PROTOCOL FOR THE DETECTION AND RELOCATION OF GREAT LAKES AREA (OGLA)

PROTOCOL FOR THE DETECTION AND RELOCATION OF GREAT LAKES AREA (OGLA)
PROTOCOL FOR THE DETECTION AND RELOCATION OF
FRESHWATER MUSSEL SPECIES AT RISK IN ONTARIOGREAT LAKES AREA (OGLA)
G. Mackie1, T.J. Morris2, and D. Ming3
1
Department of Integrative Biology
University of Guelph
50 Stone Road East
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1
2
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
PO Box 5050, 867 Lakeshore Rd.
Burlington, Ontario, L7R 4A6
3
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Ontario-Great Lakes Area
PO Box 5050, 867 Lakeshore Rd.
Burlington, Ontario, L7R 4A6
2008
Canadian Manuscript Report of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2790
1
Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
Manuscript reports contain scientific and technical information that contributes to existing
knowledge but which deals with national or regional problems. Distribution is restricted to
institutions or individuals located in particular regions of Canada. However, no restriction is
placed on subject matter, and the series reflects the broad interests and policies of Fisheries
and Oceans Canada, namely, fisheries and aquatic sciences.
Manuscript reports may be cited as full publications. The correct citation appears
above the abstract of each report. Each report is abstracted in the data base Aquatic
Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts.
Manuscript reports are produced regionally but are numbered nationally. Requests for
individual reports will be filled by the issuing establishment listed on the front cover and title
page.
Numbers 1-900 in this series were issued as Manuscript Reports (Biological Series) of the
Biological Board of Canada, and subsequent to 1937 when the name of the Board was changed
by Act of Parliament, as Manuscript Reports (Biological Series) of the Fisheries Research Board
of Canada. Numbers 901-1425 were issued as Manuscript Reports of the Fisheries Board of
Canada. Numbers 1426 -1550 were issued as Department of Fisheries and the Environment,
Fisheries and Marine Service Manuscript Reports. The current series name was changed with
report number 1551.
Rapport manuscrit canadien des sciences halieutiques et aquatiques
Les rapports manuscrits contiennent des renseignements scientifiques et techniques qui
constituent une contribution aux connaissances actuelles, mais qui traitent de problèmes
nationaux ou régionaux. La distribution en est limitée aux organismes et aux personnes de
régions particulières du Canada. II n'y a aucune restriction quant au sujet; de fait, la série
reflète la vaste gamme des intérêts et des politiques de Pêches et Océans Canada, c'est-à-dire
les sciences halieutiques et aquatiques.
Les rapports manuscrits peuvent être cités comme des publications à part entière. Le titre
exact figure au-dessus du résumé de chaque rapport. Les rapports manuscrits sont résumés
dans la base de données Résumés des sciences aquatiques et halieutiques.
Les rapports manuscrits sont produits à l'échelon régional, mais numérotés à l'échelon
national. Les demandes de rapports seront satisfaites par l'établissement auteur dont le nom
figure sur la couverture et la page du titre.
Les numéros 1 à 900 de cette série ont été publiés à titre de Manuscrits (série biologique)
de l'Office de biologie du Canada, et après le changement de la désignation de cet organisme
par décret du Parlement, en 1937, ont été classés comme Manuscrits (série biologique) de
l'Office des recherches sur les pêcheries du Canada. Les numéros 901 à 1425 ont été publiés
à titre de Rapports manuscrits de l'Office des recherches sur les pêcheries du Canada. Les
numéros 1426 à 1550 sont parus à titre de Rapports manuscrits du Service des pêches et de la
mer, ministère des Pêches et de l'Environnement. Le nom actuel de la série a été établi lors de
la parution du numéro 1551.
Canadian Manuscript Report of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2790
2008
PROTOCOL FOR THE DETECTION AND RELOCATION OF FRESHWATER MUSSEL
SPECIES AT RISK IN ONTARIO-GREAT LAKES AREA (OGLA)
by
G. Mackie1, T. J. Morris2, and D. Ming3
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Ontario-Great Lakes Area
PO Box 5050, 867 Lakeshore Rd.
Burlington, Ontario
L7R 4A6
1
Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1.
Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Burlington,
Ontario L7R 4A6.
3
Fish Habitat Management, Ontario-Great Lakes Area, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Burlington, Ontario
L7R 4A6.
.
2
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2008.
Cat. No. Fs 97-4/2790E ISSN 0706-6473
Correct citation for this publication:
Mackie, G., Morris, T.J., and Ming, D. 2008. Protocol for the detection and relocation of
freshwater mussel species at risk in Ontario-Great Lakes Area (OGLA). Can.
Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2790: vi +50 p.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... IV
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ IV
ABSTRACT
1.0
........................................................................................................................... V
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
1.1
PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT ...........................................................................1
1.2
WHO SHOULD USE THIS DOCUMENT? ...............................................................1
1.3
HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT ...........................................................................3
1.4
LEGISLATIVE ENVIRONMENT ...............................................................................3
2.0
IS A SAMPLING PROGRAM NECESSARY? ......................................................................4
3.0
OBTAINING A PERMIT UNDER SARA...............................................................................6
4.0
SAMPLING STRATEGIES TO DETECT THE PRESENCE OF SPECIES AT RISK (SAR) 7
4.1
KNOWLEDGE OF THE BIOLOGY OF THE SPECIES AT RISK .............................8
4.2
DELINEATION OF THE SURVEY AREA.................................................................8
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.3
DESIGNING THE SAMPLING PROGRAM ............................................................11
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6
5.0
DETERMINING MEAN AND MAXIMUM DEPTH .........................................9
DETERMINING SUBSTRATE TYPES AND PROPORTIONS ...................10
WATER VELOCITY ....................................................................................10
WATER CLARITY ......................................................................................10
TIMING OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS.......................................................11
SURVEY APPROACHES ...........................................................................11
QUALITATIVE SURVEYS TO DETECT SAR ............................................12
QUANTITATIVE AND SEMI-QUANTITATIVE SURVEYS TO DETECT
SAR ............................................................................................................13
SAMPLING GEAR IN SHALLOW WATER.................................................14
SAMPLING GEAR IN DEEP WATER.........................................................15
MUSSEL RELOCATION ....................................................................................................16
5.1
DELINEATION OF THE RELOCATION SITE ........................................................16
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.2
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING AND DELINEATING A RELOCATION
SITE............................................................................................................17
WHEN MORE THAN ONE RELOCATION SITE IS REQUIRED................17
RELOCATION OF MUSSELS................................................................................17
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
5.2.6
5.2.7
TIMING OF RELOCATIONS ......................................................................18
COLLECTING MUSSELS FOR RELOCATION..........................................18
COLLECTING MUSSELS AT RELOCATION AND CONTROL SITES ......19
CODING MUSSELS ...................................................................................19
MEASURING MUSSELS............................................................................21
REPLACEMENT OF MUSSELS ................................................................22
RESPECT FOR MUSSELS ........................................................................22
iii
5.3
MONITORING SURVIVAL AND GROWTH OF RELOCATED MUSSELS ............23
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.3.4
FREQUENCY OF MONITORING SURVEYS.............................................23
INCREASING THE PROBABILITIES OF FINDING RELOCATED MUSSEL
SAR ............................................................................................................24
MEASURING SURVIVAL OF MUSSELS ...................................................24
MEASURING GROWTH OF MUSSELS ....................................................24
6.0
IDENTIFICATION OF MUSSELS ......................................................................................24
7.0
SUMMARY AND CONTACT INFORMATION....................................................................27
8.0
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................28
9.0
ADDITIONAL READING ....................................................................................................30
APPENDIX 1:
GUIDELINES FOR FILLING OUT AN APPLICATION FOR A SARA PERMIT
WITH AN EXAMPLE OF A COMPLETED FORM ............................................39
APPENDIX 2:
AN EXAMPLE OF A COMPLETED DATA SHEET ..........................................49
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. DECISION CHART TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE COURSE OF ACTION
TO ADDRESS PROJECT-SPECIFIC MUSSEL SPECIES AT RISK ISSUES. ........2
FIGURE 2. AN EXAMPLE OF A DISTRIBUTION MAP OF A MUSSEL SPECIES AT RISK
USING DFO’S MAPPING TOOL FOR THE GRAND RIVER WATERSHED. ..........5
FIGURE 3. DELINEATION OF THE PRESCRIBED SEARCH AREA (= SUM OF AZ, RZ AND
ZOI). .........................................................................................................................9
FIGURE 4. SOME GEAR NEEDED FOR COLLECTING MUSSELS IN SHALLOW WATER. .16
FIGURE 5. HALLPRINT SHELLFISH TAGS®..........................................................................20
FIGURE 6. SHELLFISH TAG ON A KIDNEYSHELL. ...............................................................21
FIGURE 7. LENGTH, HEIGHT, AND WIDTH ASPECTS OF A MUSSEL. ...............................22
FIGURE 8. PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEWS OF A MUSSEL FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES..26
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1.
iv
SEDIMENT PARTICLE SIZE. ................................................................................10
Mackie, G., Morris, T.J., and Ming, D. 2008. Protocol for the detection and relocation of
freshwater mussel species at risk in Ontario-Great Lakes Area (OGLA). Can.
Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2790: vi + 50 p.
ABSTRACT
This document provides general information on the Species at Risk Act (SARA),
implications of SARA and its listed species on proposed habitat alterations, and the
associated roles and responsibilities of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Conservation
Authorities, proponents, consultants, and other scientific authorities. The purpose of the
document is to outline and standardize methods to be incorporated into field surveys
carried out to detect, and when appropriate, to relocate and monitor mussel species at
risk in Ontario. Guidance on when a SARA permit is needed and the process for
obtaining the permit is also provided.
This document is designed for use by persons planning projects in and around water
that might affect mussel species at risk in Ontario; for example, bridge construction,
pipeline crossings, dredging projects, and culvert installations.
RÉSUMÉ
Le présent document fournit des renseignements généraux sur la Loi sur les espèces
en péril (LEP), sur les conséquences de l’annexe 1 de la LEP et sa liste des espèces
sur les modifications à l’habitat proposées ainsi que sur les rôles et responsabilités
connexes de Pêches et Océans Canada, des Offices de protection de la nature, des
promoteurs, des consultants et d’autres autorités scientifiques. Le document a pour but
de décrire brièvement et de normaliser les méthodes à intégrer dans les études sur le
terrain effectuées afin de détecter, de surveiller et de relocaliser les espèces de moules
en péril en Ontario. De plus, le document indique quand un permis en vertu de la LEP
est requis et précise la marche à suivre pour obtenir ce permis.
Ce document est destiné aux personnes qui planifient des projets dans l’eau et en
bordure de l’eau qui sont susceptibles de nuire aux espèces de moules en péril en
Ontario; par exemple, la construction de pont, les croisements de pipelines, les projets
de dragage et les installations de ponceaux.
v
vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1
PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document provides protocols and methods for addressing the presence and
relocation of mussel species at risk within a survey area. By following these protocols
and methods, the project proponent and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) can
determine, with confidence, if a mussel species at risk (SAR) is within the zone of
impact, and if the project must be reviewed under the federal Species At Risk Act
(SARA).
Many of these protocols and methods will be necessary components of field surveys
conducted to detect, relocate, and monitor SAR mussels in Ontario.
Guidance on when to obtain a SARA permit for the collection and handling of species at
risk is also provided.
This report includes standardized methods for:
•
•
•
•
Conducting a mussel field survey to detect presence or estimate density of
mussel SAR;
Relocating mussels to avoid impacts as a result of a project activity;
Monitoring mussel survival and growth after their relocation;
Determining the need for a SAR permit and the process for obtaining the permit.
Figure 1 provides a flowchart to determine the appropriate course of action to address
project-specific mussel species at risk issues. The dashed boxes of the flowchart
represent the actions that are described in this report.
1.2
WHO SHOULD USE THIS DOCUMENT?
This document is written for persons planning projects in and around water that might
affect mussel SAR in Ontario. These activities could include bridge construction,
pipeline crossings, dredging projects, and culvert installations.
The protocol provides guidance on methods to detect and relocate mussels in Ontario.
The sampling design is one of the most important considerations in this document. The
choice of sampling design will be reviewed and approved by DFO. It is important to
ensure that appropriate sampling methods are considered in the design of any field
survey to detect or relocate mussel SAR.
1
Begin here
Are mussel SAR
present (refer to
mapping tool)?
Yes
No
Assess options
to avoid
i
t
Project
redesigned
or relocated to
ensure
no impact.
Maybe
Follow normal
approvals process.
Mussel
relocation
&
monitoring
Project
denied.
Decide course of action.
Precautionary approach.
Consider SAR present,
treat accordingly.
