Kanab Ambersnail 2003 Progress Report: Analysis of Habitat Data, Status of Translocated Populations, and Additional Habitat Surveys

NON RECORD NON LIBRARY

KANABAMBERSNAIL 2003 PROGRESS REPORT: ANALYSISOF HABITAT DATA, STATUS OF TRANSLOCATED POPULATIONS, ANDADDITIONAL HABITAT SURVEYS

JeffA. Sorensen, Nongame Program Manager Clay B. Nelson, Nongame Wildlife Specialist Darren K. Bolen, Nongame Wildlife Specialist

Nongame Branch, Wildlife Management Division ArizonaGame and Fish Department

Technical Report 220 Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Program Chief: Terry B. Johnson Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399

September 2003 CIVIL RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY COMPLIANCE

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission receives federal financial assistance in SportFish 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 discrimination 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 furtherinformation please write to:

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

and

The Officefor Diversity and Civil Rights U.S. Fish and WildlifeService 4040 North FairfaxDrive, 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.

1 RECOMMENDEDCITATION

J.A. Sorensen, C.B. Nelson, and D.K. Bolen. 2003. Kanab Ambersnail 2003 Progress Report: Analysis of Habitat Data, Status of Translocated Populations, and Additional Habitat Surveys. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 220. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the following individuals for their recent contributionsin the field: DanAdikes, Linda Allison, Dave Baker, Paul Barrett, Lee Ann Bemer, Sandy Bernstein, Sharon Biggs, Sean Blomquist, Mariann Cunningham, Val Davison, Brent and Cynthia Davison, Danica Davison, Patrice Davison, Chuck Emmert, Wayne Feller, Scott Gardner, Susie Gardner, Bob Gaulden, John Gunn, Steve Haas, Bob and Janine Hembrode, Joy Hembrode, Monique Imberski, Ed J ahrke,Alicia Jontz, DeLise Keim, Keith Kohl, BrandiKuhlmann, MargretMartinez, Bob Miles, Neibert Niemi, Richard Ockenfels, Christine Palanuk, Alan Pils, Chuck Pils, Barb Ralston, Daren Riedle, Teresa Riza, Tom Ryan, Maaike Schotborgh, Joan Scott, Tara Sprankle, Brian Smith, Sheridan Stone, Robert Sucharski, Matt Sweeney, Jessica Thiebeau, Rickard Toomey, Bill Vercammen, Eric Whiteman, Scotty Davis and J.P. Running withHatch River Expeditions, andTiffiny and Mike with Western River Expeditions. A special thanks to Jessica Thiebeau, our project's first intern, who spent many long hours at data entry, and Joyce Francis for improvements to the ambersnail database and converting it to a MS-Access format. Logistical and administrative support was provided by: Dennis Kubly and Tom Scoville (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation); Ralph Swanson (Central Utah Project Completion Act Office); Paul Barrett, Debra Bills, Larry England, and Glen Knowles (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service); Carol Fritzinger, Steve Gloss, Keith Kohl, Barb Ralston, Parke Steffensen, and Jake Tiegs (Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center); EmmaBenenati, Ray Hall, Kirsten Heins, and Della Snyder (National Park Service); John Gunn (Maricopa County Parks); JohnBoeck, Jean Emory, Steve Haas, and Rickard Toomey (Arizona State Parks); Linda Allison, Mike Demlong, Joyce Francis, Terry Johnson, and Bill Persons (ArizonaGame andFish Department). Cover photo by JeffSorensen.

PROJECTFUNDING

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. 02-FC- 40-8390 and Modification #001-2003, Central Utah Project Completion Act Cooperative Agreement No. 02-FCCU-AZOlO, BSA Section 6 Federal Aid (State Trust Fund), and State WildlifeGrants. Logistical support provided by GrandCanyon Monitoring andResearch Center.

File: NGTR 220 KAS 2003 Progress Report.20031230.doc

11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To alleviate operational restrictions on Glen CanyonDam and furtherrecovery objectives forthe endangered Kanab ambersnail (Succineidae: Oxyloma 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, andthe 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 andWildlife Service issueda Biological Opinion in early September 1998 authorizing this translocationeffort.

In mid-September 1998, 450 Kanab ambersnails (:S: 5 mm in shell size) were collected from Vaseys Paradise (river mile 31.8 R), Grand Canyon,Arizona, as foundingstock fortranslocation efforts. These snails were collected from the lower vegetated zone, an area frequently inundated 3 by river flowsof 30,000 cfs (849.9 m /s) or less. Translocatedsnails were released at 3 sites (150 snails/site) in Grand CanyonNational Park The 3 sites ("KeyHole Spring" at 47.1 mi R, Upper Elves Chasm at 116.6 mi L, and Lower Deer Creek Spring at 136.1 mi R) 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). fu July 2000, a minor translocation of 30 Kanab ambersnails from V aseys 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. Another20 juvenile ambersnails were transplantedto Upper Elves Chasm in August 2002 for genetic variability. No ambersnails were translocated to "KeyHole Spring" in July 2000 due to dry habitat resulting from the continued drought. fu early 2003, the National Park Service Grand Canyon Science Center staff had announced their decision to halt any further augmentations of the Upper Elves Chasm site, due to a change in their vision for managing wildlifein the park.

The results of the ambersnail translocation andseasonal monitoring from October 1998 through August 2003 are summarized in this report. Of the 3· sites, Upper Elves Chasm continues to harbor numerous translocated Kanab ambersnails, and appears to be establishing a new population underthe draftcriteria for determining establishment success forKanab ambersnails. Successive surveys at this site have consistently found live Kanab ambersnails and successful recruitment. fuaddition, this population is increasing in occupied area. Ambersnailtranslocations to ''KeyHole Spring" andLower Deer Creek Spring appear to be unsuccessfulafter 5 years and2 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 have been foundsince 2001 at either site. However, periodic sampling may be usefulto determine if any remnant ambersnails fromprevious translocations in 1998 and 1999 survived the last 4 yearsof drought.

No parasites have been detected in any of the snails at translocation sites. Resident native landsnails at the translocation sites were documented when encountered-Catinella sp. at all 3 sites and Zonitoides sp. at Upper Elves Chasm and "KeyHole Spring". Densities and distribution of resident landsnails at these sites did not appear to be affectedby ambersnail translocation.

Continued monitoring of Upper Elves Chasm is highly warranted, since this new population has full protection under the Endangered Species Act. Limited augmentation of this site, at least periodically (every 2-3 years with 20 juvenile ambersnails), would help ensure the genetic integrity of this translocated population. In addition to achieving recovery objectives, the 2 ambersnail population at Upper Elves Chasm and its occupied habitat (-50 m in area) can be included in mitigation decisions regarding the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and incidental take statements forKanab ambersnails at Vaseys Paradise. The successful establishment of this new ambersnail population allows for more flexibility with regards to future Beach/Habitat Building Flows and adaptive management of other resources in Grand Canyon.

A statistical analysis of habitat dataand snail countsamong the 3 translocation sites was conducted to help identify differences in habitat quality and better understand why 1 translocation site was more successfulthan the other 2. Using methods fromSorensen (2001), stepwise logistic regression was used to determine specific habitat variables that characterize high and low quality Kanab ambersnail habitat based on snail densities. For Vaseys Paradise, the most significant features discriminating high and low quality habitat variables in spring surveys were: percent live vegetation (>75%), total percent cover ( <50% absolute), and duff/litter moisture (25-74% saturation). Vegetation species (watercress or mixed plant species), percent live vegetation (>75%), and vegetation height (<50 cm) were the most predictive variables for autumn surveys at Vaseys Paradise. For Upper Elves Chasm, the following characteristics of preferred ambersnail habitat were identified: in spring-vegetation species (homogenous monkeyflower), percentage live cover (>75%), and substrate moisture (75-100% saturation); and in autumn substrate moisture (75-100% saturation), duffllitter moisture (25-74% saturation), and total (absolute) vegetative cover (>75%). There were no strong similarities in habitat variables between Vaseys Paradise and Upper Elves Chasm based on snail densities. Neither "KeyHole Spring" or Lower Deer Creek Spring had the necessary data to distinguish between high and low quality habitat, due to low sample numbers of data with >1 ambersnail per plot. Classificatory statistics provided some insight into the habitat characteristics that described high and low quality Kanab ambersnail habitat, but often with low prediction success for high quality habitat. Descriptive statistics for each site and season did not show any notable differences in habitat qualities among the translocation sites in predictive variables for VP high-density habitat. We were unable to clearly explain why 1 translocation site was more successful in ambersnail establishmentthan the other 2, using the stepwise logistic regressionanalysis technique.

Additional surveys for potential Kanab ambersnail populations or habitat suitability were conducted at 19 sites in northern Arizona including the North Kaibab Plateau, Mogollon Rim, and the Colorado River corridor. Seven other surveys were conducted in central and southern Arizona including the Verde Valley, Cave Creek, Huachuca and Whetstone mountains, San Pedro Valley, Patagonia Lake, and Sonoita Creek. No additional ambersnail populations were detected, and habitat at these sites generally ranged from "acceptable" to "unsuitable". Soda Springs Ranch in Verde Valley and Cave Spring in the Huachuca Mountains rated "more desirable" in ambersnail habitat quality, and Waterfall Spring at Tonto Natural Bridge rated "optimum", based on the criteria in Sorensen and Kubly (1998). TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary...... i futroduction...... 1 Methods...... 2 TranslocationS ites ...... 2 Collection and TranslocationofKAS ...... 4 Monitoring ...... 4 Habitat Data Analysis...... 5 New Habitat Surveys ...... 5 Additional Activities...... 9 Results ...... 11 TranslocationS ites ...... 11 New Habitat Surveys...... 13 Habitat Data Analysis ...... 14 Additional Activities andNotes ...... 15 Discussion ...... 16 "KeyHole Spring"...... 16 Upper Elves Chasm ...... 1 7 Lower Deer Creek Spring ...... 17 Recommendations ...... 19 Literature Cited ...... 20 Appendix A: Codes forHabitat Data Analysis...... 23 Appendix B: Habitat Surveys in 2002-03 ...... 24

FIGURES

Figure 1. Locations of Kanab ambersnail establishment sites and Vaseys Paradise...... 2 Figure 2. Locations of habitat surveys forKanab ambersnail on the North Kaibab Plateau and wild populations of the Niobrara ambersnail at-9 Mile Spring and fudianGardens ...... 6 Figure 3. Locations of habitat surveys forKanab ambersnail in central Arizona, including the Mogollon Rim, Verde Valley, and Cave Creek areas ...... 7 Figure 4. Locations of habitat surveys forKanab ambersnail in southeasternArizona, including the Huachuca and Whetstone mountains, San Pedro Valley, Patagonia Lake inflowand westernSonoita Creek ...... 8 Figure 5. Referencecard on the proposed Kanabambersnail long-term monitoringdesign ...... 10

TABLES

Table 1. "KeyHole Spring" survey results ...... 11 Table 2. Upper Elves Chasm survey results ...... 12 Table 3. Lower Deer Creek Spring survey results ...... 12 Table 4. Habitat suitability forKAS at river corridorand backcountry sites in Arizona ...... 13 Table 5. V aseys Paradise-prediction success forlogistic regression analysis of spring and autumnseasonal data on KAS habitat ...... 14 Table 6. Upper Elves Chasm-prediction success forlogistic regression analysis of spring and autumn seasonal data on KAS habitat ...... 14 KANABAMBERSNAIL 2003 PROGRESS REPORT: ANALYSISOF HABITAT DATA, STATUS OF TRANSLOCATEDPOPULATIONS, ANDADDmONAL HABITAT SURVEYS

JeffA. Sorensen, Clay B. Nelson, andDarren K. Bolen

INTRODUCTION This report summaries the progress of recovery efforts for the endangered Kanab ambersnail (KAS; Succineidae: Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis Pilsbry)in Arizona since 2001.

