DOCSLIB.ORG

Desert Flows Assessment Environmental Water Needs of Riparian & Aquatic Ecosystems in the Desert Watersheds of the U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Desert Flows Assessment Environmental Water Needs of Riparian & Aquatic Ecosystems in the Desert Watersheds of the U.S Desert Flows Assessment Environmental Water Needs of Riparian & Aquatic Ecosystems in the Desert Watersheds of the U.S. and Mexico Kelly E. Mott Lacroix, Elia Tapia, and Abraham E. Springer March 2016 University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center and Northern Arizona University Watershed Ecohydrology Program Desert Flows Assessment Environmental Water Needs of Riparian and Aquatic Ecosystems the Desert Watersheds of the United States and Mexico Kelly E. Mott Lacroix, Elia Tapia, and Abraham E. Springer 2016 i Desert Flows Assessment – 2016 University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center and Northern Arizona University Watershed Ecohydrology Program ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was made possible by funding from the Desert Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) via the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. We thank the members of the DLCC Critical Management Question One team for their advice and review of this document and the Desert Flows Database as well as the 47 land and water managers who took a survey in early 2015. Their responses have shaped the format of the database and this report. ii Desert Flows Assessment – 2016 University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center and Northern Arizona University Watershed Ecohydrology Program CONTENTS Figures ...................................................................................................................................................................... iv Tables ......................................................................................................................................................................... v Executive summary .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Key findings ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................. 2 I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 II. The Desert Landscape Conservation Cooperative (DLCC) Geography .............................................................. 5 III. Desert Flows Database Methodology ............................................................................................................... 9 Phase I - Review/Modification of the Arizona Environmental Flows Database .................................................... 9 Phase II - Literature Review ................................................................................................................................... 9 Phase III - Database Construction, Data Entry, and Data Analysis ....................................................................... 10 IV. Summary and Gap Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 14 Extent of inventory of studies.............................................................................................................................. 14 Methods Used to Determine Environmental Flows ............................................................................................ 18 Quality of Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 21 Elements studied (e.g., flora/fauna monitoring) ................................................................................................. 22 Extent of Riparian and Water Needs/Responses Studies .................................................................................... 24 Relationships Between Riparian Vegetation and Terrestrial and Aquatic Species .............................................. 50 Human Aspects of Environmental Flows Studied ................................................................................................ 51 Risks and Stressors for Ecosystems and Species in the Desert Watersheds of the U.S. and Mexico .................. 53 V. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 55 VI. References ......................................................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix A: Guide for Use of the Desert Flows Database .................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B: Study Information by Study Index ..................................................................................................... B-1 Appendix C: Study Information by Study Author................................................................................................... C-1 Appendix D: Studies by River ................................................................................................................................. D-1 Appendix E: Species with Flow Needs and Flow Response Data ........................................................................... E-1 iii Desert Flows Assessment – 2016 University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center and Northern Arizona University Watershed Ecohydrology Program FIGURES Figure 1. DLCC Geography ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2. Location of Perennial streams in the DLCC Geography .................................................................................. 7 Figure 3. Desert LCC Watersheds .................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4. Literature Query Method ............................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 5. Method for Standardizing Environmental Flow Needs and Flow Response Data ........................................ 13 Figure 6. Extent and Number of Studies by River Reach ............................................................................................. 16 Figure 7. Flow Methods Classification ......................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 8. Methods by Ecoregion .................................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 9. Quality of Methods in Database ................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 10. Quality of Methods by Ecoregion ............................................................................................................... 22 Figure 11. Studied elements in the DLCC Geography .................................................................................................. 23 Figure 12. Most and Least Studied Elements by Ecoregion ......................................................................................... 23 Figure 13. Extent of Flow Need and Flow Response Studies ....................................................................................... 