sign in sign up
<<
Home , Kanab ambersnail, Kenton Grua, Oxyloma haydeni

INVESTIGATIONS OF THE ENDANGERED : MONITORING OF TRANSLOCATED POPULATIONS AND SURVEYS OF ADDITIONAL

Clay B. Nelson, Nongame Wildlife Specialist Jeff A. Sorensen, Nongame Wildlife Specialist

Nongame Branch, Wildlife Management Division Game and Fish Department

Technical Report 200 Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Program Chief: Terry B. Johnson Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399

May 2002 CIVIL RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY COMPLIANCE

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission receives federal financial assistance in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration. Under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U.S . Department of the Interior prohibits disc1imination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further infom1ation please write to:

Arizona Game and Fish Department Office of the Deputy Director, DOHQ 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399

and

The Office for Diversity and Civil Rights U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Room 300 Arlington, Virginia 22203

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE

The Arizona Game and Fish Department complies with all provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This document is available in alternative format by contacting the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Office of the Deputy Director at the address listed above or by calling (602) 789-3290 or TTY 1-800-367-8939. RECOMMENDED CITATION

C.B. Nelson, and J.A. Sorensen. 2002. Investigations of the Endangered Kanab Ambersnail: Translocated Population Monitoring and Additional Habitat Surveys. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 200. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the following individuals for their contributions in the field : Dan Adikes, Laurie and Roy Averill-Murray, Joe Bailey, Dave Baker, Ken Baker, Ken Bartlett, Jeff Behan, Sandy Bernstein, Tom Blackledge, Catherine Bland, Steve Bledsoe, Laurie Bonham, BJ. Boyle, Nikolle Brown, Bill Burger, Kirk Burnett, Karla Burnley, Joe Busch, Lita Byerly, Roger Cogan, Tim Dale, Necia Davidson, Brian Dierker, Brad Duncan, Rachael Earle, Stan Faeth, Bill Fagan, Matt Ferris, Kay Fielding, Ayoola Folarin, Chris Franke, Melinda Frankus, Maria Fruin, Josh Gilman, Robert Glennon, Dan Godec, Mark Gonzales, Kenton Grua, Sara Hatch, Brenda Healy, Joy Hernbrode, Stephanie Hettinger, Jim Hoffman, Joel Huettig, Lil Jonas, Christine Karas, Bruce Keller, Krissie Killoy, Chris Klug, Keith Kohl, Dennis Kubly, Steve Lamphear, Margie Latta, Elaine Leslie, Mike Mallett, Jerry Martinez, Vicky Meretsky, Verma Miera, Becky Muller, Neibert Niemi, Bob Nelson, Lance Nelson, Eric North, Flo1ia Parker-Jones, John Perez, Marianne Porter, Barb Ralston, Mike Randolph, Jessamy Rango, Beth Roeser, Tom Ryan, Elda Sanchez, Maaike Schotborgh, Mike Seidman, Jim Shurtliff, Thorry Smith, Della Snyder, John Sorensen, Candan Soykan, Dave Speas, Tara Sprankle, Michelle Starr, Lew Steiger, Eric Swanson, Matt Sweeney, Harlan Taney, Melinda Thompson, Brent Uilenberg, Bill Vercammen, Susan Young, Eric Wallace, Melaine Webb, Guy Webster, Dave Wegner, Pete Weiss, Patrick Whitesell, Terri Williams, Bob Wilson, Bob Winfree, and Cathy Wise. Logistical and administrative support was provided by: Tony Morton and Tom Scoville (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation); Ralph Swanson (Central Project Completion Act Office); Debra Bills and Larry England (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service); Carol Fritzinger, Steve Gloss, Barry Gold, and Jake Tiegs ( Monitoring and Research Center); Larry Stevens (Grand Canyon Wildlands Council); Anne Hagele and RV. Ward (National Park Service); Linda Allison, Mike Demlong, Jim Hatten, Ed Jahrke, Terry Johnson, Alicia Jontz, Bill Persons, and Richard Winstead (Arizona Game and Fish Department). Cover image by Dan Godec.

PROJECT FUNDING

Funding for this project was provided by: Voluntary contributions to Arizona's Nongame Wildlife Checkoff; the Arizona Heritage Fund; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Grant No. 01-FG- 40-4870, Central Utah Project Completion Act Cooperative Agreement No. 7-FC-CU-AZ0 10, and ESA Section 6 Federal Aid. Logistical support provided by Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center.

File: NGTR 200 KAS Translocation Update.20020508.doc EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To alleviate operational restrictions on and further recovery objectives for the endangered Kanab ambersnail (: haydeni kanabensis Pilsbry), the Arizona Game and Fish Department partnered with the Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Upper Colorado Region, and the National Park Service to establish an additional wild population of the snail in Grand Canyon National Park. State, federal, tribal, and private cooperators affiliated with the Kanab Ambersnail Working Group and the Glen Canyon Technical Work Group participated in the environmental compliance process. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Biological Opinion in 1998 authorizing this translocation effort.

In mid-September 1998, 450 Kanab ambersnails (::c; 5 mm in shell size) were collected from Vaseys Paradise as founding stock for translocation efforts. These snails were collected from the lower vegetated zone, an area frequently inundated by river flows of 30,000 cfs (849.9 m3/s) or less. Translocated snails were released at 3 sites (150 snails/site) in Grand Canyon National Park. The 3 sites ("KeyHole Spring" at 47.1 mi, Upper Elves Chasm at 116.6 mi, and Lower Spring at 136.1 mi) were selected following a National Environmental Policy Act review. In July 1999, another 450 snails were translocated in an effort to augment population densities and maintain genetic variability at each of the new sites (also 150 snails/site). In July 2000, a minor translocation of 30 Kanab ambersnails from Vaseys Paradise were moved to 2 of the 3 sites (20 snails to Upper Elves Chasm and 10 snails to Lower Deer Creek Spring) to help maintain genetic variability of new populations. No ambersnail were translocated to "KeyHole Spring" in July 2000 due to dry habitat resulting from the continued drought. The results of the ambersnail translocation and seasonal monitoring from October 1998 through August 2001 are summarized in this report.

