 by 20 m]), south of The Lake and west of SR 83. Two site visits - 8/28 and 8/29/08. Covered with floating duckweed (100%), no submerged vegetation, some emergent grass (10%). Dense grass perimeter (100%), no canopy vegetation. Mud/silt substrate with heavily turbid water. | |
| East Dam | 527384 | 3522672 | Small wetland (25 by 10 ft [8 by 3 m]) in unnamed ephemeral tributary to Barrel Canyon, about 0.7 km south of FR 231. One site visit – 9/12/08. No floating vegetation, but dense submerged vegetation (100%) and moderately dense emergent vegetation (40%). No canopy vegetation, but dense perimeter grasses (90%). Mud/silt and gravel substrate, extremely clear. See Appendix A, Photo 26. | |
| “Granite Mtn” Tank | 522722 | 3513756 | Small stock tank (70 by 70 ft [20 by 20 m]) in Ophir Gulch, southwest of Greaterville. One site visit – 9/4/08. No floating vegetation, but dense submerged (100%) and emergent (40%) vegetation. Dense grass on perimeter (90%), but no canopy vegetation. Mud/silt and gravel substrate, extremely clear. See Appendix A, Photo 25. | |
| “Greaterville” Tank | 522845 | 3514495 | Stock tank (460 by 250 ft [140 by 75 m]) in unnamed ephemeral tributary of Ophir Gulch, about 0.8 km northwest of Greaterville. One site visit – 9/4/08. No floating or emergent vegetation, but about 40% submerged vegetation. Perimeter vegetation of grasses and seep willow (40%). Partial canopy of Emory oak and velvet mesquite (25%). Mud/silt and gravel substrate, extremely clear. See Appendix A, Photo 24. | |
| “Gunsight” Tank | 523340 | 3523111 | Excavated stock tank (70 by 70 ft [20 by 20 m]) east of FR 4501, east of Gunsight Pass. Two site visits – 8/8 and 8/25/08. No floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. No perimeter or canopy vegetation. Mud/silt substrate, moderately clear. See Appendix A, Photo 6. | |
| Highway Tank | 527583 | 3519176 | Stock tank (50 by 50 ft [15 by 15 m]) in unnamed tributary of Oak Tree Canyon. Three site visits – 8/8, 8/11, and 8/29/08. Dense floating vegetation (90%), unknown submerged vegetation, and minor emergent vegetation (1%). Dense grass on perimeter (100%), but no canopy vegetation. Mud/silt substrate, heavily turbid. See Appendix A, Photo 9. | |
| “Lower Stock” Tank | 523240 | 3521929 | Small stock tank (50 by 50 ft [15 by 25 m]) in unnamed tributary of Wasp Canyon, west of Rosemont Junction. Easternmost of four tanks along FR 4501. Four site visits – 8/8, 8/25, 8/28, and 9/5/08. No floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. No perimeter vegetation or canopy. Mud/silt substrate, heavily turbid. Sign indicates presence of drilling fluids. See Appendix A, Photo 8. | |
| “McCleary Stock” Tank | 523505 | 3523395 | Stock tank (50 by 70 ft [15 by 20 m]) in unnamed tributary near head of McCleary Canyon. Two site visits – 8/8 and 8/25/08. No floating, submerged, emergent, perimeter, or canopy vegetation. Mud/silt substrate, water moderately clear. See Appendix A, Photo 5. | |
| “Oak Tree Canyon” Tank | 526957 | 3519178 | Small stock tank (30 by 25 ft [10 by 7 m]) in Oak Tree Canyon, about 0.6 km west of SR 83. One site visit – 8/8/08. No floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. No perimeter or canopy vegetation. Mud/silt substrate, heavily turbid. See Appendix A, Photo 10. | |
