cbfish.org - Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Program - Proposal NPCC19-2002-037-00 - Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration

Proposal NPCC19-2002-037-00 - Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

This Proposal Summary page updates dynamically to always display the latest data from the associated project and contracts. This means changes, like updating the Project Lead or other contacts, will be immediately reflected here.

Download a snapshot PDF

To view a point-in-time PDF snapshot of this page, select one of the Download links in the Proposal History section. These PDFs are created automatically by important events like submitting your proposal or responding to the ISRP. You can also create one at any time by using the PDF button, located next to the Expand All and Collapse All buttons.

Proposal History

Archive	Date	Time	Type	From	To	By
	11/14/2018	7:51 PM	Status		Draft	<System>
	11/14/2018	7:51 PM	Status		Draft	<System>
Download	1/30/2019	4:16 PM	Status	Draft	ISRP - Pending First Review	<System>
	4/11/2019	11:53 AM	Status	ISRP - Pending First Review	ISRP - Pending Response	<System>
Download	5/1/2019	4:08 PM	Status	ISRP - Pending Response	ISRP - Pending Final Review	<System>

This online form is dynamically updated with the most recent information. To view the content as reviewed by the ISRP and Council for this review cycle, download an archived PDF version using the Download link(s) above.

Basics

Proposal Number:		NPCC19-2002-037-00
Proposal Status:		ISRP - Pending Final Review
Proposal Version:		Proposal Version 2
Review:		2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Portfolio:		2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Type:		Existing Project: 2002-037-00
Primary Contact:		Gene Shippentower
Created:		11/14/2018 by (Not yet saved)
Proponent Organizations:		Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)

Project Title:		Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration

Proposal Short Description:		The overall goal of this proposal is to implement recent research findings into a freshwater mussel monitoring and recovery plan in the Umatilla River and other mid-Columbia River watersheds. Mussel populations are now known to be in decline throughout the Columbia River Basin, with some groups suggesting some western mussel species should be ESA listed. This proposed project will provide information to guide freshwater mussel restoration and monitoring efforts.

Proposal Executive Summary:		Since its inception in 2003, the Freshwater Mussel Project of the CTUIR has conducted research designed to understand the biology and ecology (both biotic and abiotic) of freshwater mussels. Specifically, the project has focused on nine main components: Objective 1. Long Term Abundance and Distribution Monitoring Objective 2. Genetics and Taxonomic relationships Objective 3. Habitat Relationships Objective 4. Host Fish Relationships Objective 5. Artificial Propagation Objective 6. Promote Freshwater Mussel Best Management Practices Objective 7. Education and Outreach Objective 8. Freshwater Mussel Master Supplementation Plan The long-term goal of this project has been to utilize project findings for development and implementation of restoration actions for freshwater mussels in the Umatilla River and other mid-Columbia basins on ceded lands. The restoration of freshwater mussels is a part of an ongoing efforts to rebuild ecosystem diversity, function, and traditional cultural opportunities in the context of “First Foods.” Freshwater mussels are experiencing a global decline greater than any other species. These declines were first observed in North America in the early 1950’s. Many of the early declines were documented in the eastern U. S., but more recent surveys indicated mussels are in decline nationwide. The reason(s) for the decline include, but are not limited to, habitat degradation, introduction of invasive bi-valves, decline in native fish populations, pollution, disease, and inbreeding. Freshwater mussels are an important component of freshwater ecosystems because they provide positive feedback loops for both biotic and abotic components. Freshwater mussels provide food for wildlife and ecosystem services including, sediment stability, enhanced nutrient cycling, water quality improvement, and support greater macroinvertebrate communities. The burrowing activity of freshwater mussels has also shown to provide increased oxygen levels which benefits larval Pacific Lamprey. Freshwater mussels remain an important cultural resource for Tribal communities. Similar to the recent Master Plan for Pacific Lamprey Artificial Propagation, Translocation, Restoration, and Research (CRITFC, YIN and CTUIR, 2018), a Master Plan for Freshwater Mussels will be developed in 2019-2020. The plan is expected to be an integrated phased approach for artificial production that emphasizes adaptive management, with the ultimate goal of restoring sustained natural production of mussels throughout CTUIR ceded area subbasins in a feasible, cost effective, and biologically conservative manner. Tribal and federal agencies are currently working to restore freshwater mussel populations as part of their ongoing efforts to rebuild ecosystem diversity, function, and traditional cultural opportunities in the basin. Findings from our research to date has provided valuable information to help guide future restoration efforts in the Umatilla River and surrounding sub-basins on ceded territory. The information gained through our research helped better address the basic biological and physical needs that are required in order to make educated decisions to guide freshwater mussel restoration efforts.

Purpose:		Habitat
Emphasis:		RM and E
Species Benefit:		Anadromous: 0.0% Resident: 100.0% Wildlife: 0.0%
Supports 2009 NPCC Program:		Yes
Subbasin Plan:		Grande Ronde , John Day, Tucannon, Umatilla, Walla Walla
Biological Opinions:		Bull Trout FCRPS

Contacts

Contacts:

Gary James (Inactive) (Interested Party)
Deborah Docherty (Inactive) (Interested Party)
Julie Burke (Administrative Contact)
Gene Shippentower (Supervisor)
Paul Krueger (Inactive)
Andrew Montano (Inactive)
Christine O'Brien (Technical Contact)
Alexa Maine (Project Lead)

Project Significance & Problem Statement

Project Significance to Regional Programs:

Describe how you think your work relates to or implements regional documents
 
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) is a signatory member of the 2008 Columbia Basin Fish Accords. The freshwater mussel project is one project implemented under this agreement.  Since there are few regional plans implemented specifically for the recovery of western freshwater mussels our work will relate in principle to existing regional plans and require collaboration among Tribes, federal, and state agencies.      
The goal and objectives for this project are directly related CTUIR’s First Foods policy (Jones et. al 2008) which is a unique strategy for understanding the ecological process for the production of native First Foods (Quaempts 2018).  CTUIR has adopted the following mission as its goal:
To protect, restore, and enhance the First Foods - water, salmon, deer, cous, and huckleberry - for the
perpetual cultural, economic, and sovereign benefit of the CTUIR. We will accomplish this utilizing
traditional ecological and cultural knowledge and science to inform: 

1) Population and habitat management goals and actions; and 
2) Natural resource policies and regulatory mechanisms.
The overall recovery goal is to return freshwater mussels to the Umatilla River to support traditional cultural opportunities. The primary objective of the CTUIR Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration Project is to facilitate restoration of freshwater mussel populations in CTUIR’s ceded territory.
CTUIR anticipates our approach will not replace or substitute other basin plans or regional processes but align with one another for meeting recovery goals. The mussel project is related to regional and basin plans. The project goals and objectives are related to three strategies outlined in the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program  and other regional guiding documents: 
1)	NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program 2017 - Ecosystem strategy (page 38) - Although native freshwater mussels are not specifically listed in the ecosystem strategy the presence of freshwater mussels support the strategy of “Protecting and restoring natural ecosystem functions, habitats, and biological diversity where feasible consistent with biological objectives in the program.” Freshwater mussels are recognized as integral components of healthy freshwater ecosystems. Their nutrient rich feces provide food for macroinvertebrate insects which support fish communities (Vaughn and Hakencamp 2001; Vaughn 2012) and they enhance juvenile lamprey benthic habitat by introducing oxygen to the substrate through their movement (Limm and Power 2011).  
2)	NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program 2017 - The use of Hatcheries for Reintroduction (page 82).  CTUIR is currently leading the development of methods to propagate freshwater mussels by growing out juvenile mussels for future outplanting.  This objective is related to the council’s strategy for the use of hatcheries for reintroduction by live trapping, and translocation by using local freshwater mussel (instead of fish) populations.  
3)	NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program 2017 - Resident fish mitigation – The project is related to the Council’s strategy “For resident fish and other aquatic species impacted by the hydro system, protect and mitigate freshwater and associated terrestrial habitat, and native fish populations.”  Freshwater mussels are a long lived species and rely on native fish to complete their complex life cycle. Mussels are an important component to an intact salmonid ecosystem because they clean the water of particulate matter and stabilize substrates that are beneficial to many other aquatic species.   
4)	MERR Plan 2010-17 - The freshwater mussel project is consistent with the council’s Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, and Reporting (MERR) plan by participating in Independent Science Reviews.
5)	NPPC Research Plan 2017 - The freshwater mussel project collects data on mussel population status and trend, genetic and taxonomy, distribution, biology, and life cycle which is consistent with Freshwater mussels of the Pacific Northwest and with the principles of the Council’s Research Plan (2017).  The Research Plan guides research for 14 research themes.  
Our work with determining the status and trend and distribution of freshwater mussels is consistent in principle with council’s critical uncertainties; the tributary habitat, fish propagation, population structure and diversity, non-native species, contaminants, and monitoring and evaluation methods.       
6)	Umatilla/Willow Creek Subbasin Plan - Monitoring the status and trends of freshwater mussels is consistent with the Management and RM&E objectives outlined in Umatilla sub-basin plan - Research Monitoring and Evaluations Requirements for freshwater mussels. These management objectives are located in Appendix H2014 and are stated as follows:
a.	Monitor the status and trends of fish and freshwater mussel populations, their habitats and ecosystems throughout the Umatilla Basin
i.	Assess and monitor the status and trends of mussel abundances
ii.	Assess and monitor the distribution and density of adults and juveniles on the spawning grounds
iii.	Assess and monitor the abundance, timing, life history characteristics, and survival of mussels
7)	Xerces Society 2017 - CTUIR’s objective to integrate methods for reducing mortality of native freshwater mussels in habitat restoration design and planning is related to the Xerces Society’s Best Management Practices for Protecting Native Western Freshwater Mussels (Blevins et al. 2017).  CTUIR works with habitat programs internally and with co-managers for implementing protocols for evaluating restoration sites before and after habitat restoration.			
8)	USDA Forest Service Region 6 2008 - CTUIR will continue to monitor sites within the Tribe’s ceded territory for native freshwater mussels. The protocols implemented for this objective is related to the USDA Forest Service and Regions 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington Survey Protocol for Aquatic Mollusk Species: Preliminary Inventory & Presence/Absence Sampling. 2008.  CTUIR will be collecting presence/absence and general inventory data in a similar manner as the survey design outlined on page 7.
9)	Lamprey Master Plan 2018 - The mussel project is working on a Freshwater Mussel Master Supplementation Plan.  This work will develop and refine methods for the artificial propagation of three native species of freshwater mussels.  We anticipate a four phase approach. Phase 1) Develop techniques for propagation, Phase 2) Apply freshwater mussel propagation strategies, Phase 3) Monitor and Evaluate strategies for successful reintroduction, and Phase 4) implement reintroduction strategy. This supplementation approach will evaluate the techniques for artificial propagation to restore native freshwater mussels and is consistent with the Master Plan: Pacific Lamprey Artificial Propagation, Translocation, Restoration, and Research (2018).
10)	NMFS 2007 - Our work is also related to regional plans specific to ESA listed salmon and steelhead.  For example, the long term status and trend monitoring in the North Fork John Day freshwater mussel is consistent with definition of status monitoring in NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service Adaptive management for ESA-Listed Salmon and Steelhead Recover: Decision Framework and Monitoring Guidance (Page 27). The mussel project has identified an existing population of mussels and has collected baseline information used for adaptive management.  For example, CTUIR has gained knowledge about the life cycle of three species of freshwater mussels and their habitats which is consistent with NOAA’s adaptive management plan; Status and Trend Monitoring (27), water quality (page 54), climate change (page 57).
11)	Coordinated Assessment Project 2011 - CTUIR has developed and implemented a Central Data Management System where the mussel project is stores metadata.  All data capture and storage, as well as the development of metadata is done in partnership with the CTUIR's IT department and is consistent with the data sharing principles of the Columbia River Basin Collaborative Data Sharing Strategy (2011).

12) USFWS - The project conducts all work under a US FWS Section 10 Permit # TE-844468-11   [Effective 4/30/2015, expires 4/29/2019]. Permit renewal in progress.

Problem Statement:

1. Background, history, and location of the problem.

Freshwater mussel populations have experienced extinction rates greater than any other species globally (Lydeard et at. 2014, Strayer et al. 2004). North America has over 300 named species making it the most diverse assemblage of freshwater mussels in the world (Haag and Williams 2014). Unfortunately, close to 50% of the freshwater mussels are listed as extinct, critically imperiled, imperiled, or venerable (Master et al. 2000).

Much of the diversity is found east of the Continental Divide (Graf and Cummings 2007, Williams et al. 2017). In the western U. S. along the Pacific range seven freshwater mussel species are represented by four genera; Margaritifera, Anodonta, Sinanodonta, and Gonidea (Williams et al. 2017). Freshwater mussel populations have been impacted by dam construction, water diversion, flow regime alterations, channel changes, pollution, and introduction of nonindigenous species. (Williams et al. 1992, Watters 1996, Brim Box and Mossa 1999, Watters 2000). Freshwater mussels require fish hosts for larval development and thus have a direct ecological link to native fish species in aquatic ecosystems (MacMahon and Bogan 2001). Continued declines in the fish populations throughout the U. S. could negatively impact freshwater mussel reproduction. This imperilment is likely to have significant effects in aquatic ecosystems (Strayer et al. 1999, Vaughn and Hakenkamp 2001), including the Columbia Basin.

Freshwater mussels are valuable components of intact salmonid ecosystems and are useful indicator species for assessing the health of freshwater environments (Bauer and Wächtler 2001). In the Columbia Basin freshwater mussels have been used by Native Americans for at least 10,000 years for shell material and food, and are important cultural resources (Lyman 1984). Only recently has it become clear that freshwater mussels provide important ecosystem services and are a powerful management tool for maintaining and reclaiming water quality in impacted river systems (McMahon and Bogan 2001, Kreeger 2004). Where mussels are abundant they can potentially have an enormous impact on aquatic ecosystems through nutrient cycling, substrate stabilization, suspended sediment removal, and the transfer of particulate matter from the water column and into easily assimilated foods for other aquatic species, including fishes like salmon (Bauer and Wächtler 2001, Pusch et al. 2001, Kreeger 2004). Recent studies suggest that freshwater mussels also benefit Pacific Lamprey populations, in part by retaining organic matter in the system (Limm and Power 2011). Given the vast beneficial attributes freshwater mussels provide, including them in salmon restoration projects would greatly enhance the aquatic ecosystem for all aquatic organisms. Historically freshwater mussels were abundant throughout the Pacific Northwest, and the ecosystem services provided by freshwater mussels were probably tightly linked to the overall health and sustainability of native fish populations like salmon and Pacific Lamprey. Recent distribution surveys have documented a significant decline in the three genera (Margaritifera, Anodonta, and Gonidea) in the western U. S. (Blevins et al. 2017).