Perform field
survey to confirm
presence/absence
of mussel SAR.
SAR Present
SAR Absent
Figure 1. Decision Chart to Determine the Appropriate Course of Action to Address
Project-specific Mussel Species at Risk Issues.
(dashed boxes are activities that are described in this report).
2
1.3
HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
Section 2.0 provides guidance for determining if a mussel sampling program is required.
Section 3.0 outlines how to obtain a SARA permit. Section 4.0 describes sampling
methods for detecting the presence of mussel species at risk. Section 5.0 provides
information on recommended techniques for relocating mussels. Details on establishing
a monitoring program to follow survival and growth of relocated mussels are also
provided. Section 6.0 discusses the necessity of proper documentation of the presence
of species at risk and gives guidance on the type of evidence required (e.g., voucher
specimen, photographs) for species at risk that occur in Ontario.
1.4
LEGISLATIVE ENVIRONMENT
The purposes of SARA are to prevent wildlife species from being extirpated or
becoming extinct, to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated,
endangered or threatened as a result of human activity, and to manage species of
special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened. Currently,
several mussels are among the identified species at risk on Schedule 1 of SARA. The
SARA Schedule 1 is the official list of wildlife species at risk in Canada and species on
this list are afforded protection by legislation. It includes species that are extirpated,
endangered, threatened, and of special concern. Once a species is listed on Schedule
1, protection and recovery measures are developed and implemented. Species listed
on Schedule 1 will be periodically reviewed as ongoing studies and investigations
provide evidence to justify their inclusion or removal. To obtain a current list of mussel
species listed on Schedule 1 of SARA, refer to the SARA registry website
(http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca).
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for aquatic species including
freshwater fishes and mussels. Once a species is listed as extirpated, endangered, or
threatened on Schedule 1 under SARA, it becomes illegal to kill, harass, capture, or
harm it in any way. Critical habitats are also protected from destruction. The Act also
requires that recovery strategies, action plans, and management plans be developed for
all listed species. DFO is responsible for the development and coordination of recovery
strategies and action plans for endangered or threatened aquatic species at risk.
SARA also amends the definition of ’environmental effect‘ in the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) to include any change that a project may cause
to a listed species, its critical habitat or the residences of individuals of that species, as
defined in SARA. Therefore, projects that require an environmental assessment under
CEAA will have to take into account the project's effects on listed wildlife species and
their critical habitats. The assessment must include recommendations for measures to
avoid or reduce adverse effects, and plans to monitor the impact of the project if it
proceeds. The project plan must respect recovery strategies and action plans.
To determine whether or not the habitat provisions and prohibitions of SARA apply to a
particular project, it is necessary to know if a species at risk or its habitat will be affected
3
by the project. For some projects, it will already be known if a species at risk or its
habitat is present. For others, it will be necessary to determine if this is the case. Figure
1 is provided to aid in determining the appropriate course of action. Boxes in dashed
lines show specific activities for mussel SAR that are covered in this report.
2.0 IS A SAMPLING PROGRAM NECESSARY?
The local Conservation Authority (CA) or DFO office should be contacted to determine if
a species at risk may occur in the vicinity of the survey area. An aquatic Species at
Risk mapping tool, developed by DFO, compiles all available information on the
distribution of aquatic species at risk, and has been distributed to DFO offices and
DFO’s partner agencies including the CAs, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
Ontario Ministry of Transportation, and Parks Canada Agency. These maps are also
available on Conservation Ontario’s website. Proponents should be working with DFO
and/or the appropriate CA to determine the most current distribution of mussel species
on Schedule 1 of SARA. The mapping tool uses colour segments to distinguish where
mussel SAR are likely to be found: red shows SAR on Schedule 1 (threatened,
endangered, extirpated); orange shows threatened, endangered, extirpated species that
may be listed in one year; purple represents special concern species on Schedules 1
and 3 (for a glossary of terms related to the Species at Risk Act go to
http:www.sararegistry.gc.ca/). Figure 2 gives an example of a map of known
distribution of a mussel SAR in the Grand River watershed. Since all mussels on
Schedule 1 in Ontario are either currently listed as endangered, or are under
consideration for listing as endangered and threatened, only red and orange zones are
shown. The mapping tool is a living document and therefore users should always check
for updates prior to beginning a project.
Upon determining that a species at risk may occur at the project site, the next task is to
determine, in conjunction with DFO, if a sampling program is required. Generally,
sampling to detect the presence of a species at risk will not be required for the following
reasons:
•
the distribution of the species is known to include/exclude the project site;
•
it can be determined, without conducting sampling (e.g., appropriate habitat,
mapping tool indicates presence), that there is a very high probability of the
species occurring within the project site;
•
it can be determined, without conducting sampling (e.g., poor habitat, mapping
tool indicates absence), that there is a very low probability of the species
occurring within the project site; or,
•
it can be determined, without conducting sampling, that there is a very low
probability of the species being negatively impacted by the proposed activity.
If a species at risk is known to occur within the survey area, then sampling to
demonstrate its presence is redundant and will not be permitted. Similarly, if there is
4
the potential for a species at risk to occur in a survey area, and the proponent is
prepared to assume that the species is present and to allow agencies to assume its
presence during project evaluation, then sampling to demonstrate presence is not
required. There may be reasons to conduct sampling; for example, to determine the
relative significance of specific areas or as part of a monitoring program, but there is no
need to sample in order to simply demonstrate presence again, as this would cause
additional harm to the species at risk.
Figure 2.
An Example of a Distribution Map of a Mussel Species at Risk using
DFO’s Mapping Tool for the Grand River Watershed.
There are situations in which the probability of a species at risk being present can be
determined by DFO to be sufficiently low without undertaking any field sampling. This
may be the case in some areas of southern Ontario, where there is a considerable
amount of historical sampling data, and the species at risk has not been previously
collected within the study area of the project or habitat conditions are such that a SAR
cannot survive.
5
3.0 OBTAINING A PERMIT UNDER SARA
Since SARA was enacted on June 1, 2004, it has been an offence under Canadian law
to “kill, harm, harass, capture, or take an individual of a listed species that is classed as
extirpated, endangered, or threatened”. However, activities prohibited under SARA may
be necessary in order to protect species at risk and there is a provision in SARA that
allows such activities. At the discretion of DFO they may be allowed if:
a) the activity is scientific research relating to the conservation of the species and
conducted by qualified persons;
b) the activity benefits the species or is required to enhance its chance of survival in
the wild; or,
c) affecting the species is incidental to the carrying out of the activity.
A SARA permit must be obtained if a proposed activity may contravene any one of the
three SARA prohibitions. These are:
Section 32.
(1) No person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a
wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species, an endangered
species or a threatened species.
(2) No person shall possess, collect, buy, sell or trade an individual of a
wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species, an endangered
species or a threatened species, or any part or derivative of such an
individual.
Section 33.
No person shall damage or destroy the residence of one or more
individuals of a wildlife species that is listed as an endangered species or
a threatened species, or that is listed as an extirpated species if a
recovery strategy has recommended the reintroduction of the species into
the wild in Canada.
Section 58.
(1) Subject to this section, no person shall destroy any part of the critical
habitat of any listed endangered species or of any listed threatened
species — or of any listed extirpated species if a recovery strategy has
recommended the reintroduction of the species into the wild in Canada —
if:
(a) the critical habitat is on federal land, in the exclusive economic zone
of Canada or on the continental shelf of Canada;
(b) the listed species is an aquatic species; or
(c) the listed species is a species of migratory birds protected by the
Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994.
This includes any field sampling of species at risk, or fish or mussel salvage operations
during a project activity, and is in addition to a provincial scientific collection licence.
6
The local office of DFO must be contacted (by CAs or proponents) if it is suspected that
a permit will be required and DFO will advise.
A permit is obtained by submission of a standard application form. The most recent
version of the application form can be obtained from the SARA Registry website
(http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/permits/sarapermits_e.asp).
The name
and address to whom the application is to be submitted is also given on the website. If it
is known that the proposed activity does not pose a threat to the species at risk, or a
species at risk does not occur within the area, DFO may advise that a permit is not
required.
The applicant must demonstrate that they have sufficient expertise to conduct the field
survey, as well as identify the species at risk. A mussel surveyor should have sufficient
field experience, including documented field time, and the ability to demonstrate skills in
independently executing survey methods, in locating and identifying freshwater mussel
species, and in safe care and handling of mussel SAR. Individuals without the
experience or education should work with a mussel expert who has experience with the
species and field survey methods. Documentation of field-time and/or a letter of
recommendation regarding the surveyor’s in-basin experience and their knowledge in
surveying, handling, and identifying freshwater mussels (including SAR) may be
requested. Appendix 1 includes guidelines for filling out an application for a SARA
Permit as well as an example of a completed application.
4.0 SAMPLING STRATEGIES TO DETECT THE PRESENCE OF SPECIES AT RISK
(SAR)
While the presence of a species can be proven, absence rarely can. The most that can
be achieved when sampling is to demonstrate that the presence of a species in a
particular area is improbable, given the failure to capture by a sampling program in
which the probability of capture had it been present, was high. Surveys to detect
presence of mussel SAR must be done well in advance of construction activities and
proponents must give consideration to a possibility of relocation and the timing of the
relocation, if required (see sections 4.3.1 and 5.2.1). A survey will likely be required if
the project is located in a white zone (i.e., no mussel SAR records have been reported)
but evidence exists that mussel SAR are likely present. A survey is not required if the
project is located in a red zone of DFO’s mapping tool distribution maps and DFO may
request a mussel relocation. Section 4.0 discusses issues that deal only with a survey
to detect presence of mussel SAR; Section 5.0 needs to be consulted ONLY IF a
relocation is necessary or possible.
The four key aspects of designing a sampling program are:
•
knowledge of the biology of the species at risk (Section 4.1)
•
delineation of the survey area (Section 4.2)
7
4.1
•
designing the sampling program (locations, gear and effort) (Section 4.3)
•
species identification (Section 6.0). Note: This section deals with mussel
identification assuming that biologists already have knowledge of the biology,
ecology, and physiology of freshwater mussels (see references under Additional
Reading, Section 9.0),
KNOWLEDGE OF THE BIOLOGY OF THE SPECIES AT RISK
The known distribution of the target species, combined with its habitat requirements,
must be used to determine if it is reasonable to assume that the target species occurs
within the project survey area. Knowledge of the biology of the target species is critical
for sampling program design, and for determining if the proposed activity may impact
the species at risk. Detailed information regarding the habitat requirements and life
history of the target species at risk, including seasonal requirements, is essential in
determining the timing, phasing, target habitats, and methods of collection. Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) status reports for
individual species (http://www.cosewic.gc.ca), as well as recovery strategies posted on
the SARA registry, are good sources of species-specific information, and often provide
a bibliography of additional references. DFO has a series of fact sheets for individual
species at risk that can be obtained at local DFO offices or at http://www.dfompo.gc.ca/species-especes/home_e.asp. A search of the recent (post-status report or
recovery plan) scientific literature should also be conducted. Relevant habitat and life
history information must be included in the documentation of the sampling design.
4.2
DELINEATION OF THE SURVEY AREA
The extent of impacts from the proposed project will delineate the area for which the
presence or probable absence of a species at risk must be determined. In projects that
only result in direct physical impacts, the survey area may be limited to the project
footprint. In projects that also result in indirect impacts such as changes in flow regime,
water velocity, water quality, water temperature, siltation, substrate, and bed load,
multiple habitat characteristics over large areas may be affected, and the survey area
must be sufficiently large to include the area where these potential impacts occur. The
survey area must consider both temporary (e.g., during construction) and permanent
impacts. For example, the construction of a bridge may potentially result in a
temporary, detrimental sediment plume for some distance downstream, as well as a
permanent impact to the habitat within the footprint of a mid-channel pier.
The delineated area is referred to as the prescribed search area (PSA) (Figure 3). The
PSA consists of: the area to be directly disturbed by a project activity (called an activity
zone (AZ)); a risk zone (RZ) that provides some measure of protection beyond the
project activity zone and could be directly impacted by accident; and, a zone of
influence (ZOI) primarily on the downstream side of the of the AZ that can be indirectly
impacted by activities, such as smothering or abrasion from high silt loads.
8
For example, if the habitat biologist and engineers have estimated that a heavy silt load
may impact habitat quality for 7 m downstream, then the ZOI would be estimated at 7
m, as in the example below. The width of the AZ can be determined from engineering
diagrams and/or from the proponent’s habitat biologist for the project. The width of the
RZ can be determined from discussions with engineers and the proponent’s habitat
biologist on the extent of risks (e.g., heavy equipment turning around) of going beyond
the AZ. The width of the ZOI can be determined by the types of protection afforded to
downstream disturbance, for example, use of coffer dams, pools, etc. The ZOI may
also include an area upstream of the AZ, depending on the activities and types of
protection afforded to upstream disturbance. The sizes of the RZ and ZOI are
estimated on a case by case basis. Flow also needs to be accounted for since ZOI
could increase downstream due to increased flow during spate events. The size of the
PSA (= AZ + RZ + ZOI) must be approved by DFO.
