200203700 - Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration • Background info in Taurus: Project proposal
Proponent: Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Recommendation: Response requested
Response requested comment:
The research and monitoring of freshwater mussels by the CTUIR provide an important element in regional conservation for the Fish and Wildlife Program. The program has developed a useful database for understanding status and trends in mussel populations, which should be expanded and continued. Several improvements in integration and adaptive management (AM) would strengthen the program. The ISRP requests responses to the following:
1. Satisfactory responses to the Qualifications from the previous ISRP review (ISRP 20188, page 69). This includes establishing quantitative restoration objectives and specific timelines, establishing testable hypotheses, and formulating a plan to provide empirical information on factors causing population declines. For example, what course of action will be taken if culturing mussels is not successful in the next phase?
CTUIR response: The Master Plan, which is in process of development, will answer the ISRP’s quantitative restoration objectives questions in detail. We feel that quantitative restoration objectives are of great importance in our process to better understand and reestablish healthy populations of freshwater mussels in CTUIR ceded territory and the greater Columbia basin. In general, we will follow a similar restoration process as the lamprey Master Plan outlines, with multi-pronged approaches for each Phase, as well as measurable objectives and testable hypotheses for each phase. For example, Phase I will entail establishing laboratory techniques for propagation of all three genera of mussels to develop numbers of propagated juveniles sufficient to start trial caged outplanting. This outplanting will consist of caged (in silos developed by eastern United States mussel researchers) juvenile mussels of two age classes (newly transformed juveniles and 6-12 month old juveniles) into two treatment locations and one control location (treatment locations will be 1)a population in declining numbers, and 2)a habitat known to previous host mussels but no longer does; control site will be a location with a healthy mussel population). Also during phase I we will identify suitable outplanting habitat metrics for potential restoration of altered areas like the Umatilla River through controlled experiments during laboratory studies on cultured juveniles. Phase II of the Master Plan will continue outplanting trials, using both caged and non-caged outplanting techniques, identification of suitable habitat (resulting from Phase I research), and growth and survivorship rates for each genera in a variety of habitat types, thermal regimes, and river states.
If culturing mussels is not successful, we can implement a multi-pronged approach to improve wild populations of mussels. First, we will seek outside guidance from established malacologists (e.g. USGS laboratory in Columbia, Missouri). We can also conduct bankside inoculations of fish hosts, placing mussel larvae directly on fish at field sites. This is less preferable to culturing mussels because it will be difficult to measure success, and monitoring will need to continue for years or decades to determine any positive benefits to populations from this action alone. Translocations of adult mussels from a healthy, reproductive bed might be used as a last resort effort to prevent extirpation of a population elsewhere. For Margaritifera, these translocations do not need to be geographically specific, per our previous genetic study results; however Anodonta populations will need to be carefully selected to maintain current genetic stocks in place if translocations are to be implemented.
Numerous freshwater mussel rearing and outplanting treatment strategies will be employed and monitored in Phase I and II. It is anticipated that less successful strategies will generally be de-emphasized and those demonstrating best survivals will be advanced. This approach is anticipated to accommodate a "change in course" depending on observed results throughout Phases I-III.
At this time, our main/basic hypothesis is that various life stages of freshwater mussels can be successfully held and produced in a laboratory environment (Phase 1) and outplanted to the natural environment with documented survival success (Phase 2). Following outplanting, survivals for each resulting life history stage will be monitored for each strategy. The most successful survival strategies will be advanced to maximize the likelihood of mussel restoration in the natural environment.
2. Description of an AM process, either for the current activities or the Master Plan to be developed in 2019. The ISRP views AM as an essential component of research and monitoring; one that should be incorporated into the Master Plan.
CTUIR response: The CTUIR Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration Project has been and will continue to be based on adaptive management. Initial phases of this project were intended to gain critical understanding of freshwater mussel populations and needs (research) and then apply this knowledge into management actions (restoration). All research knowledge from past studies will inform development of a Freshwater Mussel Master Supplementation/Restoration Plan in 2019 – 2020.
As the four anticipated phases of the Master Plan are implemented, adaptive management will continue to be a dominant theme. The state of the science for freshwater mussel artificial propagation both in laboratory and applied in the field is limited therefore it will be critical that new findings are utilized to inform successive stages of lamprey restoration. The Master Plan will specifically identify four phases that are designed to inform adaptive decisions for each successive stage. Through the use of standardized protocols and metrics, we will evaluate the risks and benefits/success of the proposed and ongoing mussel program and will systematically address critical scientific uncertainties (Figure 1; used in Lamprey Master Supplementation Plan). It is anticipated that documentation of successful mussel survival during Phase 1 laboratory research will inform implementation of pilot restoration strategies in the field (Phase 2). Furthermore, it is anticipated that Phase 3 documentation of successful mussel survival during Phase 2 field monitoring will inform development of broader restoration strategies (Phase 4) for Columbia Basin locations.