| “Rosemont Crest” Tank | 523572 | 3524354 | Small stock tank (30 by 70 ft [10 by 20 m]) near head of McCleary Canyon. Two site visits – 8/7 and 8/19/08. No floating, submerged, emergent, perimeter, or canopy vegetation. Mud/silt substrate, water moderately clear. Probably dry most of year. See Appendix A, Photo 4. | |
| Scholefield Spring | 526552 | 3525015 | Very small, spring-fed pool (7 by 2 ft [2 by 0.5 m]) on slope above unnamed tributary to Scholefield Canyon. One site visit – 9/3/08. No floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. Surrounded by dense perimeter (90%) of cattail and giant sedge. Canopy vegetation of willow, juniper, and net-leaf hackberry. Mud/silt substrate with moderately clear water. See Appendix A, Photo 20. | |
| “South Lower Stock” Tank | 523140 | 3521911 | Small stock tank (40 by 20 ft [12 by 6 m]). One of four tanks along FR 4501. Three site visits – 8/25, 8/26, and 9/5/08. No floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. Perimeter vegetation (60%) includes Emory oak, pinyon, and grasses. Canopy of Emory oak (95%). Mud/silt substrate, heavily turbid. See Appendix A, Photo 16. | |
| “South Upper Stock” Tank | 523049 | 3521908 | Small stock tank (80 by 30 ft [25 by 10 m]), appears to be recently developed. Westernmost of four tanks along FR 4501. Three site visits – 8/25, 8/26, and 9/5/08. No floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. Sparse perimeter vegetation (5%) of Emory oak and grasses. No canopy vegetation. Sand and gravel substrate, heavily turbid. See Appendix A, Photo 15. | |
| The Lake | 529254 | 3530457 | Large stock tank (330 by 130 ft [100 by 40 m]), in unnamed drainage northeast of Mt. Fagan, west of SR 83. Two site visits – 8/20 and 8/26/08. Some floating algae (<5%), no submerged vegetation, some emergent Johnson grass (15%). Dense perimeter of Johnson grass (70%), and canopy of willows (65%). Mud/silt substrate with moderately clear water. See Appendix A, Photo 13. | |
| Twin Tanks | 531511 | 3530379 | Two adjacent stock tanks (130 by 80 ft [40 by 25 m] and 70 by 70 ft [20 by 20 m]), west of SR 83 on FR 5822. Two site visits – 8/20 and 8/26/08. Some floating algae (10%), no submerged vegetation, dense emergent Johnson grass (90%). Dense Johnson grass on perimeter (90%). No canopy vegetation. Mud/silt substrate with moderately clear water. See Appendix A, Photo 14. | |
| “Upper Stock” Tank | 523129 | 3521951 | Very small pond (20 by 10 ft [6 by 3 m]), possibly low spot in old road. One of four tanks along FR 4501. Three site visits – 8/8, 8/25, and 9/5/08. No floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. No perimeter vegetation or canopy. Mud/silt substrate, heavily turbid. See Appendix A, Photo 7. | |
| “Walt’s Way” Tank | 528099 | 3533824 | Stock tank (130 by 130 ft [50 by 50 m]) on Copper Cut Trail. One site visit – 9/3/08. No floating or submerged vegetation, some emergent seep willow (10%). Dense perimeter of Bermuda grass (100%), sparse canopy of velvet mesquite (10%). Mud/silt substrate, heavily turbid. See Appendix A, Photo 23. | |
Table 2. Lotic Systems Surveyed for Ranid Species within the Rosemont Holdings and Vicinity.
Copies of the Chiricahua Leopard Frog Visual Encounter Survey Form for each survey are included in Appendix B.
Site locations are depicted on Figure 2. UTM Coordinates are provided at the upstream and downstream points of
each reach, respectively.