No mortalities of ambersnails occurred during transit from Vaseys Paradise to the 3 translocation sites in each translocation effort. No parasites were detected in any of the translocated snails. Resident native landsnails at the translocation sites were documented when encountered­ Catinella sp. at "KeyHole Spring" and Lower Deer Creek Spring, and Zonitoides sp. at Upper Elves Chasm. Densities and distribution of resident landsnails at these sites did not appear to be affected by ambersnail translocation.

Of the 3 sites, Upper Elves Chasm continues to harbor numerous translocated Kanab ambersnails, and appears to be establishing a new population under the draft criteria for determining establishment success for Kanab ambersnails (Sorensen and Nelson 2000, 2001). Successive surveys at this site have consistently found live Kanab ambersnails and successful recruitment. In addition, this population is slowly increasing in abundance and is surpassing densities that are observed at Vaseys Paradise. Ambersnail translocations to "KeyHole Spring" and Lower Deer Creek Spring appear to be unsuccessful after 3 years and 2 attempts at releasing founding stock (September 1998 and July 1999). Observations of live ambersnails were sporadic and limited to a few individuals at each site during the first 2 years. No live Kanab ambersnails or shells were found in 2001 at either "KeyHole Spring" or Lower Deer Creek Spring. However, periodic sampling may be useful to detennine if any remnant ambersnails from prev10us translocations in 1998 and 1999 survived the last 2 years of drought.

Continued monitoring of Upper Elves Chasm is highly warranted, since this new population has full protection under the Endangered Act. In addition to achieving recovery objectives, the ambersnail population at Upper Elves Chasm and its occupied habitat can be included in mitigation decisions regarding the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and incidental take statements for Kanab ambersnails at Vaseys Paradise, and allowing for more flexibility with regards to future Beach/Habitat-Building Flows. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Sumn1ary ...... i Introduction ...... 1 Methods ...... 2 Environmental Compliance ...... 2 Habitat Evaluation ...... 2 Collection and Trans location of KAS ...... 4 Monitoring ...... 5 Results ...... 6 Discussion ...... 7 "KeyHole Spring" ...... 8 Upper Elves Chasm ...... 9 Lower Deer Creek Spring ...... 9 Reco1nmendations ...... 10 Literature Cited ...... 11 Appendix A: Additional Habitat Surveys 2001 ...... 13

FIGURES

Figure 1. Locations of Kanab ambersnail establishment sites and Vaseys ParaJisc in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona ...... 4

TABLES

Table 1. Summary of monitoring surveys at "KeyHole Spring" ...... 6 Table 2. Summary of monitoring surveys at Upper Elves Chasm...... 6 Table 3. Summary of monitoring surveys at Lower Deer Creek Spring ...... 7 INVESTIGATIONS OF THE ENDANGERED KANAB AMBERSNAIL : TRANSLOCATED POPULATION MONITORING AND ADDITIONAL H ABITAT SURVEYS

Clay B. Nelson and Jeff A. Sorensen

May 2002

INTRODUCTION

Translocation of a species can be a complex, yet necessary component of conservation and recovery. The translocation of wild and/or captive-reared wildlife can be used to introduce species into new habitat, reintroduce species into their historical range, or augment existing populations to bolster genetic variation or population density (Griffith and others 1989). In addition, translocations may also provide greater freedom in managing other physical and biological components within an ecosystem. These issues are exemplified in the management of the and conservation of the endangered Kanab ambersnail (KAS; Succineidae: kanabensis Pilsbry).

Currently, 2 populations ofKASs are known to exist in the American Southwest. One population is located north of Kanab, Utah, on a privately owned wet meadow called Three Lakes (3L). The other population occurs at a large, riverside spring in Grand Canyon National Park, known as Vaseys Paradise (VP). The establishment of a second "wild" population of KAS in Arizona originated from recovery objectives, resource management needs, and legal concerns associated with the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and endangered species protection. As part of an adaptive approach to managing the Colorado River resources within Grand Canyon, artificial known as a Beach/Habitat-Building Flows (BHBF) and smaller Habitat Maintenance Flows were recommended by interagency cooperators, scientists, and resource stakeholders. These experimental floods were designed to redistribute sediments from the river channel bottom to the riverbanks, create or restore sand beaches and backwaters, and help rejuvenate native fish habitat. However, it was determined that the increased hydrograph from these flows would inundate and scour away KAS and habitat from the VP site (Stevens and others 1997b ). This prompted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to issue a Biological Opinion on the 1996 experimental BHBF, and a subsequent Biological Opinion on the 1997 Fall Test Flow (a Habitat Maintenance Flow), which would also adversely affect this population and habitat (USFWS 1997). In conjunction with the KAS Recovery Plan (USFWS 1995), these 2 documents outlined several reasonable and prudent measures related to minimizing incidental take and promoting the recovery of KAS. Specifically, the USFWS stated that:

"Before another habitat-building flow, Reclamation (USBR) will enter into informal consultation with the Service (USFWS) to evaluate test flow studies, the establishment or discovery of a second population of Kanab ambersnail in Arizona, and reinitiate fom1al consultation with the Service if incidental take will exceed the 10 percent as established in the 1995 biological opinion." Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 2 Consequently, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) entered into a cooperative agreement with the Department of Interior, Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA) Office, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Upper Colorado Region, and National Park Service (NPS) to conduct surveys for additional populations of KAS and evaluate habitat for the establishment of a new "wild" population. With other cooperators, over 100 springs, seeps, and across Grand Canyon and northern Arizona were investigated (Spamer and Bogan 1993; Stevens and others 1997a; Sorensen and Kubly 1997, 1998). Although no additional populations of KAS were discovered, 3 potential translocation sites were identified. In 1998, following the appropriate environmental compliance reviews, AGFD translocated KAS to these 3 sites and began bi-annual monitoring. This report is a summary of the KAS translocation and monitoring process, and results of continued surveys of additional habitat for natural populations over the past 3 years.