Currently, 2 populations ofKASs are known to exist in the AmericanSouthwest. One population is located north ofKanab, 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 V aseys Paradise (VP). The establishment of a second ''wild" population of KAS in Arizona originated from recovery objectives, resource management needs, andlegal 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 floods known as a Beach/Habitat-Building Flows (BHBF) and smaller Habitat Maintenance Flows were recommended by interagency cooperators, scientists, and resource stakeholders. These experimental floodswere designed to redistributesediments from the river channelbottom to the riverbanks, create or restore sandbeaches 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 WildlifeService (USFWS) to issue a Biological Opinionon the 1996 experimental BHBF, anda 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 ofKAS.

Beginning in 1996, 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 ofReclamation (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 250 springs, seeps, and wetlands across Grand Canyon and northern Arizona were investigated (Spam.er and Bogan 1993; Stevens and others 1997a; Sorensen and Kubly 1997, 1998; Nelson and Sorensen 2002). Although no additional populations of KAS were discovered, 3 translocation sites in Grand Canyon National Park . (Fig. 1) were selected as the preferred alternative in the final environmental assessment for KAS translocation (AGFD 1998a, 1998b). KAS translocations in Grand Canyon National Park followedAGFD'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 rare species in Arizona. This process involves environmental assessments, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, and review by the Arizona Game and

ArizonaGame and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page 3 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 1998a, 1998b). Environmental variation, threat assessments, and inventories of native landsnail assemblages were examined during these early reconnaissance visits. 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(R) or left(L). Each of the3 sites is described below:

"KeyHole Spring" (47.1 mile R). 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). Resident, native landsnailsobserved at this site are Catinella vermeta (identifiedby J. Hoffman), which co-occurs with KAS at VP, and Zonitoides sp. (first detected in 2002). This site is along the river corridorand accessible by existing game trailsand ephemeral washes. Itis isolated from other wetlandhabitat along the river corridorand nearby plateau. Total potential KAS habitat at 2 this site is 9.7 m •

Upper Elves Chasm (116.6 mile L). 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 (Juncus sp.), cattails (Typha sp.), watercress (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 areais located above the first sawgrass patch, next to a large pool and consists of an 8.4-m2 patch of monkeyflower (revised estimate from August 2002 survey) surrounded by hanging gardens of maidenhair ferns and monkeyflower. The release area is isolated from other potential KAS habitat and is elevated above the flood drainage. A lightly used visitor trail passes by on the other side of the pool. Resident, native landsnails observed at this site are Zonitoides sp. (identifiedby E. North) and Catinella sp. (first detected in 2002). 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 >99.2 m2 (preliminary estimates from August 2002 total station survey by K. Kohl, GCMRC). Based on field observations, at 2 least half of the potential habitat (-50 m ) is occupied by live KAS as of September 2003.

Lower Deer Creek Spring (136.1 mile R). 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 rybergii) throughout the site keeps 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 2 3 m below the spring pourout and encompasses an extensive patch (78.8 m area) of monkeyflower.The only resident, native landsnail observedat this site is Catinella sp. (identified by E. North), which co-occurs with KAS at VP. This site is located along the river corridor and is accessible from a nearby trail. If adjacent habitat at this site is included (mainly the 2 floodplain), the total patch area increases to approximately 480.5 m • Arizona Game and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page 4

COLLECTION AND TRANSLOCATIONOF KAS

fu mid-September 1998, 450 pre-reproductive KASs (�5 mm in shell size) were collected from the lower and upper vegetation zones of VP. Snails less than 5 mm were chosen to reduce the potential for transporting parasites. Approximately 75% of the ambersnails were collected from 3 the low zone, which is frequently inundated by flows up to 30,000 cfs (849.9 m /s). The remaining KASs were collected fromthe upper vegetation areasto enhance genetic variation.

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 typicalbehaviors.

After the initial release of 150 KASs/site in September 1998, each site was augmented with an additional 150 KASs 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. Another minor augmentation of 20 juvenile KASs were transplanted to Upper Elves Chasm in August 2002 for genetic viability. No additional snails were translocated to "KeyHole Spring" during July 2000 due to dry habitat from the continued drought.

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 2 diameter (area=0.0314 m ) were used to subsample vegetation patches at each site. Each release area was sampled with a minimum of10-15 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 (Sorensen and Nelson 2000).

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 Topcon™ GTS 310 total station and Husky™ TDS data collector (M. Gonzales, pers. comm.). In August 2002, a total station survey of associated snail vegetation at Upper Elves Chasm was completed to estimate area of potential and occupied habitat (data is forthcoming from GCMRC). Total station surveys of associated snail vegetation at "KeyHole Spring" and Lower Deer Creek Spring were previously completed in August 1998, and that data is presented in Sorensen and Nelson (2000). HOBO H8 Temp™ monitors were also placed at each translocation site to record temperature and humidity throughout most of2000 and2001, andat VP and Upper Elves Chasm through the present. Arizona Gruneand Fish Department September2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page5

HABITAT DATA ANALYSIS

Multivariate statistical analyses identified relationships between atnbersnail density and habitat characteristics. Using methods from Sorensen (2001), stepwise logistic regression was used to determine specific habitat variables that characterize high and low quality KAS habitat based on snail densities. Because of the potential for substantial observation error in estimates of KAS densities, plot sainpleswere separated into 2 distinct categories: low density (0-1 KASs/plot) and high density (staged thresholdsof �2, �3, �4, and �5 KASs/plot). Multiple 20-cm diaineter plots in identified vegetation patches were used to sample the translocated populations. SYSTAT 9 statistical softwareand MS-Excel spreadsheet softwarewas used to manage and analyzethe data. Descriptive statistics of habitat variables at each site for each season were generated with SYSTAT 9.

Due to variances in the site topography and fragility of snail habitat, traditional randomization methods were not used for subsatnpling. Instead, sainple plots were selected with non overlapping, haphazard ring tosses into vegetation patches. Most medium to large-size vegetation patches were regularly sainpled with 10 or more replicate plots. Plot-specific habitat variables were recorded for each plot satnpled: plant species, percentage live vegetation, percentage cover, relative density ( of species present and percentage cover), average vegetation height, distance of the plot to the edge of the vegetation patch, substrate type, substrate and litter/duffdepth, andqualitative estimates of substrate and litter/duffmoisture (that is: dry, moist, saturated, or flowing). Habitat variables containing descriptive data were transformed to numerical codes (Appendix A) for statistical analysis. Mollusks observed in each plot were identified, counted, and measured for shell length (apex to outside aperture edge). Experienced KAS researchers conducted most of the plot satnpling over the last 5 years. All surveys occurred during daylight hours.

Stepwise logistic regression analysiswas used to assess how well suites of habitat characteristics could differentiate between high and low quality KAS habitat for each staged threshold. Data fromthe following translocation site vegetation patches were used in this study: PIM (the release area at each site), P2AM, P3M, ML, Above ML, Below/Lower ML, TYLA/CAAQ, ADCA, and P2A (adjacent habitat patches). These patches represent 2 different habitat categories: homogenous monkeyflower or a mixture of various species. This data covers 1 year of pre translocation habitat surveys (1998) and 4 years of monitoring efforts (1999-2002). Separate analyses were conducted for spring and late summer/autumn seasons, thus allowing for seasonal differences in snail use of habitat. Late spring and mid-summer seasons were not examined because monitoring efforts at VP and the translocation sites were reduced to twice a year ( spring and late summer/autumn)beginning in 2001 due to budgetaryconstraints.

NEW HABITAT SURVEYS

Additional habitat surveys for potential KAS populations in Arizona were conducted during the 2002-03 monitoring of translocated populations in Grand Canyon and on separate backcountry trips across Arizona (Fig. 2, 3, and 4). Surveysof the North Kaibab area were entirely funded by the USBR, while other surveys statewide were primarily funded from Heritage-matched Section 6 and State Wildlife Grant projects. Surveys conducted in central and southern Arizona (outside the Colorado Plateau, but within the historic/fossil range of Oxyloma spp.) were reconnaissance

Arizona Gameand Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page 9 weighted--a single unfavorable condition would prevent a site with many quality attributes from receiving a higher ranking.

ADDITIONALACTIVITIES

fu 2003, we tested a new sampling method at VP alongside our traditional sampling efforts. fu consultation with our Nongame Branch statistician, we developed this new sampling method to incotporate 3 tiers of randomness and appropriate sample sizes. This sample design was based on "adaptive sampling" methods proposed by Thompson and Seber (1996) to provide insight into the distribution of rare species across a landscape. Our intent was to develop and test an improved sampling method for long-term monitoring of the VP KAS population-one that would be more statistically rigorous, require less effort, and potentially less invasive. Specifically, this test would help clarify the long-standing assumption of KAS distribution at VP; that is: are KAS equally distributed across the landscape or are they clumped? Over the next 2 years, we plan to continue using both sampling efforts to determine if this new method is effective or not, and compare associated sampling error with our traditional monitoring techniques. We envision that this 3-year transitionperiod will allow forvariances in environmentalstochasticity, andcomplete a 10-yr set of monitoringdata fromour traditional sampling design.

2 Using a computer-generated map of VP low-zone patches, we overlayed a grid of 3x3 m quadrats across thelandscape ofVP's low-zone occupied habitat (Fig. 5). Fixed landscape points at VP were 2 established from 33 intersections of these 3x3 m quadrats (each point was located at 3 m intervals along a North-South andEast-West alignment). From this set of landscape points, 10 were chosen 2 randomly (the first tier) as long-term landscape sampling points. At each of these points, a lxl m Provenience Drawing Square was used to set up a grid of 25 sample quadrats (each 20x20 cm in 2 size or 0.04 m in area). The drawing square was aligned from the lower left comer on a random compass bearing (the second tier) from the landscape point. Three random sample quadrats (the third tier) were chosen from within the group of 25. Sample quadrats within the drawing square were numbered 1-5 starting at the lower left comer to the upper left comer. The successive rows continued in that same fashion (6-10, 11-15, 16-20, and 21-25). Pre-generated random number tables for compass bearings and sample quadrats were created for each survey (April and August 2003). To compare results with our traditional sampling method, we used standardized data sheets to collect the same habitat information and snail counts for this test. If 2 or more live ambersnails were encountered in a single sample quadrat (what we defined as a "cluster"), then all adjacent quadrats were examinedto determinethe areaextent of thiscluster (thusincoiporating the "adaptive sampling" design).

