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)