For the sake of demonstration, let’s suppose the construction zone (AZ) is 18 m wide,
the RZ is 5 m on each side of the AZ (=10 m total), a coffer dam limits silt loading and
other indirect impacts (ZOI) to an estimated 7 m downstream. The total stream width to
be impacted is therefore 35 m; if the mean stream width (length) is 30 m, the total PSA
is 1050 m2.
Risk Zone (RZ)
Flow
Activity Zone (AZ)
Proposed pipeline
Zone Of Influence (ZOI)
Figure 3.
4.2.1
Delineation of the Prescribed Search Area (= Sum of AZ, RZ and ZOI).
Determining Mean and Maximum Depth
The depth measurements enable one to determine the kinds of equipment required to
do a survey and if SCUBA divers are needed. SCUBA and/or snorkel divers may be
required if depths exceed 1 m. Water depth is also an important criterion in selecting a
9
relocation site (see Section 5.0), if required. The mean depth can be determined by
measuring the depth, in meters, of the stream at 1 to 2 m intervals across the stream on
several transects. Minimum depth will always be zero and the maximum the deepest
measurement obtained. These depths will change over time depending on time of year,
spate events, etc.
4.2.2
Determining Substrate Types and Proportions
Knowing the types of substrates and their proportions will provide knowledge of the
extent of habitat types for the SAR in the PSA and are important criteria in the selection
of a relocation site (see Section 5.0), if required. At least 10% of the PSA should be
sampled randomly using 1 m2 quadrats, or 105 quadrats (10% 0f 1050 m2) in our
example. The substrate types are usually recorded using the Wentworth (1922) scale :
silt to fine gravel (particle sizes <8 mm); fine gravel to coarse gravel (particle sizes 8 –
64 mm); small to medium cobble (particle sizes 64 – 128 mm); large cobble to small
boulders (particle sizes 128 – 256 mm); boulders (particle sizes > 256 mm); bedrock
(large, extensive areas of solid rock) based on a 15 cm deep sample (Table 1).
Table 1. Sediment Particle Size.
4.2.3
Particle size (mm)
General description
<0.063
0.063-0.125
0.125-0.5
0.5-8.0
8.0-64.0
64.0-128
128-256
>256
silt
mud, very fine sand
fine to medium fine sand
coarse sand to fine gravel
small, medium to coarse gravel
small to medium cobble
large cobble to small boulders
boulders
Water Velocity
Substrate types are usually related to water velocity. Precise measurements of water
velocity are not required, but water velocity is an important criterion for selecting a
relocation site (see Section 5.0), if it is required. Riffle areas are required by many SAR
and the particle sizes often determine the distribution of a species in a riffle zone.
4.2.4
Water Clarity
Water clarity can be assessed visually as clear (substrate visible at all depths), turbid
(substrate not visible even in shallow water), or slightly turbid (substrate can be seen in
shallow water but not in deeper water). When sampling clear waters, use polarized
sunglasses; the polarized lenses help to reduce the reflection of light from the water
surface and aid greatly in visually locating mussels. Substrates in turbid waters are
most effectively sampled by feel. ’Raccooning‘ is a term used when sifting gravel and
finer substrates between the fingers.
10
4.3
DESIGNING THE SAMPLING PROGRAM
This section deals only with the protocol to determine if SAR are present in a specified
reach of stream (PSA). There are some fundamental concepts that need to be
considered, concepts that could affect the desired results, for example, the timing of
field studies and the delineation of the survey areas of concern.
4.3.1
Timing of Field Investigations
Spate events, including spring and flash floods, and high water levels will either prevent
the beginning a survey or put a halt to in-stream activities. Surveys are ineffective
during and directly after spate events and can be dangerous. The best time for
collecting mussels is during low flows, when water velocity is at base flow, and turbidity
is minimal. Some streams are naturally turbid and tactile collecting methods (e.g.
raccooning) must be used, but periods of low flow are still the best times to collect
mussels regardless of water clarity. Depending on the spring melt period, the earliest
that most streams become accessible in the Ontario-Great Lakes Area (OGLA) are from
mid-to-late May or beginning of June.
Surveys should also consider the lower temperature threshold for burrowing activity.
Mussels are non-thermoregulators. Mussels should not be disturbed when tissues may
freeze during exposure to low temperatures as this may increase the mussel’s
vulnerability to predation or to being swept downstream due to slower re-anchoring
capabilities. There is also evidence (Fuller 1974) that some native mussel species
burrow deeply during colder periods, decreasing the likelihood of detection. Sampling
can occur between June 1 and September 30 providing water temperatures exceed
16.0oC. Proposed activities outside this timeframe, or water temperature restriction,
must be approved by DFO. Proponents need to be aware that the sampling period
should allow time for the mussels to rebury themselves.
4.3.2
Survey Approaches
Assuming sampling is required, a choice will have to be made between a qualitative,
quantitative, or semi-quantitative survey. Strayer and Smith (2003) provide a detailed
discussion of the three methods and should be consulted if the information provided
below is insufficient.
Qualitative surveys: Qualitative surveys are designed to detect a mussel’s presence
without regard to its abundance. The most common qualitative survey methods used
are timed searches for live mussels and searches for middens (piles of dead shells left
by mussel predators like muskrats and raccoons) on both shorelines. Qualitative
surveys are useful for: (1) measuring mussel richness; (2) delineating the range of a
species; (3) determining the presence, but not absence, of a mussel SAR in an area of
a proposed impact; (4) detecting the presence, but not absence, of rare populations
when assessing site-specific impacts on mussel SAR.
Semi-quantitative surveys: Timed-search surveys in known areas are considered semiquantitative surveys because they combine qualitative (e.g., timed-searches) and
11
quantitative (e.g., defined spatial extent) methods (see below). Timed-search surveys
typically result in more species detections per unit time than do quantitative, quadratbased surveys (Wilcox et al. 1993; Smith et al. 2001a; Strayer et al. 1996).
Quantitative surveys: Quantitative surveys are used to determine the abundance and
diversity of mussels in a survey area and typically require excavation and sifting of
stream sediments for both adults and juveniles within quadrats. They are used to
assess impacts of stressors on mussel populations or to determine changes in
population demographics.
Quantitative sampling is usually perceived as timeconsuming and expensive but yields near perfect search efficiency for rare mussels
(McArdle 1990; Green and Young 1993; Hornbach and Deneka 1996; Strayer et al.
1997; Vaughn et al. 1997; Obermeyer 1998; Smith et al. 2001b).
4.3.3
Qualitative Surveys to Detect SAR
Qualitative methods using visual and/or tactile timed-searches are more commonly
used to detect mussel SAR than are semi-quantitative and quantitative methods. There
are two important consequences of a qualitative survey that need to be considered: (1)
an activity could be halted if a SAR mussel’s presence is confirmed; or, (2) serious
negative impacts could result if a survey erroneously concluded no mussel SAR present
when in fact there was a failure to detect them. Hence, any qualitative survey should be
designed to ensure a high probability of detecting a rare species. The probability of
detecting species presence is related to its abundance, its spatial distribution, sampling
effort, search efficiency within the area sampled (i.e., detectability), and how sampling
effort is distributed within a survey site (Smith et al. 2001a). The fundamental question
is, what is the minimal effort required to find a rare species?
The simplest sampling design is a qualitative method known as ’informal‘ or ’haphazard’
sampling (Strayer and Smith 2003). Places for sampling mussels or sediments within a
site are chosen without a formal design, for the convenience of the investigator, such as
searching for mussels where the habitat looks promising, where visibility is good, where
access is convenient, etc. Most timed-searches involve superficial visual or tactile
searches to locate mussels at convenient places (e.g., riffles near bridges), or quadrats
or transects deployed in convenient or interesting places, or in select locations that look
like good mussel habitat. The most serious flaw in informal designs is that it is
impossible to make any inferences about an entire mussel population without making
the unproven assumption that the samples are representative of the target population
(Strayer and Smith 2003). Consequently, results from informal samples are reported
without measures of uncertainty. Strayer and Smith (2003) state, “Data collected using
informal designs are NOT reliable for assessing population density, relative abundance
of species across species or across sites, and temporal changes in mussel populations.
Because of these problems, informal sampling is most useful in preliminary surveys and
for determining the presence of a mussel species at a site and should be avoided for
other applications (e.g., estimating population size, relative abundance, or temporal
changes of mussel populations).”
12
Informal sampling to detect rare species in a given area is recommended by MetcalfeSmith et al. (2000) and Strayer and Smith (2003) only if the search effort is high and
yields high search efficiency. Visual/tactile search times of < 4 person hours typically
collected fewer than 50% of the species present (Metcalfe-Smith et al. 2000).
Unfortunately, the amount of search effort required to ensure a specific probability of
detecting rare species has not been investigated. If the objective does not need to be
stated quantitatively, then a survey that provides the total search effort (e.g., total
number of person hours) to detect rare species may suffice, but DFO will advise on the
search effort required.
For these reasons, qualitative sampling is not appropriate for investigations
relating to development activities. However, it is discussed here because, when
combined with the quantitative approaches outlined below, qualitative sampling may
function as an effective preliminary screening tool. A single SAR specimen detected
during a preliminary qualitative survey will eliminate the need to undertake the more
intensive and expensive quantitative surveys. It will not eliminate the need for
relocation if required.
4.3.4
Quantitative and Semi-quantitative Surveys to Detect SAR
When the objective needs to be stated quantitatively, for example, to detect a SAR in a
site with a probability of ≥0.95, given that species abundance is ≥ 500, then a formal
probability-based protocol, as described below, will be required. A value of 0.95 is
selected because it provides for a high probability of finding mussel SAR and it is a
standard value used in probability surveys.
One of the more cost effective methods with clear, specific, and quantifiable objectives
is the semi-quantitative approach of Smith (2006) that links search area and search
efficiency to probability of species detection. Two important elements are required, a
minimum threshold for probability (DFO will use 0.95) and an assumed abundance that
is deemed appropriate for the survey area (DFO will provide). The form of the
relationship is:
Probability (detecting at least one individual) = 1 – eP‫־‬β·α·Τ/A
where β is the detectability coefficient, or a measure of the search efficiency, which is a
function of the species’ biology and the selected search methods; α is the estimated
area to be searched; T is an abundance estimate; and, A is the PSA. If the density is
known, substitute T/A with µ (density of the species). A large number of factors affect
the form of the relationship, including biology and natural history of the species (e.g.,
some are more cryptic by virtue of colour, size, behaviour); vertical position in substrate
(e.g., deeper in fall and winter than summer); physical factors (e.g., turbidity, substrate
type, vegetative cover); collectors (e.g., experience, fatigue, visual acuity). However,
many factors are constant for a species and searchers can cue in specifically on colours
and behaviours. Some factors can be somewhat controlled, for example, by selecting
experienced people and specific periods of the year for surveys. If the mean density or
13
percent of samples with a species is known for a SAR in the OGLA, one can provide an
estimate of the area needed to be searched for a SAR in a PSA.
For example, assuming 10% of samples in a similar reach of stream have a SAR with
an estimated density of 0.1/m2; using these data and a PSA of 1200 m2, then the total
abundance is estimated at 120 individuals (e.g., 0.1/m2 in 1200 m2 = 120 individuals).
Using a probability of ≥0.95 (tolerance for risk, or allowable harm, as determined by
DFO) and a search efficiency, β = 0.1, as determined by DFO, and transposing above
values into the above equation, (0.95 = 1 – eP‫־‬0.1·α·0.1), the area that needs to be
searched to find at least one individual is:
α = ln(1-0.95) = -2.996 = 299.6 m2
-0.01
-0.01
or 300, 1 m2 quadrats need to be distributed throughout the site, preferably within
transects oriented perpendicular to shore. Good spatial coverage and balance would be
achieved by selecting a random start and placing transects at equal intervals (Smith
2006) from that start. The time required to search the area can then be determined.
4.3.5
Sampling Gear in Shallow Water
The following is a list of gear typically used in shallow water searches for mussels, but if
a proponent has gear that is documented as effective or better, it can be used after
discussion and approval by DFO. Bold numbers in brackets correspond to images in
Figure 4.
14
•
Rubber boots, hip waders, or chest waders, depending on depth
•
Rubber gloves (optional)
•
1m2 quadrats (6); can be smaller if one wants to increase the number of quadrats
searched per unit time. Quadrats can be made from copper tubing or other
plumbing tubing like ABS or PVC but they tend to be lighter and more susceptible
to disruption by currents. The inside measurements must be 1 m x 1 m.