From a habitat-sampled perspective, the 10 random landscape points were distributed across the following habitat types: 3 in homogenous monkeyflower patches (edges and interior); 1 in a traditionally homogenous watercress patch; 3 in mixed vegetation patches; and 3 along edges of secondary and primary vegetation. Half of these points are located above the 45,000 cfs (1275 ems) stage discharge elevation, while 4 occur above the 31,000 cfs (878 ems) elevation, and 1 above 17,000 cfs (481 ems) elevation. One of the landscape points occurs in the interior of Patch 5 (historically known as Patch 5M) along the 45,000 cfs (1275 ems) stage discharge elevation. Three points occur within the large patch of mixed habitat called Patch 6 (historically known as Patch 6R or 6-Remainder). Random quadrats also captured interstitial spaces between vegetation patches and open areas of bedrock. Arizona Game and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail 2003 Progress Report Page 10 Long-Term Monitoring Design Vaseys Paradise, Ambersnail Sampling

Ambe,· Snail Ve90tat10>1 I vasevsGraflti ParadiseCanyon Ten ''Landscape Point" locations were '.i;, randomly established across the low-zone , ambersnail habitat at Vaseys Paradise. �· Open spaces and boulders may also be � encountered depending on the compass bearings-these areas get sampled too.

Red o" indicates selected "Landscape Points" 2 The 1 m grid contains 25 sample quads2 (plots) each 20x20 cm in size (or 0.4m in area). Quads are numbered 1 thru 25 starting at the bottom left corner going up, then repeated for each row left to right.

15 10 20 25 14 19 9 24 ! 3 8 13 18 23 d7 12 176 22 J. 1_ 1 2 1 Fixed L�I� .. . �1 .. � •. J � • Location

Refer to the list for which 3 random quads to be sampled. If 2 or more live KAS are found in a quad, also sample all adjacent quads

2 around it (detailed habitat data forthese quads are not needed if similar to the original Place "Fixed Pt" corner of 1 m grid on the quad-note in 'Comments'). This is called "Landscape Point'' location. Align the left 2 edge of the grid to the random compass "adaptive samp!ing"-to detect clusters of snails. The 1m grid can be repositioned to bearing (from the random number list). complete the sampling of adjacent quads.

Figure 5. Reference card on the proposed Kanab ambersnaillong-term monitoring design. ArizonaGame and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page 11 In 2002-03, we also conducted annual surveys on the Niobrara ambersnail (NAS; Succineidae: Oxyloma haydeni Binney, 1858) at Indian Gardens (IG) on the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park and a second wild population at a riverside spring at Minus 9 Mile Marsh(-9M) in the Lee's Ferry reach of Glen Canyon(Fig. 2). NAS appear to be restricted to areas with dampor saturated cattail and common reed litter, watercress, rushes,and sedges growing in saturated soil. As time permitted, we used traditional samplingtechniques at both sites; otherwise we relied on opportunistic search methods to document presence/absence. Early springwas the preferred time to conduct annual surveys of NAS since this season yielded higher observations of live ambersnails over other seasons in previous years (Sorensen and Nelson 2001 ).

RESULTS

TRANSLOCATION SITES

Two monitoring trips were conducted in each 2002 and 2003 (mid-April and late August-early September) at VP and the 3 translocation sites in Grand Canyon National Park. Population counts varied seasonally, with a highernumber of ambersnails being observedin late summer/autumn and less in spring.

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). Density estimates were calculated from snail counts in our sampling effort, 2 but still assume equal distribution within a lm area. These estimates should be considered "rough" (see ADDITIONALACTIVITIES AND NOTES at the end of this section).

..: Table 1. "KeyHole Spring"survey results (9 .6 m of potential habitat within andadjacent to the release area). 2 SurveyDate Survey Live Dead Live Area(m ) KAS KAS Catinella2 2 Plots KAS KAS Catinella Density/m Searched Density/m Eggmasses Sept1998 A 24 - - 0 0 0.753 - - Oct 1998 30 5 3 8 8 0.942 5 No Apr1999 38 0 0 19 16 1.193 0 No May1999 33 3 3 6 6 1.036 3 Yes July 1999A 26 0 5 4 5 0.816 0 No Oct1999 31 3 4 7 7 0.973 3 No Apr2000 39 3 2 10 8 1.225 2 No May2000 35 I 2 18 16 1.099 1 No July2000 35 1 2 2 2 1.099 1 No Oct2000 50 0 3 0 0 1.570 0 No Apr2001 32 0 0 2 2 1.005 0 No Aug2001 32 0 0 1 1 1.005 0 No Apr2002 * 0 0 1 * * 0 No Aug2002 * 0 0 1 * * 0 No Apr2003 * 0 0 2 * * 0 No Aug2003 * 0 0 5 * * 0 No A 150 KASsreleased at each site m Sept 1998 and another150 KASsm July 1999. * Opportunisticsearch oflik:elyhabitat-approximately 0.5- 1.0 m2 in totalarea investigated; includesareas adjacent to the release area and lower drainagehabitat. Arizona Gameand Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail 2003 ProgressReport Page 12

Table 2. Upper Elves Chasm surveyresults (23.5 m2 of potential habitat withinand adjacent to the release area) 2 . SurveyDate Survey Live Dead Live Live Area(m ) KAS KAS Plots KAS KAS Zonitoides Catinella Searched Density/m2 Eggmasses Sept 1998 A 23 -- 1 0 0.722 - - Oct 1998 25 6 0 0 0 0.785 8 No Apr1999 58 10 7 1 0 1.821 5 No May 1999 H 13 4 0 0 0 0.408 10 Yes July 1999 A 38 17 3 4 0 1.193 14 Yes Oct1999 47 21 12 3 0 1.476 14 No Apr2000 48 31 5 2 0 1.507 21 Yes May2000 54 27 8 15 0 1.696 16 Yes July 2000 A 46 40 25 0 0 1.444 28 Yes Oct2000 66 49 22 15 0 2.072 24 Yes Apr2001 37 34 8 5 0 1.162 29 No Aug2001 39 100 10 2 0 1.225 82 Yes Apr2002 44 86 24 0 2 1.382 62 No Aug2002 48 14 34 2 0 1.507 9 Yes Apr2003 49 24 17 6 3 1.539 16 Yes Aug2003 36 18 36 8 0 1.130 16 Yes A 150 KASs released at each site m Sept1998 and another150 KASs m July 1999, 20 KASs added to Upper Elves Chasm in July 2000 and another20 KASs in August2002 formaintaining genetic variability. 8 Partialsurvey due to medical evacuation.

Table 3. Lower Deer Creek Spring survey results (78. 8 m:t of potential habitat within the release area) 2 Survey Date Survey Live Dead Live Catinella Area(m ) KAS KAS 2 Plots KAS KAS Catinella Density/m Searched Density/m2 Eggmasses Septl998A 26 -- 0 0 0.816 - - Oct1998 31 3 6 0 0 0.973 3 No Apr1999 55 0 1 7 4 1.727 0 Yes? May 1999 43 3 1 3 2 1.350 2 No July1999 A 39 1 10 2 2 1.225 1 No Oct1999 69 0 1 0 0 2.167 0 No Apr2000 66 0 2 14 7 2.072 0 No May2000 60 4 0 5 3 1.884 2 No July2000 A 42 0 1 0 0 1.319 0 No Oct2000 55 0 0 2 1 1.727 0 No Apr2001 51 0 0 2 1 1.601 0 No Aug2001 40 0 0 0 0 1.256 0 No Apr2002 * 0 0 0 * * 0 No Aug2002 * 0 0 Numerous * * 0 No Apr2003 * 0 0 5 * * 0 No Aug2003 * 0 0 0 * * 0 No A 150 KASs released at each site m Sept1998 and another150 KASs m July 1999, 10 KASs added to Lower Deer Creek Spring in July 2000 formaintaining genetic variability. * Opportunistic search oflikely habitat-approximately 1.5-2.0 m2 in total area investigated; lower drainage habitat only. Arizona Game andFish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page 13

NEW HABITAT SURVEYS

Results from surveys of 26 additional springs/seeps during 2002-03 are listed in Appendix B. The majority of the springs/seeps surveyed had not previously been investigated by AGFD. During the August 2003 monitoring trip, only 1 site (Stone Creek's upper drainage) was accessible from the river corridor. A survey attempt of Vaughn Spring-in the upper watershed of Deer Creek Canyon-was inaccessible on foot (pers. obs.). Other sites were visited during separate backcountry trips to the North Kaibab Plateau, Mogollon Rim (Tonto Natural Bridge), Verde Valley (Soda Springs Ranch), Cave Creek (Spur Cross Ranch), San Pedro Valley (Kiper Spring), Patagonia Lake (eastern inflow), Sonoita Creek (western perennial reach), Huachuca (Cave Spring) and Whetstone (McGrew Spring) mountains. We had planned a multi-day backpack trek to survey several springs in the upper watersheds of Kanab Creek along the western marginsof the Kaibab Plateau, but due to extreme summer heat and humidity we had to cancel that effort. Instead, we conducted surveys on alternate sites in the same area. Most springs/seeps did not contain much ambersnail primary vegetation (that is: monkeyflower, watercress, sedges, cattails, or tushes), therefore, overall habitat suitability was low for a majority of all springs/seeps surveyed since 2001 (Table 4). Soda Springs Ranch in the Verde Valley and Cave Spring in the Huachuca Mountains rated "more desirable" in ambersnailhabitat quality and Waterfall Spring at Tonto Natural Bridge rated "optimum", based on the criteria in Sorensen and Kubly (1998). No additional ambersnail populations were discovered at these sites, but an unknown species of succineid landsnail (possibly Catinella or immature Oxyloma) was found in the western reach of Sonoita Creek in southern Arizona, and Catinella were found among wet meadow/marshes of Soda Springs Ranchin the Verde Valley.

Table 4. Habitat suitability forKAS at rivercorridor andbackcountry sites in Arizona (including sites reported in Nelson and Sorensen (2002).

