DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Conference Opinions Glen Canyon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Conference Opinions Glen Canyon United States DeDanment... of Lh.e Interior Fish and Wildlife Se:vice Arizona EcJlogic:l1 Se..-.rices Field Office 2:321 w. Roy.I P::.1.r:l Road. Suite 103 Ph.oeni:::. ArizoC!.2. 85021-:'9S1 • [n Reply R.efC" To: (602) 640-2:7"-0 M..::; (602) 640-ZT.!Q ABSO/SE 2-21-93-F-167 February 16, 1996 MEM:ORAND illvf TO: Regional Director, Bureau of Reciamation. Salt La.1ce Cicy, Utah FRO~!: Field Supervisor SUBJECT: Biological and Conference Opinions on OpeT:arion of Glen Canyon Dam ­ Conrrolled Rele3.Se for Habitat and Beach Building (Your Refere:lce UC-320, aN-l.OO) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the Bureau of Reclamation's proposed. test of beachlhabir:at-building flow (rest flow) from Glen Canyon Dam. in spring 1996 in the CoLorado Rivet: located in Coconino County, Arizona. Your November 20, 1995, request for formal consultation was received on November 21, 1995. This doc..uneru: represents the Service's biological and conference opinions on the effects of that action on the following endangered •• species: humpback: chub (Gila cypha); Kanab ambermail (Oxy{oma. haydeni kCJwbensis); and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidon.ax traillii e:xtimus); and on critic:tl habitat for the humpback: chub and proposed. critical habitat for southwes-..ern willow flyC3.!Cher, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as ame::lde:i, (16 U.S.C. 1531 ec seq.). Tnese biologiCJ..1 and confere~ opinions are based. on information provided in the November 1995 biological assessment. the January 1996 draft environmemal assesSl!lem and draft finding of no significam impact for the Glen Canyon D~ Beacb.lBeach Habitat-Building Flow (DEA/FONSn, the Yt:arc!J.. 1995 final environmental impact statement on the. operation of Glen. Canyon Dam (FEIS), information provided at the TransItional Work: Group and the Comrolled Flood Scientific Coordination Group meetings. field investigations, and other sources of information.. Literamre cited. in these biological and conferen~ opinions is not a complete bibliography of all literarure available on the species of concern. and its effects. or on other subjects considered in these opinions. A complete admjnisa-c.rive record. of this consultation is an file in this office. • Your November 1995 biologic:!.l assessment determined chat-the (est flow would have no effect on the ~lld::ulgered peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anacum), c.hre:ltened bald e:J.gle (Ha!iaeerus LeucocephaLus). and endangered razorback sucker (X.yrauchen ce:canus). Your determination removes these species from consideration b~...ause the action agency has the responsibility to dere::m..ine "may effect:" coosequendy, the remainder of this biological opinion will not address those species. We do not. concur with your determi.nation that the test flow is not likely to • adversely affect the humpback chub. While the long-term effect of the proposed test flow should be beneficial to the species. possible short-term adverse affectS need to be evaluated. The consultation also analyzes new information made available regarding the Kanab ambersnail. On December 14, 1995. the Service requested :!.dditional information on potential impacts to the southwestern willow flycatcher which Reclamation provided in a draft supplememal repOrt dated. January 8, 1996. On January 23, 1996, our staffs met to review the data and concluded mat the test flow is likely to adversety affect habitat of the southwestern willow flycatcher. Your February 1, 1996, memorandum requested the Service [0 indude the southwestern willow flycatCher in the ongoing formal consultation. Ber--ause your memorandum identified possible adverse modification ofsouthwestern willow flycatcher habitat, 'Ole induded a conference opinion on that species' proposed critical habitat. SUMl\1..;RY BIOLOGICAL Ai'ID CONFEREJ.'iCE OPINIONS After reviewing the Curre!l.t S"lZtus of the humpback