METHODS

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

KAS translocations in Grand Canyon National Park followed AGFD's 12-step re-establishment process (AGFD 1987). This 12-step process was also used for the reintroduction of California condors, black-footed ferrets, and other species in Arizona. This process involves environmental assessments, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, and review by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, AGFD staff, federal agencies, biologists, and the public. The KAS translocation 12-step process was initiated in November 1997 and completed in September 1998.

In July 1998, AGFD and NPS produced a biological evaluation for the translocation of KAS in Grand Canyon National Park (AGFD 1998a) for Section 7 consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. After a 30-day period for public comment, the environmental assessment for establishing new KAS populations in Grand Canyon National Park was finalized in mid-August 1998 (AGFD 1998b) to complete NEPA compliance. Both the biological evaluation and environmental assessment for KAS translocations were reviewed by the Kanab Ambersnail Working Group, the Glen Canyon Technical Work Group, regional tribal representatives, AGFD staff, private organizations, and individuals. Comments received on both documents were incorporated in the final drafts. In September 1998, NPS submitted a decision of "Finding of No Significant Impact" on the proposed action. Less than a week later, the USFWS finalized a Biological Opinion on KAS translocation (USFWS 1998). With completion of the environmental compliance process, AGFD made the first translocation of KASs by mid­ September 1998.

HABITAT EVALUATION

Continued surveys of habitat for existing KAS populations and the evaluation of potential translocation sites followed the same methodology. Initially, jurisdictional, descriptive, and geographical data were recorded for all sites. Site locations were plotted in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates using a Global Position System receiver and/or topographical maps for inclusion into a GIS database. Environn1ental data from these sites was entered into a habitat suitability correlation model to assess establishment potential (Sorensen and Kubly 1997). Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 3 · Additional habitat surveys were conducted during 2001 monitoring of the translocated populations. An abbreviated methodology was used which precluded the need to collect all environmental data if habitat was deemed less than optimal.

Using these methods, 3 KAS establishment sites in Grand Canyon National Park (Fig. 1) were selected as the preferred alternative in the final environmental assessment for KAS translocation (AGFD 1998b ). In keeping with historical convention, river miles are expressed as miles downstream of Lee's Ferry (Coconino County, Arizona), and located on either river right (RR) or left (RL). Specific release areas (e.g. patches of primary vegetation away from common trails and campsites) at each site were identified and geographically referenced using UTM coordinates. Release areas are above the 100,000 cfs (2832.9 m3/s) stage, and will not be affected by floods of that magnitude or less. All 3 sites were surveyed at least 5 times ( different seasons over a 2 year duration) prior to the 1998 translocations (Sorensen and Kubly 1997, 1998; AGFD 1998b ). Environmental variation, threat assessments, and inventories of native landsnail assemblages were examined during these early reconnaissance visits. Each of the 3 sites is described below.

"KeyHole Spring" (47.1 mile RR). UTM: N4024308, E420484. The name for this site is enclosed in quotation marks since it is a working title used by KAS researchers and administrators, but is not formally recognized as a legal site name by the U.S. Board of Geographic Names. This site has no known recreation use, and low vulnerability to natural disturbance. The release area is located under a slight rock overhang, and adjacent to the spring drainage. The release area for KASs consisted of a 5-m2 patch of cardinal monkeyflower (Mimulus cardinalis) surrounded by patches of maidenhair fems (Adiantum capillus-veneris). The only resident, native landsnail observed at this site is Catinella vermeta (identified by J. Hoffman), which co-occurs with KAS at VP. This site is along the river corridor and accessible by existing game trails and ephemeral washes. It is isolated from other habitat along the 2 river corridor and nearby plateau. Total potential KAS habitat at this site is 9.7 m .

Upper Elves Chasm (116.6 mile RL). UTM: N4005750, E369300. The habitat at the Upper Elves Chasm release area is predominantly composed of monkeyflower and maidenhair fem, and to a lesser extent sedges (Carex aquatilus), rushes ( sp.), cattails (Typha sp.), (Nasturtium officinale), helleborine orchids (Epipactus gigantea), and grasses. A perennial seep flows through the release area and drains into a large pool at the base of the vegetated bench. The release area is located above the first saw grass patch, next to a large pool and consists of a 5-m2 patch of monkeyflower surrounded by hanging gardens of maidenhair fems and monkeyflower. The release area is isolated from other potential KAS habitat and is elevated above the drainage. A lightly used visitor trail passes by on the other side of the pool. The only resident, native landsnail observed at this site is Zonitoides sp. (identified by E. North). This site is accessible only by the river corridor, and requires climbing to access (greatly reducing the number of visitors). Total potential KAS habitat at this site is >23.5 ni.

Lower Deer Creek Spring (136.1 mile RR). UTM: N4027916, E364729. This site has no known recreation use and moderate vulnerability to natural disturbance (mostly to the floodplain marsh at the lower elevations). The trail leading back into Deer Creek Canyon passes above the spring. Dense poison ivy (Toxicodendron ,ybergii) throughout the site keeps Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page4

visitors out of the habitat (researchers used Tyvek™ suits, irrigation boots, and solvent gloves to reduce exposure to poison ivy). The release area is located along the upper slope, approximately 3 m below the spring pourout and encompasses an extensive patch (78.8 m2 area) of monkeyflower. The only resident, native landsnail observed at this site is Catinella sp. (identified by E. North), which co-occurs with KAS at VP. This site is located along the river conidor and is accessible from a nearby trail. If adjacent habitat at this site is included, the total patch area 2 increases to approximately 480.5 m .