25 Figure 14. Extent of Flow Needs or Flow Responses Studies for Mesquite ................................................................. 28 Figure 15. Extent of Flow Needs and Flow Responses Studies for Populus ................................................................ 28 Figure 16. Flow Needs and Flow Responses Studies for Salix ..................................................................................... 29 Figure 17. Flow Needs and Flow Responses Studies for Tamarisk .............................................................................. 29 Figure 18. Extent and Number of Studies of Environmental Flow Needs ................................................................... 30 Figure 19. Extent and Number of Species Studied for Flow Needs ............................................................................. 31 Figure 20. Extent and Number of Flow Response Studies ........................................................................................... 42 Figure 21. Count of Species by River with Flow Response Studies .............................................................................. 43 Figure 22. General Categories of Risks and Stressors for the Desert Watersheds of the U.S. and Mexico ................. 53 Figure 23. Detailed Risks and Stressors for Selected General Categories ................................................................... 54 Figure 24. Top Seven General Risks and Stressors by Ecoregion ................................................................................. 55 iv Desert Flows Assessment – 2016 University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center and Northern Arizona University Watershed Ecohydrology Program TABLES Table 1. DLCC Watersheds............................................................................................................................................. 6 Table 2. Database Tables and Fields ...........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River Managment Plan Annual Report Fiscal Year 2012
    U.S. Department of Interior GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK National Park Service COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 Project Number 140653 Contributions by: Vanya Pryputniewicz, Outdoor Recreation Planner Jennifer Dierker, Archeologist Linda Jalbert, Wilderness Coordinator Lisa Kearsley, Biological Technician Brett G Dickson, Principal Investigator, NAU Valerie Horncastle, Senior Research Specialist, NAU Luke Zachman, Senior Research Specialist, NAU For More Information contact: Vanya Pryputniewicz 928-638-7659 [email protected] Colorado River Management Plan Annual Report for FY2012 Page 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Mitigation Program ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Results and Observations .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Clear-Water Tributaries of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Stream Ecology and the Potential Impacts of Managed Flow by René E
    Clear-water tributaries of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: stream ecology and the potential impacts of managed flow by René E. Henery ABSTRACT Heightened attention to the sediment budget for the Colorado River systerm in Grand Canyon Arizona, and the importance of the turbid tributaries for delivering sediment has resulted in the clear-water tributaries being overlooked by scientists and managers alike. Existing research suggests that clear-water tributaries are remnant ecosystems, offering unique biotic communities and natural flow patterns. These highly productive environments provide important spawning, rearing and foraging habitat for native fishes. Additionally, clear water tributaries provide both fish and birds with refuge from high flows and turbid conditions in the Colorado River. Current flow management in the Grand Canyon including beach building managed floods and daily flow oscillations targeting the trout population and invasive vegetation has created intense disturbance in the Colorado mainstem. This unprecedented level of disturbance in the mainstem has the potential to disrupt tributary ecology and increase pressures on native fishes. Among the most likely and potentially devastating of these pressures is the colonization of tributaries by predatory non-native species. Through focused conservation and management tributaries could play an important role in the protection of the Grand Canyon’s native fishes. INTRODUCTION More than 490 ephemeral and 40 perennial tributaries join the Colorado River in the 425 km stretch between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead. Of the perennial tributaries in the Grand Canyon, only a small number including the Paria River, the Little Colorado River and Kanab Creek drain large watersheds and deliver large quantities of sediment to the Colorado River mainstem (Oberlin et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Assessment Units
    APPENDIX A ASSESSMENT UNITS SURFACE WATER REACH DESCRIPTION REACH/LAKE NUM WATERSHED Agua Fria River 341853.9 / 1120358.6 - 341804.8 / 15070102-023 Middle Gila 1120319.2 Agua Fria River State Route 169 - Yarber Wash 15070102-031B Middle Gila Alamo 15030204-0040A Bill Williams Alum Gulch Headwaters - 312820/1104351 15050301-561A Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312820 / 1104351 - 312917 / 1104425 15050301-561B Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312917 / 1104425 - Sonoita Creek 15050301-561C Santa Cruz Alvord Park Lake 15060106B-0050 Middle Gila American Gulch Headwaters - No. Gila Co. WWTP 15060203-448A Verde River American Gulch No. Gila County WWTP - East Verde River 15060203-448B Verde River Apache Lake 15060106A-0070 Salt River Aravaipa Creek Aravaipa Cyn Wilderness - San Pedro River 15050203-004C San Pedro Aravaipa Creek Stowe Gulch - end Aravaipa C 15050203-004B San Pedro Arivaca Cienega 15050304-0001 Santa Cruz Arivaca Creek Headwaters - Puertocito/Alta Wash 15050304-008 Santa Cruz Arivaca Lake 15050304-0080 Santa Cruz Arnett Creek Headwaters - Queen Creek 15050100-1818 Middle Gila Arrastra Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-848 Middle Gila Ashurst Lake 15020015-0090 Little Colorado Aspen Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-769 Verde River Babbit Spring Wash Headwaters - Upper Lake Mary 15020015-210 Little Colorado Babocomari River Banning Creek - San Pedro River 15050202-004 San Pedro Bannon Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-774 Verde River Barbershop Canyon Creek Headwaters - East Clear Creek 15020008-537 Little Colorado Bartlett Lake 15060203-0110 Verde River Bear Canyon Lake 15020008-0130 Little Colorado Bear Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-046 Middle Gila Bear Wallow Creek N. and S. Forks Bear Wallow - Indian Res.