•
Glass- or Lucite-bottom viewing boxes (13). Can be made from 1.9 mm (1/2”)
thick plywood with Lucite sealed with silicone in a groove cut into the bottom of all
four walls. Before painting to waterproof the wood sides, silicone all joints. The
height of the box should be 41 - 46 cm (16” - 18”).
•
Polarized sunglasses
•
20 L buckets (8) for temporarily maintaining mussels removed from the steam
bed. Drill numerous 1.5 cm (1/2”) diameter holes in the sides for stream water to
enter and bathe mussels in the bucket.
•
Pond baskets (9) (about 15 cm x 15 cm x 10 cm deep or 6” x 6” x 4” deep) with 2
mm square openings for holding juveniles. Place basket inside 20 L bucket.
•
Rubber tipped grabbers (12) for pulling mussels from sediments in deeper (but <
1 m) waters.
•
Sieves (inside dimensions about 36 cm x 36 cm x 11 cm deep or 14” x 14” x 4.5”
deep) with 7 mm (diagonal) mesh openings (10)
•
Scoops (11) for shoveling sediments into sieves
•
Long handle (1.5 m or 5 feet) mussel scoops with 7 mm mesh (7)
•
30 m (100 feet) tape measure (5)
•
Rebar stakes (1) (1-1.5 m or 3-4 feet long, 2 cm or 0.5 inch diameter rebar works
well) for marking off search area into 1 m wide by 10 m long rows
•
Small sledge (2) for pounding stakes into river bed
•
Tent peg used for marking locations of mussels (3)
•
Rope, 10 m lengths to tie to stakes. Tie loops on each end to fit around rebar
tightly.
•
Rope, 1 m lengths (4) to tie to stakes. Tie loops on each end to fit around rebar
tightly.
•
Etching tools or shellfish tags (16) and “Krazy Glue” to code mussels
•
Hand-held GPS unit to locate sites (use decimal degrees, report error and
datum)
•
Calipers (14) (2-decimal digital display recommended)
•
Field-friendly note book/pad and pencil for recording data (e.g., species, size,
etc.)
•
Digital camera to photograph unknown species
•
Mussel identification manual
•
Thermometer (15) to measure water temperature. Mussel collections should be
made at ≥16.0oC
Any gear preferred by the investigator may be utilized if approved by the permitting
agencies and stipulated in the collection licence. However, at the discretion of the
responsible DFO personnel, a negative result (no catch of the targeted species at risk)
will only be accepted as sufficient to demonstrate its probable absence if the
appropriate gear(s) is/are employed, with sufficient effort (see below), under the
direction of experienced personnel.
4.3.6
Sampling Gear in Deep Water
The same gear used in sampling shallow water can be used to sample deep water (> 1
m), except scuba gear (e.g., suit, air tanks, regulators, fins, etc.) is included. The same
methods and efforts are required as in shallow waters.
15
12
11
10
5
4
6
13
9
15
14
2
1
8
3
7
16
Figure 4. Some Gear Needed for Collecting Mussels in Shallow Water.
5.0 MUSSEL RELOCATION
The goal of a mussel detection program (Section 4.0) is to determine if a species is
present or not and, if it is, how widely it is distributed within a defined area. The goal of
relocation is to collect and move ALL unionids in a cost-effective manner that will result
in high survival of both transplanted individuals and the resident fauna at the recipient
site (Havlik 1997). Relocations of mussels must occur within a single drainage area,
preferably as close as possible to the construction site to avoid issues with
contamination (e.g., parasites, pathogens, aquatic invasive species, genetics). In most
cases, the relocation is only a short distance upstream of the construction site. Since a
monitoring event (see Section 5.3) must occur one month after the relocation and the
water temperature must be > 16.0oC (see Section 4.3.1) during the monitoring event, it
is especially important to perform the relocation at least by mid-August, or when water
temperatures are well above 16.0oC.
5.1
DELINEATION OF THE RELOCATION SITE
The proponent will be informed by DFO as to whether mussels may be relocated.
Usually only one relocation site is required, but if the stream is meandering or braided
and a bridge or pipeline crosses it in more than one location, additional relocation sites
may be required, including a control site into which no mussels have been relocated.
16
The control site is needed to determine impacts of relocated mussels on mussels native
to the relocation site. The relocation site should be selected on the first site visit. The
site visit is necessary to enable an estimate of the time and costs required to reach the
work and relocation sites, the accessibility of all sites, and the equipment needed at the
sites.
5.1.1
Criteria for Selecting and Delineating a Relocation Site
Relocation sites are usually located upstream of the work site. Transportation from the
work site to the relocation site should be kept as short as possible to minimize the time
and potential stress on mussels. Whenever possible, keep the relocation site upstream
and in the same segment of river as the work site. The relocation site should have both
the mussel SAR and its host fishes. Mussel distribution tends to be patchy and mussels
should be placed in the more suitable habitat patches of the relocation site. When
selecting a relocation site, consideration must be given to the following, keeping in mind
that the closer the relocation site is to the construction site, the more similar the
habitats, and mussel and fish communities are likely to be:
5.1.2
•
Area:
The area should be at least the same size, preferably larger,
than the PSA.
•
Water depth:
The depths of water must encompass all the depths from
which mussel SAR were removed in the PSA.
•
Substrate types:
The stream bottom must as heterogeneous and contain all
the substrate types in which mussel SAR resided in the PSA.
•
Water velocity:
The relocation site should have the same extent of riffle
areas and pools as the PSA, but substrate types should
reflect the range in water velocities.
•
Exotic species:
There should be no exotic species, particularly dreissenid
mussels, upstream of the relocation site.
When More Than One Relocation Site is Required
Most streams meander, but not sufficiently that they are crossed several times by a
road or a pipeline. A meandering stream could be crossed by a project at more than
one location but the distance between the crossings may be short enough to still justify
a single relocation site. In this case the relocation site would be located above the most
upstream crossing. If multiple relocation sites are required, ensure that the relocation
site(s) for downstream locations are not negatively impacted by the upstream activity
sites. The location and number of relocation sites should be approved by DFO.
5.2
RELOCATION OF MUSSELS
The objective is to remove and relocate all juvenile and adult mussels from a potentially
impacted area (PSA). Numerous studies have been done on relocated mussels. Dunn
and Sietman (1997) suggest the following guidelines to minimize mortality of mussels
17
while out of the water: (1) use field personnel that are familiar with unionids; (2) select a
relocation area with stable substrates and a unionid community similar to that near the
collection area; (3) keep animals moist or in water and minimize out-of-water-time; (4)
avoid extreme temperatures; (5) avoid overcrowding animals in all stages of relocation
(e.g., while maintaining them in buckets and transplanting them into relocations sites).
See Havlik (1997) for additional information on the relocation of mussels.
Several studies indicate that the selection of a relocation site should be project specific
and should consider the densities of mussels already at the relocation site, the densities
of mussels being relocated, and the species assemblages at both the relocation site
and the work site.
5.2.1
Timing of Relocations
Section 5.3 outlines procedures for monitoring growth and survival of relocated
mussels. Monitoring is required one month, one year, and two years after the
relocation. Since mussel burrowing activity declines greatly below 16.0oC, the
relocation effort must be done at least one month before the water temperature is
expected to drop below 16.0oC. The time of fall when 16.0oC is reached varies from
one year to the next but the proponent is expected to allow for a period of mussel
burrowing. For Lake Erie, the 16.0oC surface water temperature was reached between
mid-September to mid-October between 1994 and 1998. Typically, the relocation
should be completed by mid-to-late August, which means monitoring can be done
between mid-and-late September.
5.2.2
Collecting Mussels for Relocation
The entire river bottom in the PSA must be surveyed. The PSA should be marked off
into rows 1 m wide and perpendicular to one of the shores. If the width of the stream
exceeds 10 m, divide the stream into an appropriate number of 10 m or smaller
segments. Work side by side beginning at one shore. Continue across the stream until
the entire stream width (= PSA length) is covered. Each collector will need (see Section
4.3.5 for details):
•
one 1 m2 quadrat
•
a sieve with 7 mm mesh openings,
•
a trowel or scraper (dust pans work well) to scrape top 5-10 cm of sediment into
the sieve
•
polarized sunglasses if water is clear
Place a 20 L bucket with holes in the stream near shore using rocks to keep it on the
bottom and from floating downstream. Use the bucket to hold adult mussels. Place a
pond basket inside the bucket to hold juveniles.
Begin by hammering into the stream bed two 1 m long stakes 10 m apart across the
stream at the most upstream end of the PSA. Hammer two more stakes into the stream
bed 1 m downstream from the first stakes. The use of 1 m and 10 m long ropes with
18
loops in the ends aids greatly in marking off the transects. Using a 1 m2 quadrat and
starting at the shore in the first row at the most upstream end of the PSA, scrape the top
5 – 10 cm of sediments into a sieve. The sieves have a 7 mm mesh opening and will
retain juveniles larger than 7 mm. It may not be possible to identify the juveniles but at
least they will be removed from the impacted area. Work toward the downstream end.
Some plants and debris will be carried downstream but so will mussels and if the
current accidentally carries any out of the sieve, you will have another opportunity to
collect them later. Remove large boulders, placing them in an area already searched or
area outside of the PSA. Look for large adult mussels first, removing each one and
placing it in the holed bucket. Sift the sediments through the sieve. Search the
contents of the sieve for any mussels. Remove large rocks and gravel and search for
juveniles. Place juveniles in the pond basket inside the 20 L bucket.
Work systematically by beginning in a corner on the upstream end of the
quadrat. Work in rows across the quadrat (i.e., perpendicular to shore)
with the scraper until the entire same 1 m2 is searched. Then work in
columns (i.e., parallel to shore) along the quadrat until the entire 1 m2 is
searched. Criss-crossing the quadrat will increase the chances of finding
mussels that may have fallen off the scraper the first time. When finished,
place the quadrat beside the last one in the row. Continue until the entire
row has been searched. Using a viewing box, one person should then
search the entire row for any adults that may have been missed.
After the first row has been thoroughly searched, move the first pair of stakes
downstream of the second pair, leaving the 1 m and 10 m long ropes attached. Repeat
the entire process until the second row is searched. Continue until the entire PSA is
searched. When a holed bucket is half full of mussels, give it to the coding and
measuring crew.
5.2.3
Collecting Mussels at Relocation and Control Sites
The same methods used to collect mussels from the PSA should be used at the
relocation site and the control site, except the quadrats can be placed randomly
throughout the sites instead of within transects. The main idea is to get some estimate
of density and diversity of mussels at both sites. The density and diversity of mussels at
the relocation site must be determined before any mussels are moved to the relocation
site. Collect and sieve the sediments in the same manner as done within the PSA so
that both juveniles and adult mussels are collected.
5.2.4
Coding Mussels
Both SAR and a subset of non-SAR mussels need to be coded. The size of the subset
will depend on the numbers of non-SAR mussels collected but should be appropriate to
statistically determine differences in growth and survival. Code both valves. There are
two basic ways to code shells: etching and tagging. Four factors need to be considered
in selecting a method for marking shells:
19
•
The well-being and long-term survival of all mussel species being marked –
some species have thin shells and are easily damaged by etching methods.
•
The period of the survey – the mark should be legible for the entire term of the
monitoring studies.
•
The position on the shell for ease of observation – the ideal location is near the
posterior end on both the left and right valve near the umbo. Selecting a
common place makes it easier to find the marks.
•
The reposition in the substrate – mussels will bury themselves deeply after a
week or two making it difficult to relocate the mussel. Using brightly coloured
tags and/or delimiting with coloured pegs such as tent pegs the areas where the
mussels were originally placed will facilitate finding the mussels again.
Many malacologists use 8 mm by 4 mm oval Hallprint Shellfish Tags® (Figure 5).
Lemarie et al. (2000) found that Hallprint Shellfish Tags® attached with Krazy Glue®
(cyanoacrylate) works well. The tags are easy to apply, inexpensive, and provide
excellent long term legibility and retention. Waterproof/weatherproof paper or polyester
labels (about 6 mm or ¼” diameter) also work well and are available from most
stationery stores.
Figure 5. Hallprint Shellfish
Tags®.
Cyanoacrylate (e.g., super or crazy glue) adhesives are available from most hardware
stores. Although bulk supplies can be obtained from the manufacturers, those made for
household purposes have often been found to be superior to special purpose grades.
Most important, take extreme care not to get any glue between the gape of the mussel’s
valves.
