1. Freshwater Mussels Research and Restoration Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation By Project Lead: Jayne Brim-Box Assistant: Christine O’Brien Project 2002-037-00

2. Long-term Goal: Restore Mussels to Umatilla & other mid-Columbia rivers. Phase I: Collect Biological Information and Physical Data. (completed - ongoing) 1. Surveys of distribution and status on Tribal lands 2. Taxonomic issues. 3. Host fish information. 4. Knowledge of habitat controlling distribution and abundance. 5. What do mussels contribute to our rivers? Phase II: Restoration and Monitoring (proposed) 1. Reintroduction using translocation and augmentation 2. Monitor restoration actions

3. Why Freshwater Mussels? 1. Most endangered faunal group in the world. 2. Western mussel populations are in decline. Many populations extirpated from streams and rivers on Tribal lands. 3. Five of eight Western US species described from areas on or near CTUIR ceded lands. 4. Importance to Tribes as food resource, cultural resource, etc. 5. CTUIR’s First Foods approach “brings attention to species and linkages (ecological processes) that may be largely unrecognized and sometimes devalued outside the reservation.” 6. Increasingly clear mussels provide valuable ecosystem services (e.g., benefit Pacific lamprey populations).

4. Margaritifera falcata Western pearlshell Anodonta spp. Floaters Gonidea angulata Western ridged mussel Freshwater mussels in the western US Phase I. Objective 1 - Distribution Surveys

5. = mussel project areas

6. 55 sites Umatilla & tribs. 37 sites Middle Fork & North Fork John Day Field Surveys (visual counts)

7. 12,001 mussels 5,317 mussels 65 (!) mussels 24 sites 13 sites 55 sites Why so few in Umatilla drainage? (and how many other western rivers like this?)

8. Why so few? Did they occur there historically? Museum Searches Smithsonian Institution CAS, ANSP, etc…. Tribal Elder Interviews

9. What species of Anodonta is in the Umatilla currently? What populations should be used for translocations? What populations are genetically most similar to this region? Where are the genetic dividing lines, especially in Anodonta? A. wahlametensis (type specimen) A. nuttalliana (type specimen) Same species? How do we find out? Phase I. Objective 2 - Genetics. Collect baseline genetic information to inform management and restoration efforts Local genetic questions:

10. Columbia River Basin Snake River Lahontan Basin Bonneville Basin Klamath Basin San Joaquin River Eel River Black River (Colorado) Sample Populations Sacramento River Anodonta californiensis/ nuttalliana n = 56 localities Margaritifera falcata n = 65 localities Regional genetic questions What do we call them? Why do we call them that?

11. J B.B. D F H A C E G I A. kennerlyi & A. oregonensis A. beringiana A. californiensis A. nuttalliana 2004-71838-60

12. Does genetic subdivision in western Anodonta reflect current species designations in Anodonta? NO! Three major groups exist; these may be different GENERA (12-14% sequence divergence!) 1. A.californiensis/nuttalliana 2. A.oregonensis/kennerlyi 3. A.beringiana

13. Compare patterns of genetic variation in two mussels occupying a common landscape: 1)Anodonta californiensis/nuttalliana clade 2)Margaritifera falcata

14. Life History Drivers host fish ecology hermaphroditism generation time population size Landscape Drivers habitat quality/size habitat stability connectivity & corridors drainage history Other Drivers mutation rate time Phylogeography

15. Anodonta californiensis/ nuttalliana Margaritfera falcata Genetic Structure among Basins Very pronouncedNot pronounced Inbreeding Within Populations Not pronouncedVery pronounced Population Allelic Richness (msat diversity) Avg. 57.8 alleles/ population Avg. 37.4 alleles/ population Mt Sequence Diversity Π = 0.02 Θ = 0.02 Π = 0.01 Θ = 0.01 Primary Messages about Contrasting Phylogeographies

16. Genetic Summary: Species occupying a common landscape may have very different phylogeographic and population genetic patterns Possible contributors to landscape genetic differences: - host fish dispersal - longetivity - hermaphroditism - postglacial expansion timing

17. Phase I - Objective 3 - Host Fish Information 60+ year absence of salmon in Umatilla

18. Laboratory studies

19. Close-up of Glochidium (~ 250-300 microns)

20. Juvenile mussel

21. Host Fish Identification for Western Ridgemussel

22. Phase I – Objective 4 – Habitat/Distribution Relationships

23. Mussels Flow Characteristic s Water Riparian Substrate Channel Morphology 1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 Hyporheic Zone Construct predictive model for mussel occurrence

24. Phase I Objective 5 - Mussel Contributions --from Vaughn and Spooner (2006) and Limm and Power (2011) Decrease phytoplankton biomass and total P and increase water clarity Increase biodeposition of nutrient-rich feces and pseudofeces to the streambed (food for other macroinvertebrates) Burrowing increases sediment water content, homogenization and depth of O2 penetration (benefits Pacific lamprey). Shells provides habitat for other benthic animals and plants. SalmonWater FIRST FOODS

25. Conclusions to Phase I: 1. Surveys of distribution and status on Tribal lands - Common some places, extirpated in others. 2. Taxonomic issues. - New genera and species to be described (E&T issues). 3. Knowledge of factors controlling distribution and abundance. - New data mining, model built 4. Host fish information. - Fish species identified for two genera, work on-going 5. What do mussels contribute to our rivers? - On-going work in Umatilla River and other basins

26. 144 Margaritifera falcata relocated into Umatilla River near gauging station above Meacham Creek in August 2008. Monitor: movement, growth, water variables, nutrients, algal growth, etc… Phase II – Objective 1 – Restoration and Monitoring Pilot relocation efforts in the Umatilla

27. Phase II Objective 1 Restoration and Augmentation Approaches 1.Translocation 2.Augmentation using host fish 3.Augmentation using propagation

28. Long-term monitoring of restoration actions “These Gonidea show very highly synchronous growth and unusually strong relationships to climate, which indicates that they may serve well as a long-term ecological indicator of climate and the state of the river ecosystem.” Gonidea bed 2003: Maximum densities of ~575/m2* (highest density recorded in western US) 2011: All DEAD Phase II Objective 2

29. CTUIR Freshwater Research & Restoration Mussel Project Successfully restore and monitor sustainable mussel populations in the Umatilla River and other mid-Columbia drainages, using 1. Genetic information (e.g., strategies species-dependent) 2. Host fish information 3. Habitat characterizations 4. Predictive model for mussel occurrence 5. Physiological and age structure information and eventually..... 6. Explore the role of mussels as bioengineers in restoration projects.

30. Acknowledgements Gene Shippentower Debbie Docherty Ericka Hegeman Teara Farrow Jeanette Howard Julie Burke Gary James Tamao Kasahara Danielle Kreeger Karen Mock Eric Quaempts Celeste Reeves David Wolf Jr. Donna Nez Melissa Van Pelt Bryan Black Jeremy Wolf Andrew Wildbill