    [Show full text]
  • Bacteria in the Grand Canyon
    White-water Researchers Check Bacteria in the Grand Canyon Item Type Article Authors Tunnicliff, Brock; Brickler, Stan; Webster, Guy Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Journal Progressive Agriculture in Arizona Rights Copyright © Arizona Board of Regents. The University of Arizona. Download date 27/09/2021 20:42:41 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/296209 White -water Researchers Check Bacteria in the Grand Canyon Using river rafts equipped as mobile laboratories is the best way to By Dr. Brock Tunnicliff test water quality in the Colorado River of the Grand Canyon. The and Dr. Stan Brickler, School sharply increased number of boat trips through the canyon since the of Renewable Natural 1960s is the main reason that testing the water there has become impor- Resources, and Guy Webster, tant. Agricultural Communications Based on two years of testing, UA School of Renewable Natural Resources researchers have made recommendations for safer use of river water by boaters. Boaters should treat water from the river and its trib- utaries before drinking it. Drinking straight from the river has been common in past seasons. Boaters also should avoid stirring up bottom sediments. The sediments contain much more bacterial contamination than does the surface water. Stirring up sediments, especially in side- stream pools, can raise the fecal bacteria count in water above the stan- dard maximum for body- contact water use. Photograph: Recreational rafts The UA researchers have explained these recommendations to navigate a stretch of the Colorado River in the lower half of the boatmen from 22 licensed commercial outfitters during National Park Grand Canyon.
    [Show full text]
  • Thunder River Trail and Deer Creek
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Arizona Thunder River Trail and Deer Creek The huge outpourings of water at Thunder River, Tapeats Spring, and Deer Spring have attracted people since prehistoric times and today this little corner of Grand Canyon is exceedingly popular among seekers of the remarkable. Like a gift, booming streams of crystalline water emerge from mysterious caves to transform the harsh desert of the inner canyon into absurdly beautiful green oasis replete with the music of falling water and cool pools. Trailhead access can be difficult, sometimes impossible, and the approach march is long, hot and dry, but for those making the journey these destinations represent something close to canyon perfection. Locations/Elevations Mileages Indian Hollow (6250 ft / 1906 m) to Bill Hall Trail Junction (5400 ft / 1647 m): 5.0 mi (8.0 km) Monument Point (7200 ft / 2196 m) to Bill Hall Junction: 2.6 mi (4.2 km) Bill Hall Junction, AY9 (5400 ft / 1647 m) to Surprise Valley Junction, AM9 (3600 ft / 1098 m): 4.5 mi ( 7.2 km) Upper Tapeats Camp, AW7 (2400 ft / 732 m): 6.6 mi ( 10.6 km) Lower Tapeats, AW8 at Colorado River (1950 ft / 595 m): 8.8 mi ( 14.2 km) Deer Creek Campsite, AX7 (2200 ft / 671 m): 6.9 mi ( 11.1 km) Deer Creek Falls and Colorado River (1950 ft / 595 m): 7.6 mi ( 12.2 km) Maps 7.5 Minute Tapeats Amphitheater and Fishtail Mesa Quads (USGS) Trails Illustrated Map, Grand Canyon National Park (National Geographic) North Kaibab Map, Kaibab National Forest (good for roads) Water Sources Thunder River, Tapeats Creek, Deer Creek, and the Colorado River are permanent water sources.