To apply the tags, scrape any loose debris from the shell and position the tag on the
posterior portion of the umbo, near the dorsal edge of the shell. (Figure 6). Both valves
must be tagged. Wipe the shell nearly dry with a dry cloth; effective bonds will form if
20
the shell is just damp but not saturated. Pick a tag from the roll by grasping the edge
with the tweezers, smear a little adhesive on the unprinted surface of the tag, place it on
the shell and press down firmly, particularly around the edges. The setting mechanism
of the adhesive relies on the presence of moisture to neutralize the chemical providing a
buffer between the acrylic molecules. Therefore, applying the adhesive to the shell first
will see the action almost over before the tag is placed. Use only the minimum amount
of adhesive necessary to coat the tag and penetrate the shell. If testing adhesion, leave
for a while to ensure that the chemical adhesion activity is complete. The codes used
are unique to every person and survey but they should be cross-referenced to field
notes that identify species, year, source (e.g., impact, endemic, control), the individual
and its measurements. The notes should include sex if individual is sexually dimorphic.
If different colours of tags are available, the colour can be used for one datum (e.g.,
source or species).
Figure 6. Shellfish Tag on a Kidneyshell.
5.2.5
Measuring Mussels
Three measurements are to be taken for ALL relocated mussels, including non-SAR:
length (longest anterior to posterior measurement); height (greatest ventral to dorsal
distance); width or thickness (greatest side to side measurement) (Figure 7).
Since monitoring of growth and survival of relocated mussels is to be compared to
mussels endemic to the relocation site, shell measurements need to be taken on a
representative sample of endemic mussels as well. In addition, shell measurements
need to be taken on representative specimens of the same species in areas outside, but
near, the relocation site (i.e., control mussels). These measurements are needed to
determine impacts of relocated mussels on endemic mussels (i.e., compare growth and
survival of relocated species to growth and survival of endemic species and to growth
and survival of species in undisturbed habitat).
21
Figure 7. Length, Height, and Width Aspects of a Mussel.
(right valve and end view of Cyclonais tuberculata shown).
5.2.6
Replacement of Mussels
In general, place the mussels in the same position as you found them. Using your
hands or a trowel, dig a hole deep enough to place the mussel vertically in the hole,
posterior (siphons) end up. Replace the sediment alongside the mussel. If the mussel
is displaying, lay it on its side; it will rebury itself. Studies have shown that even if the
mussel is placed with anterior end up it will right itself, but less stress and energy is
spent by the mussel if placed in its normal position (posterior end up). Be gentle with
juveniles. The shells are thin and a shallow hole should be dug with your fingers. Place
the juvenile in the hole and replace the sediment around it.
5.2.7
Respect for Mussels
All mussels have certain behaviours and physiological tolerances and requirements that
need to be respected:
22
•
Maintenance of mussels while marking and measuring them. Use 20 L to 23 L
buckets with numerous 1 cm (1/2 “) diameter holes drilled into the sides for
maintaining mussels in the stream while collecting or measuring them. Place the
bucket deep enough in the stream to bathe all mussels and ensure that water is
flowing through the bucket. Do not fill more than half full with mussels and keep
bucket out of direct sunlight (e.g., cover with a lid).
•
Thermal tolerances and dissolved oxygen requirements of mussels. Unionids
are good water quality indicators and most require saturated levels of dissolved
oxygen. The solubility of oxygen decreases with increasing temperature so the
amount available to mussels decreases at increasing temperatures. Similar air
and water temperatures and maintenance of dissolved oxygen levels between
the PSA and the relocation site help to reduce stress during transport and
handling. Do not collect mussels when the water temperature is less than 16.0oC
(61.0oF) (see Section 4.3.1). Low temperatures are more of a fall issue because
a disturbed mussel will use valuable energy reserves to rebury, if it is are able to
at all. In the spring, water soon warms and mussels can then rebury themselves.
Upper lethal water temperatures varies among species and exposure periods but
> 29oC is considered lethal to most unionids (Fuller 1974) so keep the mussels
out of direct sunlight.
5.3
•
Effects of handling and air exposure on mussels. Although exposures to air
temperatures between 15 to 35oC for 15 to 60 minutes do not greatly impair
mussel survival and over-all stress (Bartsch et al. 2000; Greseth et al. 2003), it is
a good idea to limit the period of exposure to high temperatures. The time of
year (e.g., June vs. October) also may affect survival and recovery rates,
depending upon species.
•
Placing mussels into substrate at the relocation site. Each species of mussel
should be placed in a substrate that is similar to that from which it was removed,
following recommendations in Section 5.2.6.
•
In summary, proper handling (e.g., limiting air exposure), transport protocols
(e.g., keeping water temperature within ±2oC), and selection of suitable relocation
habitat with stable substrates are key criteria for ensuring survival of mussels at
relocation sites.
MONITORING SURVIVAL AND GROWTH OF RELOCATED MUSSELS
Monitoring of relocated mussels must occur at 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years post
relocation. Monitoring of survival and growth of relocated mussels is required over at
least two years to assess the efficacy of relocations. Monitoring must be done when
water temperature is > 16.0oC to allow mussels to rebury themselves. Ideally,
relocations should be completed by mid-August to ensure temperatures do not drop
below 16.0oC one month later or when the first monitoring event will occur.
5.3.1
Frequency of Monitoring Surveys
Short-term (e.g., one month) or immediate impacts of relocations on survival and growth
of mussels need to be assessed as well as long-term impacts (e.g., one and two years).
If there is a short-term impact, appropriate mitigation actions may be required, such as
diluting the density of mussels at the relocation site, or fencing the area off if cattle have
suddenly invaded the area, or controlling excessive predation. One would expect
mortality of older mussels to exceed that of young mussels and mitigation may not be
required if this is the case. If only a few large, old mussels are found dead, there may
be no cause for concern. But if many smaller, young mussels have died in the first
month after relocation, there is need for concern.
The monitoring events over this two-year period are designed to determine the effects
of handling (e.g., coding, measuring, aerial exposure, holding time, etc.) and new
habitat structure (e.g., substrate heterogeneity, water velocity, community assemblage,
etc.) on relocated mussels and on the native mussel community. This is the
23
responsibility of the proponent. The proponent must ensure that the short term impacts
on relocated and native mussels, if any, are reported after each monitoring event.
Appendix 2 gives an example of the kinds of data to be collected and reported.
5.3.2
Increasing the Probabilities of Finding Relocated Mussel SAR
Mussels are much easier to find in summer than in autumn because they tend to be
higher in the substrate and their siphons are exposed. Once autumn approaches,
mussels begin to bury themselves and recovery rates decrease. High flows also trigger
burrowing (New York Power Authority 2005). The chances of recovering mussels can
be greatly enhanced by using coloured tags and placing coloured pegs near the
mussels.
5.3.3
Measuring Survival of Mussels
Survival is best estimated by looking for marked and coded dead shells and subtracting
these from the total number of coded live shells and expressing as a percent.
Alternatively, look for all live shells and if all are found, conclude 100% survival.
However, if less than 100% are found, some living shells may have been missed and it
is not valid to conclude that the difference represents mortality; it may represent a poor
recovery rate. The results must be reported to DFO.
5.3.4
Measuring Growth of Mussels
Unionids grow very slowly and it is difficult to measure significant growth over short
periods. Smaller mussels put on more growth than larger mussels in a similar unit of
time. However, after one and two years of monitoring, any impacts of relocation of
mussels should be discernable. The impacts can be discerned by comparing growth
and survival of relocated mussels to growth and survival of native mussels. Impacts on
native mussels can be determined by comparing growth and survival of native mussels
to those of control mussels.
6.0 IDENTIFICATION OF MUSSELS
In all fisheries work, whether it is a simple mussel community survey, a monitoring
program, a population estimate, or a mussel behavioural study, the accurate
identification of mussels is one of the most critical aspects of the endeavour. This is
equally true in the search for species at risk, as the initial critical step in the protection of
a species at risk population and its habitat is the verifiable identification of the species at
risk from the mussels captured at a site. The considerable effort often required to
establish the status of a species at risk within an area is wasted if the species at risk is
misidentified, or even if a species at risk is identified by a competent biologist and the
identification cannot be verified if called into question.
The accurate identification of mussels is not easy, and overconfident field workers often
miss rare species, or misidentify species because of the over-reliance upon one or two
24
key identification features. The dichotomous keys that are part of any regional or
national text of mussels all require specialized tools (e.g., microscopes) that are unlikely
to be available in the field. In addition, many of the diagnostic features are internal and
the mussel must be sacrificed to reveal these features. There are also critical points in
any identification key that are often misinterpreted during the examination of certain
species, leading to a misidentification. Furthermore, almost all keys have been
developed using preserved museum specimens, and may rely on pigmentation or other
markers that are not readily visible in live mussels.
There are two ways to verifiably identify a mussel species. The traditional way is to
preserve a voucher specimen of the mussel. Include a waterproof label in the bottle
that has, at a minimum, locality data (location description, and geographical
coordinates), date of collection, and the collector's name. The suspected SAR is then
submitted to a recognized expert for confirmation of identification. The second way is to
provide a photographic voucher of the live mussel, which is then released. The
photographs are sent to a recognized expert for confirmation of identification.
For species that are represented by numerous individuals, the specimen preservation
method is by far the best, as it provides a specimen that can be examined in any
number of ways by experts. This method has a long history of establishing a species
presence at a site and is the practical basis of all museum collections upon which
species distribution maps, natural history texts, and biological studies are based. A
properly labelled and preserved specimen is generally considered absolute proof that a
species exists, or existed, at a particular location. Furthermore, preserving a specimen
does not require much equipment and is essentially foolproof, since the act of positively
identifying the specimen is deferred to when the specimen is delivered to an expert, or
any number of experts. The main drawback is that some specimens must be sacrificed.
To minimize the number of specimens taken, it is important that someone capable of
some level of species identification be involved in the collection effort. This person can
sort through the species captured and identify any suspected target SAR, or minimally,
be capable of recognizing how many species have been captured, and preserve one
adult specimen of each. While one specimen may be inconsequential to a viable
population of a short-lived fish SAR, this is not necessarily true for a rare mussel SAR
that may have a life span of 30-50 years and sacrificing even one individual may be of
significant consequence to the total mussel population.
Photographic vouchers are equally preferred for identifying rare mussel SAR.
Photography requires more time, and equipment, as well as a certain amount of mussel
handling expertise and photographic ability. A good digital camera capable of macrophotography is recommended in the field. The photographic views required may be
different for each mussel as the key identification characters differ from species to
species. The photographer must know what the key identification characters are for the
SAR so that these can be photographed, and the photographs must be of sufficient
quality to allow someone else to positively identify the mussel. Generally, it is easier to
photograph a fully grown mussel, but if only small length classes are available, the
largest will do. Photography to identify a SAR has several drawbacks; it takes a greater
amount of identification expertise during the field collection of mussels and time and
expertise are required to properly orient and photograph the mussel. If the photographs
25
prove to be inadequate, the SAR will remain unidentified as there is no specimen to
examine in greater detail. Keep the mussel submersed in water until a photograph is
taken so the mussel has a better chance of surviving the photographic process.
Minimize handling and the time required to obtain photographs or the mussel may die
after it is released. Sensitivity to handling varies from species to species. The only
advantage with photography is the knowledge that an individual of a SAR was not
sacrificed, providing it did not die during or after the process.
B
A
Double-looped
ridge
C
Figure 8. Photographic Views of a Mussel for Identification Purposes.
A. Quadrula quadrula, left valve, outside lateral view on top; right valve, outside lateral
view below;
B. Lasmigona costata, dorsal view showing double-looped ridges;
C. Lasmigona costata, end view.
Three colour photographic views of a mussel are usually sufficient to reliably identify it
to species: (1) a lateral view (Figure 8A); (2) a dorsal view (Figure 8B); and (3) an end
view (Figure 8C). The lateral view must provide sufficient detail to show disc features,
for example colour and kinds of rays, pustules, ridges, growth lines, etc. The dorsal
view must show details of beak sculpture. The end view must show the degree of
inflatedness of the shell, any prominent ridges, and beak prominence. If a freshly dead
specimen is available, bring it back so the expert can examine interiors of the left and
26
right valves, the shape and extent of lateral and pseudocardinal teeth, hinge features
(e.g., ligament length), muscle scars, and colour of the nacre. Include a penny or any
coin to show size, or measure and include scale bars.
If a specimen is kept for verification of species identity, it is important to preserve it in a
way that is appropriate for the suspected species and life stage. All adult and small
juvenile mussels should be preserved in 95% ethanol. If specimens are to be used for
genetic studies, keep on ice until they can be stored frozen. The anterior and posterior
adductor muscles of adult mussels should be cut so that the valves gape and ethanol
can preserve the huge tissue mass. A syringe should be used to inject preservative into
the body cavity and tissue of small mussels
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONTACT INFORMATION
This document provides general information on the Species at Risk Act (SARA),
legislation, implications of Schedule 1 and its listed species on proposed habitat
alterations, and the associated roles and responsibilities of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada (DFO), Conservation Authorities (CAs), proponents, consultants and other
scientific authorities. The purpose of this document is to outline and standardize
methods that should be followed to conduct field surveys to detect presence/density of
mussel SAR, to relocate and to monitor mussel survival and growth after their
relocation, and to provide guidance on when a SARA permit is needed and the process
for obtaining the permit.