Site Name | UTM Coordinate (NAD 27) | Description of Site | ||
Easting | Northing | |||
| Box Canyon | 520760 519239 | 3517910 3517994 | Approximately 1.0-mile (1.6-km) reach of Box Canyon adjacent to road, upstream from bridge and downstream from Basin Spring. One site visit – 8/12/08, night survey. No floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. Perimeter vegetation of grasses and seep willow (90%), canopy of willows and ash (30%). Sand, gravel, and bedrock substrates. | |
| Box Canyon Upper Reach | 522185 520760 | 3518265 3517910 | Approximately ¼-mile (400-m) reach of Box Canyon adjacent to road, upstream from Basin Spring and downstream from Mill Creek. One site visit – 8/18/08, night survey. No floating or submerged vegetation, some emergent grasses (5%). Perimeter vegetation of grasses (40%), partial canopy of willows, sycamore, and mesquite (60%). Sand, gravel, and bedrock substrates. | |
| Lower Davidson Canyon | 533518 | 3538238* | Approximately 2.8-mile (4.5-km) reach of lower Davidson Canyon, beginning at road for transmission line and ending upstream from confluence with Cienega Creek. One site visit – 9/16/08. Water present just above confluence and upstream from I-10 crossing to transmission line. No floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. Seep willow and Bermuda grass on perimeter (30%), but no canopy vegetation. | |
| Mulberry Canyon & Springs | 527311 528317 | 3527785 3525518 | Approximately 2-mile (3.2-km) reach of Mulberry Canyon, beginning near confluence with Papago Canyon and working upstream. One site visit – 8/13/08, night survey. This reach is probably dry most of the year, probably no permanent water. No floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. Sparse perimeter vegetation, primarily grasses (10%). No canopy vegetation. Sand, gravel, and bedrock substrates, water extremely clear. Several red-spotted toads observed. | |
| N. Sycamore Canyon | 523749 522619 | 3524837 3527254 | Lower end of north Sycamore Canyon, approximately 3-mile (4.8-km) reach. One site visit – 8/19/08, night survey. Surface flows intermittent to absent, no evidence of permanent pools. No floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. Sparse perimeter vegetation of mixed grasses (20%), sparse canopy of oak and juniper (20%). Sand and gravel substrate, with extremely clear water, where present. Black-necked gartersnakes and Sonoran Desert toads observed. | |
| Rosemont Spring | 524897 525113 | 3521193 3521051 | Approximately ¼-mile (100-m) reach in unnamed tributary of Barrel Canyon, northwest of Rosemont Camp. Two site visits – 8/28 and 9/16/08. Very shallow water, no pools. No floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. Dense grasses on perimeter (80%), and dense canopy of Emory oak, willow, and juniper (85%). Sand, gravel, and bedrock substrates. Water extremely clear. | |
| S. Sycamore Canyon | 521579 521971 | 3520009 3518189 | Approximately 1.2-mile (2-km) reach of south Sycamore Canyon, beginning about 0.8 km upstream from confluence with Box Canyon. One site visit – 8/14/08, night survey. Most surface water shallow and retreating. No floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. Some mixed grasses on perimeter (30%), and some seep willow, oak, sycamore, and willow in canopy (30%). Sand and gravel substrate, water moderately clear. | |
| *UTM coordinate provided at location of leopard frog observation. | ||||
5. SURVEY RESULTS
Ranid site occupancy is known to change or fluctuate, particularly at stock tanks and other small, dynamic aquatic systems (FWS 2003). Site occupancy changes due to immigration and colonization, which usually occur during warmer, wetter months (FWS 2003). Thus, the presence or absence of ranid frogs at any particular site in any given year may not be a good indicator of site occupancy in subsequent years. Precipitation, particularly during the summer rainy season, can have an important influence on the dispersal capabilities of ranid frogs.
During our 2008 surveys, Chiricahua leopard frogs were confirmed at five of the 25 lentic sites surveyed and at two of the seven lotic survey reaches (see Table 3). In addition, a ranid frog that could have been a Chiricahua leopard frog was seen at one other lentic site. One of the lentic sites, the Lower Stock Tank, is on private property, within the patented mining claims owned by Rosemont Copper. The Highway Tank and Oak Tree Canyon Tank are on Coronado National Forest (CNF) land, but within the unpatented claim areas of the Rosemont Holdings. All other lentic sites and both lotic sites with observed Chiricahua leopard frogs are within the CNF, located outside the Rosemont Holdings.