1 - . LJ T~J:f _,._,. • l;ilen Ca ~ ::,-;,,-.i,:c',=, _ j.•d,. 0(1 ", ·-.-~~~ciir ~ARIZO)NA ·--·?i,.-. eo --t'Ji11,'/; · ) C.na1 ( I : I - I I 1 ~ ··~ \ . ·, : la r i a I' I ~~ ·J"·C?- \ ! . --~ ( > 1 , _. .. ,i a·1 e J { ,__ -- 1 1-\ 1 \ V-"1.lfl N ./ - '-.: . ~.... : ,HOl, t j' ) I f / I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 miles l'''•''\''',''1,, ''1' ,,,, 1,,,, ,,, ,,, 'I'' I'' I'' \11,,,,,,,,,,1,,,, ,,,,,,,,I I TNVMN0 12¼ 0 25 50 75 100km Printed from TOPO! ©2000 Wildflower Productions (www.topo.com)

Figure 1. Locations of Kanab ambersnail establishment sites and the naturally occming KAS population at Vaseys Paradise in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.

COLLECTION AND TRANSLOCA TION OF KAS

In mid-September 1998, 450 pre-reproductive KASs (:s:;5 111111 in shell size) were collected from the lower and upper vegetation zones of VP. Snails less than 5 111111 were chosen to reduce the potential for transporting parasites. Approximately 75% of the ambersnails were collected from the low zone, which is frequently inundated by flows up to 30,000 cfs (849.9 m3/s). The remaining KASs were collected from the upper vegetation areas to enhance genetic variation. KASs were removed from host vegetation using entomological forceps or by hand, and immediately placed into sealable, clear plastic transport containers (2 L volume). A small Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monito1ing and Habitat Surveys Page 5 quantity of primary vegetation (i .e. watercress and monkeyflower) and damp litter was placed in the container to maintain humidity and provide shelter and food for collected KASs. Illustrations of KAS shell morphology, Catinella, Physa, and Fossaria, were taped to the outside of each container to aid in mollusk identification. Each container was inspected by J. Sorensen (AGFD) to verify the genus and number of snails. Saturated paper towels lined the bottom of each container to help maintain moisture, ambient temperature, and provide cushion for transport. Small holes (approximately 0.5 mm diameter) in the lids of the containers provided ventilation during transport. Each container held a maximum of 50 KASs, and was labeled with the date, number of individuals, host vegetation, and patch origin.

An Oakton™ Digital Thermohygrometer was used to record air temperature (°C) and relative humidity (%) within VP KAS habitat approximately every half-hour while collecting ambersnails. A thermometer was attached to the inside of 1 transp01t container of each group to monitor temperature variation during transit. Prior handling experience has shown that ambersnails in enclosed containers can tolerate temperatures between 2 and 25°C (35.6 and 77°F) without mortality (J. Sorensen, pers. obs.). Riddle (1990) reports that Oxyloma retusa, a similar species, had up to 50% mortality when exposed to temperatures of 36.8°C (98 .2°F) for approximately 4 hours. Transp01t containers were stored in a large ice chest while in transit to establishment sites. A layer of block ice and damp towels lined the bottom of the ice chest to maintain refrigeration. A fine mist spray bottle with VP water was used to maintain humidity. Motorized boats were used to keep transport time to within 5 days.

Translocated KASs were released within specific areas at each establishment site to facilitate survivorship, future mating success, dispersal, and monitoring activities. Using entomological forceps, KASs were gently removed from the transport containers and carefully placed on host vegetation at each new site. After being released, they were observed for 5 minutes-all KASs observed were active and exhibited typical behaviors.

MONITORING

To maintain consistency in data collection among all sites, we used the same methods for monitoring the KAS population at VP (Stevens and others 1997a). Survey rings of 20-cm diameter were used to subsample vegetation patches at each site. Each release area was sampled with a minimum of 10-15 plots (based on patch size), and the adjacent patches received a minimum of 5 to 10 plots each. Along with mollusk observations, habitat variables associated with each sample plot were also reported on standardized datasheets. Topographical maps of vegetation at KAS establishment sites were used to estimate baseline habitat area, seasonal changes, and future population estimates. When geographic reference control points were available, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) surveyors completed topographical mapping using a TopconTM GTS 310 total station and Husky™ IDS data collector (M. Gonzales, pers. comm.). In absence of control points, site vegetation patches were measured with 50 m tape measures and documented with photographs from a consistent position. HOBO H8 Temp™ monitors were also placed at each translocation site to record temperature and humidity throughout most of 2000 and 2001 . Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 6 After the initial release of 150 KAS/site in September 1998, each site was augmented with an additional 150 KAS in July 1999 to increase population viability and genetic exchange. In July 2000, another 20 KASs were added to Upper Elves Chasm and 10 were added to Lower Deer Creek Spring to sustain genetic viability. No additional snails were translocated to "KeyHole Spring" during July 2000 due to dry habitat from the continued drought.

RESULTS

The results of standardized subsampling at the 3 KAS translocation sites in Grand Canyon are tabulated in Table 1 ("KeyHole Spring"), Table 2 (Upper Elves Chasm), and Table 3 (Lower Deer Creek Spring). Extrapolated population estimates are also presented in these tables, but are based on the assumptions that: (1) all available habitat within and adjacent to the release areas is occupied, and (2) KASs are equally disttibuted throughout this habitat. Errors in extrapolating population estimates for "KeyHole Spring" and Lower Deer Creek Spring are likely the result of a low detection threshold from subsampling. In surveys where no KASs were observed, population estimates equaled zero for the site. In contrast, when a few snails were observed, population estimates were inflated due to the area of potential habitat at the sites.