Freshwater mussels are potentially useful biomonitors in impacted river systems because they are sensitive to a wide variety of watershed and water quality changes, and because most species are dependent on high-quality riverine habitats (Bauer and Wächtler 2001). As nearly stationary, bottom-dwelling filter feeders, mussels are vulnerable to alterations of streambed substrates, water quality, suspended sediment concentrations, and changes or accelerations in riverbed scour and deposition (Strayer 1983, Layzer and Madison 1995, Brim Box and Mossa 1999). Additionally, freshwater mussels are known to bioaccumulate particular elements and organic compounds -- a feature which could allow them to serve as indicators of specific water quality parameters (Walker et al. 2001). Because they are long-lived (e.g. over 100 years in some Margaritifera), they are particularly useful as bioindicators of long-term watershed conditions and habitat quality. The utility of bivalves as biomonitors is illustrated by the Mussel Watch Project, funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a nationwide program initiated in 1986 that uses freshwater and marine mussels as sentinels for metal and organic contaminants.

Despite the significant ecological and management implications of maintaining freshwater mussels in aquatic ecosystems, and despite the rapid decline of these animals during the past century, in the Pacific Northwest there remains significant knowledge gaps that hinder natural resource managers from effectively incorporating freshwater mussels into aquatic monitoring, assessment and restorations efforts. On a positive note, recent research efforts by the CTUIR freshwater mussel project have made significant gains in addressing some the information gaps that were identified earlier in this program. These included information on population genetic structure, habitat requirements, and host fish relationships.

2. Short scientific literature review covering the most significant previous work related to the project. Also include the work of key project personnel on any past or current work similar to the proposal.

As a result of earlier CTUIR efforts, various aspects of freshwater mussel distribution and ecology in the Umatilla River system and nearby drainages were assessed (e.g. Brim Box et al. 2006, O’Brien et al. 2013). These earlier studies provided empirical evidence on the historical and current status and distribution of freshwater mussels in this system and other mid-Columbia drainages. Since then, additional information has been obtained on freshwater mussel genetics, host fish requirements, habitat preferences, and mussel restoration principles. These data provide important and sometimes surprising information about freshwater mussels with respect to monitoring, habitat conditions, and basin-wide genetic variation, all of which are highly relevant to a successful restoration program. These findings include:

Monitoring:

Pacific Northwest freshwater mussels remain understudied in comparison to freshwater mussel faunal groups in the Eastern U.S., and the lack of status and distribution information for western mussel species hampers planning of future restoration efforts. River surveys are ongoing across CTUIR Tribal lands to develop baseline knowledge of freshwater mussel status and distribution, to begin to assess freshwater mussel population health, and to further identify populations suitable as broodstock for future propagation efforts.

Freshwater mussel status and distribution has been assessed in the Umatilla, Middle Fork and North Fork John Day, Walla Walla, and Tucannon Rivers. Long-term monitoring (LTM) sites have been established for the Umatilla, Middle Fork and North Fork John Day, and Tucannon rivers. These sites include monitoring of prior translocation events (Umatilla River) and salmon habitat restoration sites. LTM sites in the Middle Fork John Day have recorded substantial decline in mussel densities starting in 2010 (2017 Project Annual Report, Maine et al. 2017). In contrast, LTM sites in Russell Springs (Tucannon River basin) and North Fork John Day have recently indicated an increase in mussel density (2017 Annual Project Report). Analysis of LTM trends will allow us to investigate factors contributing to population declines, as researchers in other regions have found (Kesler et al. 2007, Galbraith et al. 2008).

Additional monitoring activities have recorded presence/absence data at numerous sites throughout the region. New or previous sites continue to add to the known mussel distribution in the Columbia River basin. A complete database of Pacific Northwest freshwater mussel observations is maintained in partnership with CTUIR and Xerces Society.

Population dynamics:

In order to better understand population dynamics relating to western freshwater mussels, we can review literature from eastern mussel researchers. Most movement of mussels occurs in the larval or juvenile stages (Newton et al. 2008); adult mussels are generally sedentary. In Strayer and Malcom (2012), populations of declining (non-recruiting) mussels in the eastern United States were evaluated to determine reasons for decline and found that high concentrations of ammonia were a major contributing factor. For our western populations, particularly those in agricultural areas, an evaluation of contaminants like ammonia could help identify factors affecting population stability. Additional population dynamics information could be analyzed from our existing long-term monitoring data set, as suggested by Villella et al. (2004). This data could also be added to by using mark-recapture efforts as described in this paper. Villella et al. (2004) also describes a phenomenon that may affect our population and size class estimations. Smaller individuals remain fully buried in sediment until they reach a certain size, in certain western species (Margaritifera falcata) that could be almost 5 years old (Cosgrove et al. 2000, Villella et al. 2004, Geist and Auerswald 2007, Bolland et al. 2010).

Genetics/taxonomic relationship:

Three genera of freshwater mussels occur in western North America: Anodonta, Margaritifera, and Gonidea. All genera are declining in or disappearing from large portions of their ranges due to water diversion, low water quality, sedimentation, local loss of appropriate host fish and other factors. A long-term collaboration between CTUIR and Utah State University (USU) has been to identify genetic lineages of western mussels. USU researchers reported on the use of molecular tools to discover three ancient evolutionary lineages of Anodonta in western North America (Chong et al. 2008, Mock et al. 2010): clade 1(Anodonta californiensis/nuttalliana), clade 2 (A. oregonensis/kennerlyi) and clade 3 (A. beringiana). These three lineages are so genetically divergent that they may be separate genera, so taxonomic revisions will require a global phylogeny including these and many other taxa. In fact, Williams et al. 2017 placed A. beringiana into the genus Sinanodonta.

Mock et al. also characterized low levels of genetic subdivision in Margaritifera falcata as well as high rates of inbreeding (2013). The observed inbreeding may be a result of self-spawning or hermaphroditism, as observed in a related European species Margaritifera margaritifera (Geist and Kuehn 2005). In Gonidea angulata, Mock et al. found that genetic differentiation among basins was present, although less pronounced than in Anodonta. There is potential for significant genetic divergence among populations in G. angulata, potentially even within drainages, and this research suggests that translocations should carefully match habitat characteristics and fish host fauna (Annual Report 2012-13).

Factors contributing to population declines

Habitat loss, non-native fish and invertebrates, contaminants, and river impoundments are just a few of many possible factors affecting mussel populations in the Columbia River basin. Loss of suitable habitat in many tributaries has negatively impact mussels throughout the western United States, as has damming projects and altered river flows (Williams et al. 1992, Watters 1996, Brim Box and Mossa 1999, Watters 2000). Declines in native fish populations and increases in non-native fish populations can potentially negatively impact mussel reproductive cycles, as they are dependent on evolutionary relationships developed with host fishes, usually native species (Strayer et al. 1999, Vaughn and Hakenkamp 2001). Finally, contaminants and pollutants entering waterways have dramatic negative effects on mussel populations (Strayer and Malcom 2012). While these factors have not been evaluated with respect to western freshwater mussels, the impacts on Midwest and eastern populations suggests that these same factors may play a role in population declines seen in the western region.

Habitat:

When abundant, freshwater mussels can provide important ecological services, in part because mussels are often the dominant biomass consumers in river systems (Strayer et al. 1999, Vaughn and Hakenkamp 2001, Strayer et al. 2004). Mussels are likely to interact with other organisms in aquatic ecosystems by enhancing the structural diversity and integrity of benthic habitats, by remineralizing nutrients, reducing turbidity (thereby benefiting primary producers), and by facilitating food web turnover (Kreeger 2004; Vaughn et al. 2001, 2004; Howard and Cuffey 2005). Our understanding of the importance of freshwater mussels for salmon (e.g., by improving overall water quality, stabilizing substrates, and enhancing food availability, especially for larval salmon) and other signature species in the Pacific Northwest is only in its infancy, but the ecological linkages appear to be significant and broadly unrecognized (Limm and Power 2011, Kreeger 2004). In addition, freshwater mussels have often been called the aquatic equivalent of the "canary in the coal mine" because they are sensitive to a wide variety of ecosystem disturbances, including chemical pollutants and gross changes in physical habitat. In previous studies, we investigated the physiological requirements of freshwater mussels that may aid in future efforts to reintroduce these animals into the Umatilla River, and gained baseline information on the functional role of freshwater mussels in the Columbia Bain. In addition, we examined how these physiological processes vary (e.g., seasonally) and with fluctuations in environmental conditions, in order to make realistic and specific estimates of the ecological services that mussel may provide in the Columbia Basin. Results from this work provided the physiological basis for estimating the ecological relevance of freshwater mussel feeding in representative rivers of the Columbia Basin.

Our efforts to quantitatively apply a conceptual model of mussel ecology to inform reintroduction efforts highlighted innumerable gaps in our understanding of mussel habitat relationships. Given the current state of our knowledge, efforts to reintroduce mussels to the Umatilla watershed should be treated as experiments from which we can greatly expand our knowledge of mussel ecology. Such lessons can subsequently be applied to increase the success of future efforts in an adaptive management paradigm. The success of this endeavor is contingent upon carefully planned reintroductions where extensive monitoring data is collected to quantify the conditions of recipient habitats, the fate of individual mussels, and the efficacy of varying reintroduction techniques (e.g., translocations versus inoculating host fishes). Our habitat work culminated in development of a decision framework to identify potential suitable outplanting habitat specific to genera.

Host fish/artificial propagation

All three genera require a host fish to complete their life cycle, so host fish conservation is closely tied to mussel conservation. Unfortunately, conservation efforts for freshwater mussels in western North America are hampered by an incomplete assessment of host fish use by each genera. Previous surveys by the CTUIR Mussel Project have determined that freshwater mussels are rare in the Umatilla River and tributaries, with Margaritifera falcata likely extirpated, Anodonta sp. found only in small numbers in the lower river and a few tributary sites, and Gonidea angulata only present in small numbers in the lower portion of the river. A primary goal of the freshwater mussel project is the restoration of mussels to this system. Artificial propagation has been used successfully for numerous conservation efforts across the U.S., however, aspects of western freshwater mussel life histories and reproductive timing are not yet sufficiently studied to make large scale artificial propagation a viable method for the species present in the Mid-Columbia Basin. Methods for host fish inoculation and housing have been determined, however techniques to rear propagated juveniles in the lab are not yet developed. Initial broodstock locations have been identified for all three genera, though diversification and further identification of sites remains a high priority for the project. Full genetic characterization has not occurred for all broodstock locations, limiting the utility of these sites for long term restoration planning. These sites are, however, useful for research and preliminary propagation efforts. During the 2017 field season, juveniles were produced for Anodonta californiensis (clade 1) and Margaritifera falcata but those individuals survived only a few weeks in lab holding chambers. Early stage juvenile culturing methods were explored, and will continue to be a research priority. Juvenile survivorship was similar to previous seasons, though improvements to rearing systems and methods are planned for upcoming seasons.

3. Management questions the work intends to address.

Historically a lack of basic understanding of freshwater mussel distribution, genetic structuring, reproductive requirements, ecology, and even appropriate taxonomy have hindered management and restoration efforts in the western United States. Research completed in earlier phases of CTUIR’s mussel project have answered some of the basic questions (e.g., genetic diversity, physiological requirements) that have prevented researchers and managers from effectively incorporating freshwater mussels into aquatic monitoring, assessment, and restoration efforts in the Pacific Northwest. In light of the information that has already been gained through this project, we propose that the CTUIR mussel project enter a new phase that will combine research with the active restoration of mussels in the CTUIR ceded area subbasins, as well as the implementation of long-term monitoring efforts. These actions should be valuable for informing freshwater management decisions by CTUIR and others on a broader Columbia Basin level Specifically, we propose:

1) Population Monitoring - Implement a long-term mussel-monitoring regime across several drainages on CTUIR ceded lands, including river reaches with mussel beds that are currently experiencing widespread mortality for unknown reasons. For locations experiencing major population reductions use chronological analyses to determine if on-going mussel mortalities are chronic or acute, and examine the possible impacts of water quality or climate change on long-term mussel survival. Track population trends of mussels over multiple years and flood regimes, especially in light of global climate change. Management implications:

Identification of freshwater mussel population “sensitive areas” (areas of decline or population stronghold areas) along with an understanding of why populations are responding that way, can inform managers regarding potential mussel restoration or conservation measures.

2) Host fish relationships and abundance: Continue to increase understanding of host fish requirements for all three genera. In addition, monitor host fish presence in sensitive areas of population abundance identified above. Management implications: understanding host fish relationships and abundance can help to inform mussel restoration in natural habitat or in artificial production experiments.

3) Aquatic biota relationships: Increase monitoring of mussel abundance in conjunction with projects conducting other biological monitoring on salmonids, Pacific Lamprey or benthic environment surveys. Management implications: A greater understanding of “cross-species” biological relationships can inform managers regarding the importance of these factors in comprehensive aquatic ecosystem restoration.

4) Mussel restoration planning and implementation: Develop and implement a Freshwater Mussel Supplementation Master Plan for CTUIR ceded area subbasins. As outlined in Section X, this plan to be developed in 2019-2020 is expected to be an integrated phased approach for artificial production that emphasizes adaptive management through four project phases, with the ultimate goal of restoring sustained natural production of mussels throughout CTUIR ceded area subbasins in a feasible, cost effective, and biological conservative manner. Like the recently approved Lamprey Master Plan, the Freshwater Mussel Plan will go through the NPCC/ISRP master plan review process. Management implications: The Freshwater Master Plan is expected to guide and inform the CTUIR Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration project through four phases of implementation for 10-20 years. Plan implementation is also expected to inform mussel restoration efforts at a broader Columbia Basin level.

Objectives

Objectives:

Long term monitoring (OBJ-1)

Determine the status and trends and distribution of freshwater mussels within the Umatilla, Walla Walla, Grande Ronde, John Day and Tucannon river basins.

Genetics and Taxonomic relationships (OBJ-2)

Investigate whether genetic and taxonomic relationships exist among western freshwater mussel species in the Columbia River basin

Habitat Relationships (OBJ-3)

Identify habitat factors controlling the distribution and abundance of freshwater mussels

Host Fish Relationships (OBJ-4)

Determine the reproductive biology of mussel larvae by investigating host fish relationships and environmental factors affecting reproduction.

Artificial Propagation (OBJ-5)

Develop methodology for collecting and holding adult freshwater mussels and assess in situ growth and survival of juvenile Anodonta, Gonidea, and Margaritifera for outplanting.

