WSP04352 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Arizona Game and Fish Department NGTR 125: Kanab Ambersnail Report Apri11998 Pa2e 9 ;, infested KAS is difficult to measure. This parasite has only been detected in KAS at VP, and not in the other three Oxyloma popu1ations in the region, or other succineid species in Grand Canyon and vicinity. HABITAT SURVEYS Between 1991 and 1995, &1 springs and seeps in Grand Canyon were examined for mollusks (Stevens et al. 1997b). No additional populations of KASs were found. Site visits were primarily reconnaissance efforts to document presence or absence of mollusks, and did not provide detailed habitat information. Sorensen and Kubly (1997) conducted habitat surveys on 59 springs, seeps, and streamside habitats (including VP and 3L) in the Grand Canyon region between June 1996 and June 1997. An additional 17 sites were studied between July and October 1997. ., The single-specie3 corrcIation modc1 provided a simple evaluation of KAS habitat suitability based on various site attributes. Some localities have many quality attributes, but a single unfavorable condition may disqualify it from a higher ranking. Potential KAS establishment sites will have to undergo review of the interagency Kanab Ambersnail Working Group (KA WG), agencies involved directly with species and habitat conservation, peer groups, and the public. ", '-~. .- ~ ~ i/ ..~: ,', "or Potential wild establishment sites require jurisdictional or land management authority that provides for species and habitat consezvation. Grand Canyon National Park provides the best protection for sensitive wetland habitats from multiple-use practices (i.e., livestock grazing, commercial devdopment, mining, unrestricted recreation access). Management stipulations for most federal lands require the protection of endangered species. State and tribal lands have various land-use mandates, offering less protection to species of concern and sensitive habitats. Jurisdictional protection of KASs and thcir habitat on slate and tribal lands will require case-by-case evaluation. Private landowners may not be willing to protect wetlands or endangered species on their ptOperl)'. For this reason, private land is the least preferable choice for !CAS reintroduction sites. However, private landowners that are inletQ1ed in participating in long-tem1 conservation will be rated more favorably in this category. 'r~~ ," ", > . ~.;-. < ".:" :.).. hi: ~~. F~ REcOMMENDATIONS j?:-" ':"i r- I 'I ,"'~ -, MONITORING As a participant of the interagency KA WG and field studies, AGFD supports the continued monitoring of the VP population to provide information on KAS demographics, habitat recovery, and the role of predators, competitors, and parasites (KA WG 1997). Continued studies at VP provide us with an increased understanding of KAS life history, interaCtions with other fauna, habitat use, and response to natural and ~tional disturbances--information needed for satisfying USFWS Biological Opinion requirements and successful recovery efforts.