Table 1. "KeyHole Spring" (9.6 m2 ofKAS habitat within and adjacent to the release area) 1 Survey Date Survey Live Dead Live Area (m ) KAS Extrapolated KAS Plots KAS KAS Catinella Searched Density/ m2 KAS at Site Eggmasses Sept 1998A 24 - - 0 0.753 - - - Oct 1998 30 5 3 8 0.942 5 51 No Apr 1999 38 0 0 19 1.193 0 0 No May 1999 33 3 3 6 1.036 3 28 Yes July 1999A 26 0 5 4 0.816 0 0 No Oct 1999 31 3 4 7 0.973 3 28 No Apr 2000 39 3 2 10 1.225 2 23 No May2000 35 1 2 18 1.099 1 9 No July 2000 35 1 2 2 1.099 1 9 No Oct2000 50 0 3 0 1.570 0 0 No Apr 2001 32 0 0 2 1.005 0 0 No Aug 2001 32 0 0 1 1.005 0 0 No

Table 2. Upper Elves Chasm (23.5 m' ofKAS habitat within and adjacent to the release area) 2 Survey Date Survey Live Dead Live Area (m ) KAS Extrapolated KAS Plots KAS KAS Zo11itoides Searched Density/ m2 KAS at Site Eggmasses Sept 1998A 23 - - 1 0.722 - - - Oct 1998 25 6 0 0 0.785 8 180" No Apr 1999 58 10 7 1 1.821 5 129 No May 1999c 13 4 0 0 0.408 10 230 Yes July 1999A 38 17 3 4 1.193 14 335 Yes Oct 1999 47 21 12 3 1.476 14 335 No Apr2000 48 31 5 2 1.507 21 483 Yes May2000 54 27 8 15 1.696 16 374 Yes July 2000A 46 40 25 0 1.444 28 651 Yes Oct 2000 66 49 22 15 2.072 24 556 Yes Apr 2001 37 34 8 5 1.162 29 688 No Aug 2001 39 100 10 2 1.225 82 1918 Yes Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Arnbersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 7

Table 3. Lower Deer Creek Sprin (78.8 m2 ofKAS habitat within and adjacent to the release area) 2 Survey Date Survey Live Dead Live Area (m ) KAS Extrapolated KAS Plots KAS KAS Catinella Searched Density/ m2 KAS at Site Eggmasses Sept 1998A 26 - - 0 0.816 - - - Oct 1998 31 3 6 0 0.973 3 243" No Apr 1999 55 0 1 7 1.727 0 0 ? May 1999 43 3 1 3 l.350 2 175 No July 1999A 39 1 10 2 1.225 1 64 No Oct 1999 69 0 1 0 2.167 0 0 No Apr 2000 66 0 2 14 2.072 0 0 No May 2000 60 4 0 5 1.884 2 167 No July 2000A 42 0 1 0 l.319 0 0 No Oct 2000 55 0 0 2 1.727 0 0 No Apr 2001 51 0 0 2 1.60 l 0 0 No Aug 2001 40 0 0 0 1.256 0 0 No

A 150 KAS released at each site in Sept 1998 and another 150 KAS in July 1999; 20 KASs added to Upper Elves Chasm and 10 KASs added to Lower Deer Creek Spring in July 2000 for maintaining genetic variability.

8 Actual population size would not have exceeded 150 KASs. Only 3 weeks elapsed since the population of immature KAS was transplanted. c Partial survey due to medical evacuation.

Results from surveys of additional springs/seeps during our August 2001 translocated population monitoring trip and a site visit to Lousy Canyon in Yavapai County are listed in appendix A. The majority of the springs surveyed had not previously been investigated by AGFD, and were accessible from the river corridor, which simplified logistical constraints involved in reaching many backcountry springs. Most springs/seeps did not contain much ambersnail primary vegetation (i.e. monkeyflower, watercress, sedges, cattails, or rushes), therefore, overall habitat suitability was low for all springs/seeps surveyed. Most sites had a high potential for natural disturbance, low moisture content, and high salt deposits within the substrates. Consequently, no mollusks and very few other invertebrates were found at these sites (indicating comparatively poor habitat quality).

DISCUSSION

Habitat suitability (i.e. quality, quantity, and management protection) was a focal concern in planning these translocations. Planning and conducting wildlife translocations involves many administrative concerns, such as: conservation goals and timelines, legal frameworks, effective monitoring programs, field logistics, funding, and personnel (Miller and others 2000). Biological and environmental factors also need to be considered when assessing the suitability of wildlife translocation. Wild-born are preferable to captive-reared stock for translocations (Griffith and others 1989). Captive breeding is not only expensive and time-consuming, but also increases the animals' risk of exposure to exotic pathogens, reduced fitness, loss of natural behaviors, and reduced genetic variability (Miller and others 2000). A diverse gene pool within a translocated population will help reduce founder effects and inbreeding depression, especially Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Arnbersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 8 among small, isolated populations (Shaffer 1981; Miller and others 2000). Species demographics (i.e. fecundity, life span, population growth rate, breeding behavior, age/sex ratios) are also important to consider for successful translocations and improving a population's long-term survival under fluctuating e:qvironmental conditions (Shaffer 1981; Lande 1993; Miller and others 2000).

Within Arizona, there have been numerous precedents of intentional translocations of game and nongame species. AGFD's Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona (1996 Draft) lists several species that have been translocated/reintroduced into the wild: California condors (Gymnogyps californianus), Mexican gray wolves (Canis lupus baileyi), black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes), desert bighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis), pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis), Gila trout ( Oncorhynchus gilae), razorback suckers (Xyrauchen texanus), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius), Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis), Ramsey Canyon leopard frogs (Rana subaquavocalis), and Chiricahua leopard frogs (Rana chiricahuensis). However, Kanab ambersnails are the first intentionally translocated mollusks in Arizona.

Few examples of mollusk translocations exist--each with varying results. Pearce-Kelly and others (1995) translocated a captive population of Polynesian tree snails (Partula spp.) to new habitat with some degree success. The lack of available information on this subject is likely due to low numbers of actual translocations because of a lower priority or emphasis on invertebrates in general, and failure to report long term monitoring methods and results on translocation/relocation efforts (Cope and Waller 1995). Snails can also be very sensitive to slight changes in environmental factors, which may complicate initial habitat evaluation and the success of population establishment over time. Moreover, snails are a naturally cryptic species, which poses significant difficulties for sampling, mark/recapture, and subsequent population density and distribution analysis, especially for large areas of habitat.