    [Show full text]
  • FISH of the COLORADO RIVER Colorado River and Tributaries Between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead
    FISH OF THE COLORADO RIVER Colorado River and tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead ON-LINE TRAINING: DRAFT Outline: • Colorado River • Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) • Native Fishes • Common Non-Native Fishes • Rare Non-Native Fishes • Standardized Sampling Protocol Colorado River: • The Colorado River through Grand Canyon historically hosted one of the most distinct fish assemblages in North America (lowest diversity, highest endemism) • Aquatic habitat was variable ▫ Large spring floods ▫ Cold winter temperatures ▫ Warm summer temperatures ▫ Heavy silt load • Today ▫ Stable flow releases ▫ Cooler temperatures ▫ Predation Overview: • The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program was established in 1997 to address downstream ecosystem impacts from operation of Glen Canyon Dam and to provide research and monitoring of downstream resources. Area of Interest: from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (Fish) Goals: • Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish, eliminate risk of extinction from humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their critical habitat. • Maintain a naturally reproducing population of rainbow trout above the Paria River, to the extent practicable and consistent with the maintenance of viable populations of native fish. Course Purpose: • The purpose of this training course “Fish of the Colorado River” is to provide a general overview of fish located within the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam downstream to Lake Mead and linked directly to the GCDAMP. • Also included are brief explanations of management concerns related to the native fish species, as well as species locations. Native Fishes: Colorado River and tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead Bluehead Sucker • Scientific name: Catostomus discobolus • Status: Species of Special Concern (conservation status may be at risk) • Description: Streamlined with small scales.
    [Show full text]
  • Salinity of Surface Water in the Lower Colorado River Salton Sea Area
    Salinity of Surface Water in The Lower Colorado River Salton Sea Area GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 486-E Salinity of Surface Water in The Lower Colorado River- Salton Sea Area By BURDGE IRELAN WATER RESOURCES OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER SALTON SEA AREA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 486-E UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1971 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 72 610761 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Price 50 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Page Abstract . _.._.-_. ._...._ ..._ _-...._ ...._. ._.._... El Ionic budget of the Colorado River from Lees Ferry to Introduction .._____. ..... .._..__-. - ._...-._..__..._ _.-_ ._... 2 Imperial Dam, 1961-65 Continued General chemical characteristics of Colorado River Tapeats Creek .._________________.____.___-._____. _ E26 water from Lees Ferry to Imperial Dam ____________ 2 Havasu Creek __._____________-...- _ __ -26 Lees Ferry .._._..__.___.______.__________ 4 Virgin River ..__ .-.._..-_ --....-. ._. 26 Grand Canyon ................._____________________..............._... 6 Unmeasured inflow between Grand Canyon and Hoover Dam ..........._._..- -_-._-._................-._._._._... 8 Hoover Dam .__-.....-_ .... .-_ . _. 26 Lake Havasu - -_......_....-..-........ .........._............._.... 11 Chemical changes in Lake Mead ............-... .-.....-..... 26 Imperial Dam .--. ........_. ...___.-_.___ _.__.__.._-_._.___ _ 12 Bill Williams River ......._.._......__.._....._ _......_._- 27 Mineral burden of the lower Colorado River, 1926-65 .
