Wednesday, Nov. 7
Survey Protocol in Big Rivers where Dredging Proposed
Several districts in various states have had to deal with dredging project issues. The protocol is an attempt to get the districts together to agree on what is an adequate survey for dredging proposals and the impacts on native mussels. The intent is for the sampling protocol to be applied for the commercial sand and gravel dredging industry as well as maintenance dredging activities. The primary issue in mussel surveys for maintenance dredging are the disposal areas. There are two parts to the protocol: 1) the survey protocol and 2) area of the buffer zone. If a concentration of species is found and/or threatened and endangered species, then an adequate buffer must be established between the dredging activity and mussels. Dredging in the Ohio in these areas would be prohibited. The resource agencies will require adoption of the protocol. The intent of the protocol is to identify areas of mussel concentration so these areas can be avoided.
Mussel Concentration. Definition of a mussel concentration: Does everyone agree to the >1 animal per square meter? This concentration would only apply to Belleville Pool and areas downstream in the Ohio. Pools above Belleville are still recovering and densities are less than 1 per sq meter, and it is not the intent to write them off. The 1 per sq meter came from an earlier survey on the Ohio that considered a mussel bed if densities were 1 per sq yard. A lower trigger can be used and distance between quadrats can vary depending on width of the mussel bed. The group decided we may need to develop separate protocols for different sections of the Ohio, and possibly one for the Allegheny. The group proposed that the protocol be tested and evaluated this coming year to see what works and what doesn't and how the protocol can be refined.
Sampling Season. It was agreed that calendar days are easier to administer than temperature for sampling times.
Time Limits on Data. For what period of time is the data considered to be good or reflecting the current status: In Kentucky it's 5 years; West Virginia is willing to go along with 5 years, however, if they believe P. capax may be present then 5 years is considered too long.
Visibility. Two feet was thought to be a problem in the lower Ohio. However, there is a need for a standard distance. It was recommended that a standard form be used for surveyors to check off items such as visibility, time spent searching, substrate type, etc. It was also recommended that the ends of dive transects be GPS and coordinates recorded on data sheets. It was strongly recommended that the SOW for all mussel surveys be reviewed prior to surveys being conducted.
Spot Dive. The spot dive should be placed in potential suitable habitat. It was agreed that some parameters need to be placed on the spot dive location and the value of doing spot dives. It was agreed that if a mussel is found in the spot dive then a transect needs to be laid and surveyed.
Buffer Zones. The buffer zones may need to be different for commercial dredgers than for maintenance dredging. Once the protocol has been evaluated a subcommittee will meet and revise the protocol (see attached list).
Mussel Database on the Ohio River and Resurvey of the River
The COE data is in ArcView and ArcInfo format. A single data format is used such that they can look at the river from Pittsburgh to Cairo. Transects are lines, mussel concentrations are polygons, and quadrats are point data. Differential GPS is required on all surveys. The database software is Access. They would like to input contemporary data from more recent surveys to link with where substrate types are located for the entire river (Louisville and Huntington districts). They are willing to be the repository for Ohio River mussel data and prefer data be sent in ArcView. The data is public and can be shared with others. The Louisville District will look into how to incorporate the Ohio River data from Heidi's surveys. This database would then provide good coverage for the mainstem Ohio River.
Is there a need to resurvey the Ohio River? The river was first surveyed in 1969, 1982 and Clarke surveyed it in 1993 and 1994 (the portion of the river in the Louisville District). The goal was to survey every 10 years. Most of the surveys were done by brail. If the river were to be resurveyed the approach would be to start by going to the old beds to see if they're still there and then look for areas of recovery. Another suggestion is to set up some fixed sites to resurvey and evaluate trends. It is preferable that the fixed sites have previous data. There are 10 sites that are surveyed as part of the ORVE zebra mussel monitoring, sites which were based on Williams and Shuster. It would take commitment of several agencies to accomplish this survey effort. The first step is to establish the goals and objectives of the survey and what is meant by a resurvey of the river. Is it a survey to assess general health, a survey to collect baseline data, a survey to address some of the regulatory issues, or is it a validation of where the mussels have been historically documented. The COE Ohio River mainstem study will be incorporating aquatic resource studies. It was recommended that a subcommittee flesh out the objectives and focus of the survey. Leroy Koch, Wayne Davis (co-chairs), Patty Morrison, Janet Clayton, Kevin Cummings, Steve Ahlstedt, Brent Harrel, Brant Fisher and a COE representative will serve on the subcommittee. If anyone else would like to serve on the subcommittee contact Leroy or Wayne.
List of Rare Freshwater Gastropods in the Ohio River Basin
Those doing field work should preserve specimens.