River CorridorSite: HabitatSuitability: BackcountrySite: Habitat Suitability: 38.6 mi R Seeps Unsuitable Lousy Canyon (Agua Fria) More Desirable 49.5 mi R Spring Unsuitable Spur Cross (Cave Creek) Less Desirable Stone Creek upper drainage Acceptable Cave Spring (Huachuca) More Desirable 140.9 mi L Seeps Less Desirable SodaSpring (Verde Valley) More Desirable 142.5 mi L Seep Unsuitable Kiper Spring (San Pedro) Unsuitable 148.1 mi R Spring Acceptable BeeSpring (N. Kaibab) Unsuitable 151 miR Seep Less Desirable PastureSpring (N. Kaibab) Unsuitable 152.3 mi RSeep Unsuitable Squaw Spring (N. Kaibab) Unsuitable 170miRSeep Unsuitable Timp Spring (N. Kaibab) Unsuitable LocustSpring (N. Kaibab) Unsuitable Pariswampitts Spring Unsuitable BackcountrySite: Habitat Suitability: Watts Spring (N. Kaibab) Unsuitable Cattail Stand (Tonto Bridge) Acceptable Quaking AspenSpring Unsuitable Arch Seep (Tonto Bridge) Unsuitable Tilton Spring (N. Kaibab) Unsuitable Pourover (Tonto Bridge) Acceptable CastleSpring (N. Kaibab) Unsuitable Waterfall (Tonto Bridge) Optimum Moquisto Spring (N. Kaibab) Unsuitable West Sonoita Creek Acceptable OakSpring (N. Kaibab) Unsuitable Patagonia Lake east inflow Less Desirable MourningDove Spring Unsuitable McGrewSpring (Whetstone) Less Desirable Bee Spring (N. Kaibab) Unsuitable Arizona Game and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page 14

HABITAT DATA ANALYSIS

Prediction successes (that is: the probabilities of correct discrimination) of 3 significant habitat variables of spring and autumn seasonal data on KAS habitat is presented in Table 5 (a comparison of VP data from Sorensen [2001]) and Table 6 (Upper Elves Chasm), based on stepwise logistic regression analysis. For VP, the most significant features discriminating high and low quality habitat variables in spring surveys were: percent live vegetation (>75%), total percent cover (<50% absolute), and duff/litter moisture (25-74% saturation) (Sorensen 2001). Vegetation species (watercress or mixed plant species), percent live vegetation (>75%), and vegetation height (<50 cm) were the most predictive variables for autumn surveys at this site (Sorensen 2001). For Upper Elves Chasm the following characteristics of preferred ambersnail habitat were identified: in spring-homogenous monk:eyflower vegetation, >75% live plant cover, and 75-100% saturated substrate; and in autumn-75-100% saturated substrate, 25-74% saturated duff/litter, and>75% total (absolute) vegetative cover.

Table 5. Vaseys Paradise-prediction success for logistic regression analysis of spring and autumnseasonal data on KAS habitat. Low quality habitat represented 0-1 KAS/plot, whereas high quality habitat was categorized with 22, 23, 24, or 25 KAS/plot.

Season Habitat Quality >2KAS/plot >3 KAS/plot >4KAS/plot >5 KAS/plot

Spring Low 0.830 0.895 0.928 0.947

Spring High 0.265 0.234 0.245 0.231

Autumn Low 0.673 0.712 0.767 0.794

Autumn High 0.445 0.426 0.400 0.366

Table 6. Upper Elves Chasm-prediction success for logistic regression analysis of spring andlate summer/early autumnseasonal data on KAS habitat. Low quality habitat represented 0-1 KAS/plot, whereas high quality habitat was categorized with 22, 23, ;?:4, or 25 KAS/plot.

Season Habitat Quality >2KAS/plot >3 KAS/plot >4 KAS/plot >5 KAS/plot

Spring Low 0.854* 0.936* 0.961* 0.975*

Spring High 0.229* 0.105* 0.110* 0.075*

Autumn Low 0.860 0.898 0.929 0.953*

Autumn High 0.234 0.273 0.214 0.156* * Note: some variables were not statistically significant (p>0.05) in this series. ArizonaGame andFish Department September2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page 15 Neither "KeyHole Spring" or Lower Deer Creek Spring had sufficient data to distinguish between low and high quality habitat. A majority of sample plots in this study contained 0-1 KASs/plots. After filteringout records from late spring (May-June) and mid-summer (July) and records with missing data, "KeyHole Spring" had a total of 66 records forspring surveys ( only 1 that contained >1 KASs per plot) and a total of 70 records forlate-summer/autumn surveys (only 2 that contained> 1 KASs per plot). Likewise, Lower Deer Creek Spring had a total of 35 records for spring (none with >1 KASs per plot) and 65 records for autumn (only 1 that contained>1 KASs per plot). Upper Elves Chasm had 119 records for spring surveys (19 with >1 KASs per plot) and171 records for autumn surveys (28 with>1 KASs per plot).

ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES AND NOTES

In April 2003, our new sampling method at VP detected only 1 live ambersnail out of 30 sample quadrats. However, our August 2003 effort at VP detected 20 live KASs out of 44 sample quadrats-most were found in a large cluster in the middle of homogenous monkeyflower (J. Hembrode, pers. comm.). Initialdata fromthis new samplingmethod indicates that ambersnails are not equally distributed across all primary vegetation, and these snails most likely occur in clusters among the habitat at VP.

At Minus 9 Mile Marsh (-9M), we sampled 13 live Niobrara ambersnails (NAS), 2 dead NASs, 2 and 2 live Catinella ( out of 40 sample plots, or 1.3 m in area) in March 2002. Five of the NASs observed were still in estivation in moist habitat or on rushes; the others were active and foundin saturated habitat-mostly watercress, water sedge, cattails, and common reed litter. In March 2003 at -9M, we sampled 7 live NASs, 6 dead NASs, 3 live Catinella( out of 31 sample plots, or 2 -1 m in area) among the water sedge and watercress. In addition, we also documented along the shoreline in a single 20-cm diameter plot, over 200 New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) shells-a fairly recent invasive species to the Colorado River ecosystem. In early April 2002, an AGFD press release announced that this exotic freshwater mollusk had been detected in the Lee's Ferry reach of the Colorado River. During our April 2002 KAS monitoring trip, we documented and collected voucher specimens of this mudsnail throughout the Grand Canyon river corridor down to Diamond Creek (225 mi L). Dr. Daniel Gustafson, of Montana State University, identifiedthose specimens as New Zealand mudsnails (E-mail comm.). Dr. Joe Shannon, of Northern Arizona University, believes that this aquatic nuisance species has been present in the Lee's Ferry reach since around 1995 (pers. comm.).

At Indian Gardens (IG), we observed over 40 live NAS (from opportunistic searches of primary 2 habitat) in April 2002, and sampled 30 live NAS (out of 12 plots, or 0.4 m in area) in April 2003. A NAS eggmass with 15 eggs was also observed at IG in April 2003 among water sedge andcattail litter.

Under the direction of our Nongame Branch GIS senior analyst, we have reformatted the KAS centralized database into a MS-Access design that links habitat characteristics and snail counts with measurements of KAS lengths. Ambersnail habitat surveys by AGFD, past and present, were also entered into this database. No additional changes to the Interim Conservation Plan for ambersnails in Arizona and Utah (Sorensen and Nelson 2002) were requested or made in 2002- 03. An estimated total of 3200 hours of volunteer labor were contributed to AGFD-led surveys ArizonaGame and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page 16 for KAS over the last 2 years-an in-kind contribution valued at over $64,000 in labor costs saved (basedon technician-level wage and benefits).

DISCUSSION Based on new "adaptive sampling" technique used at VP in 2003, we believe that previous assumptions of ambersnail distribution as they relate to translocation sites are likely false-that is: (1) all available habitat within and adjacent to the release areas is not occupied, and (2) KASs are not equally distributed throughout this habitat, but are clumped. Therefore, extrapolated population estimates of KASs at these sites were not presented in this report. Instead, we provided rough density estimates based on our sampling effort and area of known occupied habitat.

Successful establishment of a translocated population of ambersnails is dependent on a number of factors. Habitat suitability (specifically quality, quantity, and management protection) was a focal concern in planning these translocations. Sites were chosen with qualities that closely matched the wild population sites of VP and 3L (Sorensen and Kubly 1998; AGFD 1998a, 1998b). In addition, a diverse gene pool within a translocated population will help reduce foundereffects and inbreeding depression, especially among small, isolated populations (Shaffer 1981; Miller and others 2000). Species demographics (that is: 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 environmental conditions (Shaffer 1981; Lande 1993; Miller and others 2000). Prolonged drought conditions at VP appear to be reducing the resident population numbers due to more restricted and drier habitat on site. The reduced density estimate at Upper Elves Chasm in August 2002 through the present may also reflect theimpact of prolonged drought, although vegetative habitat appeared veryrobust and healthy duringthese surveys.

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 forlarge 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 KASs to disperse. However, monitoring of this site revealed a steady decrease in KASs after each translocation effort, and no KASs have been found during our last 7 surveys. Our first survey in October 1998 ( after the initial translocation Arizona Game and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 ProgressReport Page 17 of 150 KASin September 1998) revealed 5 live KASs. Inall subsequent surveys, including those followingthe release of an additional 150 KASs in July 1999, a maximum of 3 live KASs were found (Table 1). Although winter dormancyhas been known to cause substantialmortality in the VP population (Stevens and others 1997a and 1997b), 3 live KASs foundin May 1999 show that at least a portion of the initially translocated snails survived the winter of 1998. Drought conditions beginning in 2000 through the present are likely to have affected population establishment at this site due to increased temperatures and reduction in humidity. While monkeyflower in the release area remained robust and had high percentage cover, the substrate andlitter/duff moisture was much drier than in previous years. In August 2002, no surfacerunoff of seep water was observed passing through the release area. Only 1 live Catinella was foundin the release area during April 2002, but 5 live Catinellawere observed in August 2003.

UPPER ELVES CHASM

Of the 3 sites, Upper Elves Chasm continues to harbor numerous trans located KASs, qualifying it as a potentially established site under the draft criteria for determining establishment success for KAS (Sorensen and Nelson 2000). Successive surveys at this site have consistently found live KASs andsuccessful recruitment. 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 through the present in habitat approximately 18.3 m (60 ft) from the release area. Continued occupation of this new 2 2 area by KASs could potentially double the occupied habitat at this site (from 23.5 m to -50 m ), which can be considered in mitigating biological opinion concerns for future high flows from Glen CanyonDam.

Drought conditions in 2000 through the present did not appear to affect the overall habitat quality at the Upper Elves Chasm release area. Inthe last 5 years, flash floodingin the upper site has not affected the release area--water marks and flood debris at a height of approximately 2 m (6 ft) from the drainage floor were observed in late 1998, 1999, and 2003, and a lesser flood of approximately 0.7 m (2 ft) in summer 2001. Initially, the only resident landsnail found in the upper site was Zonitoides sp. (identified by D. Snyder and E. North), which lives within the duff/soil layer of maidenhair ferns. Counts of Zonitoides in the habitat adjacent to the KAS release area have varied in number over the last 5 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. In early2002 through 2003, Catinellawere first observed at Upper Elves Chasm at the ambersnailrelease area-these may be migrants from the lower site or resident landsnails that were highly reduced in number during the initial years of site survey and translocation. The numbers of live Catinella currently being observed at Upper Elves Chasm release area appear that they are becoming more abundant (relative to the numbers of KASs observed); there is no evidence to indicate that Catinellaar e affectedby the previous translocation efforts. These snails successfullyco-exist with KASs at VP.