chub, Kanab ambersnail, and. southwestern willow flyeatCher, the environmental baseline for the action area., the effects of the proposed _ spring 1996 beachJhabitat-building flow from Glen Canyon Dam (test flow), and the cumulative effects, the Service's biological opinion is that the test flow, as proposed, is not likely to • jeopardize the continued exis'..ence of the humpback chub. Kanab ambersnail, and southwestern willow flyca.r.cher, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify desig:nated criticJ.1 habitat for the b.umpback chub. After reviewing the ctI.rrent statuS of the southweste:n willow flycatcher, the environmental baseline for the action a.re:3.~ the effects of the proposed spring 1996 beachlhabitat-building flow from Glen Canyon Dam (test flow), and the cumulative effectS, the Service's conference opinion is t:h.aI the test flow, as proposed, is not likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher. Critical habitat for the Kanab ambersnail has been proposed only in Utah; however, this action does not affect that area and no destruction or adverse modifiCltion of that critical habitat is anticipated. CONSULTATION mSTORY This reiniriates consultation on the preferred alternative for the Fl::.lS chat resulted in a. final biological. opinion. dated. Der..ember 21. 1994, transmitted (0 Reclamation January 7. 1995 (1995 biological opinion). Consultation is reinitiated. b~-ause a new species was l.is-...ed in February 1995 (southwestern willow flycatcher) with proposed criticJ.1 habit:.1t ar.d new information from Biologio.l wd Conference Opinions Glen C1nyon Be:J.chJHabiac-Suilding Rows 2!16i% 2 • the test flow reve31ed chat incidenca.J. cake for the Kanab ambersna.il decerm.i.ned in. the Januarf 1995 biologic:ll opinion would be exc..~ed. •A 1918 biological opinion found that pas~ present. and furore operations of Glen Canyon Dam jeopardized. the continued existence of the humpback chub and limited recovery of the humpback chub and Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius)(U.S. Fish and. Wildlife Service 1918). Consultation accompanying the Glen Canyon Environmemal Smdies (GeES) program (pIDise I) resulted in a draft jeopardy opinion in 1987 (2-21-87-23). Tae second phase of GCES began in 1988. and the Secre2.ry of the Interior announced preparation of an as in July 1989. In Sepcembe;- 1991. the Service agreed. with Reclamation that a separar:e consultation would not be necessary for interim flows because consultation was contimring on operation of the dam and interim flows were designed to reduce impactS from the existing condition while the as was being prepared. With guidance from the cooperating agencies, Reclamation selected Modified. Low FlucUJaring Flow (MI.FF) as the prefe.."'1:'cl alternative in January 1993. Common elementS for FciS alternatives included beachfhabitat building flows and adaptive management. Tne Ja.nu..a.r:y 1995 biological opinion identified. a reasonable and prudent alternative with four elements for endangered fish and reasonable and prudem alternative for Kanab ambersnaiL Tne Service agreed to a program of experimental flows that would include high ~..eady flows in the spring, and specifically stared that "Studies of bi~h ~..eady flows in the spring may include studies of habitat building and habitat maintenance flows. " Because of the len:ath of this biological opinion. we have included the following table of • comentS: • Biologic:!.l. aad Canferene::: Opinions Glen Cmyoa Be:lchfF..J.bic.l:-Building Flows 2/16196 3 TABLE OF CONTEZITS BIOLOGICAL AJ.'\fD CONFERENCE OPI!.'ITONS DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTrON 5 • STATUS OF THE SPECIES Humpback Chub ................. " 6 Kanab Ambersnail " 6 Southwestern Willow Flye::ttcher .. ., ........... .. 1 Life History .. ,.......................... .. 8 Population Dynamics .......................... 10 Scams and Distribution ......................... 11 Proposed Critical Habic.a.t ....................... 12 ENVIRON.M:ENTAL BASEUNE Humpbac.1<. Chub .. ....................•........• 12 Kanab Ambersnail ............................... 