Each of the following anticipated phases are to be delineated in the plan and leaning from each phase is expected to inform continued adaptive actions in successive phases as framed below:
Phase 1
Develop and implement best management practices for adult handling/holding, inoculating host fish with larvae, and artificial propagation of larvae in the laboratory. Develop experimental design for release and evaluation of out-planted products in the field.
Anticipated Adaptive Applications
-
Findings from laboratory holding and propagation experiments (water, substrates, feed, density, etc.) will be refined and applied to increase success of laboratory techniques.
-
Findings from past work (presence surveys, habitat relationships, host fish, etc.) as well as results of laboratory-produced products will inform the design of an applied field experiment utilizing translocated and artificially propagated products in restoration treatment versus control locations.
Phase 2
Out-plant successfully held and reared adult and juvenile products as per Phase 1 supplementation experimental design.
Anticipated Adaptive Applications
-
Monitoring and findings regarding condition and immediate survival of out-planted products will inform refinement of techniques (collection/handling, transport environment & timing, receiving environment, etc.) that will hopefully result in survival improvements.
Phase 3
Cross compare and evaluate supplementation monitoring outcomes as per Phase 2 to determine most successful strategies and use results to inform development of restoration actions.
Anticipated Adaptive Applications
-
Findings from post supplementation monitoring of mussel condition and survival will inform refinement of supplementation actions and field monitoring techniques that will hopefully result in documentation of survival improvements.
-
All freshwater mussel supplementation strategies will be evaluated to determine which demonstrates the most promise for reintroduction/restoration of populations in the wild.
Phase 4
Future additional Master Planning and implementation of recommended restoration and supplementation actions from Phase 3.
Anticipated Adaptive Applications
Figure 1. Anticipated adaptive management framework for Freshwater Mussel artificial propagation.
3. More information on the approach used by the proponents for integrating the research components. The ISRP suggests that the development of population models and landscape analyses of habitat suitability would provide a context for integrating the results from investigations of population trends, reintroduction success, host specificity, and artificial propagation.
CTUIR response: Analysis of long term monitoring data along with other CTUIR data (water temps, flows, CHAMPS metrics, etc) maybe give insight into population trends and causes for declines. This exercise would also give us information to make decisions on site selection for outplanting trials. Host fish relationships and laboratory juvenile behavior/habitat preferences can also feed into site selection for outplanting. Full field site assessments or using M&E project biotic data might allow more successful outplanting site selection.
Two habitat modeling efforts were conducted in the Middle Fork John Day (Brimbox 2012) and Hegeman 2014). The overall macroscale suggested a species gradient where Margaritifera were more common in the upper basin reaches and further downstream Anodonta were picked up followed by Gonidea. Mid reach there was even an area of overlap where all three species co-occurred. The lower reach was dominated by mostly Anodonta and Gonidea. One study suggested mussels are associated with pools (Annual Report 2012) while the other one suggested they were positively associated (Hegeman 2014). However, both studies showed a positive relationship between mussel presence and runs. Multiple papers on habitat preference for Western mussel species have contradicting results (Vannote and Minshall 1982, Howard and Cuffey 2003, Annual report 2012, Hegeman 2014). Strayer (1999) concluded mussels utilize stable habitat that has the least sheer stress during high water events. Given these studies we will also utilize host fish distribution, water temperature, and current habitat assessment at our monitoring sites to assist in guiding our mussel population restoration efforts.
Brim Box, J. Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration. 2012 Annual Report, Project No. 200203700, 208 electronic pages, Bonneville Power Administration.
Hegeman, E. 2014. Blab la bla…
Howard, J. K., and K. M. Cuffey. 2003. Freshwater mussels in a California north coast range river: Occurrence, distribution, and controls. Journal of North American Benthological Society 22(1):63-77.
Strayer, D. L. 1999. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18:468-476.
Vannote, R. L., and G. W. Minshall. 1982. Fluvial processes and local lithology controlling abundance, structure, and composition of mussel beds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 79:4103-4107.
4. A workable plan and schedule for preparing peer-reviewed publications. This is essential as the project morphs from a discovery phase to one emphasizing the integration of research and restoration.
CTUIR response: Project time lineand potential timeline of publications for the FW mussel project.
Possible publications for Phase I: reproductive timing differences between populations; glochidial morphology/species biology of select species (Gonidea angulata for example); juvenile behavior/feeding in laboratory; controlled field outplanting experiment success. Possible publications for Phase II: habitat/site selection metrics for outplanting, growth and survivorship estimates for each species in outplanting trials.