Promote Freshwater Mussel Best Management Practices (OBJ-6)

a) Based on findings from Objectives 1-3 and literature search, develop freshwater mussel habitat conservation and restoration principles that can inform habitat management that is generally dominated by an anadromous fish perspective.
b) Develop a protocol for capturing, relocating, and reducing freshwater mussel mortality at habitat restoration sites pre and post project restoration in CTUIR ceded area subbasins.

Education and Outreach (OBJ-7)

Conduct education and outreach on values, needs and restoration of freshwater mussels by participating in local and regional education events, professional presentations, and coordination with natural resource co-managers about Freshwater mussels.

Freshwater Mussel Master Supplementation Plan (OBJ-8)

Develop a Freshwater Mussel Mater Supplementation Plan to provide project guidance for 10-20 years. Plan to contain refined methods for restoration of three native species of western freshwater mussels utilizing translocated and artificially propagated products in an applied field experiment via outplanting

Project History

Financials

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Actual Project Cost Share

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Current Fiscal Year — 2025 DRAFT

Cost Share Partner	Total Proposed Contribution	Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.

Previous Fiscal Years

Fiscal Year	Total Contributions	% of Budget
2024	$8,000	1%
2023	$8,000	2%
2022	$8,000	2%
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017	$0	0%
2016	$0	0%
2015	$0	0%
2014	$0	0%
2013	$0	0%
2012	$0	0%
2011
2010	$3,000	1%
2009	$7,300	4%
2008
2007

Explanation of Financial History:

This project has had no significant differences between working budgets, contracted amounts, and expenditures.    The project has been transitioning between a research phase into a pilot applied restoration and monitoring phase.  Because of this, the annual budget increased starting in FY 2017 to support a full time project leader (was part time before then).

Reporting & Contracted Deliverables Performance

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):	32
Completed:	21
On time:	21

Status Reports
Completed:	79
On time:	11
Avg Days Late:	15

								Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract	Subsequent Contracts	Title	Contractor	Earliest Start	Latest End	Latest Status	Accepted Reports	Complete	Green	Yellow	Red	Total	% Green and Complete	Canceled
11402	24646, 29550, 35116, 39850, 45056, 50406, 55333, 59877, 63301, 66968, 70493, 73906, 73982 REL 25, 73982 REL 54, 73982 REL 80, 73982 REL 108, 73982 REL 141, 73982 REL 170, 73982 REL 197, 73982 REL 228, CR-378218	2002-037-00 EXP FRESHWATER MUSSELS IN UMATILLA & JOHN DAY	Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)	09/30/2002	09/30/2026	Pending	79	216	11	0	24	251	90.44%	1
Project Totals							79	216	11	0	24	251	90.44%	1

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

The contracted deliverables listed below have been selected by the proponent as demonstrative of this project's major accomplishments.

Contract	WE Ref	Contracted Deliverable Title	Due	Completed
24646	F: 162	Determine genetic diversity of mussels	8/31/2006	8/31/2006
24646	I: 157	Seston quality and quantity estimates	9/25/2006	9/25/2006
24646	J: 162	Analyses of water samples for quality and quantity of food available to mussels	9/25/2006	9/25/2006
29550	K: 162	Physiological rate functions of three freshwater mussel species	12/25/2006	12/25/2006
29550	G: 162	Genetic variation of mussels in the Columbia Basin and western United States	12/31/2006	12/31/2006
35116	F: 162	Assess population-level patterns of genetic variation in Columbia Basin mussels	9/30/2008	9/30/2008
35116	G: 66	Translocation of Freshwater Mussels in the Upper Umatilla River	9/30/2008	9/30/2008
39850	E: 162	Assess multi-scale genetic variation within Margaritifera and Anodonta	9/30/2009	9/30/2009
45056	E: 157	Monitor translocated mussels in Umatilla River	9/30/2010	9/30/2010
50406	H: 162	Establish the population age structure of mussels in the Middle Fork John Day River	8/1/2011	8/1/2011
50406	C: 157	Identify host fish and timing of glochidial release for western mussel species	9/30/2011	9/30/2011
50406	E: 157	Monitor translocated mussels in Umatilla River	9/30/2011	9/30/2011
73906	F: 159	Submit data to CTUIR central database	9/28/2017	9/28/2017
73906	B: 157	Monitor mussel populations in Umatilla River and other basins	9/28/2017	9/28/2017
73906	C: 157	Continue to hold freshwater mussels in Walla Walla laboratory facility	9/28/2017	9/28/2017
73906	D: 157	Produce accessible, error-checked datasets	9/28/2017	9/28/2017
73906	G: 162	Proposed subspecies names for Anodonta nuttalliana in the western US.	9/28/2017	9/28/2017
73982 REL 25	J: 132	2016 Annual Report	2/7/2018	2/7/2018
73982 REL 25	I: 132	2015 Annual Report	2/7/2018	2/7/2018
73982 REL 25	K: 132	2017 Annual Report	2/13/2018	2/13/2018
73982 REL 25	G: 159	Submit data to CTUIR central database	9/30/2018	9/30/2018
73982 REL 25	E: 157	Produce accessible, error-checked datasets	9/30/2018	9/30/2018
73982 REL 25	B: 157	Monitor mussel populations in Umatilla River and other basins	9/30/2018	9/30/2018
73982 REL 25	C: 157	Continue to hold freshwater mussels in Walla Walla laboratory facility	9/30/2018	9/30/2018
73982 REL 25	D: 157	Continue to hold host fish in Walla Walla laboratory facility	9/30/2018	9/30/2018

View full Project Summary report (lists all Contracted Deliverables and Quantitative Metrics)

Explanation of Performance:

CTUIR's contracted deliverable performance has been good.   The Red deliverables listed above were mainly due to postponing annual reports into subsequent contracts.  For example, early in the project a major research initiative was to determine the physiological processes surrounding mussels as biofilters in freshwater systems.

Results: Reporting, Accomplishments, and Impact

Please do the following to help the ISRP and Council assess project performance:
List important activities and then report results.
List each objective and summarize accomplishments and results for each one, including the projects previous objectives. If the objectives were not met, were changed, or dropped, please explain why. For research projects, list hypotheses that have been and will be tested.
Whenever possible, describe results in terms of the quantifiable biological and physical habitat objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program, i.e., benefit to fish and wildlife or to the ecosystems that sustain them. Include summary tables and graphs of key metrics showing trends. Summarize and cite (with links when available) your annual reports, peer reviewed papers, and other technical documents. If another project tracks physical habitat or biological information related to your project’s actions please summarize and expand on, as necessary, the results and evaluation conducted under that project that apply to your project, and cite that project briefly here and fully in the Relationships section below. Research or M&E projects that have existed for a significant period should, besides showing accumulated data, also present statistical analyses and conclusions based on those data. Also, summarize the project’s influence on resource management and other economic or social benefits. Expand as needed in the Adaptive Management section below. The ISRP will use this information in its Retrospective Review of prior year results. If your proposal is for continuation of work, your proposal should focus on updating this section. If yours is an umbrella project, click here for additional instructions. Clearly report the impacts of your project, what you have learned, not just what you did.

All Proposals:

Umbrella Proposals:

2013: Started construction on aquatic propagation laboratory; published O’Brien et al. “Reproductive biology of Anodonta californiensis, Gonidea angulata, and Margaritifera falcata (Bivalvia: Unionoida) in the Middle Fork John Day River, Oregon.” Staff presented at Freshwater Mollusks Conservation Society Meeting and Northwest Fish Culture Concepts annual meeting

2014: Propagated Anodonta and Margaritifera. Staff presented at Northwest Fish Culture Concepts annual meeting, CTUIR DNR’s Symposium, and at CRITFC’s Genetics Workshop

2015: Propagated Anodonta, Margaritifera, and Gonidea; published outreach mussel book “River Mussels through Time”. Staff presented at American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Northwest Fish Culture Concepts meeting, and CTUIR’s DNR Open House

2016: Propagated Anodonta, Margaritifera, and Gonidea; published Maine et al. “Host fish associations of the California Floater (Anodonta californiensis) in the Yakima River Basin, Washington.” Staff presented at Society for Northwest Vertebrate Biologists Special Session.

2017: Propagated Anodonta and Margaritifera; published Blevins et al. “Extinction risk of western North American freshwater mussels: Anodonta nuttalliana, the Anodonta oregonensis/kennerlyi clade, Gonidea angulata, and Margaritifera falcata.” Staff presented at Northwest Fish Culture Concepts annual meeting, American Fisheries Society annual meeting, Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society meeting, and Pacific Northwest Freshwater Mussel Working Group symposium

2018: Propagated Anodonta; product from Xerces Society: “Best Management Practices for Protecting Native Western Freshwater Mussels during Aquatic and Riparian Restoration, Construction, and Land Management Projects and Activities.” Staff presented at Department of Energy Natural Resources Open House, Northwest Climate Conference, Northwest Fish Culture Concepts, and Native American Fish and Wildlife Society

Objective 1: Monitor mussel populations

Sustainable mussel harvest remains a treaty right for many Pacific Northwestern tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). Keeping in line with the ISRP goals, this section reports results for the following tasks in Objective 1: 1) continue monitoring the two translocation and one augmentation sites in the Upper Umatilla River; 2) continue the long-term mussel population monitoring program on existing monitoring sites outside the Umatilla River Basin; 3) assess new sites for presence/absence surveys; and 4) continue research on genetic and taxonomic investigations for western mussels. Information gained through these goals will provide the knowledge needed to ensure the success of establishing mussel populations in the Umatilla River system. Freshwater mussel status and distribution has been assessed in the Umatilla, Middle Fork and North Fork John Day, and Tucannon Rivers for eight to ten years previously, as long-term monitoring (LTM) sites.

Monitoring of prior translocation events (Umatilla River) and salmon habitat restoration sites has shown that mussels from the 2012 translocation effort declined in numbers until 2017 when no live adult mussels from the translocation were recovered during surveys. However, juvenile M. falcata continue to be present when the follow-up surveys are conducted.
LTM sites in the Middle Fork John Day have recorded substantial decline in mussel densities starting in 2010 while LTM sites in Russell Springs (Tucannon River basin) and North Fork John Day have recently indicated an increase in mussel density (Table 1). In 2015, 15 of 84 sites in the MFJD that had been identified in 2003 that supported all three western mussel genera were resurveyed. This resurvey effort indicated a 30% declines in sites with Anodonta, 13% decline with G. angulata, and a 15% decline for M. falcata. LTM sites had been established in 2008 –2018 to monitor long-term trends in mussel populations in 3 sub-basins. In 2018 monitoring sites at the Fishing Hole and 2010 Restoration sites detected a decline in the mussel populations and this trend continues. The mussel population at the 2009 Restoration monitoring site had a slight increase in mussel density. Mussels were finally detected in the Gonidea Bed monitoring site in the lower MFJD. A total of 25 M. falcata and two G. angulata were found. Before the die-off, which occurred around 2005 –2008, the population of G. angulata was estimated to be 500 mussels/m2. The NFJD monitoring site had a significant increase in mussel density (i.e., up 60-70 mussels/m2). The monitoring site in Russel Springs, tributary of the Tucannon River, continues to increase. Although the reason for these declines remains unknown, extended drought, outbreak of Chladophora, Cymbella janischii and Gomphoneis spp., increased extreme heatwave events, and instream activities may have contributed to the mussel decline in the MFJD.

Table 1. The location, date of implementation and density of mussel for each monitoring site. -- = year the monitoring was not setup; (year) = year the monitoring site was setup.
Location & (set-up date)	Transect Number	Mussel Density /m²2009	Mussel Density/m² 2010	Mussel Density /m² 2011	Mussel Density /m² 2012	Mussel Density /m² 2013	Mussel Density /m² 2014	Mussel Density /m² 2015	Mussel Density /m² 2016	Mussel Density /m² 2017
MFJD 2009 Restoration Site (2011)	1	--	--	0	0.008	0	0.002	0.16	0.007	0.064
MFJD 2010 Restoration Site (2011)	1	--	--	1.4	0.32	0.12	0.07	0.03	0.14	0.66
Fishing Hole, MFJD (2009)	1	8.5	12	5.7	1.5	5.2	2.8	2.8	0.4	2.8
Fishing Hole, MFJD (2009)	2	3	12.5	14.28	2.75	5.3	4.4	2	0	3.6
Fishing Hole Upstream site (2011)	3	--	--	46.13	6.25	5.4	5	0.6	0.63	3
North Fork John Day (2010)	1	--	22	0.4	5.6	4	25.3	20.8	47.6	5
North Fork John Day (2010)	2	--	19	2.3	11.5	4.8	23.7	5.6	28	22
North Fork John Day (2010)	3	--	19	7.9	0.50	3.2	9.33	8.8	20	10.8
North Fork John Day (2012)	4	--	--	--	--	13.9	28	11.2	34	9.6
Russel Springs (2010)	1	--	0.25	0.44	2	1.15	2.07	**	3.13	4
**area was closed due to fires – no survey was conducted.

Additional monitoring activities have recorded presence/absence data at numerous sites throughout the region. New or previous sites continue to add to the known mussel distribution in the Columbia River basin. For example, in 2013-2014 presence/absence surveys were completed in the Walla Walla and Grande Ronde Rivers (Table 2). New populations were discovered but also large sections of rivers currently lacking mussels were also identified.

Table 2. Survey locations by year and sub-basin, with number of locations where mussels of each genera were found compared to total locations sampled in that sub-basin.

	Walla Walla River	Walla Walla Tributaries	Grande Ronde River	Grande Ronde Tributaries
2013
Anodonta sp.	1/6	0/2	0/14	0/2
Margaritifera	2/6	0/2	6/14	2/2
Gonidea	0/6	0/2	0/14	0/2

2014
Anodonta sp.	1/14	0/3	Not Surveyed	NS
Margaritifera	0/14	0/3	NS	NS
Gonidea	0/14	0/3	NS	NS

Objective 2: Genetics/taxonomic relationship

As described by Chong et al. 2008 and Mock et al. 2010, CTUIR has identified three distinct genetic lineages of western Anodonta. This work was summarized in the previous proposal. CTUIR is continuing to assess the validity of Anodonta species designations based on genetic, morphological, and life history research. Tables 3 and 4 highlight important morphometric differences in the four western Anodonta species as adults.

Table 3. Morphometric results for type locality specimens. Means and standard errors of anterior slope angle, length:height ratio (L:H) and length:width ratio (L:W) for A. oregonensis and A. nuttalliana (Willamette/Columbia River confluence: populations ABB and ACC) are provided (from Chong 2006).