LOWER DEER CREEK SPRING

Ambersnail translocations to Lower Deer Creek Spring also appear to be unsuccessful after 5 years, and 2 attempts at releasing founding stock (September 1998 and July 1999). Observations ArizonaGame andFish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page 18 of live KASs were sporadic and limited to a few individuals during the first 2 years. No live KASs or shells have been found since 2000. No conclusive reproduction or recruitment of translocatedKASs was apparent. While we did finda mollusk egg mass during the first year,it is difficultto determine whetherthe egg mass came fromKAS or Catinella, which co-occurs at this site. The release area at Lower Deer Creek Spring did not appear to be affected by the drought conditions in 2000 or through the present. Spring discharge remained constant and abundant at this site. In 2001, new seeps along the trail to the Deer Creek slot canyon and upper "Patio" had become well established with primary ambersnail habitat and maintained good water discharge. However, in late 2003, these new seeps along the trail had dried up. Vegetation within the Lower Deer Creek Spring release area was healthy and overgrown between each survey. Decreasing numbers of KASs found at the release area may be the result of dispersal into adjacent habitat and the inherent difficultyof 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 areawhen trying to locate a fewindividual snails.

Surveys of all sites revealed that dead KASs and live KASs were foundat 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 KASs, a survey of the point of release and adjacent habitat the following day revealed very few snails (Sorensen andNelson 2000). In an effort to reduce possible predation effects, mice were also trapped at these sites 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 effortsa lso indicates that habitat was suitable (Catinella were first observed at Upper Elves Chasm in early 2002 through 2003), and the absence of KASs 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 at Lower Deer Creek Spring and "KeyHole Spring".

Even though only 1 out of 3 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. However, the NPS Grand Canyon Science Center staffin early 2003 had announced their decision to halt any further augmentations of the Upper Elves Chasm site, due to a change in their vision for managing wildlifein the park. JeffSorensen initiated dialog with the park's Science Center staff in May 2003 on this issue and thecurrent status of the snail, but the NPSdecision still holds for now. Without periodic, limited augmentations to the Upper Elves Chasm site, the long-term genetic integrity ( that is-identity and fitness)of this population may be at risk.

In addition to achieving recovery objectives, the ambersnail population at Upper Elves Chasm andits occupied habitat can be included in mitigation decisions regarding the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and incidental take statements forKASs at VP. The occupied areaestimate fromthe 2 August 2002 total station survey (approximately 50 m , preliminary estimate) can be used in drafting USFWS biological opinions concerning KAS conservation. The successful establishment of this new ambersnail population allows for more flexibility with regards to future Arizona Gameand Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page 19 Beach/Habitat-Building Flows and adaptive management of other resources in Grand Canyon (Sorensen and Nelson 2002).

Similar to the results thatSorensen (2001) had observed in the VP data, classificatory statistics provided some insight into the habitat characteristics that describe high and low quality KAS habitat, but often with low prediction success for high quality habitat. Low numbers of high density sample plots certainly contributed to these results. However, some insight into specific qualities of densely populated ambersnail habitat has been gained. High quality habitat forUpper Elves Chasm in the autumn is best described as having 75-100% saturated substrate, 25-74% saturated duff/litter, and >75% total cover. Preferred habitat in the spring at Upper Elves Chasm contains homogenous monkeyflower vegetation, >75% live plant cover, and 75-100% saturated substrate. There were no strong similarities in habitat variables between VP and Upper Elves Chasm based on snail densities. Neither "KeyHole Spring" or Lower Deer Creek Spring had the necessary data to distinguish between high and low quality habitat, due to low sample numbers of data with >1 ambersnail per plot. Both "KeyHole Springs" and Lower Deer Creek Springs release areas were almost entirely composed of homogenous monkeyflower, with little or no mixed vegetation within or nearby. Upper Elves Chasm also had a greater range of habitat types in the release area and adjacent habitat-from homogenous monkeyflower to mixed vegetation species. Descriptive statistics for each site and season did not show any notable differences in habitat qualities among the translocationsites in predictive variables forVP high-density habitat. We were unable to clearly explain why 1 translocation site was more successful in KAS establishmentthan the other 2, using the stepwise logistic regression analysis technique.

Studies on the NAS populations at -9M and IG provide additional insight into life history and habitat use for the genus Oxyloma. While NAS currently has no legal protection at the state or federal level, its rarity in Arizona and susceptibility to natural and anthropogenic impacts is of concern among cooperators with the Kanab Ambersnail Working Group (Sorensen and Nelson 2001, 2002).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Continued monitoring (twice yearly) of Upper Elves Chasm is highly warranted, since this new population has fullprotection under the Endangered Species Act (Nelsonand Sorensen 2002). In 2 addition, the area of occupied habitat at Upper Elves Chasm-approximately 50 m (preliminary estimate)-canbe included in mitigation decisions regarding the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and incidental take statements for VP KAS (Nelson and Sorensen 2002). Limited augmentation of the Upper Elves Chasm site, at least periodically ( every 2-3 years with 20 juvenile KAS), would help ensure the genetic integrity of this translocated population. "KeyHole Spring" and Lower Deer Creek Spring are presumed to be failed establishment sites. However continued monitoring of these sites will be useful to determine if any remnant KAS from previous translocations in 1998 and 1999 survived the last 4 years of drought. Annual monitoring of IG and -9M sites forNAS populations will assist the NPS and Kanab Ambersnail Working Group cooperators in documenting the status and any potential impacts to these rare mollusks. Each of these tasks are identified in the Interim Conservation Plan for ambersnails in Arizona and Utah (Nelson and Sorensen 2002) as ongoing management needs and objectives for the recovery of KAS. ArizonaGame and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail 2003 Progress Report Page 20

LITERATURE CITED

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 1987. Procedures for nongame wildlife and endangered species establishment projects in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered WildlifeProgram, ArizonaGame 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 Departmentfor the National ParkService.

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

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

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

Miller, M.P., L.B. 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.

Nelson, C.B. 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.

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 Mollusca of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Monographs II: 521-1113.

Shaffer,M.L. 1981. Minimum population sizes forspecies 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 Mollusks of the Grand Canyon. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 144: 21-68. Arizona Game and Fish Department September2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 ProgressReport Page 21 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 andFish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

__ . 1998. Monitoring and habitat surveys of the endangered Kanab ambersnail: monitoring, genetic studies, andhabitat evaluation in Grand Canyon and northern Arizona.Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 125. Arizona 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 TechnicalReport 153. Arizona Gameand Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

__. 2001. March 2001 status report on Minus 9 Mile Niobrara ambersnails in Glen Canyon, Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program (unpublished report). Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

__ . 2002. Interim Conservation Plan for Oxyloma (haydeni) kanabensis complex and related ambersnails in Arizona and Utah. Nongame andEndangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 192. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Stevens, LE., F.R. Protiva, D.M. Kubly, V.J. 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.

Stevens, LE., V.J. 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 CanyonDam on the endangered Kanab ambersnail at Vaseys Paradise, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Final Report. Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff.

Thompson, S.K. and G.A.F. Seber. 1996. Adaptive Sampling. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 265 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlifeand plants, fmal 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 WildlifeService, Denver, Colorado. 21 pp. Arizona Gameand Fish Department September2003 NGTR220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page22 __ . 1997. Biological Opinion on the November 1997 Fall Test Flow from Glen CanyonDam. 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. ArizonaGame andFish Department September2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page23

APPENDIX A: CODES FOR HABITAT DATA ANALYSIS

Numerical codes forconverting descriptive habitat data used to characterize high and low quality ambersnail habitat in stepwise logistic regression analyses. Codes for the spring and late summer/earlyautumn data are ranked differentlyto account forthe seasonal differencein habitat use by snails. Adapted from Sorensen (2001).

Season Habitat variable Code Description

Spring Vegetation Species 1 Watercress only 2 Monkeyfloweronly 3 Watercress-monkeyflower or mixtureof various species

Autumn Vegetation Species 1 Secondary species or mixture of various species 2 Monkeyfloweronly 3 Watercress only

Both Substrate Type 1 Bedrock or Gravel/Pebble 2 Sand 3 Soil/loam or Silt/fine

Both Moisture Content 1 Dry (<24% saturation) of Substrate or 2 Moist (25-74% saturation) Duff/litter 3 Saturated or Flowing (75-100% saturation) Arizona Gaine and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page24

APPENDIX B: HABITAT SURVEYS IN 2002-03

Site: Bee Spring

Date: 5/15/03 Time:NA WaypointName: Bl UTM N: 4034551 E: 381942 Description: Developed springhead, large steel pipe, Topo: Quaking Aspen 4' diameter. Cement top. Weather: Sunny Elevation(m): 2387 Air Temp (0C): 18.6 Land Owner: U.S. Forest Service Relative Humidity : 60% Water Discharge: NA Aspect:NA WaterpH:NA Conductivity(uS): NA Litter/ Duff Density: NA Water Temp( 0C): NA Geologic Formation: NA Substrate Type: NA Soil Temp( 0C): NA Soil Moisture(% Sat):NA SoilpH:NA Soil Depth(cm): NA Slope(degrees): NA Comments:

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exposure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise 1100 0830 0800 0730 0700 0700 0800 0900 0900 Set 1200 1200 1200 1300 1300 1300 1300 1200 1200 Break 0930- 1100 Comments:

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall:No Flooding: No Potential: None Usage:None Drought: No Trampling: No Pollution: No Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: None Comments:

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): None

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: None NA = not available Arizona Gmneand Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail 2003 Progress Report Page 25

Site: Pasture Spring

Date: 5/14/03 Time: 1600 Waypoint Name: Pl UTMN: 4026376 E: 383621 Description: Undeveloped springhead. -200m up hill. Topo: QuakingAspen Flow fromlimestone outcronning. Weather: Cloudy Elevation (m): 2388 0 Air Temp( C): 19.1 Land Owner: U.S. Forest Service Relative Humidity: 31 % Water Discharge: 1.5 gal/min Aspect: NA Water pH: 8.2 Conductivity(uS): 400 Litter/ Duff Density: Low Water Temp( 0C): 5.6 Geologic Formation: Limestone Substrate Type: Rock, gravel, soil Soil Temp (0C): NA Soil Moisture(% Sat): NA Soil pH:NA Soil Depth( cm): NA Slope(degrees): NA Comments:

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exposuretimes Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise 0800 0800 0800 0800 0800 0800 0800 0800 0800 0800 0800 0800 Set 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Break 1000- 1000- 1000- 1100 1100 1100 Comments:

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of theFollowing Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: No Flooding: Yes Potential: Medium Usage: Low Drought: No Trampling: Yes Pollution: No Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: Comments:

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): Grass sp. NA Low 25 NA

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Unknown macroinvertebrateon dead leaf 1 NA NA NA NA = not available ArizonaGatne and Fish Department September2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page26 Site: Squaw Spring

Date: 5/14/03 Time: 0910 Waypoint Name: UTM N: 4028265 E: 384780 Description: Developed springhead. Stagnant water, Topo: QuakingAspen no flow. Weather: Cloudy Elevation (m): 2440 Air Temp (0C): 14.6 Land Owner: U.S. Forest Service Relative Humidity: 50% Water Discharge: NA Aspect:NA Water pH: 7.9 Conductivity (uS): 480 Litter/ Duff Density: None Water Temp (0C): 7 Geologic Formation: NA Substrate Type: NA Soil Temp (0C): NA Soil Moisture (% Sat): NA Soil pH:NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments:

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exposuretimes Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise 1030 1030 0700 0800 0800 0800 0700 1100 1030 Set 1230 1400 1600 1700 1700 1700 1600 1700 1400 Break 1000- 1000- 1100 1100 Comments: Breaks in light fromtree canopy.