14 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher ...................... 14 T-1EF......P..,...EcrS OF THE ACTION • Humpback Chub 11 Kanab Ambersnail 18 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher ................. 21 COMULULA.TIVE & r .t::.CTS ..............•........... .'. • 24 CONCUI..SrON 24 IN'CIDENTAL TAKE STA'TEI'YfENT Humpback Chub AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF T.A..KE 25 • EFFECT OF idE TAKE 26 RE.-\SONABLE .-\;."'1"'D PRuuENT .ME.A..S1JRES 26 TERi\1S .:.\.I.'-I"D CONumONS 26 Kanab Ambersnail " AMOUNT OR EITENT OF TAKE 27 EFFECT OF THE TAKE 28 RE.A.SONABLE .-\ND PRUDENT MEA.su""RE.S 28 TER.\1S AND CONDmONS 28 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE 29 EFFECT OF THE T.AXE 30 RE.A..SONABLE A!.\f.D PRUDENT ME.A..SURES 30 TERMS AJ."\ffi CONDmONS 31 CONSERVATION RECOlYilYlENDATIONS 31 RElr'4TI'IATION-CLOSING STAThYfENT 32 LITERATli"RE CITED ..................................... 35 • BIOLOGIC.-\.L A..l.'ID CONFERE.:.'fCE OPrNIONS DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION • Tne FEIS (page 40) identified that under any alternative. "Grand Canyon sandbars that exist above IlOrmal pcl river stage would colltinue (0 erode, and backwater habitats within IlOrmal stage would tend to fill wim sediment. If To correct this, most FEIS alternatives included beacbJhabitat-building flows as It •••scheduled high releases ofshort duration designed to rebuild high elevation sandbars. deposit numents, restore back'Nater channels. and provide some of the dynamics of a aaru.ral system. It Toe FEIS also Stated. that "a test of the be::.chlhabitat-building flow would be conducred prior to long-term implementation of this elemenr.... It Additionally, the beac.hJhabitat-building flow would be conducted"...only in years when projected storage in Lake Powell on January 1 is less r.b.an. 19 mat (low reservoir condition). " Reclamation proposes to conduct a test of the beachlhabitat-building flow from Glen Canyon Dam. On or about March 22, 1996, 4 days of constant 226-cubic meters per second (cms) flow would begin. On or about March 26, flows would increase at a ma.'Cimum rare of 113 cubic meters per second per hour (emslhr) until a maximum flow of 1275 ems is reached and held essendally COIlS'unt for 7 days.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah
    Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management Jack H. Berryman Institute U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources Utah State University Extension Service Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah 1998 Acknowledgments This publication was produced by Utah State University Extension Service Department of Fisheries and Wildlife The Jack H. Berryman Institute Utah Division of Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Extension and Publications Contributing Authors Purpose and Introduction Terry Messmer Marilet Zablan Mammals Boyde Blackwell Athena Menses Birds Frank Howe Fishes Leo Lentsch Terry Messmer Richard Drake Reptiles and Invertebrates Terry Messmer Richard Drake Utah Sensitive Species List Frank Howe Editors Terry Messmer Richard Drake Audrey McElrone Publication Publication Assistance by Remani Rajagopal Layout and design by Gail Christensen USU Publication Design and Production Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management This bulletin was developed under the auspices of the Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management through the sponsorship of the S. J. and Jessie E. Quinney Foundation in partnership with the College of Natural Resources, Jack H. Berryman Institute for Wild- life Damage Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. i Contents Purpose of this Guide . iii Introduction . v What are endangered and threatened species? . vi Why some species become endangered or threatened? . vi Why protect endangered species? . vi The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) . viii Mammals Black-footed Ferret . 1 Grizzly Bear . 5 Gray Wolf . 9 Utah Prairie Dog . 13 Birds Bald Eagle .