During the surveys, lowland leopard frogs were confirmed in only one lotic location, in a small pool near the lower end of Davidson Canyon. This site is upstream from the confluence with Cienega Creek.
The most productive lentic sites for Chiricahua leopard frogs were the Greaterville Tank and the Granite Mountain Tank, with 37 and 10 frogs, respectively. No other lentic sites surveyed as part of this effort had more than two frogs. The two lotic reaches of Box Canyon had a total of nine observed frogs in about 1.2 miles of stream channel.
Table 3. Ranid Species Noted within the Rosemont Holdings and Vicinity.
Site Name | UTM Coordinates (NAD 27) | Ranids Present | Comments | ||
Easting | Northing | ||||
| “Lower Stock” Tank | 523240 | 3521929 | Chiricahua leopard frog | Earthen stock tank with no floating, submerged, emergent, perimeter, or canopy vegetation. Site is within Rosemont’s patented claim property. Four site visits were conducted. No frogs observed on 8/8/08. Two frogs seen on 8/25/08, but could not be captured for identification. Two frogs on 8/28/08, responded to tape playback, confirmed to be Chiricahua leopard frogs. Two frogs responded to tape playback on 9/5/08, identification confirmed with binoculars. | |
| Highway Tank | 527583 | 3519176 | Lithobates (Rana) sp. | Earthen stock tank with dense floating duckweed and dense Johnson grass on perimeter. Site is on CNF land within Rosemont unpatented claim area. Three site visits. Single adult frog observed on each visit, but unable to capture for positive identification. No vocalizations, no response to call playback of chiricahuensis or yavapaiensis. | |
| “Granite Mtn” Tank | 522722 | 3513756 | Chiricahua leopard frog | Earthen stock tank with no floating, submerged, or emergent vegetation. Sparse perimeter grasses and oak canopy. Site is on CNF land. One site visit was conducted. Ten frogs observed, calling spontaneously. Identification confirmed based on calls and visual observations with binoculars. Frogs very wary, taking shelter within branches of fallen tree. | |
| “Greaterville” Tank | 522845 | 3514495 | Chiricahua leopard frog | Large earthen stock tank with no floating or emergent vegetation, but a moderate amount of submerged vegetation. Appears to have perennial water. Site is on CNF land. One site visit was conducted. Thirty-seven frogs observed, four captured by net, two photographed. All appeared to be sub-adult to adult based on their size. | |
| “Oak Tree Canyon” Tank | 526957 | 3519178 | Chiricahua leopard frog | Earthen stock tank with no floating, submerged, emergent, perimeter, or canopy vegetation. Site is on CNF land within Rosemont unpatented claim area. One site visit was conducted. Cattle present and drinking at pond. One frog confirmed. Right eye cloudy, apparent injury. | |
| East Dam | 527384 | 3522672 | Chiricahua leopard frog | Small wetland fed by water from East Dam, dense submerged, emergent, and perimeter vegetation. Site is on CNF land. One site visit was conducted. One frog responded to tape playback, but it could not be found in search of water’s edge. | |
| Box Canyon | 519237 | 3518003 | Chiricahua leopard frog | Approximately 1.0-mile (1.6-km) of spatially intermittent stream channel on CNF land was surveyed. One nocturnal survey was conducted. Seven adult frogs observed, all within wet segments of survey reach. Also observed Sonoran Desert toad and canyon treefrogs. | |
| Box Canyon Upper Reach | 520822 | 3517899 | Chiricahua leopard frog | About ¼-mile (0.4-km) lotic survey in spatially intermittent stream channel. Site is on CNF land. One nocturnal survey conducted. Two frogs observed. | |
| S. Sycamore Canyon | 522041 | 3518807 | Lithobates (Rana) sp. | Two leopard frogs were observed approximately ½ mile (0.8 km) upstream from confluence with Box Canyon during other field efforts. When site was revisited for focused ranid survey, no leopard frogs were noted. | |
| Lower Davidson Canyon | 533518 | 3538238 | Lowland leopard frog | Four frogs in small pond (20 by 8 ft [6 by 2.5 m]) on west side of channel, upstream from confluence with Cienega Creek. One captured to photograph and confirm identification, and then released. | |
Precipitation data for the period from May 2007 to September 2008 are available from a weather station maintained by Rosemont in the Study Area approximately 1.2 miles (1.9 km) west of Rosemont Junction. No other known data are available for sites with comparable elevations and biotic communities in the Santa Rita Mountains. Daily precipitation data for this weather station are presented in Appendix C, Tables C-1 and C-2.
