Mountainsnails (genus Oreohelix) are found in the mountainous regions of many western states. Of the terrestrial snails found in Utah, they are among the most conspicuous to the public; they are about the size of a quarter and their empty shells are often found on the side of hiking trails in the mountains. Most land snails are found in areas with persistent moisture, usually under logs, rocks, and leaf litter in forested areas. Mountainsnails are unique in that they are typically associated with arid environments. They are usually herbivores or ominvores, and vegetation (living and decaying) is a major food source (Hotopp et al. 2013). Along with playing a janitorial-type role in the forest environment, land snails help move calcium through forests. They obtain calcium from their food to build a strong shell, and other animals, such as birds, obtain the calcium they need by eating land snails (Hotopp et al.2013). Calcium is important to birds during the breeding season for egg shell development and skeletal growth of nestlings (Graveland and Drent 1997). Therefore, declining land snail populations may have a detrimental effect on the breeding success of some birds (Eeva and Lehikoinen 1995; Graveland and Drent 1997; Eeva et al. 2010). Like many other invertebrates with limited mobility and sensitivity to environmental perturbations, land snails are also important to humans as indicators of environmental quality (Regoli et al. 2006). There are nine species of Mountainsnails present in Utah, and six of them are listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in the Utah Wildlife Action Plan (UWAP; UWAP 2015). Many of the historical localities for the six SGCN Mountainsnails were visited by UDWR biologists in recent years (2018-2021; ESMF project numbers 23, 62, 126 and 187), but these surveys were not exhaustive. New localities still need to be explored to better understand the current distribution, status, and threats for these Mountainsnails. However, a major hurdle toward a better understanding of these things is the inability to confidently identify individuals to species at new localities using shell and animal morphology. Mountainsnails cannot be reliably identified to species using morphology alone (Linscott et al. 2020). Shell morphology can be highly variable within species and may vary depending on the local environment (e.g., rock type). Since using animal morphology tends to be less useful than shell morphology for identification of Mountainsnails, genetic sequencing is currently the most reliable way to identify Mountainsnails to species. However, the taxonomy of Mountainsnails is still in flux, and additional phylogenetic research using mitochondrial and genomic data is still needed (Linscott et al. 2020) to verify which Mountainsnails species are valid. Taxonomic debate is as a crucial data gap in the Utah Wildlife Action Plan (UWAP; UWAP 2015); a clear understanding of taxonomy is fundamental to effective conservation of a species. Additional phylogenetic research may lead to the lumping of SGCN mountainanils or it may identify additional sensitive Mountainsnails species that need to be included on the Utah SGCN list. Either outcome will have major implications for effective conservation of Utah's Mountainsnails. Clarifying the taxonomy for Mountainsnails will also prevent inappropriate listing of species under the Endangered Species Act (see the recent example with the Kanab Ambersnail Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis, USFWS 2020). It will be important to implement this two-year project by FY23 so that the findings can be used to update s-ranks for the revised UWAP in 2025. Additional surveys and phylogenetic research conducted through this project may suggest that the SGCN Mountainsnails populations are more stable than previously thought, leading to a higher (better) s-rank and removal from the SGCN list. Conversely, this study may find that they are more imperiled than previously thought. For example, a survey of 10 SGCN land snails in Idaho increased the average s-rank of the 10 species from 1.4 to 3.7 (Lucid et al. 2016). Either outcome will allow UDWR to better understand the current status of the SGCN Mountainsnails and move forward with appropriate conservation actions. Taking steps to prevent Mountainsnails from being listed under the Endangered Species Act will be important to reduce economic impacts to Utahns. Federally listing Mountainsnails could affect ski