"KEYHOLE SPRING"

Ideally, "KeyHole" spring appeared to have the most potential for population establishment. Habitat was limited to a small, wet, shaded area surrounded by large rocks, which increased sampling effectiveness by limiting the area for KAS to disperse. However, monitoring of this site revealed a steady decrease in KAS after each translocation effort, and no KAS have been found during our last 3 surveys. Our first survey in October 1998 (after the initial translocation of 150 KAS in September 1998) revealed 5 live KAS. In all subsequent surveys, including those following the release of an additional 150 KAS in July 1999, a maximum of 3 live KAS were found (Table 1). Although winter dormancy has been known to cause substantial mortality in the VP population (Stevens and others 1997a and 1997b ), 3 live KAS found in May 1999 show that at least a portion of the initially translocated snails survived the winter of 1998. Drought conditions in 2000 and 2001 may have also had an affect on the success of population establishment at this site due to increased temperatures and reduction in humidity. While monkeyflower remained robust and had high percentage cover, the substrate and litter/duff moisture was much drier than in previous years. Little surface runoff of seep water was observed passing through the release area. No live Catinella were found in the release area during 2001; only 1 live Catinella was observed in the lower drainage at the site. Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 9

UPPER EL YES CHASM

Of the 3 sites, Upper Elves Chasm continues to harbor numerous translocated KASs, qualifying it as a potentially established site under the draft criteria for detem1ining establishment success for KAS (Sorensen and Nelson 2000). Successive surveys at this site have consistently found live KASs and successful recruitment. In addition, this population is slowly increasing in abundance, and is surpassing densities that are observed at VP. In April 2000, KASs were observed to have migrated into suitable habitat adjacent to the release area at the upper site. Additional KAS migrants were found in May, July, and October 2000 and in April and August 2001 in habitat approximately 18.3 m (60 ft) from the release area. Continued occupation of this new area by KASs could potentially double the occupied habitat at this site (from 23.5 n/ to over 2 50 m ), which can be considered in mitigating Biological Opinion concerns for future high flows from Glen Canyon Dam.

Drought conditions in 2000 and 2001 did not affect the overall habitat quality at the Upper Elves Chasm release area. In the last 3 years, flash flooding in the upper site has not affected the release area--water marks and flood debris at a height of approximately 2 111 (6 ft) from the drainage floor were observed in late 1998 and 1999, and a lesser flood of approximately 0.7 m (2 ft) in summer 2001. The only resident landsnail found in the upper site is a Zonitoides sp. (identified by D. Snyder and E. North), which lives within the duff/soil layer of maidenhair fems. Counts of Zonitoides in the habitat adjacent to the KAS release area have varied in number over the last 3 years, but do not appear to be affected by the introduction of KASs. Based on our sampling, Zonitoides were most abundant in May and October 2000.

LOWER DEER CREEK SPRJNG

Ambersnail translocations to Lower Deer Creek Spring also appear to be unsuccessful after 3 years, and 2 attempts at releasing founding stock (September 1998 and July 1999). Observations of live KASs were sporadic and limited to a few individuals during the first 2 years. No live KASs or shells were found in 2001. No conclusive reproduction or recruitment of translocated KASs was apparent. While we did find a mollusk egg mass during the first year, it is difficult to determine whether the egg mass came from KAS or Catinella, which co-occurs at this site. The release area at Lower Deer Creek Spring was not affected by the drought conditions in 2000 or 2001. Spring discharge remained constant and abundant at this site. New seeps along the trail to the Deer Creek slot canyon and upper "Patio" are also becoming well established with primary ambersnail habitat and maintain good water discharge. Vegetation within the Lower Deer Creek Spring release area was healthy and overgrown between each survey. Decreasing numbers of KAS found at the release site may be the result of dispersal into adjacent habitat and the inherent difficulty of sampling in dense vegetation. Unlike "KeyHole Spring" and Upper Elves Chasm, habitat at Lower Deer Creek Spring is not restricted to smaller patches by dry landscape or rock piles. Rather, vegetation at this site consists of a continuous patch, which covers an extremely large area when trying to locate a few individual snails.

Surveys of all sites revealed that dead KAS and live KAS were found at a similar ratio, which negates the notion that the overall decrease in snails is attributed directly to mortality. In fact, following a second translocation of 150 KAS, a survey of the point of release and adjacent Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 10 habitat the following day revealed very few snails. In an effort to reduce possible effects, mice were also trapped at this site during the night of the release. Such a low number of snails demonstrate the inherent difficulties in sampling for snails, and the ability of snails to disperse within a relatively short amount of time. The presence of Catinella at Lower Deer Creek Spring and "KeyHole Spring" throughout our survey efforts may also indicate that habitat was suitable, and the absence of KAS was attributed to sampling error. However, Catinella may also be more resilient to drier conditions, which supports their greater abundance and distribution when compared to KAS.

Even though only one out of three sites has been deemed successful, this is a tremendous accomplishment considering the overall lack of success for most species translocation efforts. Moreover, with the exception of some minimal future translocations to augment genetic variability, the Upper Elves Chasm population appears to be relatively autonomous. In addition, "KeyHole Spring" and Lower Deer Creek Spring may provide valuable infom1ation on KAS habitat requirements by analyzing differences in the physical and biotic conditions between these sites, and comparing them to Upper Elves Chasm and VP. Sorensen (2001) analyzed habitat parameters and snail density at VP using step-wise logistic regression methods-this same method could be used to determine differences in habitat quality among the translocation sites and VP.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Continued monitoring of Upper Elves Chasm is highly warranted, since this ne\\' population has full protection under the Endangered Species Act. In addition, the area t1f occupied habitat at Upper Elves Chasm can be included in mitigation decisions regarJins the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and incidental take statements for VP KAS. "KeyHolc Spnns" and Lower Deer Creek Spring are presumed to be failed establishment sites. Howen:r cunt111ued monitoring of these sites will be useful to determine if any remnant KAS from pre, iou :-, trans locations in 1998 and 1999 survived the last 2 years of drought, and to more accuratL' I:, ddine KAS habitat requirements.