A summary of these data is presented in Table 4 and in Figure 3. Because data collection at this site was initiated in May 2007, the 12-month summary calculation begins at the end of April 2008. An inspection of the data in this table shows the precipitation peak corresponding with the summer rainy season. This season normally begins in late June or early July and extends into September. The winter rainy season, normally extending from November through February, is not as distinct, and monthly precipitation totals are much less than for the summer rains. It is unusual that the rainfall for January 2008 was only 0.17 inch. Normal rainfall in the Tucson area for the month of January is 0.99 inch (NOAA 2008). The fall dry season is relatively short, with a minimum rainfall of 0.24 inch in October 2007. The spring dry season is more intense, with low rainfall from March through early June. The Rosemont site had no rain during the month of April 2008. However, this very dry period was followed by a wetter than normal summer rainy season in 2008. The July through September rainfall total for 2007 was 9.49 inches. For the same period in 2008, the rainfall total was 12.33 inches, or almost 30 percent greater. This increase is reflected in the 12-month summation of rainfall. For the periods ending in April, May, and June, the 12-month sum is around 15.5 inches, but in July, the 12-month sum increases abruptly to over 17 inches.
Table 4. Monthly Summary of Rosemont Precipitation Data.
Month | Total Precipitation (Inches) | 12-Month Sum (Inches) |
| May 2007 | 0.50 | - |
| June 2007 | 1.13 | - |
| July 2007 | 4.55 | - |
| August 2007 | 3.45 | - |
| September 2007 | 1.49 | - |
| October 2007 | 0.24 | - |
| November 2007 | 1.11 | - |
| December 2007 | 1.16 | - |
| January 2008 | 0.17 | - |
| February 2008 | 1.37 | - |
| March 2008 | 0.33 | - |
| April 2008 | 0.00 | 15.50 |
| May 2008 | 0.51 | 15.51 |
| June 2008 | 0.83 | 15.21 |
| July 2008 | 6.47 | 17.13 |
| August 2008 | 4.02 | 17.70 |
| September 2008 | 1.74 | 17.95 |
Figure 3. Monthly Precipitation at Rosemont Site. May 2007 through September 2008.
6. OTHER WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Herpetofauna species noted during site visits and survey efforts in addition to Chiricahua and lowland leopard frogs are listed in Table 5.
Species | Location | ||
| Black-necked gartersnake (Thamnophis cyrtopsis) | Adobe Tank, N. Sycamore Canyon | ||
| Canyon treefrog (Hyla arenicolor) | Box Canyon | ||
| Sonoran Desert toad (Bufo alvarius) | Adobe Tank, Box Canyon, Twin Tanks | ||
| Gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer) | Barrel Canyon, Davidson Canyon | ||
| Red spotted toad (Bufo punctatus) | Mulberry Canyon and Springs, Twin Tanks | ||
| Western diamondback (Crotalus atrox) | Barrel Canyon, Davidson Canyon | ||
Other notable wildlife observations included those of fox (Vulpes sp.) tracks at Cemetery Tank; mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), javelina (Pecari tajacu), and coyote (Canis latrans) tracks at several sites; mountain lion (Felis concolor) signs along Mulberry Canyon; skunk, fox, and coyote tracks along Box Canyon; three coati (Nasua narica) carcasses at Deering Spring; and tracks of great blue heron (Ardea Herodias) and bobcat (Felis rufus) at “Walts Way” Tank.