resorts, timber harvest, housing development, and mining, though the extent of the economic impact would depend on which Mountainsnails species are listed. The goal of this project is to provide species-level identification of Mountainsnails at new localities and to refine Mountainsnail taxonomy using mitochondrial and genomic sequencing and phylogenetic analysis. Expected benefits of this project include: * Genetically verified species-level identification for Mountainsnails from new localities. * Clarify SGCN Mountainsnail species distribution, status, and threats. * Project results are used to generate more accurate s-ranks for SGCN Mountainsnails, which will lead to better prioritization of mollusk conservation actions across Utah. * A crucial data gap in the UWAP (taxonomic debate) is addressed. * Objective 1 (clarify the number of species and delineate distributions for Mountainsnails) in the new UDWR Statewide Mollusk Strategy is addressed. * Published project results in a peer-reviewed journal will provide a significant scientific contribution toward clarifying taxonomy for Mountainsnails. * More data (but no verification of species using genetics) for other terrestrial SGCN snails that are also encountered during surveys. Other SGCN terrestrial snails that could be encountered include: Cross Snaggletooth (Gastrocopta quadridens), Mitered Vertigo (Vertigo concinnula), Montane Snaggletooth (Gastrocopta pilsbryana), Ribbed Dagger (Pupoides horaceus), Sluice Snaggletooth (Gastrocopta ashmuni), Striate Gem (Hawaiia neomexicana), Thin-lip Vallonia (Vallonia perspectiva), Top-heavy Column (Pupilla syngenes). References Eeva, T. and E. Lehikoinen. 1995. Egg shell quality, clutch size and hatching success of the great tit (Parus major) and the pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca) in an air pollution gradient. Oecologia 102: 312-323. Eeva, T., K. Rainio, and O. Suominen. 2010. Effect of pollution on land snail abundance, size and diversity as a resources for pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Science of the Total Environment 408: 4165-4169. Graveland, J. and R. H. Drent. 1997. Calcium availability limits breeding success of passerines on poor soils. Journal of Animal Ecology 66: 279-288. Hotopp, K.P., T.A. Pearce, J.C. Nekola, J. Slapcinsky, D.C. Dourson, M. Winslow, G. Kimber, and B. Watson. 2013. Land snails and slugs of the Mid-Atlantic and northeastern United States. Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Online eesource: http://www.carnegiemnh.org/science/mollusks/index.html. Linscott, M. T., K. Weaver, V. Morales, and C. Parent. 2020. Assessing species number and genetic diversity of the Mountainsnails (Oreohelicidae). Conservation Genetics 21: 971-985. Lucid, M. K., Robinson, L., & Ehlers, S. (2016). Multi-species Baseline Initiative Project Report: 2010--2014. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Regoli, F., S. Borbi, D. Fattorini, S. Tedesco, A. Notti, N. Machella, R. Bocchetti, M. Benedetti, and F. Piva. 2006. Use of the land snail Helix aspersa as sentinel organism for monitoring ecotoxicologic effects of urban pollution: and integrated approach. Environmental Health Perspectives 114: 63-69. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2020. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; removing the Kanab Ambersnail from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Federal Register 86(119): 33137-33142. Utah Wildlife Action Plan [UWAP]. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: a plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to help prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Publication number 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Year 1 1) Conduct terrestrial mollusk surveys across Utah, with a focus on possible new localities for SGCN Mountainsnail species. 2) Collect other (non-Mountainsnail) SGCN terrestrial snails encountered during surveys. Since collecting data on these snail species is not the primary focus of this project, these snails will be identified to family or genus level, and specimens will be preserved future species level confirmation using genetics. 3) Conduct preliminary laboratory work and analysis. This analysis will help refine survey efforts for year 2. Year 2 4) Verify the species identity of the Mountainsnail specimens using mitochondrial and genomic sequencing techniques. 5) Conduct a phylogenetic analysis to clarify Mountainsnail taxonomy in Utah.