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 150/Monday, August 9, 2021
    43470 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules How can I get copies of the proposed digital television service, including Federal Communications Commission. action and other related information? propagation characteristics that allow Thomas Horan, EPA has established a docket for this undesired signals and noise to be Chief of Staff, Media Bureau. receivable at relatively far distances and action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– Proposed Rule OAR–2021–0208. EPA has also nearby electrical devices to cause developed a website for this proposal, interference. According to the For the reasons discussed in the which is available at https:// Petitioner, it has received numerous preamble, the Federal Communications www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions- complaints of poor or no reception from Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule- viewers, and explains the importance of part 73 as follows: revise-existing-national-ghg-emissions. a strong over-the-air signal in the Portland area during emergencies, PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST Please refer to the notice of proposed SERVICES rulemaking for detailed information on when, it states, cable and satellite accessing information related to the service may go out of operation. Finally, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 proposal. the Petitioner demonstrated that the continues to read as follows: channel 21 noise limited contour would Dated: July 29, 2021. fully encompass the existing channel 12 Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, William Charmley, contour, and an analysis using the 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339. Director, Assessment and Standards Division, Commission’s TVStudy software ■ 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Gap Ranch Biological Resource Evaluation
    RED GAP RANCH BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION Prepared for: Southwest Ground-water Consultants, Inc. Prepared by: WestLand Resources, Inc. Date: February 14, 2014 Project No.: 1822.01 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ 1 2. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................... 2 2.1. Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2. Physical Environment ................................................................................................................... 2 2.3. Biological Environment and Resources ....................................................................................... 3 3. SCREENING ANALYSIS FOR SPECIES OF CONCERN ................................................................ 5 3.1. Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2. Screening Analysis Results .......................................................................................................... 7 3.2.1. USFWS-listed Species ...................................................................................................... 7 3.2.2. USFS Coconino National Forest Sensitive Species ........................................................ 15 3.2.3. USFS Management Indicator Species ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Kanab Ambersnail (Oxyloma Kanabense)
    TOC Page | 88 KANAB AMBERSNAIL (OXYLOMA KANABENSE) Navajo/Federal Statuses: NESL G4 / listed endangered 17 APR 1992 (57FR:13657). Distribution: Only two populations known: 1) near Kanab in Kane County, UT; 2) at Vasey's Paradise in Grand Canyon National Park (75.3 km downstream of Glen Canyon Dam). Potential is likely restricted to western Navajo Nation; including tributaries of Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers, springs on Echo Cliffs, and creeks north and west of Navajo Mountain. Habitat: Restricted to perennially wet soil surfaces or shallow standing water and decaying plant matter associated with springs and seep-fed marshes near sandstone or limestone cliffs. Vegetative cover is necessary; cattails, monkeyflower, or watercress are present at the two known locations, but wetland grasses and sedges may suffice. Similar Species: other Succineid snails; see Pilsbry, 1948. Phenology: m.MAR-l.MAR: emergence from winter dormancy by previous year’s young e.APR-e.JUL: maturation e.JUL-l.AUG: peak reproduction l.AUG-l.SEP: growth of young, die-off of adults >l.SEP: growth of young, winter dormancy Survey Method: Pedestrian surveys within suitable habitat examining on and under wetland vegetation for live or dead snails. Federal permit required for collection. Suggested reference: Spamer and Bogan, in press. Avoidance: No surface disturbance year-round within 60 m of occupied habitat; no alteration of water quantity and chemistry. References: Pilsbry, H.A. 1948. Land mollusca of North America (North of Mexico). Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Monographs II, No.3. (description, p.797) Spamer, E.E. and A.E. Bogan. in press.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conservation of the Kanab Ambersnail
    The conservation of the Kanab Ambersnail of the snail, either by transporting eggs that become stuck on the bird, or by ingesting adult The Kanab Ambersnail is a critically snails and passing them through the digestive endangered snail that is endemic to three system. Snails residing in the Upper Elves locations in the Grand Canyon region. Canyon were from a population of 340 snails Complicating restoration efforts is the lack of that were transported by humans from 1998 to information about the snail and its habitat, 2002 as a conservation measure. origin, and population size. A recent presentation by Ann Holmes, a UC Davis Graduate ecology student described the Kanab Ambersnail and its habitat, the conflicts between snail conservation and ecosystem conservation, the lack of genetic data, and she provided recommendations for where we go from here. What is the Kanab Ambersnail? The Kanab Ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis), shown in Figure 1, was first discovered in 1909 in Utah. Initially, it was thought to be another known species of snail, Figure 1: Kanab Ambersnail until 1949 when it was reclassified to what we Concern with High Flow Experiments? know today. The snail is about 1 cm in length, which is about the diameter of a dime. Typical High flow experiments which have been lifespan of the snail is 15 months, with periods used to restore fish habitat, riparian areas and of dormancy during the cooler winter months. beaches along the river can have negative Due to the small size and dormancy periods it consequences for invertebrates, such as the has been difficult to survey the population size Kanab snail.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 – References
    Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan December 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 6 REFERENCES 2 3 4 Ackerman, M.W., 2008, 2006 Native Fish Monitoring Activities in the Colorado River, Grand 5 Canyon, Annual Report, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz. 6 7 Ackerman, M.W., D. Ward, T. Hunt, S. Rogers, D.R. Van Haverbeke, and A. Morgan, 2006, 8 2006 Grand Canyon Long-term Fish Monitoring, Colorado River, Diamond Creek to Lake 9 Mead, 2006 Trip Report, prepared for U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 10 Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz. 11 12 ADEQ (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality), 2006a, Recommendations to Address 13 Colorado River Water Quality, Water Quality Division, Clean Colorado River Alliance, Jan. 14 15 ADEQ, 2006b, Final Arizona Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections 1990– 16 2020, March. Available at http://www.azclimatechange.gov/download/O40F9293.pdf. Accessed 17 Oct. 29, 2013. 18 19 Albrecht, B., R. Kegerries, J.M. Barkstedt, W.H. Brandenburg, A.L. Barkalow, S.P. Platania, 20 M. McKinstry, B. Healy, J. Stolberg, and Z. Shattuck, 2014, Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen 21 texanus Research and Monitoring in the Colorado River Inflow Area of Lake Mead and the 22 Lower Grand Canyon, Arizona and Nevada, final report prepared by BIO-WEST, Inc., for 23 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, Utah. 24 25 Alpine, A.E. (ed.), 2010, Hydrological, Geological, and Biological Site Characterization of 26 Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona, Scientific Investigation Report 2010-5025, 27 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Canyon National Park United States of America
    GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA This is the most spectacular gorge in the world, carved by the Colorado river 1,600m into the plateau that has risen around it. It bisects half the Grand Canyon National Park, and its strata record the geological history of the past 2 billion years. There are also traces of prehistoric human adaptation to this harsh environment. COUNTRY United States of America NAME Grand Canyon National Park NATURAL WORLD HERITAGE SITE 1979: Inscribed on the List of World Heritage sites under criteria vii, viii, ix and x. One of the first four natural World Heritage sites to be established. STATEMENT OF OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE [pending] The UNESCO World Heritage Committee issued the following statement at the time of inscription: Statement of Significance The Grand Canyon is among the earth’s greatest on-going geological spectacles. Its vastness is stunning, and the evidence it reveals about the earth’s history is invaluable. The 1.5-kilometer (0.9 mile) deep gorge ranges in width from 500 m to 30 km (0.3 mile to 18.6 miles). It twists and turns 445 km (276.5 miles) and was formed during 6 million years of geologic activity and erosion by the Colorado River on the upraised earth’s crust. The buttes, spires, mesas and temples in the canyon are in fact mountains looked down upon from the rims. Horizontal strata exposed in the canyon retrace geological history over 2 billion years and represent the four major geologic eras. Criterion (vii): Widely known for its exceptional natural beauty and considered one of the world's most visually powerful landscapes, the Grand Canyon is celebrated for its plunging depths; temple-like buttes; and vast, multihued, labyrinthine topography.
    [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]
  • Conservation of the Kanab Ambersnail: Snail Ecology, Species Boundaries, and Adaptive Management in the Grand Canyon
    Ann Holmes, ECL290: Grand Canyon Seminar, Spring 2018 Conservation of the Kanab ambersnail: Snail ecology, species boundaries, and adaptive management in the Grand Canyon Charles Darwin knew the value of studying invertebrates. In addition to his most famous evolutionary studies of Galapagos finches, Darwin also spent much of his career researching lowly barnacles and earthworms. Invertebrates, still often described as "lower organisms," are scientifically undervalued. However, invertebrates play important ecological roles and should be considered in conservation efforts. Like Darwin's barnacles and worms, snails are not, at first glance, charismatic species. However, snails consume detritus and plants, concentrate calcium to pass up the food chain, and provide food for predators such as birds, fish, and amphibians. Many of these predators are declining or at risk of extinction. Snails living in aquatic habitats are also at risk of extinction due to climate change, pollution, and loss of freshwater habitat. Close association with water and limited mobility puts aquatic snails and other mollsucs on the front line of anthropogenic impacts to their habitat. In fact, the number of mollusc extinctions caused by humans exceeds those of birds and mammals combined (Ponder et al. 1995). An estimated 450 species of freshwater snails live in the Western US (Hurt 2004). In Utah, an intensive survey of terrestrial and aquatic snails found several species in peril (Clarke 1991). The results recommended four snails be listed as endangered and threatened; several other snails were not detected and were presumed extirpated from Utah. One of the snails recommended for listing as endangered, the Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis), was found at a single site (Three Lakes) that was slated for imminent development.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare, Imperiled, and Recently Extinct Or Extirpated Mollusks of Utah: a Literature Review
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) Depository) 6-30-1999 Rare, Imperiled, and Recently Extinct or Extirpated Mollusks of Utah: A Literature Review George V. Oliver William R. Bosworth, III State of Utah Department of Natural Resources Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons Recommended Citation Oliver, George V.; Bosworth, III, William R.; and State of Utah Department of Natural Resources, "Rare, Imperiled, and Recently Extinct or Extirpated Mollusks of Utah: A Literature Review" (1999). All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 531. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/531 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. State of Utah DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Wildlife Resources - Utah Natural Heritage Program RARE, IMPERILED, AND RECENTLY EXTINCT OR EXTIRPATED MOLLUSKS OF UTAH A LITERATURE REVIEW Prepared for UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION and the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Cooperative Agreement Number 7FC-UT-00270 Publication Number 99-29 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 1594 W. North Temple Salt Lake City, Utah John F. Kimball, Director RARE, IMPERILED, AND RECENTLY EXTINCT OR EXTIRPATED MOLLUSKS OF UTAH A LITERATURE REVIEW by George V. Oliver and William R.