There are two additional, related issues the ISRP would like the proponents to address in their response:
5. The proponents identified eight objectives but do not link them to the four major work areas. The proposal simply identifies time periods for conducting the studies and reintroduction efforts, but it does not provide quantitative objectives and specific timelines for accomplishing them.
CTUIR response: Objectives and metrics (or performance metric) for freshwater mussel reintroduction program (Table 1). Timeline is consistent with four phase approach. The four main work areas linked to eight objectives that will occur over a timeline outlined in the previous response.
Table 1 Objectives and metrics (or performance metric) for freshwater mussel reintroduction program. Timeline is consistent with four phase approach.
|
Reintroduction Effort (phase)
|
Objective
|
Example metrics
|
|
1. Population Monitoring (phase I-III)
|
1. Long term monitoring
|
Mussel density/m2 along a transect
|
|
2. Genetics and Taxonomic relationships
|
Anterior slope angle, length: height and length:width ratio
|
|
2. Host Fish relationships and abundance (phase I-II)
|
4. Host Fish Relationships
|
Identification of Host fish species
|
|
3. Aquatic biota relationships (phase I-III)
|
3. Habitat Relationships
|
Sediment type, habitat type, water temp
|
|
4. Mussel restoration and implementation (phase I-IV)
|
5. Artificial Propagation
|
Juvenile survivorship, age, growth rate
|
|
6. Promote Freshwater Mussel Best Management Practices
|
Habitat restoration (temp, flow, and sheer stress)
|
|
7. Education and Outreach
|
Trainings, workshops, booklets, pamphlets, public presentations
|
|
8. Freshwater Mussel Master Supplementation Plan
|
A plan for future recommended restoration actions from a four phased approach to FWM Master plan
|
Develop and refine methods for the artificial propagation of three native species of Western Freshwater Mussels
6. The third goal of incorporating mussel monitoring in other monitoring efforts is vague and weakly linked to the subsequent eight objectives.
CTUIR response: The mussel project will continue coordination with M&E and Habitat projects to identify mussels in ceded basins. Annual mussel surveys can also include efforts to collaborate with Biomonitoring or M&E surveys for outreach and incorporation of mussel monitoring techniques (i.e. working alongside spawning survey crews, training field technicians to identify presence/absence during other survey work). We acknowledge and emphasize other monitoring efforts to inform freshwater mussel objectives. The freshwater mussel project works in many of the same geographic areas as monitoring programs for salmonids, pacific lamprey and habitat restoration programs. We anticipate freshwater mussel observations from salmonid monitoring activities such as spawning ground surveys and snorkel surveys which will assist in determining presences/absences of freshwater mussel populations. Also, smolt traps can be used for the collecting and numerating host fish species. Freshwater mussels and pacific lamprey larvae occur in areas of low sheer stress during high flow events. Monitoring programs for either type of filter feeder could help inform monitoring objectives for either species. Freshwater mussels are sensitive to temperature, flows, and pollution. Care should be taken if freshwater mussels are present at habitat restoration sites. Therefore best management practices should be implemented during the salvage and relocation of mussels to ensure survival. The other monitoring programs may not include specific objectives that include freshwater mussels but observations can be made to inform freshwater mussel project objectives.
Part of our outplanting efforts and long-term restoration actions will focus on returning mussels to habitat restoration project areas, especially in reaches that were lacking mussel communities. Mussels can benefit from salmon instream restoration projects that include constructing pools, increasing sinuosity, increase bed stability, and linking surface flows to the hyporheic zones and wetlands. Mussel density has been corelated to pool meso-habitat followed by runs, and riffles, respectfully. In addition, increasing sinuosity in a stream will increase habitat diversity as it will add to the pool, riffle, run mosaic. Linking the hyporheic zone to the stream can provide a refugia (e.g., cool oxygenated water) from increased water temperature brought on by intense heatwaves. Streams that access flood plans and wetlands can potentially increase food availability for the freshwater mussels, as some mussel species are known to consume detritus as well as bacteria, and algae.
O’Brien, C., A. Maine, D. Nez, and J. Brim Box. 2019. A comparison of glochidial shells of the freshwater mussels Anodonta californiensis, Anodonta kennerlyi, Anodonta nuttalliana and Anodonta oregonensis. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 22:1-5.
1. Objectives, Significance to Regional Programs, and Technical Background
Since 2002, the goal has been to use project findings for development and implementation of restoration actions for freshwater mussels in the Umatilla River and other mid-Columbia basins on ceded lands. As the ISRP stated in previous reviews, this is a project with outstanding potential to provide essential information on the ecological status and health of the Basin’s rivers. Unfortunately, the proponents have not responded to previous ISRP encouragements and comments, especially those for establishing quantitative objectives and timelines or for publication of their results. Perhaps it is indicative that a Master Plan for mussels is only now being developed and will not be finished before 2020. It is imperative that the project move beyond the “discovery” phase of the research and monitoring activities to syntheses and applications as soon as possible.