Not Applicable

Relation to management plans 1) Utah Wildlife Action plan (UWAP) -- Taxonomic debate is one of the critical data gaps identified in this plan (UWAP 2015). Implementing this project will help clarify the taxonomy of Mountainsnails, which will have a multitude of benefits to the conservation of Mountainsnails (see list of expected benefits in the Needs section above). 2) UDWR Statewide Mollusk Conservation Strategy (Holcomb 2022) -- This proposed project will benefit all objectives of this Strategy since taxonomy is fundamental to conservation, but it will specifically address objective 1 (clarify the species number and boundaries for Mountainsnails). Holcomb, K. In prep. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Statewide Mollusk Conservation Strategy. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. Utah Wildlife Action Plan [UWAP]. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: a plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to help prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Publication number 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Selkirk Wildlife Science (https://www.selkirkwildlife.com/) personnel will conduct surveys and collect mollusk for genetic analysis. We will obtain a UDWR Certificate of Registration for collection of mollusks for the duration of the project. Selkirk Wildlife Science personnel may coordinate with UDWR biologists to gain access to surveys on private lands.

Year 1 Selkirk Wildlife Science Personnel (Michael Lucid and technicians) will work with the UDWR to identify possible new localities for the six SGCN Mountainsnails across Utah. Surveys are expected to take place October-November 2022 and May-June in 2023 and will be conducted over the course of total of 40 field days. The survey protocol will follow those outlined in the UDWR Statewide Mollusk Conservation Strategy (Holcomb, in prep.). The following data will be collected for Mountainsnails and other SGCN terrestrial mollusks: date, survey coordinates, surveyors, survey effort, general habitat, species present (to the lowest taxonomic level possible), and number of snails observed. Surveyors will also make an assessment of the type and severity of threats present at each survey site. Some (1-10) Mountainsnails and other SGCN terrestrial mollusks from each site will be preserved for genetic analysis (non-Mountainsnails will be sequenced at a later date). All snails will be preserved in 90-100% non denatured ethanol (Holcomb, in prep.). Some genetic sequencing may be conducted during the first year of the project, though the bulk of this work is anticipated in the second year of the project. Any genetic analysis done in year 1 will be preliminary and will help guide the analysis in year 2. Year one product -- progress report that summarizes survey findings. Year 2 Dr. T. Mason Linscott will conduct the mitochondrial and genomic genetic sequencing and phylogenetic analysis for the Mountainsnails. The phylogenetic analysis will expand on Dr. Linscott's previous research (Liscott et al. 2020) to further refine Mountainsnail taxonomy. Genomic data will be collected through sequencing a reduced representation of the entire genome through restriction-enzyme associated DNA sequencing (Rochette et al. 2019). Genomic analysis will first place Utah Oreohelix in a family-wide phylogenetic context using data from current genomic studies of Oreohelicidae (Linscott et al., in prep) and quartet, maximum likelihood, and bayesian coalescent approaches. Second, individuals of Utah Oreohelix will then be compared to their sister clades in BPP v.4.0 (Flouri et al. 2020), a framework for delimiting species using genetic data. The delimited units identified by BPP will then be examined for population structure within and between delimited units using STRUCTURE (Raj et al. 2014) to discover population and patterns of gene flow between populations. Voucher snail specimens will be sent to the Natural History Museum of Utah's mollusk collection upon completion of the project. Year 2 product -- Michael Lucid will write a final report with species-level identification of Mountainsnails from new locations. Michael Lucid and Mason Linscott will submit a publication to an appropriate scientific journal (e.g. Conservation Genetics). References Flouri, T., Jiao, X., Rannala, B., & Yang, Z. 2018. Species tree inference with BPP using genomic sequences and the multispecies coalescent. Molecular biology and evolution, 35(10), 2585-2593. Holcomb, K. In prep. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Statewide Mollusk Conservation Strategy. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. Linscott, M. T., K. Weaver, V. Morales, and C. Parent. 2020. Assessing species number and genetic diversity of the Mountainsnails (Oreohelicidae). Conservation Genetics 21: 971-985. Raj, A., Stephens, M., & Pritchard, J. K. 2014. fastSTRUCTURE: variational inference of population structure in large SNP data sets. Genetics, 197(2), 573-589. Rochette, N. C., & Catchen, J. M. 2017. Deriving genotypes from RAD-seq short-read data using Stacks. Nature Protocols, 12(12), 2640-2659.