Additional research and analysis to identify the specific en,·iwnmcntal \'ariables that differentiate low and high quality habitat, and assess seasonal differc1icL· :s 111 habitat use may be used to improve monitoring efforts for KAS. An investigation of the rL·l;11 Hi11 :.. hip between snail densities and habitat will aid resource managers in better identifyin~ l1rn anJ high quality habitat. Benefits derived from using more focused and accurate sampl111 ~ IL'L·hrnques may also include: reducing time and effort of searches, lowering logistic costs, a11d .ii ili,, fur less invasive sampling that would reduce habitat damage by physical searches. Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 11

LTTERA TURE CITED

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 1987. Procedures for nongame wildlife and endangered species establishment projects in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

__. 1996 Draft. Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

__. 1998a. Environmental Assessment: Establishment of new populations of Kanab ambersnail in Grand Canyon (Coconino County, Arizona). Prepared by Arizona Game and Fish Department for the National Park Service.

__. 1998b. Biological Evaluation: Establishment of new populations of Kanab ambersnail in Grand Canyon (Coconino County, Arizona). Prepared by Arizona Game and Fish Department for the National Park Service.

Cope, G.C., and D. Waller. 1995. Evaluation of Freshwater Mussel Relocation as a Conservation and Management Strategy. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management. 11: 147-155.

Griffith, B., J.M. Scott, J.W. Carpenter, and C. Reed. 1989. Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245:477-480.

Lande, R. 1993. Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes. American Naturalist 142: 911-927.

Miller, M.P., L.E. Stevens, J.D. Busch, J.A. Sorensen, and P. Keim. 2000. Amplified fragment length polymorphism and mitochondrial sequence data detect genetic differentiation and relationships in endangered southwestern U.S.A. ambersnails. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78: 1845-1854.

Pearce-Kelly, P., G.M. Mace, and D. Clarke. 1995. The release of captive bred snails (Partula taeniata) into a semi-natural environment. Biodiversity and Conservation 4: 645-663.

Pilsbry, H.A. 1948. Land of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Monographs II: 521-1113.

Riddle, W.A. 1990. High temperature tolerance in 3 species of land snails. Journal of Thermal Biology 15 (2): 119-124.

Shaffer, M.L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 31 (2): 131- 134.

Spamer, E.E. and A.E. Bogan. 1993. Mollusca of the Grand Canyon and vicinity, Arizona: new and revised data on diversity and distributions, with notes on Pleistocene-Holocene Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 12 Mollusks of the Grand Canyon. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 144: 21-68.

Sorensen, J.A. 2001. Kanab ambersnails in Grand Canyon, Arizona: sampling error, habitat relationships, and population assessment. Masters Thesis. Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

Sorensen, J.A. and D.M. Kubly. 1997. Investigations of the endangered Kanab ambersnail: monitoring, genetic studies, and habitat evaluation in Grand Canyon and northern Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 122. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

__. 1998. Monitming and habitat surveys of the endangered Kanab ambersnail: monitoring, genetic studies, and habitat evaluation in Grand Canyon and northern Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 125. Atizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Sorensen, J.A. and C.B. Nelson 2000. Translocation of Kanab Ambersnails to Establish a New Population in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 153. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Stevens, L.E., F.R. Protiva, D.M. Kubly, VJ. Meretsky, and J.R. Petterson. 1997a. The ecology of Kanab ambersnail (Succineidae: Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis Pilsbry, 1948) at Vaseys Paradise, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Final Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Program Report, Flagstaff.

__. VJ. Meretsky, D.M. Kubly, J.C. Nagy, C. Nelson, J.R. Petterson, F.R. Protiva, and J.A. Sorensen. 1997b. The impacts of an experimental flood from Glen Canyon Dam on the endangered Kanab ambersnail at Vaseys Paradise, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Final Report. Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and , final rule to list the Kanab ambersnail as endangered. Federal Register 57 (75): 13657-13661.

__. 1995. Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 21 pp.

__. 1997. Biological Opinion on the November 1997 Fall Test Flow from Glen Canyon Dam. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado.

__. 1998. Biological Opinion on the establishment of additional populations of Kanab ambersnails in Grand Canyon National Park. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 13

APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL HABITAT SURVEYS 2001

Site: 38 .6 mi RR Seeps Location: Grand Canyon, 1iver corridor Coconino County, Arizona Jurisdiction: NPS-Grand Canyon National Park Specific: 38.6RR

Surveyed: August 2001 Elevation: - 951m

Water Discharge: Unknown (no surface water) UTM: E422283, N4032222

Aspect: East 7.Smin Topo Quad: Tatahatso Point

Natural Disturbance: High Estimated Recreational Use: Low

Habitat Characterization: Two dry seeps with no surface water. Very steep talus slope with maidenhair fem, brome grass, and longifolia growing from contact zone between Redwall and Muav layers. Salt deposits along drainage.

Mollusks: None

Other Fauna: None Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Arnbersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 14

Site: 49.5 mi RR Spring Location: Grand Canyon, river corridor Coconino County, Arizona Jurisdiction: NPS-Grand Canyon National Park Specific: 49.SRR

Surveyed: August 2001 Elevation: ~864m

Water Discharge: Moderate UTM: E422122, N4022115

Aspect: East 7.5min Topo Quad: Nankoweap Mesa

Natural Disturbance: High Estimated Recreational Use: Low

Habitat Characterization: Wet spring near river (~ 10,000 cfs stage elevation); surface water flowing in channel surrounded by dense watercress.