Information is also provided on when sampling is not necessary and other
considerations, for example, mapping tools available for known distributions of
Schedule 1 species, importance of site visits, and how to estimate costs for detecting,
relocating, and monitoring mussel survival and growth.
The following websites provide detailed information on the SARA, COSEWIC, DFO.
Websites that describe recovery plans for mussel SAR in Ontario are also listed. The
latter also provides contact names of CAs within each venue.
SARA Public Registry: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/the_act/default_e.cfm
COSEWIC: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/
COSEWIC Status Reports: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct2/index_e.cfm
DFO’s role in SARA:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/actMeans/actMeans_faqs_e.asp#faq_4
Ausable River Recovery Plan:
http://www.abca.on.ca/documents/Ausable-RS-draft-publicmeeting.pdf
Sydenham River Recovery Plan:
http://www.sydenhamriver.on.ca/
27
Thames River Recovery Plan:
http://www.thamesriver.on.ca/Species_at_Risk/species_at_risk.htm
8.0 REFERENCES
Bartsch, M.R., Waller, D.L., Cope, W.G., and Gutreuter, S. 2000. Emersion and thermal
tolerances of three species of unionid mussels: survival and behavioural effects.
Journal of Shellfish Research 19: 233-240.
Dunn, H.L. 1993. Survival of unionids four years after relocation. In Conservation and
management of freshwater mussels II. initiatives for the future. Edited by K S.
Cummings, A. C. Buchanan, C. A. Mayer, and T. J. Naimo. Upper Mississippi
River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. pp.93-99.
Dunn, H. L., and Sietman, B.E. 1997. Guidelines used in four geographically diverse
unionid relocations. In. Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II:
initiatives for the future. Proceedings of a Upper Mississippi River Conservation
Committee symposium, Edited by Cummings, K. S., A. C. Buchanan, C. A.
Mayer, and T. J. Naimo. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock
Island, Illinois. pp 176-183.
Fuller, S.L.H. 1974. Clams and Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia). In Pollution Ecology of
Freshwater Invertebrates. Edited by C.W. Hart, Jr., and S.L.H. Fuller. Academic
Press, New York, New York, U.S.A. pp.215-273.
Green, R.H., and Young, R.C. 1993. Sampling to detect rare species. Ecol. Appl. 3:351356.
Greseth, S.L., Cope, W.G., Rada, R.G., Waller, D.L., and Bartsch, M.R. 2003.
Biochemical composition of three unionid mussels after emersion. J. Moll. Stud.
69: 101-106.
Havlik, M.E. 1997. Are unionid mollusk translocations a viable mitigation technique?
The Wolf River, Wisconsin, experience, 1992-1995. In Conservation and
management of freshwater mussels II. Initiatives for the future. Edited by K S.
Cummings, A. C. Buchanan, C. A. Mayer, and T. J. Naimo. Upper Mississippi
River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. pp. 184-195.
Hornbach, D.J., and Deneka, T. 1996. A comparison of a qualitative and a quantitative
collection method for examining freshwater mussel assemblages. Journal of the
North American Benthological Society 15:587-596.
Lemarie, D.P., Smith, D.R., Villella, R.F., and Waller, D.A. 2000. Evaluation of tag types
and adhesives for marking freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae). Journal of
Shellfish Research 19(1):247-250.
28
McArdle, B.H. 1990. When are rare species not there? Oikos 57:276-277.
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., Di Maio, J., Mackie, G.L., and Staton, S.K. 2000. Effects of
sampling effort on the efficiency of the timed search method for sampling
freshwater mussels. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 19(4):
725-732.
New York Power Authority. 2005. Assessment of the potential effects of water level and
flow fluctuations and land management practices on rare, threatened, and
endangered species and significant occurrences of natural communities at the
Niagara Power Project. New York Power Authority, Niagara Power Project
FERC No. 2216.
Obermeyer, B.K. 1998. A comparison of quadrats versus timed snorkel searches for
assessing freshwater mussels. American Midland Naturalist 139:331-339.
Smith, D.R. 2006. Survey design for detecting rare freshwater mussels. Journal of
North American Benthological Society 25(3). In press.
Smith, D.R., Villella, R.F., and Lemarie, D.P. 2001a. Survey protocol for assessment of
endangered freshwater mussels in the Allegheny River, Pennsylvania. Journal of
the North American Benthological Society 20:118-132.
Smith, D.R., Villella, R.F., Lemarie, D.P., and von Oettingen, S. 2001b. How much
excavation is needed to monitor freshwater mussels? Freshwater Mollusk
Symposium Proceedings. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. pp. 203-218.
Strayer, D.L., and Smith, D.R. 2003. A guide to sampling freshwater mussel
populations. American Fisheries Society, Monograph 8, Bethesda, Maryland. 103
p.
Strayer, D.L., Sprague, S., and Claypool, S. 1996. A range-wide assessment of
populations of Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel
(Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of the North American Benthological Society
15:308-317.
Strayer, D.L., Claypool, S., and Sprague, S. 1997. Assessing unionid populations with
quadrats and timed searches. In Conservation and management of freshwater
mussels II. Initiatives for the future. Edited by K S. Cummings, A. C. Buchanan,
C. A. Mayer, and T. J. Naimo. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee,
Rock Island, Illinois. pp 163-169.
29
Vaughn, C.C., Taylor, C.M., and Eberhard, K.J. 1997. A comparison of the effectiveness
of timed searches vs. quadrat sampling in mussel surveys. In Conservation and
management of freshwater mussels II. Initiatives for the future. Edited by K.S.
Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo. Upper Mississippi River
Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. pp. 157-162. Available from
Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 East Peabody Drive, Champaign, Illinois
61820 USA.
Wentworth, C.K. 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. Journal
of Geology, 30: 377-392.
Wilcox, D.B., Anderson, D.D., and Miller, A.C. 1993. Survey protocol and decision
criteria for estimating the likelihood that Lampsilis higginsi is present in areas
within the Upper Mississippi River System. In Conservation and management of
freshwater mussels. Proceedings of the Upper Mississippi River Conservation
Committee Symposium, St. Louis, Missouri. Edited by K.S. Cummings, A.C.
Buchanan, and L.M. Koch. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee,
Rock Island, Illinois. pp. 163-167.
9.0 ADDITIONAL READING
Ahlstedt, S. 1979. Recent mollusk transplants into the North York Holston River in
southwestern Virginia. Bulletin of the American Malacological Union, Inc. pp.2123.
Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream ecology, structure and function of running waters. Chapman &
Hall, New York, NY.
Amyot, J.P., and Downing, J.A. 1991. Endo- and epibenthic distribution of the unionid
mollusc Elliptio complanata. Journal of the North American Benthological Society
10:280-285.
Anthony, J.L., and Downing, J.A. 2001. Exploitation trajectory of a declining fauna: a
century of freshwater mussel fisheries in North America. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
58: 2071–2090.
Baker, F.C. 1928. Freshwater Molluscs of Wisconsin. Part II. Pelecypoda. Bulletin of the
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. Vol. 70. 495 p.
Bogan, A.E. 1993. Freshwater bivalve extinctions (Mollusca: Unionoida): a search for
causes. Am. Zool. 33:599-609.
Bolden, S.R., and Brown, K.M. 2002. Role of stream, habitat, and density in predicting
translocation success in the threatened Louisiana pearlshell, Margaritifera
hembeli (Conrad). J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 2002, 21(1):89–96
30
Bowen, Z.H., Malvestuto, S.P., Davies, W.D., and Crance, J.H. 1994. Evaluation of the
mussel fishery in Wheeler Reservoir, Tennessee River. J. Freshwat. Ecol. 9:313319.
Buchanan, A.C. 1980. Mussels (naiades) of the Meramec River basin. Missouri. Aquatic
Series No. 17, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 68 p.
Carlander, H. B. 1954. Mussel fishing and the pearl button industry. In A history of fish
and fishing in the Upper Mississippi River. Upper Mississippi River Conservation
Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. pp. 40-51.
Claassen, C. 1994. Washboards, pigtoes, and muckets: historic musseling in the
Mississippi watershed. Hist. Archaeol. 28:1-145.
Clark, C.F. 1977. The freshwater naiads of Ohio, Part I. St. Joseph River of the
Maumee. Sterkiana 65/66: 14-36.
Clarke, A.H. 1981. The freshwater Mollusca of Canada. Canadian Museum of Nature,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2003a.
COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the kidneyshell
Ptychobranchus fasciolaris in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada. vi + 32 pp.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2003b.
COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Round Hickorynut Obovaria
subrotunda in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada. vi + 32 pp.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2004.
COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Round Pigtoe Pleurobema
sintoxia in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
Ottawa. vi + 33 pp.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2005.
COSEWIC Species Database. Available: http://www.COSEWIC.gc.ca. Accessed:
July 3, 2005.
Cope, W.G., and Waller, D.L. 1995. Evaluation of freshwater mussel relocation as a
conservation and management strategy. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management 11:147-155.
Cope, W.G., Hove, M.C., Waller, D.L., Hornbach, D.J., Bartsch, M.R., Cunningham,
L.A., Dunn, H.L., and Kapuscinski, A.R. 2003. Evaluation of relocation of unionid
mussels to insitu refugia. Journal of Molluscan Studies 69: 27-34.
31
Cummings, K.S., and Mayer, C.A. 1992. Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the
Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5. 194 p.
Dennis, S.D. 1984. Distributional analysis of the freshwater mussel fauna of the
Tennessee River system, with special reference to possible limiting effects of
siltation. Ph.D. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia. 245 p.
Dextrase, A., Metcalfe-Smith, J., DiMaio, J., Sutherland, D., Zammit, A., Holm, E., and
Ciuk, M. 2001. Species at risk in the Sydenham River. Background report for the
Sydenham
River
Recovery
Team.
45
p.
Available
from:
http://www.sydenhamriver.on.ca/Publications/Fishes%20at%20Risk%20in%20th
e%20Sydenham%20River%20Watershed.pdf
Downing, J.A., Amyot, J.P., Perusse, M., and Rochon, Y. 1989. Visceral sex,
hermaphroditism, and protandry in a population of the freshwater bivalve Elliptio
complanata. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 8:92-99.
Dunn, H.L., Sietman, B.E., and Kelner, D.E. 2000. Evaluation of recent unionid
(Bivalvia) relocations and suggestions for future relocations and reintroductions.
Proceedings of the first Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society symposium.
Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus. pp. 169-183.
Elder, J.F., and Collins, J.J. 1991. Fresh-water mollusks as indicators of bioavailability
and toxicity of metals in surface-water systems. Reviews of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 122:37-79.
Gendron, A.D. 1999. Status report on the Mudpuppy, Necturus maculosus, in Canada.
Prepared for the Committee On the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 86
p.
Gordon, M. E., and Layzer, J.B. 1989. Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Cumberland
River: Review of life histories and ecological relationships. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Biological Report 89(15): 1-99. (cited in Layzer and Gordon 1993).
Green, R.H., Hinch, S.G., Metcalfe, J.L., and Young, V.H. 1989. Use of fresh- water
mussels (Bivalvia, Unionidae) to monitor the nearshore environment of lakes. J.
Great Lake. Res. 15:635-644.
Hamilton, H., Box, J. B., and Dorazio, R.M. 1997. Effects of habitat suitability on the
survival of
relocated freshwater mussels. Regulated Rivers Research
Management 13: 537-541.
Hanson, J.M., Mackay, W.C., and Prepas, E.E. 1988a. The effects of water depth and
density on the growth of a unionid clam. Freshwat. Biol. 19:345-355.
32
Kat, P.W. 1982. Effects of Kat, P.W. 1982. Effects of population density and substratum
type on growth and migration of Elliptio complanata (Bivalvia: Unionidae).
Malacological Rev., 15, 19–127
Layzer, J.B., and Gordon, M.E. 1993. Reintroduction of mussels into the Upper Duck
River, Tennessee. In Conservation and management of freshwater mussels.
Proceedings of the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee
Symposium, St. Louis, Missouri. Edited by K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and
L.M. Koch. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island,
Illinois. pp. 89-92.
Mackie, G.L. 2000a. Mollusc introductions through aquarium trade. In Non-indigenous
freshwater organisms: vectors, biology and impacts. Edited by R. Claudi, and J.