7. CONCLUSION
Chiricahua leopard frogs are present in several sites in and around the Rosemont Holdings. One of these sites, the “Lower Stock” Pond, is within the proposed Rosemont Project area. Other sites are within the Rosemont Holdings, but they are outside the anticipated Project impact area. The greatest densities of Chiricahua leopard frogs were found in two earthen stock tanks near Greaterville and in the drainage through Box Canyon. These sites are between 1 and 3 miles (1.6 and 4.8 km) from the Rosemont Project area. Lowland leopard frogs were seen only at the north end of Davidson Canyon, very close to the confluence with Cienega Creek.
From these observations and lack of observations in 2006 and 2007, it appears that the Greaterville/Box Canyon area represents the core area for the population of Chiricahua leopard frogs in northeastern portions and foothills of the Santa Rita Mountains, and that the other sites represent dispersal destinations from this core area. Frogs moving to the “Lower Stock” Tank would face an overland route of about 2.5 miles (4.0 km) from Box Canyon and 4.6 miles (7.4 km) from “Greaterville” Tank (Figure 2). Each of these routes would require crossing one or more drainage divides, depending on the exact route taken by the frogs. Dispersal over this great a distance would be anticipated to occur during a wet monsoon season.1 As noted above, the summer rains of 2008 were greater than normal, with almost 6.5 inches of precipitation in the month of July. Wetter than normal conditions might provide small, temporary pools or puddles that could be utilized by frogs attempting a long, cross-country dispersal. In drier seasons, there might be no dispersal from the core area, and small, remote populations might disappear.
____________________________________
1 According to FWS (2003), reasonable ranid dispersal distance includes the following distances from occupied habitat to sites being evaluated for occupancy: a) within 1 mile over land, 2) within 3 miles along ephemeral or intermittent drainages, and 3) within 5 miles along a perennial stream.
8. REFERENCES CITED
| Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2006a. Rana chiricahuensis. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the | |
| Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 11 pp. | |
| ______.2006b. Rana yavapaiensis. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management | |
| System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 10 pp. | |
| Biotic Information System of New Mexico (BISON-M) 2009. Chiricahua leopard frog species report. Available | |
| at: http://www.bison-m.org/speciesreports.aspx. Accessed January 13, 2009. | |
| Brennan, T. C. and A. T. Holycross. 2006. A Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles in Arizona. Arizona | |
| Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. 150 pp. | |
| Center for North American Herpetology. 2008. www.CNAH.org | |
| Davidson, C. 1996. Frog and Toad Calls of the Rocky Mountains and Southwest (audio guide).Library of Natural | |
| Sounds, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. | |
| Frost, D.R., T. Grant, J. Faivovich, R.H. Bain, A. Haas, C.F.B. Haddad, R.O. De Sá, A. Channing, M. Wilkinson, | |
| S.C. Donnellan, C.J. Raxworthy, J.A. Campbell, B.L. Blotto, P. Moler, R.C. Drewes, R.A. Nussbaum, J.D Lynch, D.M. Green, and W.C. Wheeler. 2006. The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1-370. | |
| Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). Website accessed February 2009. http://www.itis.gov/. | |
| National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008. Monthly and Daily Normals (1971-2000) plus Daily Extremes | |
| (1895-2008) for Tucson, Arizona. National Weather Service Forecast Office, Tucson, Arizona. http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/twc/climate/tus.php. Website accessed March 6, 2009. | |
| Sredl. Michael J. 1997. Ranid Frog Conservation and Management. Technical Report 121, Nongame and Endangered | |
| Wildlife Program, Arizona game and Fish Department. June 1997. | |
| Sredl, Michael J., Jeffrey M. Howland, Eric Wallace, and Loralei S. Saylor. 1997. Status and Distribution of Arizona | |
| Native Ranid Frogs. Technical Report 121, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department. June 1997. | |
| Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Third Edition. Peterson Field Guide Series. | |
| Houghton Mifflin, New York. 533 pp. | |
| US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Rana chiricahuensis – Fish and Wildlife Survey Protocol for Project Evaluation. | |
| March 2003. | |