Mollusks: None

Other Fauna: None

No photo available. Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 15

Site: 140.9 mi RL Location: Grand Canyon, river corridor Coconino County, Arizona Jurisdiction: NPS-Grand Canyon National Park Specific: 140.9RL

Surveyed: August 2001 Elevation: ~608m

Water Discharge: Unknown (no surface water) UTM: E357994, N4028645

Aspect: North 7.Smin Topo Quad: Fishtail Mesa

Natural Disturbance: High Estimated Recreational Use: Low

Habitat Characterization: Steep talus slope with hanging garden at cliff edge. Moist soil with maidenhair fem, sawgrass (Cladium californicum), and moss. Salt deposits along drainage.

Mollusks: None

Other Fauna: Western Rattlesnakes (ID confirmed by N. Brown); circadas, ants, rodent scat, bighorn scat

·,.

·.•'.•. ,~:::~~.~-~ ,..••,- :--;i_ ,(.- -./ ' ., • r --- . ~ .;--t:-',-, - .._ii-=--~ ' ~ -;-"I'" Arizona Game and Fish Depaiiment May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 16

Site: 142.5 mi RL Location: Grand Canyon, river corridor Coconino County, Arizona Jurisdiction: NPS-Grand Canyon National Park Specific: 142.SRL

Surveyed: August 2001 Elevation: ~603m

Water Discharge: Unknown (no surface water) UTM: E355008, N4028306

Aspect: North 7.Smin Topo Quad: Fishtail Mesa

Natural Disturbance: High Estimated Recreational Use: Low

Habitat Characterization: Steep talus slope with hanging garden at cliff edge. Dry soil with maidenhair fem. Salt deposits along drainage.

Mollusks: None

Other Fauna: None

No photo available. Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 17

Site: 148.1 mi RR Location: Grand Canyon, river corridor Coconino County, Arizona Jurisdiction: NPS-Grand Canyon National Park Specific: 148.1 RR

Surveyed: August 2001 Elevation: ~ 709m

Water Discharge: Unknown (no surface water) UTM: E349559, N4023193

Aspect: South 7.Smin Topo Quad:

Natural Disturbance: High Estimated Recreational Use: Low

Habitat Characterization: Wet seep comprised of maidenhair fern, saw grass, sedge, and monkeyflower. Salt deposits along drainage.

Mollusks: None

Other Fauna: Unknown toad species; bighorn scat Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 18

Site: 151 mi RR Location: Grand Canyon, river corridor Coconino County, Arizona Jurisdiction: NPS-Grand Canyon National Park Specific: 151RR

Surveyed: August 2001 Elevation: ~621m

Water Discharge: Low UTM: E346627, N4024056

Aspect: South 7.Smin Topo Quad: Havasu Falls

Natural Disturbance: High Estimated Recreational Use: Low

Habitat Characterization: Wet seep comprised of maidenhair fem, sawgrass, helleborine orchids, monkeyflower, and moss. Salt deposits along drainage.

Mollusks: Deroceras sp. (slugs)

Other Fauna: Unknown toad species; cicadas; grasshoppers; ripple bugs; jumping spiders; phalangid spiders; bighorn scat; canyon wrens; ants; and whiptail lizards. Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 19

Site: 152.3 mi RR Location: Grand Canyon, river corridor Coconino County, Arizona Jurisdiction: NPS-Grand Canyon National Park Specific: 152.3RR

Surveyed: August 2001 Elevation: - 700m

Water Discharge: Low UTM: E342088, N4020890

Aspect: East 7.Smin Topo Quad: SB Point

Natural Disturbance: High Estimated Recreational Use: Low

Habitat Characterization: Wet seep with hanging garden comprised of maidenhair fem, sawgrass, tamarisk, orchids, mosses, and columbine. Salt deposits along drainage.

Mollusks: None

Other Fauna: Moths; gnats; jumping spiders; phalangid spiders.

- -~ ,~•-~·~;{-¢0 ·.-" ~_",--~, ~,-,:.r'..Pfi ""'If ,_.·, -,,.~=~~.· ·: .. •\·.~- __ ... . ·o'!I"· -

,"" .:..'- ~ - ...... _ _ ... i4~~ ~;&' ,(,,; .· -·t ~t - ,_~..,·· - -·· 1 Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 20

Site: 170 mi RR Location: Grand Canyon, 1iver corridor Coconino County, Arizona Jurisdiction: Nation Specific: 170RR

Surveyed: August 2001 Elevation: ~576m

Water Discharge: Low UTM: E325164, N4012284

Aspect: North 7.Smin Topo Quad: Gateway Rapids

Natural Disturbance: High Estimated Recreational Use: Low

Habitat Characterization: Wet to moist seep under overhang in large alcove. Hanging garden comprised of maidenhair fem, helleborine orchids, columbine, saw grass, Grand Canyon flaveria (?), and moss. Salt deposits along drainage.

Mollusks: None

Other Fauna: Pill bugs; jumping spiders; and flies . *Observations only, no specimens taken. Arizona Game and Fish Department May 2002 NGTR 200: Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Habitat Surveys Page 21

Site: Lousy Canyon Location: Perry Mesa, Agua Fria Nat'l Mon Yavapai County, Arizona Jurisdiction: BLM-Agua Fria Nat'l Monument Specific: NE of Black Canyon City

Surveyed: October 2001 Elevation: 945m

Water Discharge: Medium UTM: E400800, N3779450

Aspect: West 7.Smin Topo Quad: Joes Hill Quad

Natural Disturbance: Medium Estimated Recreational Use: Low

Habitat Characterization: Wet springs and seeps with hanging gardens and streamside vegetation comprised of maidenhair fem, cardinal monkeyflower, water sedges, rushes, and mosses.

Mollusks: None

Other Fauna: Ripple bugs; narrow-winged damselflies; dragonflies/darners, moths; flies; jumping spiders; Gila chubs; Gila topminnows; and desert pupfish (all fish species reintroduced).