Leach. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 135-150.
Mackie, G.L. 2000b. Ballast water introductions of Mollusca. In Non-indigenous
freshwater organisms: vectors, biology and impacts. Edited by R. Claudi, and J.
Leach. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 255-272.
Mackie, G.L. 2000c. Introduction of molluscs through the import for live food. In Nonindigenous freshwater organisms: vectors, biology and impacts. Edited by R.
Claudi, and J. Leach. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 305-314.
Mackie, G.L. 2002. Traits of endangered and invading freshwater molluscs in North
America. In Alien invaders in Canada’s waters, wetlands, and forests. Edited by
Claudi, R.,P. Nantel, E. Muckle-Jeffs. Publ., Can. Forest Serv., Nat. Resources
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. pp. 187-198.
Master, L.L., Stein, B.A., Kutner, L.S., and Hammerson, G.A. 2000. Vanishing assets:
conservation status of U.S. species. In Precious heritage: the status of
biodiversity in the United States. Edited by B. A. Stein, L. S. Kutner, and J. S.
Adams. Oxford University Press, New York. pp. 93-118.
McNichols, K, Mackie, G.L., and Ackerman J. 2004. Fish host determination of
endangered freshwater mussels in the Sydenham River Ontario, Canada. ESRF
2004/2005 Final Report. 25 p.
Metcalfe, J.L., and Charlton, M.N. 1990. Fresh-water mussels as biomonitors for
organic industrial contaminants and pesticides in the St. Lawrence River. Sci. of
the Total Environ. 97/98:595-615.
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., and Cudmore-Vokey, B. 2004. National general status assessment
of freshwater mussels (Unioniacea). Environment Canada. National Water
Research Institute. Burlington, Ontario, Canada. NWRI Contribution No. 04-027.
37 pp. + Appendices.
33
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., Staton, S.K., Mackie, G.L., and West, E.L. 1998. Assessment of
the current conservation status of rare species of freshwater mussels in southern
Ontario. Environment Canada, National Water Research Institute. Burlington,
Ontario. NWRI Contribution No. 98-019. 85 p.
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., Staton, S.K., Mackie, G.L., and Scott, I.M. 1999. Range population
and environmental requirements of rare species of freshwater mussels in
southern Ontario. Environment Canada. National Water Research Institute.
Burlington, Ontario. NWRI Contribution No. 99-058. 92 p.
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., Mackie, G.L., Di Maio, J., and Staton, S.K. 2000. Changes over
time in the diversity and distribution of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in the
Grand River, southwestern Ontario. J. Great Lake. Res. 26(4): 445-459.
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., Di Maio, J., Staton, S.K., and de Solla, S.R. 2003. Status of the
freshwater mussel communities of the Sydenham River, Ontario, Canada.
American Midland Naturalist 150: 37-50.
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., McGoldrick, D.J., Williams, M., Schloesser, D.W., Biberhofer, J.,
Mackie, G.L., Arts, M.T., Zanatta, D.T., Johnson, K., Marangelo, P., and
Spencer, T.D. 2004. Status of a refuge for native freshwater mussels (Unionidae)
from the impacts of the exotic zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in the delta
area of Lake St. Clair. Environment Canada, National Water Research Institute,
Burlington, Ontario. Technical Note No. AEI-TN-04-001. 50 p.
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., MacKenzie, A., Carmichael, I., and McGoldrick, D. 2005. Photo
field guide to the freshwater mussels of Ontario. St. Thomas Field Naturalist Club
Incorporated, St. Thomas, ON, Canada ISBN 0-9733179-2-2.
Morgan, A., Welker, N.J., and Lazer, J.B. 1993. Feasibility of reintroducing threatened
and endangered mussels into Shoal Creek in Alabama and Tennessee. In
Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II. Initiatives for the future.
Edited by K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo. Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. pp. 196-204.
Morris, T.J. 1996. The unionid fauna of the Thames River drainage, southwestern
Ontario. Prepared for Aquatic Ecosystems Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources. 59 p.
Morris, T.J. 2006. Recovery strategy for the Wavyrayed Lampmussel (Lampsilis
fasciola, Rafinesque 1820). In Canada. In Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy
Series. Ottawa. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 51 p.
Morris, T.J., and Di Maio, J. 1998. Current distributions of mussels in rivers of
southwestern Ontario. Malacological Review. 31(1): 9-17.
34
Morris, T.J., McGoldrick, D.J., and Metcalfe-Smith, J.L. 2005. Assessing characteristics
of recovery: A case study using the endangered Wavyrayed Lampmussel
(Lampsilis fasciola, Rafinesque 1820). Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat
Research Document 2005/062.
Naimo, T.J. 1995. A review of the effects of heavy metals on fresh-water mussels.
Ecotoxicology 4:341-362.
Nalepa, T.F., Gardner, W.S., and Malczyk, J.M. 1991. Phosphorus cycling by mussels
(Bivalvia) in Lake St. Clair. Hydrobiologia 219:239-250.
Newton, T.J., Monroe, E.M., Kenyon, R., Gutreuter, S., Welke, K.I., and Thiel, P.A.
2001. Evaluation of relocation of unionids mussels into artificial ponds. Journal
North American Benthological Society 20: 468-485.
Oesch, R.D. 1984. Missouri Naiades. A Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Missouri
Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 270 p.
Ortmann, A.E. 1919. A monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III: Systematic
account of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum V.8. 384
p.
Richardson, T.D., and Yokely, P. 1996. A note on sampling technique and evidence of
recruitment in freshwater mussels (Unionidae). Arch. Hydrobiol. 137:135-140.
Rogers, S.0., Watson, B.T., and Neves, R.J. 2001. Life history and population biology of
the endangered tan riffleshell (Epioblasma florentina walkeri) (Bivalvia:
Unionidae). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20:582-594.
Sheehan, R.J., Neves, R.J., and Kitchel, H.E. 1989. Fate of freshwater mussels
transplanted to formerly polluted reaches of the Clinch and North Fork Holston
Rivers. J. Freshwat. Ecol. 5: 139-149.
Sherman, R.A. 1994. Life history information critical to the management of the state
endangered Snuffbox Mussel, Epioblasma triquetra (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in
Michigan. M.Sc. thesis, School of Natural Resources and the Environment,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 40 p.
Smith, D.R., Villella, R.F., Lemarie, D.P., and von Oettingen, S. 2000. How much
excavation is needed to monitor freshwater mussels? Proceedings of the first
Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society symposium. Edited by P.D. Johnson
and R.S. Buder. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus. pp. 203-218.
Smith, D.R., Villella, R.F., and Lemarie, D.P. 2003. Application of adaptive cluster
sampling to low-density populations of freshwater mussels. Environ. Ecol. Stat.
10:7-15.
35
Stanfield, L., and Kuyvenhoven, R. 2005. Protocol for applications used in the Aquatic
Landscape Inventory Software application for delineating, characterizing and
classifying valley segments within the Great Lakes basin. Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources Report, July 27, 2005.
Staton, S.K., Dextrase, A., Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., Di Maio, J., Nelson, M., Parish, J.,
Kilgour, B., and Holm, E. 2003. Status and trends of Ontario’s Sydenham River
ecosystem in relation to aquatic species at risk. Environ. Monit. Assess. 88:283310.
Strayer, D. 1983. The effects of surface geology and stream size on freshwater mussel
distribution in southeastern Michigan, USA. Freshwat. Biol. 13:253-264.
Strayer, D.L., and Smith, L.C. 1996. Relationships between zebra mussels (Dreissena
polymorpha) and unionid clams during the early stages of the zebra mussel
invasion of the Hudson River. Freshwat. Biol. 36:771-779.
Strayer, D.L., and Fetterman, A.R. 1999. Changes in the distribution of freshwater
mussels (Unionidae) in the upper Susquehanna River basin, 1955-1997.
American Midland Naturalist 142:328-339.
Strayer, D.L., Cole, J.J., Likens, G.E., and Buso, D.C. 1981. Biomass and annual
production of the freshwater mussel Elliptio complanata in an oligotrophic
softwater lake. Freshwat. Biol. 11:435-440.
Strayer, D.L., Hunter, D.C., Smith, L.C., and Borg, C. 1994. Distribution, abundance,
and role of freshwater clams (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the freshwater tidal Hudson
River. Freshwat. Biol. 31:239-248.
Strayer, D.L., Caraco, N.F., Cole, J.J., Findlay, S., and Pace, M.L. 1999. Transformation of freshwater ecosystems by bivalves: a case study of zebra mussels
in the Hudson River. BioScience 49:19-27.
Trdan, R.J., and Hoeh, W.R. 1993. Relocation of two state-listed mussel species
(Epioblasma torulosa rangiana and Epioblasma triquetra) in Michigan. In
Conservation and management of freshwater mussels. Proceedings of the Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee Symposium, St. Louis, Missouri.
Edited by K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch. Illinois Natural History
Survey, Champaign, Illinois. pp. 100-105
van der Schalie, H. 1938. The naiad fauna of the Huron River, in southeastern
Michigan. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of
Michigan 40:1-83.
Vaughn, C.C., and Hakenkamp, C.C. 2001. The functional role of burrowing bivalves in
freshwater ecosystems. Freshwat. Biol. 46:1431-1446.
36
Villellalla, R.F., King, T.L., and Starliper, C.E. 1998. Ecological and evolutionary
concerns in freshwater bivalve relocation programs. Journal of Shellfish
Research 17: 1407-1413.
Waller, D.L., Rach, J.J., and Cope, W.G. 1995. Effects of handling and aerial exposure
on the survival of freshwater mussels. J. Freshwat. Ecol. 10: 199-207.
Waller, D.L., Gutreuter, S., and Rach, J.L. 1999. Behavioral responses to disturbance in
freshwater mussels with implications for conservation and management. Journal
of the North American Benthological Society: 18 (3): 381–390.
Watson, E.T., Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., and DiMaio, J. 2001. COSEWIC status report on the
snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife
in Canada. Ottawa. 33 p.
Welker, M., and Walz, N. 1998. Can mussels control the plankton in rivers? A
planktological approach applying a Lagrangian sampling strategy. Limnol.
Oceanogr. 43:753-762.
West, E.L., Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., and Staton, S.K. 2000. Status of the rayed bean,
Villosa fabalis (Bivalvia: Unionidae), in Ontario and Canada. Can. Field. Nat.
114(2): 248-258.
Wetzel, R.G., and Likens, G.E. 1995. Limnological analyses. Springer-Verlag, New
York, NY.
Williams, J.D., Warren, Jr., M.L., Cummings, K.S., Harris, J.L., and Neves, R.J. 1993.
Conservation status of the freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada.
Fisheries. 8(9): 6-22.
Woolnough, D.A. 2002. Life history of endangered freshwater mussels of the Sydenham
River, southwestern Ontario, Canada. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of
Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.
Zanatta, D.T., Mackie, G.L., Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., and Woolnough, D.A. 2002. A refuge
for native freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) from impacts of the exotic
zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in Lake St. Clair. J. Great Lake. Res.
28(3): 479-489.
Ziuganov, V., Zotin, A., Nezlin, L., and Tretiakov, V. 1994. The freshwater pearl mussels
and their relationships with salmonid fish. VNIRO Publishing House, Moscow.
37
38
APPENDIX 1: GUIDELINES FOR FILLING OUT AN APPLICATION FOR A SARA
PERMIT WITH AN EXAMPLE OF A COMPLETED FORM
OBTAINING A SARA PERMIT
Although it is illegal to kill, harm, harass, capture, or take any endangered or threatened
species protected under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans may permit activities which could affect an aquatic species protected under the
Act if he believes these activities will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of species
at risk. It is imperative to show that: the activity is a survey relating to the conservation
of the species and is conducted by qualified persons; the activity benefits the species or
is required to enhance its chance of survival in the wild; or affecting the species is
incidental to carrying out the activity. If you are planning to carry out activities that may
impact a species that is protected under SARA, you will require a SARA permit. As a
proponent of a scientific survey project, you will need to:
•
be proactive in your survey design,
•
demonstrate awareness of the provisions of SARA, and
•
demonstrate that measures are being taken to minimize harm to listed species
and that the best solution has been adopted.
For more information on the the SARA permit, visit:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/permits/sarapermits_e.asp
To download the permit in PDF or Word format, go to:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/permits/saraapplication_e.asp
GUIDELINES FOR FILLING OUT THE APPLICATION
Since the permit encompasses activities related to mussel SAR, it is recommended that
the lead investigator of these activities apply for the permit so that DFO is informed of
the expertise of the people handling the mussel SAR. DFO will require two to three
weeks to process the permit so submit the application at least a month before the
activities are to begin.
