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.

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.

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.

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.

 

A response is requested on the following items:

1. Identify hypothesized limiting factors for low recruitment
2. Explain how exotics could change host relationships
3. 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.

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.