	*A. oregonensis*		*A. nuttalliana*
	mean ± s.e. n = 13	range of values	mean ± s.e. n = 8	range of values
Anterior Slope Angle	10.5 ± 0.61	7.0 – 16.0	32.4 ± 3.13	14.0 – 40.0
L:H ratio	1.80 ± 0.033	1.58 – 1.98	1.38 ± 0.055	1.26 – 1.73
L:W ratio	3.00 ± 0.058	2.74 – 3.37	3.43 ± 0.131	3.01 – 4.01

Table 4. Morphometric results for rangewide Anodonta specimens outside the type locality. Means and standard errors of anterior slope angle, length:height ratio (L:H) and length:width (L:W) ratio for specimens collected rangewide outside the Willamette/Columbia confluence (Chong 2006).

	*A. oregonensis*		*A. nuttalliana*
	mean ± s.e. n = 12	range of values	mean ± s.e. n = 87	range of values
Anterior Slope Angle	10.8 ± 0.75	6.0 – 15.0	20.9 ± 0.48	11.0 – 33.0
L:H ratio	2.01 ± 0.020	1.92 – 2.17	1.58 ± 0.008	1.39 – 1.75
L:W ratio	3.29 ± 0.064	2.87 – 3.67	2.92 ± 0.029	2.33 – 3.71

A recently completed manuscript submitted for publication, entitled “A comparison of glochidial shells of the freshwater mussels Anodonta californiensis, A. kennerlyi, A. nuttalliana, and A. oregonensis” (O’Brien et al. in press) outlines further morphological research to distinguish true relationships between western Anodonta species. Below is the abstract of that paper:

“Only recently have substantial efforts been made to understand phylogenetic relationships among freshwater mussels of the western United States and Canada. Recent genetic studies show the existence of two divergent clades in western Anodonta, one containing Anodonta californiensis and A. nuttalliana, and another containing A. oregonensis and A. kennerlyi, but relationships within these two clades remain unclear. For example, recent authors have placed A. californiensis in the synonymy of A. nuttalliana, and additional taxonomic information is needed to resolve these issues. We examined glochidial shell size and fine structure of these four species to assess the taxonomic utility of these characters. Glochidia of A. oregonensis and A. kennerlyi were similar in size and fine structure, which supports their proposed close relationship. Glochidia of A. californiensis and A. nuttalliana were smaller in all dimensions than A. oregonensis and A. kennerlyi, which supports the existence of two divergent clades. However, shell size and fine structure also differed between A. californiensis and A. nuttalliana, which supports the distinctiveness of these two taxa. Glochidial characters may help to clarify evolutionary relationships among western U.S. Anodonta and other problematic groups.”

The similar glochidial size of A. oregonensis and A. kennerlyi supports the close genetic relationship between these species (Chong et al. 2008). The smaller size of A. californiensis and A. nuttalliana potentially supports the close relationship between these two species and their distinctiveness from the A. oregonensis/A. kennerlyi clade. However, the consistent and marked differences in size between A. californiensis and A. nuttalliana do not support placement of A. californiensis in the synonymy of A. nuttalliana (Blevins et al. 2017). See Figure 1.

Figure 1. Principal component analysis showing relationships between glochidial shell shape of 4 Anodonta species. From O’Brien et al. in press.

Objective 3: Habitat relationships

Efforts to restore mussels and their ecosystem benefits are often hindered by uncertainties surrounding factors that control mussel distributions within river systems across multiple scales. To address these uncertainties, the distribution of mussels in the MFJD was evaluated at multiple spatial scales. The hierarchical organization of stream features was explored to determine how characteristics and location of valley segments, stream reaches, geomorphic units, and surface sediment characteristics influenced mussel occurrence. All three western genera of mussels in the MFJD exhibited preferences for particular habitats or habitat type at all three spatial scales measured. At the macroscale, mussels were distributed longitudinally –with certain areas of the channel dominated by a particular mussel species. At the mesoscale, mussels were positively associated with pools and runs, but negatively associated with cascades. At the microscale mussels were habitat generalists in relation to surface sediment characteristics, but were more common in channel areas that did not contain a high percentage of fine sediments, indicating that interstitial porosity may be an important determinant of mussel occurrence. Collectively, these types of data can potentially guide restoration efforts and enhance long-term survival of outplanted mussels. Survey data from this effort was further utilized to generate multiscale random forest models to evaluate scale-specific functional habitat preferences for mussel species in a segment of the MFJD. This work is described fully in Hegeman et al. (2014). Habitat data was compiled in four categories-hydro geomorphic, biotic, water quality, and human impact-and evaluated at the channel unit and reach scale. M. falcata densities were recognized to be highest in narrow valley segments and in riffles and runs, compared to reaches with pools and glides. These areas are associated with of low deposition, stable habitats and higher water flows. G. angulata densities were higher in glides, and Anodonta in glides and runs-all areas of deeper, waters with high-flow refugia. Anodonta and G. angulata densities were also associated with increasing specific conductance values. This value, and several other parameters assessed are associated with river kilometer, and follow the general observation of increasing Anodonta and G. angulata densities in lower portions of a river system, and M. falcata populations generally increasing toward headwaters. Food resources were not studied in depth, and represent an area of future evaluation to increase predictive power of similar models, which will be a critical step in the successful identification of potential restoration locations.

Our efforts to quantitatively apply a conceptual model of mussel ecology to inform reintroduction efforts highlighted innumerable gaps in our understanding of mussel habitat relationships. Given the current state of our knowledge, efforts to reintroduce mussels to the Umatilla watershed should be treated as experiments from which we can greatly expand our knowledge of mussel ecology. Such lessons can subsequently be applied to increase the success of future efforts in an adaptive management paradigm. The success of this endeavor is contingent upon carefully planned reintroductions where extensive monitoring data is collected to quantify the conditions of recipient habitats, the fate of individual mussels, and the efficacy of varying reintroduction techniques (e.g., translocations versus inoculating host fishes). Our habitat work culminated in development of the following decision framework to identify potential suitable outplanting habitat specific to genera (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Hierarchical decision framework for identifying viable mussel reintroduction sites on the Umatilla River. Dashed line represents decision paths for Anodonta and Gonidea, while the solid line is recommended for Margaritifera.
Objective 4: Host fish

All three genera require a host fish to complete their life cycle, so host fish conservation is closely tied to mussel conservation. Unfortunately, conservation efforts for freshwater mussels in western North America are hampered by an incomplete assessment of host fish use by each genera. CTUIR has identified a range of host fish suitable for each genera of mussel in the west, but further study needs to determine the range of such hosts and specificity to populations. See Table 5 for current host fish knowledge.

Table 5. Host suitability test results for three western mussel genera.

Fish species	Anodonta	Gonidea	Margaritifera
speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus)	Y	N	N
longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae)	Y	N	--
redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus)	Y	N	N
northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis)	Y	N	N
sucker (Catostomus sp.)	N	N	N
Peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus)	Y	N	N
Torrent sculpin (Cottus rhotheus)	Y	Y	--
Shorthead sculpin (Cottus confusus)	Y	Y	--
Sculpin sp. (Cottus sp.)	Y	Y	N
Yellow perch (Perca flavescens)	N	--	--
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)	N*	--	--
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)	N*	--	Y
Cutthroat trout (O. clarkii)	N	--	--
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)	N*	--	Y
Western brook lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni)	N	N	N
Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu)	--	N	--
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)	--	N	--

* Denotes species that have served as hosts for one clade of Anodonta but not both.

-- Denotes fish species not tested.

Objective 5: Artificial propagation

Freshwater mussels in the order Unionoida have a unique life history stage that requires larval attachment to and encapsulation in host tissue to complete larval development. The mussel/host relationship is species specific, and CTUIR’s work on host fish identification has allowed the initiation of research into artificial propagation methods. The first mussel artificial propagation facility in the western US was established by the CTUIR at the Walla Walla Community College’s Water and Environmental Center (WEC), Washington in 2013 to produce juvenile mussels of all three Mid-Columbia genera and to educate students and the public about the critical role freshwater mussels provide to aquatic systems.

Studies completed by CTUIR show that mussel reproductive timing is highly correlated with water temperatures. Anodonta sp. are typically gravid with mature glochidia when water temperatures are between 12 and 16°C (O’Brien et al. 2013) and other populations between 18 and 23°C. Gonidea angulata follows this similar pattern for reproduction. Gravid Anodonta and G. angulata release mature glochidia over an extended time, possibly one to two weeks. Margaritifera falcata are the most sensitive to water temperature when it comes to determining when they have developed glochidia. Gravid M. falcata can be found when water temperatures are around 13°C. Their reproductive timing is difficult to pin point because they appear to develop their glochidia very quickly in the field and an entire population can release in one day. This makes collecting fully developed glochidia a challenge. Future host fish testing will include non-native fish species, like bass, found within the Umatilla, MFJD and, NFJD Rivers. Introductions of non-native species that are piscivorous have been known to reduce native fish populations. If the non-native fish do not serve as a host for the mussels, but reduce the native host fish population, the introduction of non-native fish could have negative effects on mussel recruitment.

Methods regarding current knowledge of propagation of western juvenile mussels were captured in O’Brien et al. (2013) and Maine et al. (2016). Propagation efforts began in 2014 at the WEC laboratory, and to date, juvenile mussels of all three genera have been successfully produced. Laboratory trials to identify cause(s) of early mortality in cultured mussels will continue to be a research priority, as will determining species-specific food and early life stage rearing requirements. Of particular importance to western mussel propagation research are variables such as oxygen (specifically at 30-45 days of age), water source, food (delivery and recipe), sediment (type, source, depth), and maintenance (sediment changes, juvenile handling, measuring procedures). Survivorship of lab reared juveniles is ongoing research, several years of data are presented below in Figures 3-4

Figure 3. A and B, juvenile A. oregonensis survivorship in static chambers during 2015 propagation efforts.

Figure 4. A-C, juvenile M. falcata survivorship in static chambers during 2015 propagation efforts.

Objective 6: Promote freshwater mussel best management practices

Restoration efforts designed to improve habitat for ESA listed fish species can produce results that benefit freshwater mussels in the long-term. In-stream construction and channel alteration activities, however, may inadvertently cause damage to mussels, who are sensitive to disturbance, ineffectively protected by standard fish salvage or protection measures, and may require decades or longer to recover from impacts. To reduce the incidence of mussel population losses as ‘collateral damage’ from habitat restoration efforts, best management practices (BMPs) have been developed by the Xerces Society with collaboration from the CTUIR’s Freshwater Mussel Project to help practitioners incorporate mussels into restoration project planning (Blevins et al. 2017). This inclusion will allow mussel ecosystem services to be included in assessments of existing site values, will allow protection of sensitive mussel beds, and will guide proper survey, salvage, and translocation efforts where impacts are unavoidable. Future contract years will include collaboration with CTUIR Habitat Restoration teams to apply and evaluate methods described in the BMP document, with the intention of improving methods that may not be applicable in all restoration scenarios or habitats.
Objective 7: Education and Outreach

In 2015, CTUIR produced an outreach book documenting cultural and ecological importance of mussels to the CTUIR people. We continue to partner with Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation in furthering outreach and conservation initiatives region-wide. Staff on the project have also presented posters and oral presentations at over 20 regional, national, and international meetings since 2013.

It was recognized early in the project that current status and distribution surveys would be more informative if compared to historic distribution records. A review of historical literature, interviews with Tribal elders, analysis of the USDA Forest Service Freshwater Mollusk Database at Utah State University, and an inventory of museum collections across the country were conducted, and the resulting Western Mussel Database (Xerces/CTUIR 2018) continues to be expanded and maintained as a collaboration between the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and the CTUIR’s Freshwater Mussel Project. This database is used region-wide and is an extremely valuable and expanding tool for western mussel conservation planning and assessment.

Information from this database was used for an analysis of extinction risk for the western mussels (Blevins et al. 2017).Mussel declines had been documented in more species-rich rivers in the eastern US, and while western mussel declines had been noted, there hadn’t been a comprehensive status assessment or evaluation of potential extinction risk. This assessment was only recently possible, with clarification of taxonomic divisions within genus Anodonta and the collection of western mussel survey records as a basis for the analysis. Utilizing International Union for Conservation of Nature (ICUN) Red List Criteria, the percent change in occupied watershed (by area) was evaluated from historic (pre-1990) to current (1990-2015) time periods, and the proportion of regional watersheds with reduced species richness compared to historic richness was determined. Results of this analysis indicate that two species are Vulnerable to extinction (A. nuttalliana and G. angulata), one is Near Threatened (M. falcata), and one is of Least Concern (A. oregonensis/kennerlyi) (Table 2). Mussel species richness declined 35% across western watersheds by area, and among the most historically diverse watersheds, nearly half now support fewer species/clades.
Objective 8: Freshwater Mussel Master Supplementation/Restoration Plan

Considering the depressed status of freshwater mussel populations, and their significance to the cultural and ecological health of the Columbia River Basin, there is a strong and urgent need to develop and implement restoration efforts. The CTUIR freshwater mussel project is the only one of its kind in the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program.

Similar to the recent Master Plan for Pacific Lamprey Artificial Propagation, Translocation, Restoration, and Research, a Master Plan for Freshwater Mussels will developed in 2019-2020. The plan is expected to be an integrated phased approach for artificial production that emphasizes adaptive management through four phases, with the ultimate goal of restoring sustained natural production of mussels throughout CTUIR ceded area subbasins in a feasible, cost effective, and biological conservative manner. Like for lamprey, the plan is anticipated to include four specific phases that are designed to inform adaptive decisions for each successive stage:

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.

Phase 2

Out-plant successfully held and reared adult and juvenile products as per Phase 1 supplementation experimental design.

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.

Phase 4

Future additional Master Planning and implementation of recommended restoration and supplementation actions from Phase 3.

Like the recently approved Lamprey Master Plan, the Freshwater Mussel Plan will go through the NPCC/ISRP master plan review process. The Freshwater Master Plan is expected to guide and inform the CTUIR Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration project for 10-20 years.

