MUSSEL RECOVERY GROUP:
COLLABORATIVE CLINCH-POWELL FRESHWATER MUSSEL
AUGMENTATION PLAN
Mussel Recovery Planning Process
Mussel Recovery Group
VDGIF, USFWS, VT, TWRA,
TNC
2015- 2016 Meetings
Key Planning Outcomes:
Shared Understanding of
Desired Outcomes & Measures
of Progress
Strategic Reach Focus
Draft 10- Year Collaborative
Augmentation Plan
Goals for Collaborative Planning
Where We Are & Where We Want to Be:
Baseline condition of current mussel populations &
indicators
Baseline summary of augmentation programs
Desired future conditions (50-year) for mussel
populations, by reach
How Far We Can Get in 10 Years:
Strategic spatial focus to recovery
Augmentation’s Contribution- with current capacity &
partnerships
“The Ask”- a vision for augmentation’s contribution with
increased capacity and partner commitments
Strategic Reach Focus
Color-coded Categories & Descriptions:
Very GoodConsistent with self-sustaining populations, exhibiting the natural diversity expected (based on historical records), and capable of surviving natural disturbances without management assistance
GoodConsistent with stable populations, exhibiting the natural diversity expected (based on historical records), and capable of surviving many natural disturbances with minimal management assistance
FairDeclining and in need of significant management assistance for long-term survival
Poor In imminent danger of extirpation or severe decline
Unknown Data not available to evaluate
Baseline Clinch-Powell
Mussel Population Characteristics
BASELINE CONDITION: 2010-2014 Upper Tennessee Mussel Population Status and Measurable Indicators
Population Indicators
River Mile (Reach Name)1
Clinch 170-205 (Tennessee
Clinch)
Clinch 205-220 (Speers Ferry)
Clinch 220-260 (Pendleton
Island)
Clinch 260-285 (Cleveland)
Clinch 285-320 (Swords Creek)
Clinch 320-330 (Cedar Bluff)
Powell 65-123 (Brooks Bridge -Fletcher Ford))
Powell 123-170 (58 bridge - Up)
Species Richness/
Composition (% Expected)2
40 (89%) 24 (57%) 20 (48%) 28 (78%) 10(53%) 15 (68%) 30 (77%) 5 (20%)
Recruitment (% Subadult)2,3 Yes (12.8) Y (2) Y (0.1) Yes Unknown Y (24) Yes N
Representativeness of Rare Species
(% Expected)221 (88%) 11 (55%) 8 (35%) 12 (71%) 2 (25%) 9 (75%) 14 (67%) 0 (out of 8)
Mean Population
Density (Range)2
~25 (7-30.93) 0.53 (0.53-8.61) <1 (0.6-24.6) ~5 (3.99-5.95)Unknown
(Likely Fair or Poor)
0.16 (0.16-2.05) ~1.3 (0.87-7.7) 0.16
Mean Diversity Index (Range)2 2.05 (1.81-3.18) 2.12 (2.05-2.52) 2.0 (1.93-2.69) 1.98 (1.72-2.04) 1.97 0.84 (0.84-1.84) 1.64 (1.36-2.45) 1.42 (0.64-1.42)
1Column widths reflect length of reach. 2Data Sources: Ahlstedt et al. 2008 (Carbo sampling), Ahlstedt Trend Data (1979-2006), Carey & Jones 2015, Eckert et al. 2007 (Fletcher Ford Musselrama Data), Eckert et al. 2009 (Cedar Bluff Musselrama Data), Hyde & Jones 2014, Johnson et al. 2012, Johnson et al. 2014; Otsby & Neves 2006, Virginia Tech Lower Clinch Long-term Sampling Data, Best Professional Knowledge. 3Recruitment refers to evidence of animals <3 years old.
Baseline Clinch-Powell
Mussel Population Characteristics
Very Good Good Fair Poor Unknown
BASELINE CONDITION: 2010-2015 Upper Tennessee Augmentation Efforts and Measurable Indicators
Augmentation Indicators:
River Mile (Reach Name)
Clinch 170-205 (Tennessee
Clinch)
Clinch 205-220 (Speers Ferry)
Clinch 220-260 (Pendleton Island)
Clinch 260-285 (Cleveland)
Clinch 285-320 (Swords Creek)
Clinch 320-330 (Cedar Bluff)
Powell 65-123 (Brooks Bridge -Fletcher Ford)
Powell 123-170 (58 bridge - Up)
Number of Species Released
(% of Expected)0 11 (28%) 8 (19%) 12 (43%) 0 12 (80%) 6 (19%) 0
Annual Numbers Released1 0 15,553 6,204 27,046 0 24,252 21,896 0
Number of Years of Efforts
0 5 5 6 0 6 6 0
Evidence of Survival2
(Yes/ No)- Yes Yes4 Yes - Yes Yes -
Survival Rates3
1Average (range) annual release capacity since 2010, ~16,000 (with a range of 11,000 - 24,000 individuals). 2Evidence suggests surv ival in the wild, after release. 3Future data collection should provide initial estimates of survival rates, and additional dedicated monitoring would contribute to this effort. 4Pendleton reach survival estimate is mostly from data collected at the Slant mussel release site.
Baseline Clinch-Powell
Augmentation Efforts
Desired Future Condition (50-yrs)
Key Augmentation Strategies
Increase the density, species richness, &
representativeness of rare species.
Maintain the dominance of key ‘ecosystem engineer’
species in the reach.
Maintain/ Increase the population size(s) of extant
species & overall assemblage, in order to facilitate
viability and genetic diversity.
Lower Powell & Cleveland Reaches:
10-Year Augmentation Goals
Determine Available Suitable Habitat
Current vs. Desired Densities (10/m2 for self-sustaining poplns)
Determine highest priority species for augmentation in the
next 10yrs & proportion of assemblage
Preference to SWAP Tier 1 & 2 species or ecosystem engineers with potential
ability to augment
Available Suitable/ Optimal Habitat * Desired Density * Proportion High-priority species
= Production Target
Cleveland Reach : 245,000 m2 * 10 mussels/m2 *0.43 = ~1.05 million mussels
Lower Powell Reach: 390,000 m2 * 10 mussels/m2 *0.43 = ~1.7 million mussels
E.g., Cleveland Reach:
10-Yr Species Augmentation Goals
Extirpated Species that Need to be Reintroduced: Cyprogenia stegaria
Dromus dromas
Lampsilis abrupta
Villosa fabalis
Extant Species In Need of Higher Densities for Viability: Epioblasma brevidens
Epioblasma capsaeformis
Epioblasma triquetra
Lemiox rimosus
Ligumia recta
Ptychobranchus subtentum
Villosa perpurpurea
Ecosystem Engineers Critical to Assemblage: Actinonais ligamentina
Lasmigona costata
10-yr Augmentation Plan
Key Aspects of the Plan
Baseline Condition of Mussel Populations, by Reach
Long-term Population Recovery Goals (50-yrs)
Shared 10-year Strategic Augmentation Plan (greatest contributions to long-term recovery goals) Substantial increase # of facility-reared
juveniles
Consolidation of deployment to 2 river reaches with best chance of near-term recovery
Key Needs & Collaboration
Renovation/ expansion of VDGIF’s Aquatic
Wildlife Conservation Center (Marion, VA)
5-10-fold increased production/ deployment
Shared commitments & support from partners
Coordinated juvenile mussel production, culture, &
deployment at Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Center
(VT) & Cumberland Aquatic Resource Center (TWRA)
Expertise/ Staff Capacity for Field work, Monitoring
Other support (Research, Land Protection, Funding)
Top Related