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: No Flooding: No Potential: Low Usage: Low Drought: No Trampling: Yes Pollution: No Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: Livestock, wildlifeand wildfire Comments: Fenced in, but accessible to wildlife.

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): None

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Zonitid sp. landsnail 1 -lm2 15 min Intensive NA = not available Arizona Game and FishDepartment September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page 27 Site: TimpSpring

Date: 5/14/03 Time: 1120 Waypoint Name: NA UTM N: 4027529 E: 383823 Description: Concrete box Topo: Quaking Aspen Weather: Cloudy Elevation (m): 2424 Air Temp (0C): 16.6 Land Owner: U.S. Forest Service Relative Humidity: 66% Water Discharge: 5 gal/min Aspect:NA Water pH: 8 Conductivity (uS): 310 Litter/ Duff Density: Low Water Temp (0C): 4.5 Geologic Formation: NA Substrate Type: Soil Soil Temp (0C): NA Soil Moisture (% Sat): NA Soil pH:NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments:

Solar Pathfinder Data- directlight exposure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise 1300 1230 1200 1200 1130 1130 1130 1200 1200 1200 1300 1300 Set 1400 1400 1530 1630 1700 1700 1700 1700 1530 1500 1400 1400 Comments: Canopy ( conifer)

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): Algae 90 High 20 Mature Grass sp. 98 High 24 Mature

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: None NA lOmin Cursory NA = not available Arizona Gameand Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page28

Site: Locust Spring

Date: 5/14/03 Time: 0845 Waypoint Name: UTM N: 4028872 E: 384755 Description: Developed springhead, underground Topo: Quaking Aspen flow-20m, -45m2 of habitat. Weather: Cloudy Elevation (m): 2457 Air Temp ("C): 11.2 Land Owner: U.S. Forest Service Relative Humidity: 50% Water Discharge: -3 gal/min Aspect:NA Water pH: 8.1 Conductivity (uS): 450 Litter/ Duff Density: NA Water Temp (0C): 4.5 Geologic Formation: NA Substrate Type: Soil/flowing Soil Temp (0C): NA Soil Moisture (% Sat): NA Soil pH: NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments: Algae and mud, wallowed

SolarPathfinder Data- direct light exposure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise 1000 1200 1200 1200 1100 1100 1100 1200 1100 1200 1000 1000 Set 1100 1300 1400 1530 1730 1800 1800 1500 1600 1300 1100 1100 Break 1200- 1200- 1200- 1100- 1230 1230 1230 1130 Comments: Canoov fromtree trunk(break and coniferouscanopy.

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m1): Algae 75 Medium 5 Mature Juncus 50 Medium 25 Mature

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: None NA 15 min Cursory NA = not available ArizonaGame and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page29

Site: Pariswampitts Spring

Date: 5/14/03 Time: 0730 Waypoint: NA UTMN: 4030373 E: 382015 Description: Concrete springhead, underground :flow Topo: QuakingAspen (overland :flow) -2 gallon/minflow Weather: Cloudy/ sprinkles Elevation(m): 2364 Air Temp( 0C): 9.6 Land Owner: U.S. Forest Service Relative Humidity: 58% Water Discharge: -2 gal/min Aspect:NA Water pH: 8.4 Conductivity(uS): 340 Litter/ DuffDensity: None Water Temp( 0C): 4.5 Geologic Formation: NA Substrate Type: Soil/ gravel Soil Temp( 0C): NA Soil Moisture(% Sat): NA Soil pH:NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments: Grassy, spring :flows7 m then goes underground.

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exposure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise 0800 0800 0800 0700 0800 0800 0800 Set 1130 1130 1300 1300 1300 1300 1130 Break 1030- 1030- 1130 1130 Comments: Rise and set fromtree canopy (firs)

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): Grass sp. 90 Medium 12 Mature wet

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: None NA l0min Cursory NA = not available ArizonaGame and FishDepartment September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page30

Site: Watts Spring

Date: 5/14/03 Time: 1230 Waypoint: UTM N: 4027222 E: 387198 Description: Spring issues fromground on NE side of Topo: Quaking Aspen mountain, flowsdown steep gradient to meadow. Weather: Cloudy Elevation (m): 2437 Air Temp (0C): 17.6 Land Owner: U.S. Forest Service Relative Humidity: 40% Water Discharge: 9 gal/min Aspect:NE Water pH: 8.1 Conductivity (uS): 150 Litter/ Duff Density: High Water Temp (0C): 4 Geologic Formation: NA Substrate Type: Soil Soil Temp (0C): NA Soil Moisture (% Sat): NA Soil pH:NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments:

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exposure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise 1000 1000 1000 1100 0830 0830 0830 1100 1030 1000 1000 0930 Set 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 Break 1100- 1100- 1100- 1200 1200 1200 Comments: Canopy (alder and pines)

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall:No Flooding: No Potential: Medium Usage: Low Drought: No Trampling: Yes Pollution: No Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: Livestock, wildlife and wildfire Comments: Springheadstarts near top ofhill -1/8 fromtop.

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): 2 None Varying habitat-500m • -550ftfrom springhead to bottom

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: None NA lOmin Cursory NA= not available ArizonaGrune and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page 31

Site: Quaking Aspen Spring

Date: 5/14/03 Time:1138 Waypoint: UTM N: 4026458 E: 385010 Description: Developed springhead, low flow. Topo: Quaking Aspen Weather: Cloudy Elevation (m): 2376 Air Temp (0C): 18.4 Land Owner: U.S. Forest Service Relative Humidity: 54% Water Discharge: 0.1 gal/min Aspect:NA Water pH: 8.1 Conductivity (uS): 380 Litter/ DuffDensity: NA Water Temp (0C): 5 Geologic Formation: NA Substrate Type: Soil/ gravel Soil Temp (0C): NA Soil Moisture (% Sat): NA Soil pH: NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments: 3m:t of habitat.

Solar Pathfmder Data- directlight exposure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise 0900 0930 0800 0800 0800 0800 0800 0800 0800 0930 0900 0900 Set 1400 1300 1330 1330 1400 1400 1400 1330 1330 1300 1400 1400 Comments: Canopy of trees;aspen and conifers

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: No Flooding: No Potential: Low Usage: Low Drought: No Trampling: Yes Pollution: No Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: Livestock and wildlife. Comments: None, low flow, poor habitat. 3m:t of total habitat.

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): Algae 90 High 2.5 Mature Grass sp. 90 High 2.5 Mature

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: None NA 10 min Cursory NA = not available ArizonaGatne and FishDepartment September2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page 32

Site: Oak Spring

Date: 8/13/03 Time: 1300 Waypoint Name: UTMN:4059711 E: 380581 Description: Developed springhead freeflowing. Topo: Warm Springs Canyon Weather: Clear Elevation (m): 2055 Air Temp (0C): 32. 7 Land Owner: U.S. Forest Service Relative Humidity: 41 Water Discharge: NA Aspect:NA Water pH: 8.0 Conductivity (uS): 470 Litter/ Duff Density: NA Water Temp (0C): 11 Geologic Formation: NA Substrate Type: NA Soil Temp (0C): NA Soil Moisture (% Sat): NA Soil pH:NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments:

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exposure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise 1400 1300 1300 1300 1300 1400 Set 1500 1400 1400 1400 1400 1500 Comments:

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: No Flooding: Yes Potential: Medium Usage: Low Drought: No Trampling: No Pollution: No Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: Wildfire, Wildlife, Livestock Comments: Vegetated, flowing slowly in mud. Deciduous leaf litter, saturated, no snails.

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): None

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: None NA lOmin Cursory NA = not available Arizona Gameand Fish Department September2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page 33

Site: Mourning Dove

Date: 8/13/03 Time: 1200 }VaypointName: UTM N: 4052991 E: 379540 Description: Developed Springbox. Actual Topo: Big Springs springhead not located Weather: Clear Elevation(m): 2165 0 Air Temp ( C): 28.2 Land Owner: U.S. Forest Service Relative Humidity: 50 Water Discharge: NA Aspect: NA Water pH: 8.3 Conductivity(uS): 410 Litter/ DuffDensity: NA 0 Water Temp( C): 22 Geologic Formation: NA Substrate Type: NA Soil Temp( 0C): NA Soil Moisture(% Sat): NA Soil pH:NA Soil Depth(cm): NA Slope(degrees): NA Comments:

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exoosure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise 1030 0930 0900 0900 0900 0900 0900 0930 1030 Set 1200 1000 1300 1645 1645 1345 1300 1300 1200 Break 1630 1630 1900 1900 Comments:

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: No Flooding: No Potential: Low Usage: Low Drought: Yes Trampling: Yes Pollution: No Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: Livestock Comments: Actual springhead not located, we did hike the drainage. Environmental readings taken at water trough.

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2):

None

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: None NA lOmin Cursory NA= not available Arizona Gatneand Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page 34

Site: Moquisto Spring

Date: 8/13/03 Time: 1230 Waypoint Name: UTM N: 4055011 E: 381193 Description: Entirely covered and overgrownwith Topo: WarmSprings Canyon stinging nettle. Weather: Slightly cloudy Elevation (m): 2160 Air Temp (0C): 30.3 Land Owner: U.S. Forest Service Relative Humidity: 40 Water Discharge: NA Aspect: NA Water pH: 8.6 Conductivity (uS): 490 Litter/ DuffDensity: NA Water Temp (0C): 13 Geologic Formation: NA Substrate Type: NA Soil Temp (°C): NA Soil Moisture (% Sat): NA Soil pH:NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments:

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exnosure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise Set Comments: Not taken, no clear springhead

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: No Flooding: Yes Potential: Medium Usage: Low Drought: No Trampling: No Pollution: No Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: Livestock, Wildfire Comments:

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): None

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: None NA lOmin Cursory NA= not available Arizona Game andFish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page 35

Site: Castle Springs

Date: 8/13/03 Time: 1000 Waypoint Name: UTMN: 4049609 E: 380045 Description: Springs at base of rock cliff Topo: Big Springs Weather: Clear Elevation (m): 2203 Air Temp (0C): 27.3 Land Owner:. U.S. Forest Service Relative Humidity: 34 Water Discharge: NA Aspect: NA Water pH: 8.2 Conductivity (uS): 410 Litter/ Duff Density: NA Water Temp (0C): 10 Geologic Formation: Sandstone Substrate Type:NA Soil Temp (0C): NA Soil Moisture (% Sat): NA Soil pH:NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments:

Solar PathfmderData- direct light exposure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise Set Comments: Under overhang, no direct light

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: No Flooding: No Potential: Low Usage: Medium Drought: No Trampling: Yes Pollution: No Fire Pits: Yes Other Sources of Disturbance: Livestock Comments: Site is devastated by livestock trampling and human impacts. No vegetation.