Monitoring species status and effectiveness monitoring (of a project) are not objectives of this two-year project. However, data generated from this project will be used to inform future mollusk monitoring efforts by UDWR.

Dr. T. Mason Linscott (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univerisity) Kate Holcomb (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources)

This is a two-year project. Once completed, this project is expected to provide a multitude of benefits to the future conservation of SGCN Mountainsnails throughout Utah: * Genetically verified species-level identification for Mountainsnails from new localities. * Clarify SGCN Mountainsnail species distribution, status, and threats. * Project results are used to generate more accurate s-ranks for SGCN Mountainsnails, which will lead to better prioritization of mollusk conservation actions across Utah. * A crucial data gap in the UWAP (taxonomic debate) is addressed. * Objective 1 (clarify the species number and boundaries for Mountainsnails) in the new UDWR Statewide Mollusk Strategy is addressed. * Published project results in a peer-reviewed journal will provide a significant scientific contribution toward clarifying taxonomy for Mountainsnails. This project will require two years for completion due to how the funding cycle aligns with the field season. The best time of year to collect Mountainsnails is in the spring (May-June in many parts of Utah); therefore, a second year of funding is needed for laboratory work, analysis, and communicating project results. Objectives and methods for year two are described above to provide context for how year one activities fit with year two activities to achieve the goal of this project (to provide species-level identification of Mountainsnails at new localities and to refine Mountainsnail taxonomy using mitochondrial and genomic sequencing and phylogenetic analysis). The second year of this project is expected to cost approximately $60,000.

It will be important to implement this two-year project by FY23 so that the findings can be used to update s-ranks for the revised UWAP in 2025. Additional surveys and phylogenetic research conducted through this project may suggest that the SGCN Mountainsnails populations are more stable than previously thought, leading to a higher (better) s-rank and removal from the SGCN list. Conversely, this study may find that they are more imperiled than previously thought. For example, a survey of 10 SGCN land snails in Idaho increased the average s-rank of the 10 species from 1.4 to 3.7 (Lucid et al. 2016). Either outcome will allow UDWR to better understand the current status of the SGCN Mountainsnails and move forward with appropriate conservation actions. Taking steps to prevent Mountainsnails from being listed under the Endangered Species Act will be important to reduce economic impacts to Utahns. Federally listing Mountainsnails could affect ski resorts, timber harvest, housing development, and mining, though the extent of the economic impact would depend on which Mountainsnails species are listed.

09/06/2022

06/30/2023

2023

Study Area-The study area consists of the entire state of Utah (Figure 1). Specific survey sites were determined based on type localities of shell forms and adjacent areas. Additional surveys were conducted across the state to document distribution and range. Description of field work and sample collection-To inform survey site selection we first used GoogleEarth to visualize the locations of the 90 locations from which genotypes were produced from samples collected prior to this project from 2018-2021 by M. Linscott and UDWR (Figure 1). We prioritized survey sites which were type localities and/or had no molecular data available. Our second priority was sites adjacent to type localities with a third priority to conduct surveys in mountain ranges for which no survey data were available. When possible we used historic collection localities and iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org/, accessed 14 July 2023) observations to select survey sites. If data were not available we chose sites in the field based on likely habitat types. At each site we conducted a 20 minute timed visual search (Lucid et al. 2018). Timed searches involved searching for specimens under rocks, in talus slopes, at the base of forbs, through grasses, and the organic soil surface layer in both open, desert, and forested areas. The temporal component of searching was necessary to standardize input for potential Species Distribution Modeling (SDM). We recorded if empty shells were observed and the number of live Oreohelix observed within the 20 minute search window. We attempted to collect eight samples per site and collected no more than ten snails per site. After snails were collected, they were placed in water for 12-24 hours until they died and bodies extended out of the shell. After mortality snails were preserved in 95% ethanol. The following habitat variables were recorded in order to inform potential future modeling efforts: Forest Series, Dominate Vegetation, Canopy Cover, Ground Cover, Geology, and Micro-habitat (Appendix II). We often conducted much more extensive searches (over forty person hours at some sites) in order to (1) focus on specific locations more thoroughly or (2) to collect additional specimens. For example, oftentimes after collecting a single live specimen, extending searches past the twenty minute mark allowed us to collect additional samples. Extended surveys were conducted at several sites due to the localities' importance.