Update on Status Review and Distributional Histories:
The distributional history update is nearly completed by Bob Butler for Villosa fabalis, Plethobasus
cyphyus, and Cumberlandia monodonta. Based on this and the threat analysis it was agreed that Bob
will draft the candidate elevation reports. In these reports, Bob needs from the group specific
information on threats to extant populations, verifications on last date of occurrence, relative population
size data, and especially if these populations are recruiting. The extant cut-off data used was rather
arbitrarily assigned at approximately 15 years. It was recommended that Bob also make a separate
table with sites with live animal occurrences only. The candidate elevations will be presented to the 3
FWS regions (R3, R4, and R5) and they will decide whether to proceed. Region 3 has the vast
majority of occurrences for all 3 species so it makes sense to keep these as a single package. Though
there are holes in the data it is evident the range for all 3 of these wide-ranging species has been greatly
reduced. better information is needed on distributions in Wisconsin. Kevin surveyed 30-40 sites for V.
fabalis in Illinois and none were found. This species is gone from south of the Ohio River. Of all 3
species V. fabalis appears to have suffered the highest percentage (76%) of stream extirpations.
Plethobasus cyphyus has apparently disappeared from 68% of historical streams, while C.
monodonta has been extirpated from 61% of streams range wide. The group recommended
forwarding the report through the ORVE team to the regions with the recommendation that R3 take the
lead for listing. Right now Region 5 has the lead for V. fabalis and the best populations are in this
region, and Region 4 (Cookeville FO) has the lead for C. monodonta. In discussing this issue with
Cookeville FO staff, Lee Barclay has agreed that it sounds logical that his office give up the lead based
on Bob's findings. Plethobasus cyphyus is not currently considered a species of concern by FWS R4.
The group agreed we should update the status review and distributional history for Epioblasma
triquetra and Quadrula cylindrica next. Bob will put out a call for data on both species early next
year. Though Pleurobema rubrum is definitely a species in trouble there are still problems with
identification/classification that need to be addressed first. E. triquetra occurs on nearly every state list
throughout it's range as does Q. cylindrica. Someone brought up Ligumia recta as a species that
should have its status and distribution evaluated as well as Obovaria subrotunda and Fusconaia
subrotunda. It was also mentioned that P. sintoxia is in trouble in the Tennessee system but is likely
to be stable in other systems. The systematics for the entire genus Pleurobema needs to be evaluated.
The subgroup agreed to put together a recommendation to look at the taxonomic issues of both
Pleurobema and Toxolasma. Elliptio crassidens is a high priority genetics issue. Species with high
genetics research needs are: E. crassidens, P. rubrum, P. cordatum, V. iris and V. lienosa complex,
and T. lividus. Any Toxolasma samples including T. lividus should be sent to Randy Hoeh
(whoeh@kent.edu).
Dick Biggins has offered to fund genetics work for E. crassidens. The species is extirpated from the
upper Mississippi but is still found in the Greenup Pool, Elk River, and Upper Kanawha, among other
sites. Also need to collect specimens from the Mobile Basin and Appalachicola, and from the
Tennessee. Voucher whole animals, put in 100% ethanol, and send quickly to Chuck Lydeard
(clydeard@biology.as.ua.edu) or ship live animals overnight. A minimum of two animals should be
collected from each population.
There is a high priority need for additional surveys for S. ambigua. There are 2 or 3 populations in Illinois, some in Wisconsin and Indiana, and it is gone from Tennessee. Cyclonaias is doing well in the south and poorly in the northern part of its range. An Obovaria retusa was found in the Green River. Two have turned up in the Green in the last 3 summers.
Thursday November 8
Discussion on Functionally Extinct Species
What do we do with an extremely rare (functionally extinct) live specimen? How should we decide when to bring in a specimen to be held safely, the animal remains healthy, and hopefully propagate the individual. Researchers are currently making this decision on their own. There is a permit in Region 4 listing the species, rivers for collection, and how many to collect and the procedure; however, this issue hasn't been revisited for some time. The species that may fit this category need to be identified. This should be an issue the FMCS addresses. At a minimum surveys should mark the location (GPS location) so that if another individual is found someone can go back to the location that was marked, hopefully find it again, and have a pair in close proximity to one another. There should also be a contact person in each region to notify a specimen of extreme rarity was found.
Illegal Mussel Activity in northern KY
This year in the Licking River, individuals from western Kentucky and Tennessee were caught poaching and fined and their boats confiscated. Law enforcement has concerns about this activity spreading to local individuals. Mostly large washboards were collected at night. Shells are stockpiled until the market comes back up. They are also stashing live mussels in small ponds on their farms. Question is will they stay alive - the answer is no, they need flowing water. Based on this information law enforcement will contend the animals found in these ponds are dead because of their need for flowing water. These shells are going to New Zealand because of the black band in the shell of these animals - a specialty market. The Japanese are expanding outside of their waters so the price of shell is coming back gradually.