Past Council Recommendations and ISRP Reviews

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2018 Research Project Status Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number:	2002-037-00-NPCC-20210302
Project:	2002-037-00 - Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration
Review:	2018 Research Project Status Review
Approved Date:	12/20/2018
Recommendation:	Implement
Comments:	Recommendation: The sponsor is requested to submit an updated proposal to the 2019 Mainstem/Program Support Review that addresses ISRP qualifications. See programmatic issue on Information Sharing and Reporting.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	2002-037-00-ISRP-20181115
Project:	2002-037-00 - Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration
Review:	2018 Research Project Status Review
Completed Date:	11/15/2018
Final Round ISRP Date:	9/28/2018
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Qualified
1. Objectives The proponents have two objectives: • to restore native freshwater mussel populations in the Umatilla River, and • to further conservation efforts across the Tribe’s ceded territory. Research continues along three broad lines of investigation to: (a) determine the status, trends, and distribution of mussels in the Tribe’s ceded territory; (b) understand the physical and biological factors that control distribution; and (c) characterize the population level genetic structuring of western mussels. Based on past annual reports and publications, the research has been quantitatively rigorous. Unfortunately, there are no guiding hypotheses and the objectives are not quantitative and time bound, so the effectiveness of meeting them cannot be fully evaluated. As well, there are other collaborators on this project (which is good), but the results generated by the proponents cannot be delineated from those produced by others. Further, the description of the project timeline is vague and uninformative. No clear milestones or end dates are indicated. 2. Methods The methods described in the annual reports and publications are scientifically sound. Nevertheless, the ISRP has three suggestions to improve the program: • The research does not address non-native mussels and clams, such as Corbicula, or chemical contaminants. These have threatened mussel populations in other regions of the Pacific Northwest, and this project would be strengthened by developing research to explore these issues. • There was no description of population dynamics. Given the observed declines of most populations of western mussels, a better understanding of the population dynamics of these mussels is needed. Some important questions include: What are the size and age class distributions in these local populations? What are the recruitment rates in stable and declining populations? What are the movement rates, and is there movement between sub-populations? • Greater detail about the propagation research for western mussels is needed. This is an important aspect, both for restoration and identification of potential host fish. 3. Results The Freshwater Mussel Research Project has provided critical information about the distribution, abundance, and status of western mussels in several major rivers of eastern Oregon. This is potentially important for conservation and restoration efforts and expands the freshwater community perspective of the Fish and Wildlife Program. The lessons learned are applicable to the entire Columbia River Basin and western United States. Collaboration with the Xerces Society is a particularly strong aspect of this research project. Both the Xerces Society and the Freshwater Mussel Project are to be commended for their development of best management practices for restoration project planning. However, the project summary does not provide a thorough description of its outreach efforts beyond its collaboration with the Xerces Society. The project has been productive, publishing six papers since 2013. 4. 2017 Research Plan uncertainties validation The ISRP generally agrees but feels that the proponents overstate their case for indirectly examining critical uncertainties related to Contaminants (No. 35), Human Development (No. 40), and Monitoring and Evaluation (No. 44). The text provided on these topics is too general to be useful. Data, as well as some level of quantification, are required.
	Qualification #1 - Additional Questions The ISRP is greatly impressed by this project. Our comments and qualifications are given with the intention of making this project even more scientifically meaningful to the Fish and Wildlife Program. The potential contribution of this program to conservation and restoration is huge for the study area, and the Columbia River Basin, through better understanding the distribution and ecology of mussels and their use as sentinel species to track environmental conditions. The Xerces Society is a good partner for communicating information on the project to the public, as well as for providing guidelines on avoiding damage to mussels with restoration projects. The ISRP is not yet sure how the mussel project will share information with the Biomonitoring Project and other restoration and lamprey projects; the ISRP would appreciate a discussion of this with the proponents. There are several questions to address. Would salmon and mussel restoration be beneficial in similar areas? Are there risks? Mussels can also provide a retrospective look at past environmental conditions. The ISRP urges the proponents to work with EPA and others on contaminants, as well as on other factors implicated in population declines. The ISRP recognizes that the project is in a discovery phase. However, about two years from now, the proponents will need to have quantitative restoration objectives, as well as concrete information on factors causing population declines. It would be prudent to start on this in the very near future, using collaborators and ad-hoc advisors to provide critical feedback.
Documentation Links:

Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number:	2002-037-00-NPCC-20210312
Project:	2002-037-00 - Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration
Review:	2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Proposal:	NPCC19-2002-037-00
Proposal State:	ISRP - Pending Final Review
Approved Date:	8/25/2019
Recommendation:	Implement
Comments:	Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications and submit in a report to Council for ISRP review by January 30, 2020. See Programmatic issue for Research. [Background: See https:/www.nwcouncil.org/fish-and-wildlife/fish-and-wildlife-program/project-reviews-and-recommendations/mainstem-review]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

First Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	2002-037-00-ISRP-20190404
Project:	2002-037-00 - Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration
Review:	2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Proposal Number:	NPCC19-2002-037-00
Completed Date:	None
First Round ISRP Date:	4/4/2019
First Round ISRP Rating:	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 2018-8, 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 6. The third goal of incorporating mussel monitoring in other monitoring efforts is vague and weakly linked to the subsequent eight objectives. Comment: 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.
Documentation Links:	Proponent Presentation Proponent Response (5/1/2019)

Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number:	2002-037-00-NPCC-20130807
Project:	2002-037-00 - Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration
Review:	Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal:	RESCAT-2002-037-00
Proposal State:	Pending BPA Response
Approved Date:	2/26/2014
Recommendation:	Implement with Conditions
Comments:	Implement through FY2017. Council will expect that sponsors will coordinate with other BPA-funded western mussel activities in the Basin.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	2002-037-00-ISRP-20120215
Project:	2002-037-00 - Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration
Review:	Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number:	RESCAT-2002-037-00
Completed Date:	4/17/2012
Final Round ISRP Date:	4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Mussel declines are of great concern throughout North America and elsewhere because of pervasive changes to river systems. Thus, resident mussels are excellent taxa for monitoring and assessing local/regional environmental conditions. The development of a solid understanding of mussels in the Columbia Basin is a logical approach and should lead to better resource management. Project development has followed a logical and conservative pathway, and has contributed greatly to our knowledge of freshwater mussel status and trends in the mid-Columbia. The questions from the ISRP, generally relating to details, were all answered in meaningful ways with a detailed dialogue that covered the issues of concern point by point. The logic went from understanding the genetics, to the fish hosts, to the habitat relationships. Graduate students were covering various phases including habitat relationships for the various genera, and the sponsors seemed to have contact with many mussel biologists and were very familiar with the literature. The ISRP was pleased to see that data from the John Day and the Umatilla jointly being used to develop habitat relationship hypotheses that are now being evaluated. The ISRP appreciates the approach in this study and is providing a few points of information: (1) Contaminants can be a serious issue in the Columbia Basin and may act as a "wild card" and confound any mussel habitat relationships that may exist. The anti-cholinesterase compounds (carbamates and organophosphates) are not a simple group to evaluate, especially if mussels are dead and decaying. Residues are difficult to determine, even in fresh tissue, and fresh samples for determining cholinesterase activity should be immediately stored at -80C. Some of the anti-cholinesterase activity compounds (the carbamates) can reactivate back to normal activity at normal temperatures. Perhaps the best approach for dealing with modern pesticides, which are highly toxic but short-lived, is to understand what the farmers and ranchers are using on crops adjacent to the river. When pesticides are applied is important as well. The persistence of these products is not very long; that is, there could be an event that kills mussels and then is over with no residues remaining a short time later. The new lab at Walla Walla may provide an opportunity to address contaminants in a more meaningful way. Fisheries studies, dealing with these types of pesticides, have taken place on Hood River and can provide more background information. (2) The ISRP notes the possibility of expanding mussel studies into Lake Roosevelt as another project, and the ISRP believes it would be prudent to significantly expand the spatial scope of mussel studies in the Columbia Basin in the near future, especially the assessment and monitoring. (3) The data base developed on this project, especially if activities increase in scope, needs to be strong and perhaps 2% of the budget for data management is inadequate. Studies along the Upper Mississippi have been ongoing for many years and perhaps lessons learned can be obtained from their work (starting point might be Upper Midwest Science Center USGS, LaCrosse, Wisconsin, and UMRCC Ad Hoc Mussel Committee, USFWS, Bloomington, Indiana). The sponsors probably know these people already. (4) Locally, a Freshwater Mussel Workgroup planning committee includes Kevin Aitken, Molly Hallock, Shelly Miller, Shivonne Nesbit, Al Smith, and Cynthia Tait. Again, the sponsors may already know these people.
First Round ISRP Date:	2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating:	Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
A response is requested on the following items: Identify hypothesized limiting factors for low recruitment Explain how exotics could change host relationships Identify hypothesis for the observed death of mussel beds Mussel declines are a great concern throughout North America and elsewhere because of pervasive changes to river systems. Mussels are excellent taxa for monitoring and for assessing environmental conditions. Developing a solid understanding of mussels in the Columbia Basin will be prudent and useful for better resource management. This project is under the guidance of scientists with considerable experience and a scientific publication record associated with this or similar projects. The development of the project follows a logical pathway to where they are now. The project has contributed greatly to our knowledge of freshwater mussel status and trends in the mid-Columbia, and the proposed work will likely be worthwhile. In order to provide a more useful scientific review of the project, the ISRP needs additional details on monitoring protocols and methods in a response. This is especially important for: 1) Deliverable 2, mussel reintroduction. Is enough known about mussel glochidia to expose fish caught in the Umatilla River as a pilot project? 2) Deliverable 3, apply and test predictive mussel-habitat models, 3) Deliverable 4, use of growth-increment chronologies, and 4) Deliverable 6, artificial propagation. The proposal had two main thrusts, namely basic mussel research and restoration of mussels in the Umatilla. The mussel research component looks justified but restoration requires more justification. The project sponsors need to take a close look at the life history of the mussels. If low recruitment is the primary problem, what are the limiting factors? It was unclear if the sponsors had obtained adequate information to move into the next phase of translocation. Does project staff know enough to proceed with restoration? How do exotics change the host relationships? Are the limiting factors understood? If these are not addressed before translocation, can success be expected? For example, what if there is unsuitable habitat or a lack of fish hosts? Evidence was presented on the death of the mussel bed in the John Day. Do project sponsors have a hypothesis for this finding that can help direct the project? This is an important project, one that will become more valuable with time. 1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The project addresses the status and trends of freshwater mussels in the Columbia River Basin and in particular the area of the mid-Columbia occupied by the Umatilla Indian Reservation, an issue of broad regional importance. Because mussels are long-lived they are particularly useful as long-term bio-indicators of watershed conditions and habitat quality, including sentinels for metals and organic contaminants. The sponsors have a good grasp of the published literature. Specifically, this project is now designed with four objectives that are important and clearly articulated. The goal is to restore mussels to Umatilla River and other mid-Columbia basins to rebuild ecosystem diversity function and traditional cultural opportunities. The objectives of the work are clearly stated. The work has been generally divided into three emphasis areas: (1) determining the current status of three genera of freshwater mussels in the Umatilla and upper John Day Rivers, (2) conducting a genetic analysis of existing populations to determine taxonomic status and evolutionary relationships, and (3) determining the feasibility of re-introducing mussels to streams where they have been extirpated or have greatly diminished in abundance. The project sponsors have provided an adequate description of the significance of the work to other projects dealing with freshwater mussels, although there are relatively few in the mid- and upper Columbia. They point out that mussels have historically been an important food resource for native cultures in the area, but that mussels have suffered serious declines just as in other areas of North America. Currently, scientific evidence suggests that freshwater mussels are the most imperiled group of animals in the United States, and some species could be ESA listed. The project will provide information to guide freshwater mussel restoration and monitoring efforts. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results) The proposal provides a thorough description of past accomplishments. The project sponsors are to be commended for publishing their research on mussel genetics and evolutionary relationships. Some basic questions concerning genetics and intermediate host fish have been at least partially answered. The current proposal continues the work previously undertaken by exploring the feasibility of reintroducing mussels to areas where different species have been extirpated, by developing and refining models relating mussel abundance to stream habitat features, and by investigating the cause(s) of mass mortality events. It also adds the elements of elucidating mussel effects on the habitats of other species and forecasting potential effects of climate change on the long-term environmental favorability of streams in the Umatilla Reservation for mussel populations. From an adaptive management standpoint, the emphasis to date has been on knowledge acquisition and not on policy change. The proposal states that the emphasis will be refocused from research to restoration, but it appears that nearly all funding is to be spent on research at this stage of the project. The positive aspects are that the sponsors are developing predictive models to test assumptions, to improve understanding, and to generate knowledge and, working collaboratively with researchers from outside the region. A limiting aspect is that most of the work is being done locally. The ISRP notes that the researchers are listed to become involved with similar studies associated with Lake Roosevelt. Given the importance of mussels for ecosystem functioning, and the policy importance if they become ESA-listed, as they are elsewhere, it would be prudent to significantly expand the spatial scope of the work, especially the assessment and monitoring. Adaptive management needs to be greatly expanded. It is not clear how information from this project guides natural resource decisions. While it is true that the information has had some impacts, the adaptive management process is not developed to the point that efficient and knowledgeable decisions can be made in both policy as well as science to inform policy. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging) The project appears to be well integrated into the relatively few other projects dealing with freshwater mussels in the Columbia River Basin; in fact, this project has been a major contributor to advances in knowledge of mussel distribution and evolutionary relationships. The project assisted with mussel salvage (5,000) before and during riverine habitat restoration projects including the dewatered channel of the John Day River and shared equipment and data with the lamprey population status project. While there are some relationships, these should be actively expanded to include cooperation with additional projects and agencies in the Basin. Considerable research is needed before it will be possible to say with confidence why mussels have vanished from many reaches where they would be expected to exist. The proposal will examine habitat characteristics, intermediate hosts which appear to be mostly sculpins or cyprinids, and water quality. The water quality work focuses on water temperature changes, the ISRP understands that there has been 70 years of de-watering in the Umatilla Basin, but we wonder if exposure to toxins from a variety of potential sources might also be a factor for these long-lived organisms. What is being done to look at agricultural chemicals and other substances that could cause lethal, sub-lethal, or reproductive impairment effects? It would also seem that an evaluation of ages or age classes from current populations including recently dead specimens as well as an evaluation of ages from shells in middens might be particularly informative to form some ecological perspective on what may have transpired over time. Has there been consistent reproduction during the post de-watering era, and if not, what were the water conditions during the successful reproduction years? Translocation of mussels from existing healthy populations such as from the Middle Fork John Day River to streams where habitat is suitable but mussels are absent might benefit from mark-recovery studies. However, the proposal did not contain many details about how success of the reintroductions would be determined. If the method of choice is determined to be release of glochidia-infested fishes, it may take a long time before results are observed because mussels are slow-growing and juveniles may be difficult to sample. What is the role of non-native fish species in the reintroduction? 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Deliverables in general closely follow the objectives; however, there are some concerns: DELV-6: If the technique has been successful in eastern United States applications, why would one expect the process to be different for similar efforts in the western United States? DELV-4: It is not clear how can this be accomplished if the environmental data are not available. It seems that the mussels are responding on a daily to annual scale whereas much of the environmental data, especially from historical periods, is available on annual to decadal scales which demonstrates a mismatch in scales. The proposed work elements, metrics and methods were often inadequately described for scientific review. For some of the deliverables, for example genetic analysis and taxonomic revision, methods can be deduced from the section on past accomplishments. However, for the mussel reintroduction, predictive model development, and artificial propagation deliverables not enough information was given, and details in MonitoringMethods.org were either missing or unavailable to outside viewers. For the most expensive deliverable, that is artificial propagation of mussels, no work elements, metrics, or methods were provided other than a very brief mention of artificial propagation efforts in eastern United States. Thus, the proposal should provide more details on these three deliverables before their scientific adequacy can be assessed. One work element in particular needs clarification. Why have salmonid fishes not been evaluated as potential intermediate hosts? The survey of native fishes infested by glochidia was very revealing, but it was limited to non-salmonids. The need to protect salmonids from anthropogenic losses, including research activities, is understandable, but if glochidia can settle on salmonids, and if the overall goal of the project is to restore abundant mussel populations, it would be important to know what the host-parasite relationship of rearing salmonids to freshwater mussels is. Regarding data management, very little information is provided on this subject, and that is a great concern. Data from this project have considerable value, now and in the future. At a minimum, information should be provided on data storage, back-up strategies, availability, anticipated changes in management, for example cloud computing and routine statistical packages. What percentage of the budget is devoted to data management? Regarding key personnel, what are their responsibilities? A positive aspect is that the personnel listed have a strong record of publications in the peer-reviewed literature. 4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org The protocols and methods in MonitoringMethods.org contained brief descriptions of the monitoring objectives, but there was essentially no information on the sampling methods or metrics. For some of the protocols, information was not available for viewing, stating that in order to see any information one needed to be logged in as a colleague of the owner. Sampling methods, frequencies, laboratory analyses, and statistical tests should be specified for the protocols and methods to be useful. Method: 200850400: Population Genetic Analyses needs to be completed Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 2:28:11 PM.
Documentation Links:	Proponent Response (3/7/2012)

Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number:	2002-037-00-NPCC-20090924
Project:	2002-037-00 - Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration
Review:	FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date:	10/23/2006
Recommendation:	Do Not Fund
Comments:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	2002-037-00-ISRP-20060831
Project:	2002-037-00 - Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration
Review:	FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date:	8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date:	None
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
This proposal gives a nice background presentation including data collected (including maps) in previous years. This proposal has an exemplary section on past results and reporting of data. It is surprising that more taxonomic work has not been done on these organisms so the genetic analyses in the proposal are well justified, particularly if Anodonta turns out to be a species complex with multiple habitat and fish host requirements. One point that the background section could have made more clear was why so few mussels exist in the Umatilla River relative to the John Day River since both rivers have a long history of anthropogenic disturbance (e.g., mining grazing and logging), and intuitively they should have similar mussel faunas. Some of these mussels are very long-lived, e.g., 50 years, and the shells can be used like tree-rings to track environmental changes. This fundable recommendation is qualified because better documentation is needed that the sample size is adequate. Have they done a power analysis to show that their sample size is adequate? It is of interest to note that in some areas around Seattle, mussels are used to monitor habitat restoration project effectiveness. It would also be useful to know if other mussel translocation efforts have been attempted in the Columbia River Basin, and if so, how well they have succeeded.
Documentation Links:

Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations:

Although the project received an ISRP rating of "qualified", the Council recommendations was Do Not Fund. Given the project did ultimately receive funding, we sought to follow the objectives and deliverables that were outlined in the initial FY07-09 Solicitation Review, and have achieved the outcomes and answers necessary to move the project into a restoration and monitoring phase.

Adaptive Management

Management Changes:

The following management changes are planned based on information gained from project actions.

In the past, prior to this project, freshwater mussel restoration efforts were hampered by lack of information and understanding of mussel status and knowledge of the dependencies they have on certain physical (habitat) and biological (host fish) factors.  This project from the start, was entitled “Research and Restoration” because the front end of the project was intended to gain critical understanding of freshwater mussel populations and needs and then apply this knowledge into restoration management actions.  The project has started to transition and adapt from a research phase into a pilot applied restoration and monitoring phase in CTUIR ceded area subbasins.  

What has changed management so far?
1.	Knowledge of presence/absence and subsequent areas of extinction, decline or relative strongholds has allowed managers to have increased consideration of mussels in making decisions regarding stream habitat alteration, protection or restoration efforts.  
2.	Knowledge of freshwater mussel population trends has informed fish managers if key limiting factors are still causing declines to remaining populations.  
3.	Knowledge of habitat requirements and relationships has allowed managers to consider freshwater mussels regarding stream habitat alteration, protection or restoration efforts.  
4.	Knowledge of host fish requirements for mussel reproductive success has allowed managers to consider additional value of maintaining specific host fish species.    
5.	Knowledge of habitat and host fish requirements has helped to guide initial CTUIR in-lab artificial propagation experiments.
6.	Knowledge of all the above has informed development of freshwater mussel BMP’s and has informed education and outreach for promotion, protection and restoration of mussels.  
What is expected to change future management?
1.	All the above knowledge is being rolled into development of a Freshwater Mussel Master Supplementation/Restoration Plan to be developed in 2019 – 2020.
2.	Each of the following anticipated phases are to be delineated in the plan and adaptive leaning from each phase is expected to inform continued adaptive actions for improved management and restoration of freshwater mussels.  Plan phases are presented in previous results section.

Project Documents & Reports

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Public Attachments in CBFish

ID	Title	Type	Period	Contract	Uploaded
00011402-1	Distribution and Status of Freshwater Mussels in the Umatilla River System	Progress (Annual) Report	09/2002 - 09/2003	11402	7/1/2004 12:00:00 AM
00011402-2	Freshwater Mussels Research and Restoration Project	Progress (Annual) Report	09/2003 - 09/2004	11402	11/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
P113846	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration Project	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2007 - 09/2008	39850	10/19/2009 1:25:20 AM
P117192	Progress Report for Oct 2007 to Sept 2008 for the Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration Project	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2007 - 09/2008	45056	7/19/2010 6:33:54 AM
P122342	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration, 10/08 - 9/09	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2008 - 09/2009	50406	8/3/2011 8:35:39 AM
P122343	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration, 10/09 - 9/10	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2009 - 09/2010	50406	8/3/2011 8:41:53 AM
P127437	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration; 10/10 - 9/11	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2010 - 09/2011	55333	7/22/2012 2:18:05 PM
P129951	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration; 10/10 - 9/11	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2010 - 09/2011	55333	1/7/2013 4:54:34 AM
P130550	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration; 10/10 - 9/11	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2010 - 09/2011	55333	2/5/2013 4:55:40 PM
P140036	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2012 - 10/2013	63301	12/17/2014 10:49:14 AM
P141975	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration; 10/12 - 9/13	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2012 - 12/2013	66968	3/24/2015 1:05:42 PM
P146046	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration; 1/14 - 12/14	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2014 - 12/2014	66968	12/21/2015 1:30:11 PM
P147742	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration; 1/14 - 12/14	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2014 - 12/2014	70493	4/4/2016 9:44:25 AM
P158390	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration 2015	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2015 - 12/2015	73982 REL 25	12/18/2017 4:07:21 PM
P158391	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration 2016	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2016 - 12/2016	73982 REL 25	12/18/2017 4:09:09 PM
P158835	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration; 1/17 - 12/17	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2017 - 12/2017	73982 REL 25	1/15/2018 4:51:54 PM
P171669	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration; 1/18 - 12/18	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2018 - 12/2018	73982 REL 80	3/15/2020 6:36:03 PM
P171670	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration; 1/19 - 12/19	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2019 - 12/2019	73982 REL 80	3/15/2020 6:39:19 PM
P173763	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration; 10/10 - 9/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P173759	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration; 10/10 - 9/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P173762	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration; 10/10 - 9/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P173758	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration; 10/10 - 9/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P173761	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration; 10/10 - 9/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P173757	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration; 10/10 - 9/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P173760	Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration; 10/10 - 9/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P199136	CTUIR Freshwater Mussel Master Supplementation Plan	Management Plan	-	73982 REL 170	4/20/2023 8:30:19 AM

Project Relationships

The Project Relationships tracked automatically in CBFish provide a history of how work and budgets move between projects. The terms "Merged" and "Split" describe the transfer of some or all of the Work and budgets from one or more source projects to one or more target projects. For example, some of one project's budget may be split from it and merged into a different project. Project relationships change for a variety of reasons including the creation of efficiency gains.

Project Relationships:	None

Additional Relationships Explanation:

B. Similar Work:

1. The CTUIR mussel project has worked with the USFS as well as Oregon, Idaho, and Washington states to assist in freshwater mussel salvage before and during riverine habitat restoration efforts. For example, in 2014-2015 CTUIR’s mussel project led efforts to relocate several thousand freshwater mussels from a de-watered channel during a Grande Ronde Basin Restoration Project work. The project also assisted in mussel salvage operations in the Tucannon River, and gave guidance to graduate students working with mussels in other regional drainages.

2. BPA-funded Project (199000501) Walla Walla Habitat Restoration Project: The CTUIR freshwater mussel project works with the habitat project by surveying for mussels prior to instream construction, conducting post-construction surveys, relocations during instream projects, and by sharing equipment, data and ideas.

3. BPA-funded Project (199402600 ) Pacific Lamprey Research and Restoration Project. The mussel project works in many of the same geographic reaches as the lamprey project. The projects share equipment, data and participate in joint efforts to salvage mussels and larval lamprey from habitat restoration sites prior to in-channel works. Scientific evidence suggests that larval lamprey benefit directly from the presence of mussels in a river system, and therefore we anticipate that future monitoring and restoration efforts between these two projects will be even more closely linked. Additionally the Lamprey and Mussel projects share a propagation laboratory and a Biologist position to design and implement experiments and propagation activities related to contract objectives.

4. BPA-funded Project (20003900) Walla Walla River Basin M & E. The mussel project has conducted extensive status surveys for mussels in the Walla Walla drainage, and have established long-term monitoring sites at several locations in the basin. The projects share staff, equipment and data.

5. BPA-funded Project (200820200) Tucannon Basin Habitat Restoration. The mussel project has conducted extensive status surveys for mussels in the Tucannon drainage, and have established long-term monitoring sites in Russell Springs Creek, a tributary of the Tucannon River. The projects share staff, equipment and data.

6. BPA-funded Project (200901400) Biomonitoring of Fish Habitat Enhancement. The mussel project will be coordinating with the biomonitoring project for habitat metrics (i.e. habitat types, depths, velocities, and substrate) at mussel project monitoring sites.

Focal Species

Primary Focal Species

Freshwater Mussels

Secondary Focal Species

None

Threats to program investments and project success:

Climate change:
Drought is today’s greatest threat to fragmented mussel populations in small streams. Total dewatering causes mussel death, stagnant water with little flow can cause high mortality rates across species, but low water that still has flow had the least recorded death. Most obvious direct cause of death during drought was low available oxygen. Upper thermal stress limits have been studied for some eastern mussel species, but this information is lacking for western species. General conclusions state thermal stress is species dependent and depends on duration of heat exposure. Some research suggests glochidia and juvenile larval thread production is compromised during high water temperatures (e. g., 30°C). Larval threads allow newly transformed juveniles and juveniles 2-3 years in age to attach themselves to the substrate or adult mussels. The attached juvenile mussels are then less likely to be swept downstream where they may not survive. Overall increases in water temperature may cause a distribution shift in other aquatic species, like fish, which are hosts for freshwater mussels. Freshwater mussel reproduction is closely tied to water temperature. If water temperatures warm earlier in the season, triggering glochidial (i.e., parasitic life stage) release, the potential host fish may not be available until later in the season. This early release of glochidia without a host fish for them to attach to will cause reproduction to fail. Intense heatwaves during reproduction can stress brooding mussels and impair their glochidia there by hindering reproduction.

Non-native bi-valves:
Quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis), zebra mussel (D. polymorpha), and the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) pose a threat to native mussel populations. Unlike native mussels, quagga and zebra mussels do not settle into the sediment, but rather attach to hard surfaces. These hard surfaces can be large rocks or even the shells of native mussels. The additional weight of the attached invasive bi-valves can push the native mussel into the sediment reducing its ability to feed causing starvation. Like native mussels, quagga and zebra mussels and Asian clams are filter feeders. The filtration rate for the Asian clam is astonishing for its size and body mass. It is estimated Asian clams can filter 4 times the amount of water when compared to Elliptio complanata, a much larger native mussel. The ability of these invasive species to produce large beds can lead to competition for food and space with the native mussels. Large populations of Asian clams experience annual die-offs especially in low dissolved oxygen conditions in the summer further depleting the available oxygen. Scientists have documented declines in native freshwater mussel populations in areas where the Asian clam populations increase.

Non-native fish:
Since the start of the Mussel Project we have documented the encroachment of non-native fish, mostly smallmouth and largemouth bass, into the middle reaches of the Middle and North Fork John Day rivers and neighboring sub-basins. In areas where the bass were present, we noted a greatly reduce native fish population or none at all. The mussel/host fish relationship is very delicate. A reduced host fish population can greatly reduce the mussel’s chance for successful reproduction. Host fish research conducted earlier in the mussel project indicated that non-native fish species are probably not suitable host fishes for native Pacific Northwest mussel species. Because of the prevalence of non-native fish species in our project areas, non-native fishes could potentially have a negative impact on our efforts to successfully re-establish viable mussel populations in the local rivers. Future project efforts may involve actions to reduce non-native fish species at mussel restoration sites.

Contaminates:
Contaminates, especially during drought conditions, can pose a threat to mussel populations. Ammonia (NH3) in low concentrations can be fatal to freshwater mussels. Toxic levels of NH3 in a system can be greatly enhanced during warmer temperatures and low flow or stagnant conditions. One relatively new area of concern is pharmaceuticals entering the water via waste water discharge. Preliminary results indicate fluoxetine, a common antidepressant, can disrupt freshwater mussel reproduction. Other contaminates that can affect freshwater mussels may include, but not limited to, herbicide, pesticides, and heavy metals. Sedimentation is one of the major nonpoint source pollutions that impact freshwater mussel communities nationwide. Suspended sediments can clog the intake siphons of mussels reducing their ability to filter feed.

Types of Work

Work Classes

Work Elements

RM & E and Data Management:

156. Develop RM&E Methods and Designs
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
183. Produce Journal Article
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database

Resident Fish

Please describe which opportunities have been explored to restore or reintroduce resident native fish and their habitats?

Please describe which opportunities have been explored to restore or reintroduce resident native fish and their habitats? Group effort   --  For us, this refers to mussels not fish.  Cite reference to our previously mentioned past and anticipated future (via phased MP) adaptive management approach which ultimately seeks restoration of sustained natural production of mussels throughout CTUIR ceded area subbasins.  Needs more work from Gary
 
 Two previous pilot efforts were made to restore freshwater mussels (i.e., our resident fish species) into the Umatilla River Basin.  Because of the limited success of both pilot projects, addition information was collected that would help to eventually reintroduce freshwater mussels into the Umatilla Subbasin.  These efforts included detailed habitat modelling at multiple scales, genetic efforts to identify suitable source populations of mussels for reintroduction efforts, the identification of suitable host fish in the basin, and the development of a monitoring protocol that will be used during post-restoration

Has a loss assessment been completed for your particular subbasin/or province?