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): None

Site: Tilton Spring

Date: 8/12/03 Time: 0959 Waypoint Name: UTM N: 4057744 E: 380416 Description: Springat base of sandstone cliff, .25 Topo: Wann Springs Canyon milesoff main road. Cave withstanding pool of water. Weather: High Clouds Elevation (m): 2188 Air Temp (°C): 22.7 Land Owner: U.S. Forest Service Relative Humidity: 40 Water Discharge: NA Aspect:NA Water pH: 8.1 Conductivity(uS): 440 Litter/ DuffDensity: NA Water Temp (0C): 12 Geologic Formation: Sandstone Substrate Type: NA Soil Temp (0C): NA Soil Moisture (% Sat): NA SoilpH:NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments:

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exoosure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Set 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 Comments:

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: No Flooding: No Potential: Medium Usage: None Drought: No Trampling: No Pollution: No Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: Wildlife Comments: Spring at base of sandstone outcropping instep drainage. Moist and mossy dufflitter. Numerous talussnail shells. Deciduous tree cover, junipersand vines over ledge above spring.

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (mz): None

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Talussnail shells (unknownsp.) Numerous NA 15min Cursory NA = not available ArizonaGame andFish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page 37 Site: Spur Cross Ranch (Cave Creek)

Date: 5/10/02 Time: 0930 Waypoint Name: SCRl UTM N: 3749217 E: 411042 Description: dense streamside riparian zone with Topo: New River Mesa perennial water andnumerous plantspecie s Weather: sunny Elevation (m): NA Air Temp (0C): NA Land Owner: Maricopa County Parks Relative Humidity: NA Water Discharge: stream/pondhabitat Aspect: SW Water pH: 7.5 Conductivity (uS): 420 Litter/ DuffDensity: high Water Temp (0C): 21.5 (surface) Geologic Formation: NA Substrate Type: soil/loam Soil Temp (0C): NA Soil Moisture (% Sat): NA Soil pH:NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments: NH3 'N = 0-0.2 ppm; NO2 'N = 0-0.05 ppm; DO2 = 6.3-6.7 ppm; CO2 = 15-20 ppm; Alkalinity = 502- 520 ppm; Chloride = 52 ppm (approximate estimatesfrom a titration-style water chemistry kit).

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exposure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise Set Comments: no data

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall:No Flooding: Yes, periodic Potential: Medium Usage: Low Drought: Yes Trampling: No Pollution: Yes Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: Groundwater depletion, possible contamination fromupstream golf course Comments:

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): Sedge Spp. NA Medium NA Mature Seep Willows NA High NA Mature Cattails NA High NA Mature Grass sp. NA High NA Mature Fremont Cottonwood NA Medium NA Mature Gooddings Willows NA Medium NA Mature Arizona Sycamores NA Medium NA Mature NA = not available Arizona Gaineand FishDepartment September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page 38

Site continued: Spur Cross Ranch (Cave Creek)

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Physid aquatic snails Numerous NA lOmin Intensive Planorbid (ramshorn) aquatic snails Numerous NA lOmin Intensive Crayfish Few-Many? NA lOmin Intensive Asiatic clams Numerous NA lOmin Intensive Narrow-winged damselflylarvae & adults Many NA l0min Intensive Aquatic beetles-water scavenger beetles Few NA l0min Intensive Commonskimmers/dragonflies Few NA lOmin Intensive Mayflylarvae Numerous NA lOmin Intensive Green sunfish Numerous NA l0min Intensive Ostracods-water fleas Numerous NA l0min Intensive Caddisflies Numerous NA l0min Intensive Dipterans-blackflies Numerous NA l0min Intensive Large orange dragonflies (Libellula saturata) Few NA lOmin Intensive NA = not available Arizona Game and FishDepartment September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page 39 Site: Tonto Natural Bridge - Cattail Stand

Date: 7/17/03 Time: 1344 WaypointName: TPC UTM N: 3797579 E: 458044 Description: Flat spring at end of lower parkinglot. Topo: BuckheadMesa Grasses and cattails, very moist. Weather: Hazy Elevation (m): 1395 Air Temp (0C): 33.1 Land Owner: Arizona State Parks Relative Humidity: 35% Water Discharge: NA Aspect: NA Water pH: 7.4 Conductivity (uS): 620 Litter/ Duff Density: Medium Water Temp (0C): 23 Geologic Formation: Limestone Substrate Type: Soil (saturated) Soil Temp (0C): NA Soil Moisture (% Sat): 100 Soil pH:NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments:

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exposure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise 0915 0845 0800 0700 0600 0600 0600 0700 0800 0845 0915 0915 Set 1430 1600 1645 1645 1700 1700 1700 1645 1645 1600 1430 1430 Comments:

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall:No Flooding: No Potential: Low Usage: Low Drought: No Trampling: No Pollution: No Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: None that are evident Comments:

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: 2 Vegetation: Cover: (m2): Total est area = 600 m Cattails 80 High 550 Mature Over story Willows 1 Low 5 Young Over story Poplar 1 Low 5 Young Over story Rushes 20 Medium 40 Mature Under story Grasses 10 Low 50 Mature Under story

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Spiders Many -lm2 15min Intensive Pill bugs Numerous -lm" 15min Intensive Ladybugs Few -lm" 15min Intensive Blood Worms Numerous -lm:.i 15 min Intensive NA = not available Arizona Game and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page40

Site: Tonto NaturalBridge - Arch Seep

Date: 7/17/03 Time: 1200 Waypoint Name: UTMN: 3797530 E: 458030 Description: Hanging garden under bridge arch. Near Topo: BuckheadMesa S end overlookplatform. Weather: Sunny Elevation(m): 1290 Air Temp (0C): NA Land Owner: Arizona State Parks Relative Humidity: NA Water Discharge: Sheeting across rock, very low Aspect: W Water pH: 9.0 Conductivity (uS): 620 Litter/ DuffDensity: Low Water Temp( 0C): NA Geologic Formation: Limestone Substrate Type: Travertine bedrock with small Soil Temp( 0C): NA pockets of soil. Soil Moisture(% Sat): NA Soil pH: NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope(degrees): NA Comments:

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exposure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise 1530 1400 1330 1300 1300 1300 1300 1330 1430 Set 1700 1700 1700 1630 1630 1630 1700 1700 1700 Comments: Site under the bridge arch, but exoosedto SW sky in afternoon.

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: Yes Flooding: Yes Potential: High Usage: High Drought:No Trampling: Yes Pollution: No Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: None Comments: Hanging garden/seep alongside of primitive trail.

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): Maidenhair fems 80 High -10 Mature Yellow columbine 10 Medium -2 Mature Mimulus gluttatus Moss 10 Medium -2 Mature

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Spiders Numerous -lm:.i 15 min Intensive Pill bug 1 -lm:.i 15 min Intensive Red beetles-carabids? (probably) Many -1 m:.i 15 min Intensive NA = not available ArizonaGame and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 ProgressReport Page 41

Site: Tonto Natural Bridge - StreamPourover (Viewpoint 3)

Date: 7/17 /03 Time: 1410 Waypoint Name: TVP3 UTM N: 3797530 E: 458034 Description: Spring fedstream pouring offcliff face/ Topo: BuckheadMesa bridge. Weather: overcast Elevation (m): 1394 Air Temp (0C): NA Land Owner: Arizona StateParks Relative Humidity: NA Water Discharge: Medium Aspect: S Water pH: 8.1 Conductivity (uS): 580 Litter/ DuffDensity: Low Water Temp (0C): 21 Geologic Formation: Limestone Substrate Type: Soil Soil Temp (°C): NA Soil Moisture (% Sat): NA Soil pH:NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments:

Solar Pathfinder Data- direct light exposure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise Set Comments: no data

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: No Flooding: No Potential: Low Usage:None Drought: No Trampling: No Pollution: No Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: None Comments:

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): Watercress 20 Low 1 Mature Nasturtium sp. Sedge 80 High 10 Mature Carex sp.

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Pill bugs Many 5 plots l0min. Intensive Spiders Few 5 plots 10 min. Intensive Physid aquatic snails Few 1 plot 2min. Intensive NA = not available Arizona Gaineand Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page42

Site: Tonto NaturalBridge - Base of Waterfall

Date: 7/17/03 Time: 1009 WaypointName: TNBW UTM N: 3797805 E: 458103 Description: Hanging garden spring. Topo: BuckheadMesa Weather: Sunny Elevation(m): 1350 Air Temp (°C): 27.1 Land Owner: Arizona State Parks Relative Humidity: 58% Water Discharge: can't quantify Aspect:NA Water pH: 8.1 Conductivity(uS): 470 Litter/ Duff Density: Low Water Temp( 0C): 18 Geologic Formation: Limestone Substrate Type: Travertine/gravel/ soil Soil Temp (0C): NA Soil Moisture(% Sat): 100 Soil pH: NA Soil Depth (cm): 0 Slope(degrees): 90 (estimation) Comments: Good under story of moss on rocks. Travertine formation. Runningwater/ saturatedwith water. Little pockets of soil and gravel.

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exposure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise 1200 1100 0900 0800 0730 0700 0730 0730 0900 1000 1200 1300 Set 1430 1600 1500 1500 1400 1400 1400 1500 1500 1600 1430 1400 Comments: Tree cover provides lots of shade; 1100 till sunset- it's shady here.

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: No Flooding: No Potential: Low Usage: Medium Drought: No Trampling: No Pollution: No Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: None Comments:

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): Maidenhairfems 90 High 80 Mature Yellow columbine 5 Low 10 Mature Watercress 2 Low 5 Mature Nasturtium sp. Blackberry 2 Low 5 Mature Monkeyflower 1 Low 5 Mature Mimulus cardinalis NA = not available Arizona Game andFish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail 2003 Progress Report Page43

Site continued: Tonto NaturalBridge - Base of Waterfall

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Slugs 4 NA lOmin Intensive Caterpillar I NA lOmin Intensive Spiders (sp. unknown) Numerous NA lOmin Intensive Potato bug Numerous NA lOmin Intensive Damselflylarvae 2 NA lOmin Intensive Crayfish I NA lOmin Intensive Physids Many NA lOmin Intensive NA = not available Arizona Game and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page44

Site: McGrew Spring (Whetstone Mountains)

Date: 9/ 08/02 Time: 1130 Waypoint Name: UTM N: 3523900 E: 560891 Description: small, 5x 4 m2 springhead/pondwith E- Topo: McGrew flowingshallow drainage to wet area; very silty Weather: partly cloudy, local T-storms Elevation (m): NA Air Temp (0C): 34.5 Land Owner: Arizona State Parks Relative Humidity: 45% Water Discharge: NA Aspect: E Water pH: 7.8 Conductivity (uS): 480 Litter/ DuffDensity: NA Water Temp (0C): 21 Geologic Formation: Schist and granite Substrate Type: soil/loam Soil Temp (0C): NA Soil Moisture (¾ Sat): 100 Soil pH: 7 Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments:

Solar PathfinderData- directlight exposure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise Set Comments: no data

Comments: heavy impact by livestock grazing/trampling and use by illegal immigrants; lots of trash

Semi-Aquatic/ ¾ Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): None

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type:

Physid aquatic snails Numerous NA lOmin Intensive Horsehair worms Numerous NA lOmin Intensive Water striders Numerous NA lOmin Intensive Ostracods Numerous NA lOmin Intensive Mosquitoes Numerous NA lOmin Intensive Fishing Spiders Numerous NA l0min Intensive Grasshoppers ( various species) Numerous NA lOmin Intensive ArizonaGrune and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page45