Value Assessment of Freshwater Mollusks
Rob Southwick, who did the fish valuation for AFS, was contacted this summer and is interested in developing the valuation for mollusks. Mussel kills unfortunately will continue and we need a mechanism to collect funds to help recover species and habitat. For example, an estimated 1 million animals were killed in 2 beds in the Ohio and there were likely many more. Some progress has been reported: Illinois got a $20,000 settlement for a pollution event. North Carolina currently collects $22.52 per mussel for common species such as E. complanata. The cost of the proposal is $43,500. The group recommended that Rob send the proposal to the Freshwater Mussel Conservation Fund. The group felt this proposal addresses all the necessary criteria. Deadline for proposals is December 15. If only partial funding is received, the subgroup will approach FMCS for additional funding. The Guidelines and Techniques committee is developing a method for assessing mussel kills. A draft outline of the field manual for the investigation of freshwater mollusk kills was distributed for review and comments which should be forwarded to John VanHassel at jhvanhassel@aep.com.
In the valuation we should also include what is called interim loss - if a resource is lost the American public has lost the enjoyment/use of that resource for a period of time and is a cost to be factored in to the valuation. Costs of assessment and restoration monitoring must be included in the valuation. John Alderman stated he would also like to see this applied to other situations in addition to spills, such as major development within basins and associated nonpoint source issues.
It was emphasized that there needs to be a closer relationship between state and federal resource and law enforcement personnel to coordinate their efforts in order to avoid double jeopardy. State's efforts could jeopardize the FWS effort to recover higher costs.
Mussel/Fish Coordinator in Region 4
The resource has greatly benefited from Dick Biggins efforts in this position. Dick will soon be retiring and it is not clear this position will be filled or whether it will be moved. This position has oversight for most mussel and many fish species in the region and provides the necessary big picture perspective of the overall status and research needs for these species. The concern is the species may be split up among various individuals/offices along with the larger pot of funds ($150k) being distributed into much smaller pots that can't be effectively leveraged. There is a need for a coordinator position to remain that oversees the restoration of these species and their habitat, whether or not the "lead" remains with this position. The position of mollusk/fish coordinator was originally set up to address the Ohio River portion of Region 4 and was then expanded to include the upper Coosa River drainage in the region, so this has been an ecosystem based position. There is actually a need for a coordinator in other major basins within the region. A contingency would be if the Service doesn't follow through with retaining this or similar positions, the effort should fall to the ecosystem teams. The subgroup will draft a letter stating the need for this position and the need for similar positions in other drainages as well as in other regions within the Service. The subgroup would then forward the letter to the ORVE team for signatures and ultimately be sent to the regional directors of all 3 regions. FMCS will also send a letter. It was recommended that Paul Johnson take the lead for developing both letters, but later during the FMCS board meeting, Patty Morrison was nominated by Bob Butler to draft a letter with an ecosystem "spin" for the ecosystem team leader (herself!) to sign and forward up the chain.
ORVE Website
The geographic distribution of species in the system has errors. Some species are shown as occurring in the Ohio River valley when in reality they do not. The problem mainly is in the periphery counties. There's also no differentiation between historic and current distribution. Work is currently going on to distinguish historic and current occurrence, using 1970 as the cut-off for extant populations. Bob Butler will contact Kurt about the problem with the periphery counties and Jim Widlak will also talk with Kurt to correct remaining errors.
Need for a Mollusk Propagation Facility in the Ecosystem
Concern in FWS as to how hatcheries will be incorporated. Roberta Hylton has acquired funds to do a feasibility study as to the needs for a facility, location, type of facility, are current hatcheries suitable for culturing freshwater mollusks, etc. Do we have the facilities now to handle the culturing anticipated in the future? What species and rivers should be addressed first? Should the subgroup put together a document about propagation needs, current facilities, species and rivers that are recoverable and can be addressed now? In Tennessee they put together a matrix addressing diversity in streams and ranking these streams for recovery. The subgroup did list resources by focus areas but we have not ranked these rivers for recovery purposes. The subgroup agreed it would be beneficial to have an assessment of current facilities and activities by the states in the ecosystem in a concise report. The ORVE mollusk subgroup should evaluate rivers and species for restoration and/or augmentation that can then be sent to the states designating recommended areas for experimental populations. White Sulphur Springs NFH has received funds to build a new building for mussel and fish propagation. Construction will begin this spring. However, there currently are no plans on how the building will be used. They would like the subgroup to provide guidance. The first step is to revisit the subgroup mussel recovery plan and revise the section dealing with propagation. Dean Rhine will chair a subcommittee to address the ORVE mollusk restoration plan dealing with propagation (see attached list). There is no active fish group in the ecosystem outside of tristate fisheries. We may want to consider co-meeting with the group to raise the issue of native fish recovery.