    [Show full text]
  • Boatman's Quarterly Review
    the journal of the Grand Canyon River Guides, Inc. • voulme 25 number 2 • summer 2012 boatman’s quarterly review boatman’s Prez Blurb•Farewell •BooksKen,2Arts&RonGTSLand • GTSRiver HMcD Signature•Chub Relocation•OverflightsBackoftheBoat Food ForThought •Conflict/Harmony •SpringFlowers Art Gallenson boatman’s quarterly review Prez Blurb …is published more or less quarterly by and for GRAND CANYON RIVER GUIDES. Á’ÁT’ÉÉH, HAPPY RIVER SEASON! It’s already that GRAND CANYON RIVER GUIDES time of year again! Many of you have already is a nonprofit organization dedicated to Yhad a couple or more commercial trips under your belt on the Colorado, Grand Canyon or other Protecting Grand Canyon rivers. As a fellow river guide, I know that the begin- Setting the highest standards for the river profession ning of the river season or before your first trip begs Celebrating the unique spirit of the river community the main questions of “Where did I put that?” or “What Providing the best possible river experience am I forgetting?” At least for me, it’s the stressful part of the beginning of river season but I often remind General Meetings are held each Spring and Fall. Our myself that I’m going to a place of solitude, beauty, Board of Directors Meetings are generally held the first friendship, and adventure. It is also a stark reminder wednesday of each month. All innocent bystanders are that this place we all call home and our “office” is urged to attend. Call for details. always under observation from the constant threats of STAFF exploitation from development, mining and increased Executive Director LYNN HAMILTON visitation.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 – Affected Environment
    Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan October 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Chapter 3 describes the environmental resources (physical, biological, cultural, recreational, and socioeconomic) that could be affected by the range of alternatives for implementing the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP), as described in Chapters 1 and 2. The extent to which each specific resource may be affected by each alternative is discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.1 3.1 PROJECT AREA The project area includes the area potentially affected by implementation of the LTEMP (including normal management and experimental operations of Glen Canyon Dam and non-flow actions). This area includes Lake Powell, Glen Canyon Dam, and the river downstream to Lake Mead (Figure 3.1-1). More specifically, the scope primarily encompasses the Colorado River Ecosystem, which includes the Colorado River mainstream corridor and interacting resources in associated riparian and terrace zones, located primarily from the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to the western boundary of Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). It includes the area where dam operations impact physical, biological, recreational, cultural, and other resources. This section of the river runs through Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons in Coconino and Mohave Counties in northwestern Arizona. Although this EIS focuses primarily on the Colorado River Ecosystem, the affected area varies by resources and extends outside of the immediate river corridor for some resources and cumulative impacts. Portions of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA), GCNP, and Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA) outside the Colorado River Ecosystem are also included in the affected region for certain resources due to the potential effects of LTEMP operations.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior U.S
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 In Reply Refer To: AESO/SE 22410-2011-F-0100 22410-2011-F-0112 December 23, 2011 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah From: Field Supervisor Subject: Final Biological Opinion on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam including High Flow Experiments and Non-Native Fish Control Thank you for your request for formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (ESA). Your January 2011 request was supplemented with Biological Assessment (BA) dated July 13, 2011, and received by us on July 15, with supplements provided as described in the Consultation History section of this document. At issue are impacts that may result from the proposed 10-year continued operation of Glen Canyon Dam under the Modified Low Fluctuating Flows (MLFF) alternative along with High Flow Experimental (HFE) Releases and Non-Native Fish (NNFC) Control downstream from Glen Canyon Dam (GCD), Coconino County, Arizona. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) concluded that the proposed action “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect” the humpback chub (Gila cypha) and its critical habitat, the razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and its critical habitat, and the Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma kanabensis haydenii). You also concluded that the proposed action “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus).
    [Show full text]
  • Advances in Genetic Research Reveal Kanab Ambersnail Not a Distinct Subspecies Subspecies Removed from Endangered Species Act List
    News Release U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Missouri and Upper Colorado Basin Region 134 Union Boulevard Lakewood, Colorado 80228 For Immediate Release June 17, 2021 Contact: Joe Szuszwalak, [email protected], 303-236-4336 Advances in Genetic Research Reveal Kanab Ambersnail Not a Distinct Subspecies Subspecies removed from Endangered Species Act list Western Oxyloma sp. from Vasey's Paradise, Grand Canyon, AZ Photo credit: Jeff Sorenson, AZ Game and Fish DENVER — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is announcing today the publication of a final rule to remove the Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis) from the Endangered Species Act list of threatened and endangered species. This determination follows a review of the best available science, which has indicated the Kanab ambersnail is not a distinct subspecies and therefore cannot be listed as an entity under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This action follows the publication of the proposed rule on January 6, 2020. The Kanab ambersnail was initially listed as endangered in 1991. It is a small snail in the Succineidae family, typically inhabiting marshes and other wetlands watered by springs and seeps at the base of sandstone or limestone cliffs. Three populations have been known to the Service, one in Three Lakes, UT, and in Vasey’s Paradise and Upper Elves Canyon, AZ. In 2013 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published a comprehensive, peer-reviewed, comparative genetic and morphological study of 11 populations of ambersnails (Oxyloma) in Utah and Arizona, including the Kanab ambersnail. USGS analyzed genetics, shell morphology, and reproductive soft tissue anatomy and found that the subspecies known as Kanab ambersnail is not a distinct subspecies.
    [Show full text]