Summary Six purported mountainsnail (Oreohelix spp.) species are listed in Utah's Wildlife Action Plan (UWAP) as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). The purported species are based on unique shell characters. However, shell morphology is an unreliable indicator of taxonomic independence for this genus and the taxonomy for each of the six purported species remains unresolved. The UWAP will be revised in 2025 and taxonomic clarity is needed to determine if any or all of the six purported species are valid taxonomic units. This will guide if the species are listable as SGCN and, if so, help guide development of appropriate conservation actions. From 2018-2021 the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and M. Linscott collected samples from 90 locations from which genotypes were produced. The objective of this two year study is to Year1) collect samples to augment the data already in hand and Year2) produce comparable data from the Year1 samples and conduct genomic analyses to determine if any of the six purported species are consistent with independent taxonomic units. This report summarizes Year1 where we searched 136 sites and collected a total of 405 Oreohelix spp. specimens from 60 localities (44% of sites searched). Specimens were shipped to the University of Idaho where laboratory work will be conducted during Year2 of the project. Introduction Mountainsnails (Oreohelix spp.) are a genus of large land snail (10-35mm shell width; 5-20mm shell height; 4.5-6.5 whorls at adulthood) that are native to semi-arid and mountainous portions of western North America (Pilsbry 1939). Oreohelix are typically associated with moisture retaining micro-habitat such as leaf litter, under rocks in talus slopes, and the base area of forbs and shrubs (Linscott et al. 2022, Pilsbry 1939). Similar to other dry-habitat snail species (Schweizer 2019), Oreohelix appear to have several adaptations which allow them to persist in xeric environments (Pilsbry, 1939, Burke et al., 1999, Duncan, 2005). For example, shells are usually thick and chalky white, which likely assists in moisture retention and solar radiation reflection. Oreohelix species can also form an epiphragm (a closing membrane) over their aperture to seal the shell against a solid surface (e.g., rock or wood chip) to minimize water loss during estivation. In addition, the genus is ovoviviparous, i.e., eggs are hatched within the body of the parent and are released fully formed [typically 5-9 juveniles (Dempsey et al. 2019)], which is an adaptation to arid climates where small, thin eggs are susceptible to desiccation (Duncan, 2005). Shell expression also may be an adaptive characteristic to aridity as it appears to be substantially shaped by abiotic factors such as mineral supply (Pilsbry 1939; Linscott et al. in review), moisture (Burke and Leonard 2013), and insolation (Pilsbry 1939). Thick shells are commonly expressed by populations residing in calcium carbonate (CaCO₃) rich environments (e.g. limestone and marble substrates) and thin brittle shells are typical of populations in calcium carbonate deprived environments (e.g. wet forested environments; Linscott et al. in review). Oreohelix species that produce elaborate or thickened shells (e.g. calcareous shell ornaments like ribs or keels) are usually restricted to regions of higher calcium carbonate availability (Linscott et al. in review). Moisture is another important constraint on size with larger-sized individuals being generally found in areas with substantially greater rainfall and humidity (Pilsbry 1939; Goodfriend 1986). Conversely, populations residing in areas of greater sun exposure often have smaller-sized individuals with more bleaching compared to shaded populations (Pilsbry 1939). Oreohelix is the most speciose land snail genus native to western North America (Nekola 2005). Species richness is highest in the Rocky Mountains, but many also occur in montane regions of the Great Basin, Southwest, and eastern Cascades. Oreohelix taxa have historically been delimited by genitalia and shell morphology (Pilsbry 1939). Genital morphology is relatively conserved, with only three types being