The significance to regional programs is potentially huge if the proponents develop a comprehensive and integrated set of activities. The program has been on the cusp of this potential for several years and needs to firmly enter that realm.
The ISRP has no issues with the technical background. The proponents appear to have a strong understanding of their subject.
2. Results and Adaptive Management
The proponents have made substantial progress in several areas of their research and restoration efforts. Their monitoring has revealed areas of population increases as well as locations that continue to show declines or failure of adult mussel reintroductions. Their studies of genetics and host relationships have added critical knowledge for regional understanding of mussel systematics, identification, and biology. Their framework for guiding reintroduction and the best management practices together provide valuable tools to guide restoration efforts, which may benefit other conservation efforts in the Pacific Northwest.
The 2018 ISRP review recommended incorporating an analysis of population dynamics in their queries of population status and trends. The proposal assesses temporal trends in abundance of juvenile and adult mussels, but there is no evidence this analysis will be based on an understanding of the population dynamics (e.g., fecundity, recruitment, stage-specific survival, immigration and emigration). Their efforts to protect and restore populations of the three mussel genera would be strengthened substantially by more rigorous analysis of population dynamics and the factors responsible for rates of change. This would allow the proponents to integrate results from their research on host relationships and factors related to survival in artificial propagation with their analyses of population trends.
The proposal describes the implications of climate change, non-native fish, non-native bivalves, and contaminants for mussel populations. Non-native mussels and fish are identified in their monitoring program, and their propagation studies examine thermal effects. To date, the program has not addressed contaminants other than sediment. The ISRP believes that this latter issue should be more fully addressed in the future either by the proponents or with collaborators.
The proposed development of a Master Plan for Reintroductions/Restoration is a positive step forward. The proposal states that the Master Plan will include an "integrated phased approach for artificial production that emphasizes adaptive management,” but the elements or processes anticipated for AM are not provided (see below). The ISRP looks forward to reviewing the Master Plan and the adaptive management process in the near future.
In our previous review, the ISRP praised the proponents but recommended a qualification including several questions that were not addressed in the current proposal. Basically, the ISRP was greatly impressed by the project, believing it had the potential to make substantial contributions to conservation and restoration in the study area, as well as in the Columbia River Basin. That said, the ISRP was not sure how the mussel project would share information with the Biomonitoring Project and other restoration and lamprey projects and asked for a discussion of this with the proponents. The ISRP felt that there were several questions to be addressed: Would salmon and mussel restoration be beneficial in similar areas? Are there risks? Mussels can also provide a retrospective look at past environmental conditions; are the proponents thinking along these lines? The ISRP urged the proponents to work with the EPA, departments of health, and others on contaminants, as well as on other factors implicated in population declines. Finally, and most importantly, the ISRP urged the project to move from the discovery phase to one that had quantitative restoration objectives, as well as one that identified concrete information on factors causing population declines. The ISRP feels that the proponents need to respond in a satisfactory manner to these qualifications in the immediate future.
The section on adaptive management (AM) describes changes made over the last decade, but it does not indicate that there is an explicit AM process. The changes appear to be iterative adjustments as information becomes available or as major problems are encountered. The ISRP strongly believes that the program would be strengthened by a cohesive overall research and monitoring plan, an explicit process for review and assessment of new information, and by adaptive adjustments, all of which follow a clear process.
The ISRP was very pleased that the habitat work culminated in development of a decision framework to identify potential suitable outplanting habitat specific to genera (Figure 2 on p. 14). This is a positive step forward.
3. Methods: Project Relationships, Work Types, and Deliverables
As recommended in the previous review, the ISRP encourages the proponents to prepare peer reviewed publications and to expend effort on public/professional outreach. Publications are not addressed in the current proposal whereas the Education and Outreach efforts appear to be sustained and conducted with appropriate groups (e.g., Xerces Society). The ISRP notes that one publication is used in the proposal (p. 12) but not listed in the Literature Cited: O’Brien et al. (in press). Is this person a member of the project research team? Where will the article be published? The ISRP is pleased that the monitoring program has worked with Xerces and other researchers to develop technically sound methods for identifying mussel species, examining genetic relationships, monitoring populations, and determining the success of reintroductions. The collaboration with Xerces has been especially productive and contributes to conservation efforts beyond the CTUIR.
Help
Mitigation work
Reporting
Funding
Search
Log in