Site continued: McGrew Spring (WhetstoneMountains)

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Black swallowtail butterfly 1 NA 10 min Intensive Large orange dragonfly(Libellula saturata?) Few NA 10 min Intensive Narrow-wingeddamselflies (purple& red colored) Several NA 10 min Intensive Large brown skimmer/dragonfly 1 NA 10 min Intensive Aquatic beetles Several NA 10 min Intensive Smallred damselflies Several NA 10 min Intensive Painted ladybutterfly? 1 NA 10 min Intensive Honeybees Several NA 10 min Intensive Earthworms 1 NA 10 min Intensive NA = not available Arizona Grune andFish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail 2003 Progress Report Page46

Site: Cave Spring (Huachuca Mountains)

Date: 9/8/02 Time: 1630 Waypoint Name: UTM N: 3482496 E: 561050 Description: perennialstream channel withpatches Topo: PyeattRanch of primary & secondary veg; spring fedwith travertine pools &runs Weather: overcast and raining Elevation (m): NA Air Temp (0C): NA (cool) Land Owner: Departmentof Defense(Fort Huachuca) Relative Humidity: 100%? (raining) Water Discharge: NA Aspect: NA Water pH: NA Conductivity (uS): NA Litter/ DuffDensity: NA Water Temp (0C): NA Geologic Formation: Limestone Substrate Type: NA Soil Temp (°C): NA Soil Moisture (% Sat): NA Soil pH: NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments:

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exoosuretimes Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise Set Comments: no data

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: No Flooding: Yes Potential: Low Usage: Low Drought: No Trampling: Yes Pollution: No Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: Comments: Minor floodingand trampling-vegpatches are robust; springhead is cemented square opening

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): Monkeyflower 100 High NA Mature Mimulus cardinalis? Maidenhairferns 100 High NA Mature Giant sedges 100 High NA Mature Carex ultima Cardinal flowers Trace Low NA Mature Poison ivy NA Low NA Mature

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Springsnails (Pyrgulopsis thompsoni) Several NA 15 min Intensive Talussnails (Sonorella or Oreohelix sp.) Several NA 15 min Intensive Mountainsnails (unknown sp.) Few NA 15 min Intensive (didn't search for aquatic macroinvertebrates) NA = not available Arizona Game andFish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page47

Site: Soda Springs Ranch (Verde Valley)

Date: 10/08/ 02 Time: 1100 Waypoint Name: UTMN: 38 33939 E: 432062 Description: wet meadows/marshes surroundinga Topo: Casner Butteor Montezuma Lake 2 central lake with numerous springs

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exposure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise Set Comments: no data

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: No Flooding: No Potential: Low Usage: Low. Drought: No Trampling: Yes Pollution: No Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: Comments: Livestock grazing heavy in past, but now reduced greatly-habitat is recovering quickly

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): Cattails NA High Extensive Mature Sedges NA High Extensive Mature Watercress NA High NA Mature Rushes NA High Extensive Mature Grass spp. NA High Extensive Mature

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Succineid landsnails (Catinellasp.) Several 12 plots 15 min Intensive Crayfish ( Orconectes) 1 NA l0min Cursory Lowland leopard frogs (Rana yavapaiensis) Numerous NA 15 min Intensive Marsh slugs (Deroceras sp.) Numerous NA 15 min Intensive Belostomatid giant water bugs Few NA 15 min Intensive Arizona Gameand Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page48

Site continued: Soda Springs Ranch (Verde Valley)

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Dytiscid predaceous diving beetles Few NA 15 min futensive Narrow-wingeddamselflies Few NA 15 min Intensive Amphipods (Hyalella azteca ?) Numerous NA 15 min Intensive Mayflies Numerous NA lOmin Cursory Notonectid backswimmers Several NA lOmin Cursory Large orange dragonflies (Libellula saturata) Several NA lOmin Cursory Mourningcloak butterfly 1 NA lOmin Cursory NA= not available Arizona Grune and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page49

Site� Kiper Springs (San Pedro Valley)

Date: 5/03/03 Time: 1345 WaypointName: UTMN: 3546235 E: 557205 Description: bermed cattle tank/spring-fedpond with Topo: Benson surfacecovered with aquatic macrophytes Weather: partly cloudy, warm Elevation(m): NA Air Temp('C): NA Land Owner: U.S. Forest Service Relative Humidity: NA Water Discharge: NA Aspect: NA Water pH: NA Conductivity(uS): NA Litter/ Duff Density: NA Water Temp( 0C): NA Geologic Formation: NA Substrate Type: NA Soil Temp (0C): NA Soil Moisture(% Sat): NA Soil pH:NA Soil Depth( cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments:

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exnosuretimes Month JAN FEB MAR APR .MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise Set Comments: no data

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: No Flooding: Yes Potential: Medium Usage: Medium Drought: No Trampling: Yes Pollution: Yes Fire Pits: Yes Other Sources of Disturbance: Comments: Livestock grazing & recreational impacts/pollution/trampling

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vel!etation: Cover: (m2): 2 spp. Unknowns 100 High -60 Mature Covers the pond surface Watercress NA High NA Mature NW canyon wet area Monkeyflower NA High NA Mature NW canyon wet area Golden Columbine NA High NA Mature NW canyonwet area

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Physid aquatic snails Numerous NA 15min Intensive Pillbugs Numerous NA 15 min Intensive Possibly springsnails? (too small to ID properly) 1 NA 15 min Intensive NA = not available Arizona Grune andFish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page 50 Site: Sonoita Creek Natural Area - western perennial reach

Date: 11/23/02 Time: 1130 Waypoint Name: UTM N: 3482524 E: 507691 Description: strearnsidevegetation Topo: Patagonia Weather: partly cloudy, warm Elevation (m): -1200 Air Temp (0C): NA Land Owner: Arizona State Parks Relative Humidity: NA Water Discharge: NA Aspect: NA Water pH: NA Conductivity(uS): NA Litter/ Duff Density: NA Water Temp (0C): NA Geologic Formation: NA Substrate Type: NA Soil Temp (0C): NA Soil Moisture (% Sat): NA Soil pH: NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments:

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exnosuretimes Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise Set Comments: no data

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: No Flooding: Yes Potential: High Usage: High Drought: No Trampling: Yes Pollution: Yes Fire Pits: Yes Other Sources of Disturbance: heavy OHV use & livestock grazing Comments:

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (mz): Rushes NA Low NA NA Heavily grazed Sedges NA Low NA NA Heavily grazed Watercress NA low NA NA

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Unknown succineid landsnails (possibly Catinella) Numerous NA 30min Intensive Physid aquatic snails Numerous NA 30min Intensive Planorbid (ramshom) aquaticsnails Numerous NA 30min Intensive Various grasshopper spp. Numerous NA 30min Intensive Ripple bugs Numerous NA 30min Intensive Stoneflies Numerous NA 30min Intensive Aquatic beetles Few NA 30 min Intensive ArizonaGrune and FishDepartment September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page 51 Site continued: Sonoita Creek NaturalArea - western perennial reach

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Predaceous diving beetles Few NA 30min Intensive Various spider spp. Numerous NA 30min Intensive Narrow-winged damselflies Numerous NA 30min Intensive NA = not available Arizona Game and Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page52 Site: Patagonia Lake easterninflow

Date: 12/28/02 Time: 1100 Waypoint Name: UTM N: 3484638 E: 514857 Description: spring-feddrainages flowinginto lake Topo: Patagonia Weather: partly cloudy Elevation (m): NA Air Temp (0C): NA Land Owner: Arizona State Parks Relative Humidity: NA Water Discharge: NA Aspect:NA Water pH: NA Conductivity (uS): NA Litter/ DuffDensity: NA Water Temp (0C): NA Geologic Formation: NA Substrate Type: NA Soil Temp (°C): NA Soil Moisture (% Sat): NA Soil pH:NA Soil Depth (cm): NA Slope (degrees): NA Comments:

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exposure times Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise Set Comments: no data

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of the Following Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: No Flooding: Yes Potential: Medium Usage: Medium Drought: No Trampling: Yes Pollution: Yes Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: Livestock grazing and recreational impacts/pollution/trampling Comments:

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (mz): Watercress NA Low NA Mature Very little aquatic veg

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Springsnails (possibly Pyrgulopsis thompsoni ?) Few NA 20min Intensive Springsnails (Fossaria sp.) Numerous NA 20min Intensive Physid aquatic snails Numerous NA 20min Intensive Crayfish 1 NA 20min Intensive NA = not available ArizonaGame and FishDepartment . September 2003 NGTR 220: Kanab Ambersnail2003 Progress Report Page 53 Site: Stone Creek (131 mi R) upper drainage

Date: 9/05/03 Time: 1550 Waypoint Name: UTM N: 4023400 E: 370100 Description: large wet seep, floodplainalong stream Topo: Powell Plateau -1/4 mi above lower falls Weather: partiy cloudy Elevation (m): 2700 Air Temp (0C): NA Land Owner: NPS Relative Humidity: NA Water Discharge: low (unable to measure) Aspect: W Water pH: 8.7 Conductivity (uS): 450 Litter/ Duff Density: NA Water Temp (0C): 28.5 Geologic Formation: Shale/Diabase Substrate Type: Bedrock, soil/loam, silt Soil Temp (0C): NA Soil Moisture (% Sat): 100 Soil pH:NA Soil Depth (cm): >15 Slope (degrees): 70 (estimated) Comments:

Solar PathfinderData- direct light exposuretimes Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Rise Set Comments: no data

Habitat Vulnerability Index: Evidence of theFollowing Impacts Natural Disturbance Estimated Recreational Rockfall: No Flooding: Yes Potential: High Usage: Low Drought: No Trampling: No Pollution: No Fire Pits: No Other Sources of Disturbance: Comments: Flash flood prone

Semi-Aquatic/ % Veg Estimated Estimated Comments: Emergent Ground Density: Veg Area Age: Vegetation: Cover: (m2): Monkeyflower 25 Low -2 young Margins of seep Maidenhairfems 50 Low -2 Mature Margins of seep Commonreeds 100 High >50 Mature Covers floodplain Rushes Trace Low >3 Mature Margins of seep Sawgrass 100 High -10 Mature Margins of seep Cardinal flowers Trace Low -1 Mature Margins of seep Bermuda grass 100 High >10 Mature Margins of seep Cottonwoods 5 Low 1 Young Margins of seep Seep willows 25 High >3 Mature Margins of seep Plantago trace low -1 Mature Margins of seep Arizona Gruneand Fish Department September 2003 NGTR 220: KanabAmbersnail 2003 Progress Report Page 54

Site continued: Stone Creek (131 miR) upper drainage

Fauna Observed/Collected: Count: Area: Effort: Search Type: Narrow-winged damselflies 3 NA 1 min Cursory Canyon tree frogs 2 NA 1 min Cursory Tadpoles (sp. Unknown, but large & black) 4 NA 1 min Cursory Ripple bugs Many NA 1 min Cursory Fishingspider (?) 1 NA 1 min Cursory NA = not available