recorded (strigosa, subrudis, and yavapai types) that serve to define the major groups of the genus (Pilsbry, 1939; Linscott et al., 2020). Shell morphology has been primarily invoked for species delineation in combination with geographical isolation. However, shell characters in land snails are often prone to homoplasy, phenotypic plasticity, or a high degree of intraspecific variation (Henderson 1918; Chak 2007). The high degree of intraspecific variation (and relatively conserved genital morphology across the genus) in Oreohelix has led previous authors to suggest that many of the variable shell characters used to delimit species may be environmentally driven (Henderson 1918). Common Name Latin Name S Rank N Rank Eureka Mountainsnail O. eurekensis S1 N1 Lyrate Mountainsnail O. haydeni S2 N2/N3 Brian Head Mountainsnail O. parawanensis S1 N1 Deseret Mountainsnail O. peripherica S2 N2 Mill Creek Mountainsnail O. howardi SH N1 Yavapai Mountainsnail [a Race of] O. yavapai cummingsi S1 N3 Table 1. Common and scientific names of purported Utah SGCN Oreohelix spp. (S)tate and (N)ational NatureServe rankings (https://explorer.natureserve.org/; accessed 4 August 2023). The highly plastic nature of shell morphology has led to a large number of species being purported across western North America. Congruence of shell characters and molecular phylogeny is not consistent across shell forms with some species with unique shell characters being genetically unique (e.g. O. idahoensis, Linscott et al. 2020) and some falling into the broader taxonomic groupings (e.g. Chelan Mountainsnail, O. strigosa, Linscott et al. 2022). Most states and provinces within the range of the genus have purported Oreohelix species listed in conservation plans but, to date, few have been evaluated with molecular data. Utah is no exception with six purported species which have not been described in the literature but which are listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in the Utah Wildlife Action Plan (Table 1; UWAP 2015). In recent years (2018-2021; ESMF project numbers 23, 62, 126 and 187) UDWR biologists and M. Linscott have conducted Oreohelix surveys in Utah which resulted in sequenced products (sequenced by M. Linscott) from 90 sites (Figure 1, Appendix I). However, these surveys were not exhaustive and additional sampling is needed to better understand the taxonomy and current distribution of the six purported species listed as SGCN. The objective of this study was to conduct additional sampling in order to evaluate the taxonomic validity of the six SGCN. This report summarizes the field collection efforts of Year1. Year2 of the project will conduct limited additional field sampling conduct the laboratory work on samples collected in Year1 and analysis of those sequences along with the 90 sequences from the 2018-2021 collection efforts. Results We searched 136 sites and collected a total of 405 Oreohelix spp. specimens from 60 localities (44% of sites searched). Specimens were shipped to the University of Idaho where laboratory work will be conducted during Year2 of the project. Specimens were collected under the authority of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Certificate of Registration Collection/Possession for Research permit number 1COLL10947 and Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife Special Permit 17NNC:23NNC, 16USC:18USC. Literature Cited Burke, T. E., & Leonard, W. P. 2013. Land snails and slugs of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press. Chak, T.C.S. 2007. Phylogenetic relationships and population differentiation of Oreohelix landsnails in Wyoming and adjacent South Dakota. PhD thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Dempsey, Z. W., Burg, T. M., & Goater, C. P. 2019. Found, forgotten, and found again: systematics and distribution of Cooper's Rocky Mountain snail (Oreohelix cooperi) on a sky island in the Canadian Prairies. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 97(9), 833-840. Duncan, N. 2005. Conservation Assessment for Oreohelix n. sp. 1, Chelan Mountainsnail. Originally issued as Management Recommendations, February 1999, Thomas E. Burke. USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. Goodfriend G.A. 1986. Variation in land-snail shell form and size and its causes: a review. Systematic Zoology, 35, 204-223. Henderson, J., 1918. On the North American genus Oreohelix. J Mollusc Stud 13:21--24. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.mollus.a063671 Holcomb, K. 2022. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Statewide Mollusk Conservation Strategy. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. Linscott, M. T., K. Weaver, V. Morales, and C. Parent. 2020. Assessing species number and genetic diversity of the Mountainsnails (Oreohelicidae). Conservation Genetics 21: 971-985. Linscott, T.M., A.M. Rankin, L. Robinson, & M.K. Lucid. 2022. Species taxonomic evaluation, population structure, and distribution of FWS priority Oreohelix in Washington: Final Performance Report. Selkirk Wildlife Science, Sandpoint, Idaho, USA. 60 pages. Linscott, T.M., Recia, N.K., & C.E. Parent. CaCO3 availability constraints biomineralization expression and distribution of Mountainsnails (Oreohelix). Journal of Biogeography. 2021 submitted, accepted with minor revisions. Lucid, M. K., Ehlers, S., Robinson, L., & Cushman, S. A. (2018). Beer, brains, and brawn as tools to describe terrestrial gastropod species richness on a montane landscape. Ecosphere, 9(12), e02535. Nekola, J. C. 2005. Latitudinal richness, evenness, and shell size gradients in eastern North American land snail communities. Rec West Aust Mus Suppl, 68, 39-51. Pilsbry, H.A. 1939. Land mollusca of North America. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. Schweizer, M., Triebskorn, R., & Köhler, H. R. (2019). Snails in the sun: Strategies of terrestrial gastropods to cope with hot and dry conditions. Ecology and Evolution, 9(22), 12940-12960. Utah Wildlife Action Plan [UWAP]. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: a plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to help prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Publication number 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Acknowledgements We are grateful to Kate Holcomb (formerly UDWR, currently Minnesota Fish and Wildlife) for conceiving this project and preparing initial funding request documents. Chante Lundskog (UDWR) provided project oversight and administrative support. Shelly Shakespear (UDWR) provided excellent administrative support. Brent Powers (Navajo Nation) provided administrative support and technical guidance. Dakota Fazenbaker provided outstanding technical field work as a subcontractor for Selkirk Wildlife Science. This project was funded by the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative Project 6157 and administered by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources contract number 230703.

This report summarizes Year1 (field collection) of this two-year project. Year2 will consist of limited additional field collection, laboratory work, and data analysis. Once Year2 is complete, the project is expected to provide the following information to guide future management of SGCN Oreohelix in Utah: * Utah Wildlife Action Plan (UWAP) -- Taxonomic debate is one of the critical data gaps identified in this plan (UWAP 2015). The results from year two of this project will help clarify Utah Oreohelix taxonomy which will provide the information needed to determine if each of the purported species SGCN is a valid taxonomic unit and, therefore, and list-able entity as a SGCN for the 2025 UWAP revision. * UDWR Statewide Mollusk Conservation Strategy (Holcomb 2022) -- This proposed project will benefit all objectives of this Strategy since taxonomy is fundamental to conservation, but it will specifically address objective 1 (clarify the species number and boundaries for Oreohelix). * Project results will be used to generate more accurate s-ranks for SGCN Oreohelix, which will lead to better prioritization of mollusk conservation actions across Utah. * A data gap in the UWAP (taxonomic debate) will be addressed. * Published project results in a peer-reviewed journal will provide a significant scientific contribution toward clarifying Utah Oreohelix taxonomy.