Describe how the project addresses the loss assessment. If a loss assessment is in progress or being proposed, describe the status and scope of that work.

An informal loss assessment for the Umatilla and other mid-Columbia rivers has been completed.  This assessment consisted of a detailed status surveys in the Middle and North forks of the John Day River, and the Umatilla River.  Subsequent surveys were completed in the Grande Ronde, Walla Walla, Tucannon and other rivers.  These surveys indicated that mussels were almost completely extirpated in the Umatilla River drainage, including all tributaries, across all three western mussel genera.  Mussel populations in the Walla Walla and Grand Ronde rivers are also greatly reduced from historical numbers.  Historically the Walla Walla River was the type locality for the western pearlmussel, described in the 1800s.  

In contrast, all three genera of western mussels are extant in the Middle and North Fork John Day rivers.  However, recent monitoring efforts have documented an extensive mussel die-off across genera in the lower Middle Fork John Day River, the causes of which are unknown.  This die-off is significant, as that some of the densest mussel beds recorded in western North America are now completely extirpated.

A wide-spread genetic sampling effort across all the major subbasins of the Columbia Basin was completed for an analysis of genetic diversity for all known western mussel genera.  This analysis found that local populations of the western pearlshell throughout the Columbia Basin (and the western US) are often highly inbred, which means that future translocation or restoration efforts should use a variety of locations within a source stream.  Interestingly, inbred individuals can have a range of sizes (presumably ages), suggesting that the causal factors (e.g., loss of host fish species) of the lack of genetic diversity are on-going.

If you are using non-native fish species to achieve mitigation, have you completed an environmental risk assessment of potential negative impacts to native resident fish?

Please describe: for the production of non-native fish, what are the potential impacts on native fish populations, including predation, competition, genetic impacts, and food web implications?

N/A

Does your proposed work support or implement a production goal identified in a USFWS Bull Trout Recovery Plan?

Data Management

What tools (e.g., guidance material, technologies, decision support models) are you creating and using that support data management and sharing?

We work with subcontractor, Xerces Society, to collect and maintain a regional mussel occurrence database. This database is continually updated and available for query through either CTUIR or Xerces by request.

Describe the process used to facilitate receiving and sharing of data, such as standardizing data entry format through a template or data steward, including data exchange templates that describe the data collection methods, and the provision of an interface that makes data electronically accessible.

CTUIR receives data from other regional entities and will explore possibilities to standardize data formatting in the future. We standardize our own field and laboratory collection data through consistent use of datasheets developed for mussel project use.

Please describe the sources from which you are compiling data, as well as what proportion of data is from the primary source versus secondary or other sources?

We collect primary field and laboratory data through our BPA contract work. Field occurrence data is shared with a protected regional database shared with Xerces (as described elsewhere). Additionally, we collect mussel occurrence information and data from other state, federal, tribal, and other entities in the Columbia River Basin.

Please explain how you manage the data and corresponding metadata you collect.

We are collecting data on abundance, distribution, presence/absence, genetics, morphometric data on individual mussels, habitat information at multiple levels and across drainages, shell morphological and aging data, and host fish information. The metadata are kept with the data. All data capture and storage, as well as the development of metadata is done in partnership with the CTUIR's IT department. In other words, all data collected in the project is centralized within CTUIR, and in a comparable fashion to other BPA-sponsored projects.

Describe how you distribute your project's data to data users and what requirements or restrictions there may be for data access.

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation has developed a data management system for the storage of data collected by Fisheries Program.  This system is called the CDMS (Centralized Data Management System).  The goal of the effort is to create systems to maintain accurate, consistent and transparent data content, thereby allowing timely access to the best possible data for decision making and policy development.  
	
In 2012, work began to create the CDMS. The CDMS is a web-based computer program designed and maintained by CTUIR.  During the past year, the CDMS has been locally implemented at the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs (CWS) and the Nez Perce Tribes (NPT).   Maintenance occurs at regular intervals and ensures that the libraries and user interface are up to date.  Updates are posted on GitHub at the CDMS repository.  Upgrades are recommendations come from the CRITFC coordinated ITMD working group and CTUIR data owners.  In addition to maintenance and upgrades of the CDMS system, CTUIR provides technical support to Warm Spring, Nez Perce and CRITFC on the use and maintenance of the system.  Technical support occurs in the form of written materials, video tutorials, phone calls, webinars and virtual machine support.  


CDMS is a web-based program.  The three main components (or tiers) includes front end (JavaScript, CSS, HTML, Angular.js web interface), with a middle tier or Business tier using C# and ASP.Net to create web services and a data tier using MS SQL Server, and an ArcGIS server.  It utilizes ArcServer and Report Server capabilities to meet both data owners and data user’s needs.  Users have access via the internet.  Users are managed either through active directory or within the SQL database.  Data can be uploaded, hand entered, and evaluated with built in QA/QC functions specific for each dataset. All data which is incorporated into the CDMS system goes through a rigorous standardization and documentation process with the data owners before development begins.  We have continued to develop the CDMS over the past several years, increasing its functionality and populating it with many datasets.  The CDMS system provides reliable and timely information to CTUIR employees, managers, cooperating agencies and the public. The CDMS software is a dynamic and flexible web-based data management system which includes:
•	Data Standardization / Validation Process
•	Import
•	Data Entry
•	QA/QC Workflow
•	Query Tools
•	Export Tools
•	Change Tracking
•	Reports
•	Backup

Many data summaries are accessible via http://gis.ctuir.org/ on the Public Data tab.  More web based data summaries, data downloads and mapping applications are in development.  Requests for QA/QC data from the CDMS system should be made to the Project Lead for each dataset.   Data can be provided as excel or text file.  Metadata for each dataset is available as pdf files.

RM&E

What type(s) of RM&E will you be doing?

Status and Trend Monitoring

Uncertainties Research (Validation Monitoring and Innovation Research)

Where will you post or publish the data your project generates?

CTUIR GIS Program Databases

Location

Loading ...

Layers

Legend

Name (Identifier)	Area Type	Source for Limiting Factor Information
Name (Identifier)	Area Type	Type of Location	Count
Upper Grande Ronde (17060104)	HUC 4	Expert Panel Assessment Unit	48
Lower Grande Ronde (17060106)	HUC 4	Expert Panel Assessment Unit	17
Lower Snake-Tucannon (17060107)	HUC 4	Expert Panel Assessment Unit	7
Walla Walla (17070102)	HUC 4	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	253
Umatilla (17070103)	HUC 4	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	275
North Fork John Day (17070202)	HUC 4	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	453
Middle Fork John Day (17070203)	HUC 4	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	161

Project Deliverables

Project Deliverables:

Monitor mussel populations in sub-basins across CTUIR ceded lands (DEL 1) (DELV-1)

Freshwater mussel status and distribution will be monitored and evaluated in the rivers and streams within CTUIR ceded lands. Long-term monitoring will continue for previously identified sites in the Umatilla, Middle Fork and North Fork John Day, and Tucannon Rivers. These sites have been assessed for six to nine years previously, with multiple transects established at each site to monitor changes in site habitat conditions and mussel densities. These sites include monitoring of prior translocation events. Broad scale monitoring and assessment of freshwater mussel populations will occur at various locations in collaboration with other CTUIR-DNR-Fisheries survey teams and by the Freshwater Mussel Project to increase coverage of known mussel population status and distribution on Tribal lands.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

156. Develop RM&E Methods and Designs
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database

Freshwater mussel propagation, culture, and restoration and the Umatilla and other sub-basins (DELV-2)

The Umatilla River Sub-basin Summary calls for strategies that will enable restoration of freshwater mussels to the Umatilla River system. Although freshwater mussels once occurred throughout the Umatilla River system, only two genera, Anodonta and Gonidea, are currently present in low numbers at a few sites in the lower river. The objective of this WE is to continue efforts towards propagation and population restoration of freshwater mussels in the Umatilla River system. Anodonta, Gonidea, and Margaritifera females from the Columbia basin will be collected as brood stock for restoration efforts. Development and implementation of holding and propagation procedures will continue and laboratory culture of propagated juveniles will be initiated. Preliminary in situ juvenile survivorship studies will be developed, utilizing marked quadrat and/or small, passive cage studies to determine feasibility of potential restoration locations in the Umatilla River and tributaries.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

156. Develop RM&E Methods and Designs
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database

House fish at Walla Walla laboratory facility for host work and propagation effort (DELV-3)

The Umatilla River Sub-basin Summary calls for strategies that will enhance the potential to restore freshwater mussels in the Umatilla River system. Although mussels once occurred in the Umatilla River system, only two genera, Anodonta and Gonidea, are currently present in low numbers at a few sites in the lower river. An additional genus, Margarifitera, was once common in the Umatilla River but is currently believed to be extirpated. The objective of this WE is to continue holding freshwater fishes in the laboratory facility in Walla Walla for use as host fish for mussel propagation and research. Based on previous work conducted through this project, host fish have been identified for all three genera, though further confirmation of hosts for host-generalist Anodonta species is ongoing. Also, potential impacts of newly introduced fish species to native mussel populations has not yet been assessed. Only non ESA-listed fish species will be collected from the wild for this project, and salmonid host fish will be sourced by permit from local hatcheries. Wild caught non ESA-listed fish species will be collected by collaboration with CTUIR RM&E rotary traps, fish salvages, and electroshocking in the Walla Walla basin.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

156. Develop RM&E Methods and Designs
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database

Apply and Evaluate BMPs for freshwater mussel relocation activities (DELV-4)

Work done under this WE will be in partnership with the Xerces Society. Best management practices have been developed to address freshwater mussel protections during in-water habitat restoration actions and during mussel translocations. The goal of this WE is to reducing mussel losses during stream restoration, dewatering, channel alteration or other in-water work events that could negatively impact freshwater mussels. The methods described will be applied to CTUIR projects planned for habitat and other restoration activities, and the efficacy of these methods will be evaluated after the activity has taken place.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

156. Develop RM&E Methods and Designs
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database

Develop supplementation research plan for Freshwater Mussel Project (DELV-5)

The primary goal of the CTUIR Freshwater Mussel Project is to restore sustainable populations of freshwater mussels to the Umatilla River system. Previous work has shown that freshwater mussels are rare or extirpated in much of the Umatilla River system, but has also identified characteristics of potential habitat, host fish associations, and artificial propagation techniques that will inform restoration efforts. Various strategies for artificial propagation of juvenile mussels will be utilized for restoration activities in the Umatilla River system. Research to address critical uncertainties continues, and will be summarized and applied as a draft freshwater mussel supplementation plan during this and the next contract year. This effort and the development of restoration strategies will continue into future fiscal years.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

156. Develop RM&E Methods and Designs
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Submit data to CTUIR central database (DELV-6)

Data collected during the course of the Freshwater Mussel Project will be submitted to CTUIR's central database. This database will eventually be available via CTUIR's website.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database

Objectives & Project Deliverables

Objective: Long term monitoring (OBJ-1)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Monitor mussel populations in sub-basins across CTUIR ceded lands (DEL 1) (DELV-1)	snorkel surveys will be used to document mussel status and population trends

Submit data to CTUIR central database (DELV-6)	submit data from snorkel surveys to CTUIR central data management system.

Objective: Genetics and Taxonomic relationships (OBJ-2)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Submit data to CTUIR central database (DELV-6)	genetic and taxonomic information will continue to be entered to CTUIR CDMS

Objective: Habitat Relationships (OBJ-3)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Apply and Evaluate BMPs for freshwater mussel relocation activities (DELV-4)	understanding habitat relationships will continue for updating mussel best management practices.

Submit data to CTUIR central database (DELV-6)	submit data from continued habitat relationship studies to CTUIR central data management system.

Objective: Host Fish Relationships (OBJ-4)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


House fish at Walla Walla laboratory facility for host work and propagation effort (DELV-3)	Laboratory host fish studies will continue to update our knowledge of host fish relationships.

Submit data to CTUIR central database (DELV-6)	submit data from continued host fish studies to CTUIR central data management system.

Objective: Artificial Propagation (OBJ-5)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Freshwater mussel propagation, culture, and restoration and the Umatilla and other sub-basins (DELV-2)	Laboratory holding and rearing studies will continue to update our knowledge of mussel artificial propagation methods.

Objective: Promote Freshwater Mussel Best Management Practices (OBJ-6)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Apply and Evaluate BMPs for freshwater mussel relocation activities (DELV-4)	provide BMP findings to inform habitat programs to promote conservation and restoration of freshwater mussel populations

Submit data to CTUIR central database (DELV-6)	submit data from continued habitat relationship studies to CTUIR central data management system.

Objective: Education and Outreach (OBJ-7)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Apply and Evaluate BMPs for freshwater mussel relocation activities (DELV-4)	Utilize accumalative knowledge of BMP's into education and outreach efforts.

Objective: Freshwater Mussel Master Supplementation Plan (OBJ-8)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Develop supplementation research plan for Freshwater Mussel Project (DELV-5)	Develop master mussel supplementation plan to guide research and restoration actions over the next 10-20 years.

*This section was not available on proposals submitted prior to 9/1/2011

RM&E Protocols and Methods

RM&E Protocol	Deliverable	Method Name and Citation
Monitor mussel populations in rivers of the CTUIR ceded lands v1.0	Monitor mussel populations in sub-basins across CTUIR ceded lands (DEL 1) (DELV-1)<br />Submit data to CTUIR central database (DELV-6)	Quantitative Freshwater Mussel Surveys v1.0 (Beth Glidewell 2018) Visual Survey for Freshwater Mussels v1.0 (Beth Glidewell 2018)
Apply and Evaluate Best Management Practices for freshwater mussel relocation activities v1.0	Apply and Evaluate BMPs for freshwater mussel relocation activities (DELV-4)	Quantitative Freshwater Mussel Surveys v1.0 (Beth Glidewell 2018) Visual Survey for Freshwater Mussels v1.0 (Beth Glidewell 2018) Salvage and Translocation of Freshwater Mussels during Habitat Restoration Actions v1.0 (Beth Glidewell 2018)

Project Deliverables & Budget

Project Deliverable	Start	End	Budget
Monitor mussel populations in sub-basins across CTUIR ceded lands (DEL 1) (DELV-1)	2020	2024	$350,000
Freshwater mussel propagation, culture, and restoration and the Umatilla and other sub-basins (DELV-2)	2020	2024	$450,000
House fish at Walla Walla laboratory facility for host work and propagation effort (DELV-3)	2020	2024	$400,000
Apply and Evaluate BMPs for freshwater mussel relocation activities (DELV-4)	2020	2024	$150,000
Develop supplementation research plan for Freshwater Mussel Project (DELV-5)	2020	2024	$170,000
Submit data to CTUIR central database (DELV-6)	2020	2024	$150,000
		Total	$1,670,000

Requested Budget by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year	Proposal Budget Limit	Actual Request	Explanation of amount above FY2019
2020	$393,000	$334,000	budget is flat lined. Deliverable estimate does not include EC compliance, project administration and reporting. Project will be implemented anmual at $393,000 level
2021	$393,000	$334,000	budget is flat lined. Deliverable estimate does not include EC compliance, project administration and reporting. Project will be implemented anmual at $393,000 level
2022	$393,000	$334,000	budget is flat lined. Deliverable estimate does not include EC compliance, project administration and reporting. Project will be implemented anmual at $393,000 level
2023	$393,000	$334,000	budget is flat lined. Deliverable estimate does not include EC compliance, project administration and reporting. Project will be implemented anmual at $393,000 level
2024	$393,000	$334,000
Total	$1,965,000	$1,670,000

There are no Line Item Budget entries for this proposal.