    [Show full text]
  • Kanab Ambersnail 2005 Update: Research, Monitoring, and Mitigation
    KANAB AMBERSNAIL 2005 UPDATE: RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND MITIGATION Jeff Sorensen, Arizona Game and Fish Department ([email protected]) Barbara Ralston, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center ([email protected]) Currently, two extant populations of the endangered Kanab ambersnail (KAS; Succineidae: Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis) occur in the American Southwest. One population is located north of Kanab, Utah, on a privately-owned wet meadow called Three Lakes. The other population occurs at a large, riverside spring in Grand Canyon National Park, known as Vaseys Paradise. In 1998, Arizona Game and Fish Department partnered with the Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, the US Bureau of Reclamation Upper Colorado Region, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service to establish a second “wild” population of KAS in Arizona. Juvenile ambersnails were collected from Vaseys as founding stock for translocation efforts. Translocated KAS were released at three sites (150 snails/site) along the river corridor in Grand Canyon (“KeyHole Spring” at 47.1mi R, Upper Elves Chasm at 116.6mi L, and Lower Deer Creek Spring at 136.1mi R) in September 1998 and again in July 1999. Of the three sites, Upper Elves Chasm appears to have a successfully established population of KAS. Successive surveys at this site over the past seven years have consistently found live KAS and successful recruitment. In addition, this population has increased in occupied habitat (from 8.4m2 to approximately 50m2). Both “KeyHole Spring” and Lower Deer Creek Spring appear to be failed sites for establishment—researchers have not found live KAS or shells at either site since 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Kanab Ambersnail and Other Terrestrial Snails in South Central Utah
    Western North American Naturalist Volume 62 Number 3 Article 6 7-30-2002 Kanab ambersnail and other terrestrial snails in south central Utah Vicky J. Meretsky Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana Eric G. North Hayward, Wisconsin Lawrence E. Stevens Flagstaff, Arizona Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan Recommended Citation Meretsky, Vicky J.; North, Eric G.; and Stevens, Lawrence E. (2002) "Kanab ambersnail and other terrestrial snails in south central Utah," Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 62 : No. 3 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol62/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Western North American Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Western North American Naturalist 62(3), © 2002, pp. 307–315 KANAB AMBERSNAIL AND OTHER TERRESTRIAL SNAILS IN SOUTH CENTRAL UTAH Vicky J. Meretsky1, Eric G. North2, and Lawrence E. Stevens3 ABSTRACT.—Surveys for succineid snails were conducted to improve genetic and geographical information for the endangered Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis Pilsbry) and related taxa within the Succineidae. Surveys were carried out in the Bureau of Land Management Kanab District, at the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monu- ment, on 3 private holdings, and along Highways 89, 12, and 14, all in south central Utah. A population of Kanab amber- snails was known to exist in the region; other populations of Oxyloma were discovered in primarily seep-fed wetlands in Kanab Creek and in tributaries of and wetlands along the Virgin, Sevier, and Escalante rivers in Kane, Garfield, and Piute counties.
    [Show full text]