Other Information
A proposal was submitted for flex funds to do a multi-fauna survey of the Green River. This proposal ranked highest so it's hopeful it will be funded at some level. Crayfish need the most work with some mussel survey in the tributaries. The Non-game committee of the southern division of AFS is hosting a workshop on crayfish identification.
Congratulations to Patty Morrison who is the new ORVE team leader.
Next subgroup meeting:
November 6-7, 2002 in Crittenden, Kentucky
Subcommittee for ORVE Mollusk Restoration Plan
Dean Rhine - chair
Patricia Morrison
Brent Harrel
Leroy Koch
Tom Watters
Rob Tawes
Dick Neves
Subcommittee for Freshwater Mussel Survey Protocol
Patricia Morrison - chair
Wayne Davis
Janet Clayton
Rita Villella
Leroy Koch
Tom Watters
Brent McClane
Tim Fudge
Heidi Dunn
Bob Van Hoff
Jim Widlak
Greg Zimmerman
Subcommittee for Re-Survey for Freshwater Mussels of the Ohio River
Wayne Davis - co-chair
Leroy Koch - co-chair
Steve Ahlstedt
Patty Morrison
Janet Clayton
Kevin Cummings
Brent Harrel
Brant Fisher
COE representative
Ohio River Ecosystem Team Mollusk Subgroup Meeting, 7-8 Nov. 2001 Attendees
Bob Butler US Fish and Wildlife Service 828/258-3939 x235 bob_butler@fws.gov
Dick Neves VA Coop Fish & Wildlife Unit 540/231-5927 mussel@vt.edu
Rita Villella Leetown Science Center 304/724-4472 rita_villella@usgs.gov
Steve Ahlstedt USGS 865/545-4140 x17 ahlstedt@usgs.gov
Dick Biggins US Fish and Wildlife Service 828/258-3939 x228 richard_biggins@fws.gov
Angie Boyer US Fish and Wildlife Service 614/469-6923 x22 angela_boyer@fws.gov
Greg Zimmerman EnviroScience 800/940-4025 gzimmerman@enviroscienceinc.com
Ronald Cicerello KY Nature Preserves Commission 502/573-2886 ronald.cicerello@mail.state.ky.us
Wayne Davis KY FWR 502/564-7109 x365 wayne.davis@mail.state.ky.us
Janet Clayton WV DNR 304/637-0245 jclayton@dnr.state.wv.us
Patricia Morrison USFWS, Ohio River Islands NWR 304/422-0752 patricia_morrison@fws.gov
Brent Harrel USFWS, Frankfort, KY 504/695-0468 brent_harrel@fws.gov
Kevin Roe Saint Louis University 314/977-3935 roekj@slu.edu
St. Louis, MO 63103
Leroy Koch US FWS 502/695-0468 leroy_koch@fws.gov
Tom Watters Ohio State University 614/292-6170 watters.1@osu.edu
Dean Rhine White Sulphur Springs NFH 304/536-1361 dean_rhine@fws.gov
John Alderman NC Wildlife Resources Comm. 919/542-5331 aldermjm@mindspring.com
Brent McClane McClane Environmental Services 314/890-8524 bmcclane@swbell.net
Tim Fudge US Army Corps - Huntington Dist. 304/529-5684 timothy.c.fudge@lrh01.usace.army.mil
Terry Siemsen US Army Corps - Louisville Dist. 802/315-6925 terry.s.siemsen@lrl02.usace.army.mil
Bob Van Hoff Corps of Engineers Lou. KY 502/315-6709 robert.j.vanhoff@lrl02.usace.army.mil
Rob Tawes USFWS Cookeville Field Office 931/528-6481 x213 robert_tawes@fws.gov
Jim Widlak USFWS Cookeville Field Office 931/528-6481 x202 james_widlak@fws.gov
Carlos Echerarria USFWS Warm Springs NFH, GA 706/655-3620 carlos_echerarria@fws.gov
John Schmerfeld USFWS Gloucester, VA 804/693-6694 x107 jphn_schmerfeld@fws.gov
Kevin Cummings Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv., Champaign, IL 217/333-1623 ksc@inhs.uiuc.edu
Heidi Dunn Ecological Specialists, Inc. 636/447-5355 Hdunn@Ecologicalspecialists.com
St. Peters, MO