Major Facilities and Equipment explanation:
CTUIR will provide office space, computers, GIS software, and all sampling gear necessary (wetsuits, drysuits, SCUBA and snorkeling equipment, nets, ethanol, sample jars etc). The CTUIR, through the Walla Walla Community College’s Water and Environmental Center Aquatic Propagation Laboratory, will provide laboratory space and equipment (including fish tanks, aerators, temperature loggers) for mussel propagation and host fish identification studies. We will additionally purchase new holding chambers and systems for juvenile mussel rearing. The CTUIR will also provide microscopes and imaging equipment to inspect fish collected. We additionally work with Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation on implementation and evaluation of Best Management Practices for mussels in habitat restoration work. This work is mainly office related and Xerces Society provides computer and software to support this partnered work. Computers and software (R, ImageJ, Logger Pro, HOBOware, and others) will also be provided.

Cost Share

None

Project References or Citations

Bauer, G., and K. Wachtler Eds. 2001. Ecology and evolution of the freshwater mussels Unionoida. Ecological studies, vol. 145. Heidelberg, Germany. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York.

Blevins, E., Jepsen, S., Box, J. B., Nez, D., Howard, J., Maine, A., & O'Brien, C. 2017. Extinction Risk of Western North American Freshwater Mussels: Anodonta Nuttalliana, the Anodonta Oregonensis/Kennerlyi Clade, Gonidea Angulata, and Margaritifera Falcata. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation, 20(2): 71-89.

Blevins, E., L. McMullen, S. Jepsen, M. Blackburn, A. Code, and S. H. Black. 2017. Conserving the gems of our waters: Best management practices for protecting native western freshwater mussels during aquatic and riparian restoration, construction and land management projects and activities. 108 pp. Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. (available online at www.xerces.org).

Bolland, J. D., Bracken, L. J., Martin, R., & Lucas, M. C. 2010. A protocol for stocking hatchery reared freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 20(6): 695-704.

Bonneville Power Administration Administrators Record of Decision Columbia Basin Fish Accords. 2008

Brim Box, J., & Mossa, J. 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and problems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 18(1): 99-117.

Brim Box, J., J. Howard, D. Wolf, C. O’Brien, D. Nez and D. Close. 2006. Freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoida) of the Umatilla and Middle Fork John Day rivers in eastern Oregon. Northwest Science, 80: 95-107. 

Chong JP, Brim Box JC, Howard JK, Wolf D, Myers TL, Mock KE 2008. Three deeply divided lineages of the freshwater mussel genus Anodonta in western North America. Conservation Genetics, 9: 1303-1309. 

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership, and StreamNet. 2011. Columbia River Basin Collaborative Data Sharing Strategy:
Salmon and Steelhead Population Abundance and Productivity Indicators. 181 pp.

Cosgrove, P., Young, M., Hastie, L., Gaywood, M. and Boon, P. 2000. The status of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera Linn. In Scotland. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst., 10: 197-208.

CTUIR (Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation). S?a´xu, Siwa´ala, Seewi?s, River Mussels Through Time. 2015. Color Press: Walla Walla, WA.

Confederated Tribes on the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Commission, Nez Perce Tribe, and Yakama Nation. 2018. Master Plan: Pacific Lamprey Artificial Propagation, Translocation, Restoration, and Restoration. 179 pp.
Draft Umatilla/Willow subbasin Plan. 2004. Appendix H – Research Monitoring and Evaluation.

Duncan, N. 2008. Survey Protocol for Aquatic Mollusk Species: Preliminary Inventory and Presence/Absence Sampling, Version 3.1. Portland, OR. Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 6. 52 pp.

Galbraith, H. S., Spooner, D. E., & Vaughn, C. C. 2008. Status of rare and endangered freshwater mussels in southeastern Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist, 53(1): 45-50.

Geist, J. and K. Auerswald. 2007. Physicochemical stream bed characteristics and recruitment of the freshwater pearl mussel. Freshwater Biology, 52: 2299-2316. 

Geist, J., & Kuehn, R. 2005. Genetic diversity and differentiation of central European freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) populations: implications for conservation and management. Molecular Ecology, 14(2): 425-439.

Graf, D. L., & Cummings, K. S. 2007. Review of the systematics and global diversity of freshwater mussel species (Bivalvia: Unionoida). Journal of Molluscan Studies, 73(4): 291-314.

Haag, W. R., & Williams, J. D. 2014. Biodiversity on the brink: an assessment of conservation strategies for North American freshwater mussels. Hydrobiologia, 735(1): 45-60.

Helmstetler, H. and D. L. Cowles. 2008. Population Characteristics of Native Freshwater Mussels in the mid-Columbia and Clearwater Rivers, Washington State. Northwest Science 82: 211-221. 

Howard, J. K., & Cuffey, K. M. 2006. Factors controlling the age structure of Margaritifera falcata in 2 northern California streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 25(3): 677-690.

Jones. K, G.C. Poole, E.J. Quaempts, S. O’Daniel, T. Beechie. 20018. The Umatilla River Vision. 32 pp

Kesler, D. H., Newton, T. J., & Green, L. 2007. Long-term monitoring of growth in the Eastern Elliptio, Elliptio complanata (Bivalvia: Unionidae), in Rhode Island: a transplant experiment. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 26(1): 123-133.

Kreeger, D., Gatenby, C., & Raksany, D. 2004. April. Beyond biodiversity: the conservation and propagation of native mussel biomass for ecosystem services. In Abstract from paper presented at the 2nd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Northwest Native Freshwater Mussel Working Group.

Layzer, J. B. and L. M. Madison. 1995. Microhabitat use by freshwater mussels and recommendations for determining their instream flow needs. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 10: 329-345. 

Limm, M. P., and M. E. Power. 2011. Effect of the western pearlshell mussel Margaritifera falcata on Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata and ecosystem processes. Oikos, 120: 1076–1082. 

Lydeard, C., Cowie, R. H., Ponder, W. F., Bogan, A. E., Bouchet, P., Clark, S. A., ... & Hershler, R. 2004. The global decline of nonmarine mollusks. AIBS Bulletin, 54(4): 321-330.

Maine, A., D. Nez, and C. O’Brien. 2017. Freshwater mussel decline in the Middle Fork John Day River, Oregon. Poster presented at: Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Symposium. March 26-30, 2017. Cleveland, Ohio.

Maine, A., Arango, C., and C. O’Brien. 2016 Host fish Associations of the California Floater (Anodonta californiensis) in the Yakima River Basin, Washington. Northwest Science, 90(3): 290-300.

Master, L. L., B. A. Stein, L. S. Kutner, and G. A. Hammerson. 2000. Vanishing assets: conservation status of U.S. species. Pages 93–118 in B. A. Stein, L. S. Kutner, and J. S. Adams, editors. Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.

McMahon RF, Bogan AE (2001) Mollusca: Bivalvia. In: Thorp JH, Covich AP (eds) Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates, 2nd eds. Academic, San Diego, pp 331–429.

Mock KE, Brim Box JC, Chong JP, Howard JK, Nez DA, Wolf D, Gardner RS. 2010. Genetic structuring in the freshwater mussel Anodonta in the western United States: correspondence with hydrologic basins but not current taxonomy. Molecular Ecology, 19: 569–591. 

Mock, K. E., Brim Box, J. C., Chong, J. P., Furnish, J., & Howard, J. K. 2013. Comparison of population genetic patterns in two widespread freshwater mussels with contrasting life histories in western North America. Molecular ecology, 22(24): 6060-6073.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Adaptive Management for ESA-Listed Salmon and Steelhead Recovery: Decision Framework and Monitoring Guidance. Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center. 

Nedeau, E.J., A.K. Smith, J. Stone, and S. Jepsen. 2009. Freshwater mussels of the Pacific Northwest. Xerces Society. 60 pp.

Newton, T. J., Woolnough, D. A., & Strayer, D. L. 2008. Using landscape ecology to understand and manage freshwater mussel populations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27(2): 424-439.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2017-4. Research Plan. 19 pp.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2010-17. Draft Columbia River Basin Monitoring, Evaluation, Research and Reporting (MERR) Plan.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2010-17. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. 2014-12

O'Brien, C., Nez, D., Wolf, D., & Box, J. B. 2013. Reproductive biology of Anodonta californiensis, Gonidea angulata, and Margaritifera falcata (Bivalvia: Unionoida) in the Middle Fork John Day River, Oregon. Northwest Science, 87(1): 59-72.

Pusch, M., J. Seifert, and N. Walz. 2001. Filtration and respiration rates of two unionid species and their impact on the water quality of a lowland river. In: Bauer, G., and K. Wachtler (Eds.). 2001. Ecology and evolution of the freshwater mussels Unionoida. Ecological studies, vol. 145. Heidelberg, Germany. Springer-Verlag.

Quaempts, E. J. et al., 2018. Aligning environmental management with ecosystem resilience: a First Foods example from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 23(2).

Spring Rivers. 2007. Reproductive Timing of Freshwater Mussels and Potential Impacts of Pulsed Flows on Reproductive Success. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program. 

Strayer, D. 1983. The effects of surface geology and stream size on freshwater mussel (Bivalvia, Unionidae) distribution in southeastern Michigan, U.S.A.. Freshwater Biology, 13: 253-264. 

Strayer, D. L. 1999. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 18(4): 468-476.

Strayer, D. L., J. A. Downing, W. R. Haag, T. L. King, J. B. Layzer, T. J. Newton, and S. J. Nichols. 2004. Changing perspectives on pearly mussels, North America's most imperiled animals. BioScience 54: 429-439. 

Strayer, D. L., & Malcom, H. M. 2012. Causes of recruitment failure in freshwater mussel populations in southeastern New York, Ecological Applications, 22(6):1780-1790.

Vaughn, C. C. 2012. Life history traits and abundance can predict local colonisation and extinction rates of freshwater mussels. Freshwater Biology, 57(5), 982-992.

Vaughn, C. C. and C. C. Hakenkamp. 2001. The functional role of burrowing bivalves in freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 46(11): 1431. 

Vaughn, C. C., K. B. Gido, and D. E. Spooner. 2004. Ecosystem processes performed by Unionid mussels in stream mesocosms: species roles and effects of abundance. Hydrobiologia 527(1): 35-47. 

Villella, R. F., Smith, D. R., & Lemarie, D. P. 2004. Estimating survival and recruitment in a freshwater mussel population using mark-recapture techniques. The American midland naturalist, 151(1): 114-133.

Walker, K. F., M. Byrne, C. W. Hickey and D. S. Roper. 2001. Freshwater mussels (Hyriidae) of Austalasia. In G. Bauer & K. Wachtler (eds), Ecology and Evolution of Freshwater Mussels, Unionoida. Ecological Studies, Vol. 145. Springer Verlag, 5–31.

Watters, G. T. 1996. Small dams as barriers to freshwater mussels (Bivalvia, Unionoida) and their hosts. Biological conservation, 75(1): 79-85.

Watters, G. T. 2000. Freshwater mussels and water quality: A review of the effects of hydrologic and instream habitat alterations. Pages 261-274. 

Williams, J. D., Fuller, S. L., Grace, R., Mayden, R. L., & Tomelleri, J. R. 1992. Effects of impoundments on freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the main channel of the Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers in western Alabama.

Williams, J. D., Bogan, A. E., Butler, R. S., Cummings, K. S., Garner, J. T., Harris, J. L., ... & Watters, G. T. 2017. A revised list of the freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation, 20(2): 33-58.

Notes

Project is utilizing a study design for freshwater mussel propagation, culture, and restoration v1.0. The protocol is "propagation and culture of freshwater mussels for restoration." Deliverables associated are:DELV-2: Freshwater mussel propagation, culture, and restoration and the Umatilla and other sub-basins DELV-3: House fish at Walla Walla laboratory facility for host work and propagation effort DELV-5: Develop supplementation research plan for Freshwater Mussel

2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support Assessments

Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number:

2002-037-00-ISRP-20190404

Project:

2002-037-00 - Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration

Review:

2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support

Proposal Number:

NPCC19-2002-037-00

Completed Date:

None

First Round ISRP Date:

4/4/2019

First Round ISRP Rating:

Response Requested

First Round ISRP Comment:

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 2018-8, 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

6. The third goal of incorporating mussel monitoring in other monitoring efforts is vague and weakly linked to the subsequent eight objectives.

Comment:

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.

Documentation Links:

Proponent Presentation
Proponent Response (5/1/2019)

Proponent Response:

200203700 - Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration • Background info in Taurus: Project proposal

Proponent: Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)

Recommendation: Response requested

Response requested comment:

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.

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

The most successful supplementation strategies determined from Phase 3 will be proposed for broader application, both numerically and geographically to advance restoration of freshwater mussels in Columbia and Snake River tributaries.

Figure 1. Anticipated adaptive management framework for Freshwater Mussel 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.

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:

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
1. Population Monitoring (phase I-III)	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 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 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.

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.

Map Visibility:
Map Name:
Description:

Please correct the errors noted below.

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

Download a snapshot PDF

Summary of Budgets

Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2025 DRAFT

Previous Fiscal Years

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

Council Recommendation

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Council Recommendation

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Response requested comment:

Comment:

1. Objectives, Significance to Regional Programs, and Technical Background

2. Results and Adaptive Management

3. Methods: Project Relationships, Work Types, and Deliverables

Council Recommendation

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Council Recommendation

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Public Attachments in CBFish

Other Project Documents on the Web

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Response requested comment:

Comment:

1. Objectives, Significance to Regional Programs, and Technical Background

2. Results and Adaptive Management

3. Methods: Project Relationships, Work Types, and Deliverables