Section 1, Applicant Information:
Basic information about the applicant. Provide a brief description of relevant
experience and credentials (education, degrees, and diplomas). Be sure to
indicate your expertise with freshwater mussels and that the experts will be on
site for all activities. Provide contact information where you can be reached in
the days and weeks following your application in case clarifications are required.
39
APPENDIX 1: GUIDELINES FOR FILLING OUT AN APPLICATION FOR A SARA
PERMIT (cont’d)
Section 2, Logistics of Proposed Research:
2A Lead Investigator: Provide the name of the person who oversees the mussel
SAR activities.
2B Other researchers: Include the names of other lead researchers, for
example, the field leader and other people with mussel research experience.
2C Vessel/Platform: Not applicable unless operating from a boat, barge, etc.
2D Locations and dates where research will be done: Provide dates to cover
entire period, including dates for relocating and monitoring studies.
2E SARA Species to be included in permit: It is important to list all SARAlisted species that may occur in the proposed research area and the anticipated
mortalities for each. Be as specific as possible but for any relocation work the
intent is to keep mortality to a minimum. For information on the distribution and
known localities for listed species in your area, contact the Regional DFO person.
Section 3, Description of Proposed Research and Potential Impacts on
SARA listed species:(Note: A detailed project work plan or proposal should be
attached to this section).
3A Objective/Purpose of Research
For presence/absence surveys for mussels, the purpose is usually to identify the
freshwater mussel species and their relative abundances within a prescribed
search area (PSA). If relocation of mussels is planned, the objective is usually to
collect and relocate mussels from a PSA, where habitat and species will be
impacted by an activity (e.g., bridge, pipeline, culvert, construction, etc.), to an
upstream location that has similar species composition, habitats, and fish hosts.
If monitoring of survival and growth is planned, the objective is to ensure that
impacts of the relocation are negligible to minimal on survival and growth of both
the transplanted mussels and on the mussel community existing at the relocation
site.
3B Briefly explain field/study techniques
Make sure the activities described here relate to the purpose/objectives stated
above. Give the size of the PSA. If the study is to detect the presence of SAR,
provide an estimate of the proportion of the PSA to be searched for mussels and
habitat types. State how you plan to search the proportion (e.g., random or
stratified random searches). Briefly describe the methodology (e.g., visual/tactile
search, quadrat search), the amount of effort (e.g., number of people, person
hours, number of quadrats), and any special techniques to increase chances of
40
APPENDIX 1: GUIDELINES FOR FILLING OUT AN APPLICATION FOR A SARA
PERMIT (cont’d)
finding SAR (e.g., use of polarized sunglasses, ’raccooning‘, viewing boxes,
depths of sediments to be searched, sieves to find juveniles). State what you
plan to do with the collected mussels (e.g., return to natural habitat immediately,
temporarily maintain in containers, type of container).
If it is a relocation activity, the entire PSA should be searched for mussels. State
what criteria were used in selecting the relocation site. Briefly describe how you
will ensure that the entire PSA will be searched (e.g., marking PSA off into 1 m
wide rows and then flipping 1 m2 quadrats within rows, 1 m at a time from the
upstream end of the PSA to the downstream end). Briefly describe the amount of
effort (e.g., number of people, person hours, number of quadrats), and any
special techniques to increase chances of finding SAR (e.g., use of polarized
sunglasses in clear water, ’raccooning‘ in turbid water, viewing boxes, depths of
sediments to be searched, sieves to find juveniles).
State if you plan to measure survival and growth of mussels and if so, how (e.g.,
providing each mussel with a coded shellfish tag, measuring length, width,
height). Describe how you plan to maintain mussels while they are being coded
and measured (e.g., in containers with holes to allow constant supply of river
water). Leave details of coding, container types and sizes, survival and growth
methodology, etc. for the work plan.
3C Describe anticipated or potential disturbances to each of the SARAlisted species, impacts on habitats used by the species. In this section, list
the species, the nature of harm to each, and the likelihood of harm or encounters
(high, medium, low). State why the mussels will be disturbed (e.g., they have to
be removed from their habitat in order to identify and enumerate them); how they
will be disturbed (e.g., removed from substratum temporarily to identify and
enumerate species); how you plan to minimize the impact on the species (e.g.,
use fingers to remove, not grabs or rakes, which may harm shells); how long the
mussel will be out of water and exposed to the atmosphere (e.g., 3 to 5 minutes
maximum); how you plan to replace them into the substrate (e.g., same burrow,
different burrow but similar substrate, posterior end up). Describe any potential
impacts on the habitats used by the species; if a relocation study, briefly describe
the impacts of construction activities on the habitats and the reason(s) for
relocation (e.g., coffer dams will be built and PSA will be dewatered which will kill
any mussels in the PSA). Describe any potential impacts of transplanted
mussels on native mussels in the relocation site and how you plan to minimize
those impacts (e.g., by selecting a site with same species composition and fish
hosts, an area larger than the PSA to minimize crowding, and monitoring survival
and growth of relocated mussels and native mussels in the relocation site).
41
APPENDIX 1: GUIDELINES FOR FILLING OUT AN APPLICATION FOR A SARA
PERMIT (cont’d)
Section 4, Following from the criteria in Section 73 of SARA; if impacts on a listed
species are likely, the proponent should specify:
This section addresses information specific to Section 73 (3) pre-conditions in SARA.
Pre-conditions (a) and (b) require that alternatives and measures such as area and/or
time changes or changes to sampling gear or techniques must be considered and
implemented if feasible before a permit or authorization can be issued. For pre-condition
(c), indicate to the best of your knowledge whether the proposed research activity, given
4A and 4B, will jeopardize survival or recovery of the species.
4A What alternatives to the proposed method of conducting the activity
have you considered? How is the chosen method the best solution to
reduce impact to the species?
In addressing these questions consider the impacts of classical methods for
collecting benthic organisms (e.g., Ponar grabs, Peterson grabs, Surber
samplers) and their impact or harm to the species, their efficacy of collecting large
mussels, and their efficacy of estimating mussel density and diversity. Give the
advantages of hand picking vs. mechanical ‘picking‘ with respect to potential harm
or other impacts on the species.
4B What mitigation measures have been included, and how do they
minimize the potential impacts on listed species and/or habitats? What
mitigation measures have been considered and not included, and for what
reasons were they rejected?
In addressing these questions, consider the goals and objectives of relocation of
mussels, for example, to remove them from a high probability of harm to one of
low to no likelihood of harm. The entire procedure, from collecting to relocating
mussels, stresses the use of methods designed to cause the least harm to the
animals and to provide best estimates of density and diversity in a variety of size
classes. Stress the advantages of collecting mussels by hand versus grab
samplers and suction devises, the probability of damage to shells by mechanical
devices, and the efficacy of mechanical devises at estimating density and
diversity of small and large mussels. Consider the utility of mechanical devices
at sampling mussels under boulders, in sand and gravel trapped between rocks,
or in thick Potamogeton and Cladophora beds that occur in most rivers in
southern Ontario.
42
APPENDIX 1 (cont’d): EXAMPLE OF A COMPLETED APPLICATION FOR A SARA
PERMIT
Application for a Species at Risk Permit
Scientific Research/Education
Fisheries & Oceans Canada
1
Applicant Information:
Name:
Organization:
Address:
Street:
City:
Province/State:
Country:
Applicant 1, Applicant 2
XXX Company
XXX St.
Town
ON
Canada
Postal
Code/Zip:
Phone: (905)###-#### Cellular:
Email:
Applicant Experience/Credentials:
X#X #X#
Fax:
Applicant 1- X years working with molluscs, Ph.D. since 19XX,
professor XXX University 19XX-19XX; Applicant 2- B.Sc.
currently working on MSC, XXX University, specialist in unionid
identification X yrs.
2. Logistics of Proposed Research:
A Lead Investigator
Applicant 1
B Other researchers
List names of other researchers here.
C
Vessel / Platform
Name:
CFV/Registration #:
Country of Registration:
D Locations and dates
where research will be
done
XXX River, immediately south of bridge at Highway ##; mussels to be
collected and relocated MM/DD/YY to MM/DD/YY, or as soon as SARA
permit is obtained.
E SARA Species to be included in
Permit
Lampsilis fasciola, Epioblasma triquetra,
Pychobranchus fasciolaris, Obovaria
subrotunda, Pluerobema sintoxia
Anticipated # of mortalities for each
species
Zero for all mussel species
43
3. Description of Proposed Research and Potential Impacts on SARA listed
species:
A Objective/Purpose of Research
The goal of the activities is to relocate mussel species at risk in the XXX River where a site
investigation for a new bridge will be conducted adjacent to an existing bridge at Highway ## (i.e. North
##o ##.###’ West ##o ##.###) in XXtown, Ontario. The site investigation involves drilling four
boreholes into the river bed. No bridge construction will occur at this stage; the actual bridge
construction may not occur for 1 to 2 years time. This is a Ministry of XXX Project and X Consulting is
the subconsultant for the project. The Prime Consultant is XXX Limited. They also have an
environmental subconsultant on the team and X Consulting will do the drilling and co-ordinate the
mussel surveys.
44
B Briefly explain field collections/study techniques
The exact location of the boreholes will be in line with the 2 existing piers that are founded in the river.
One of the piers is in the middle of the river and the other is near the west bank. The boreholes will be
about 8" in diameter through the riverbed, and will be drilled to a depth of approximately 12 m (40 feet)
below the riverbed surface. The drill rig will be situated on a barge, the dimensions of which will be
approximately 7.3 m long by 5.5 m wide. The barge will either be floating and anchored to the shore
with cables, or 2 to 4 spuds of approximately 15-30 cm (6" to 12") diameter will be used to anchor into
the riverbed. Therefore, at each borehole location, they are utilizing about 40 square meters of space
(the area of the barge) and a maximum of 5 small diameter holes will penetrate the river bed.
Including the area to be traversed by the barge across the river to each bore hole, the anticipated area to
be impacted directly by drilling activities is approximately 5.5 m (width of barge) x 60 m (width of
river) = 330 m2. Two crossings need to be made so the area to be directly impacted by the barge is
approximately 660 m2. Assuming there will be minimal impact adjacent to the barge, the zone of
influence will be minimal. Average summer water depth at the site is about 0.4 m; maximum summer
water depth is apparently 1.5 m, but if deeper we will use three certified SCUBA divers to sample deep
sites. All searches for mussels will be conducted by an 8-person team using waders, polarized
sunglasses (which greatly help to visually locate any mussels in clearer waters), square meter quadrats,
sieves with 7 mm mesh openings, and/or clam scoops with 7 mm mesh openings and a 2 m long handle.
Deeper areas and more turbid areas will be searched using Lucite-bottom viewing boxes and/or longhandled clam scoops with 0.7 mm mesh openings.
Eight people will search for mussels until about 100 mussels have been collected. The mussels will be
temporarily maintained in 20 L buckets with holes drilled into the sides so fresh river water can
constantly flow through and bathe the mussels. Then three people will begin gathering information on
the mussels: one to attach a coded Hallprint Shellfish tag to the shell; one to measure width (side to
side), length (anterior to posterior) and height (top to bottom) of each shell; one to record. The only
time a mussel will be out of water is when it is being measured and coded (~2-3 minutes). The
remaining five people will continue collecting mussels and delivering them to the three people for
marking and measuring.
The search will be conducted for both adult and juvenile mussels. Sediments will be collected with
scoops or small shovels and placed into sieves with 7 mm mesh openings to search for juveniles. All
juveniles and mussels less than 15 mm will be temporarily stored in pails with 4 mm holes drilled in the
sides; the pails will be placed in the river so that river water can constantly bathe the mussels. Any
mussels larger than 15 mm found on the sieves or collected by hand will be temporarily maintained in
20 L buckets with 13 mm holes drilled in the sides so fresh river water will constantly bathe the mussels.
’Fruit pickers‘ (long tongs with rubber pads so as not to damage shells) will be used to remove adult
mussels at the 1 m deep sites or sieves (with 7 mm mesh openings) on long handles will be used to
scoop sediments to search for juveniles. Viewing boxes that are 40 and 60 cm deep (16” and 24”) will
also aid in locating mussels in more turbid and/or deeper sites.
All specimens of species at risk (SAR) will be coded and measured so we can monitor their growth and
survival. All mussels, including common species, will be relocated, but only about 20-25% of the shells
of common species will be marked and measured so we can monitor their growth and survival in the
transplanted habitat. We will also code and measure about 20-25% of the mussels from the relocation
site so we can monitor their growth and survival.
45
C Describe anticipated or potential disturbances to each of the SARA-listed species in 2E,
include impacts on habitat(s) used by the species: List the species, the nature of
harm, and the likelihood of harm or encounters (High, Medium, Low)
The mussels will be disturbed during surveys because they must be removed from their habitat in order
to identify, code, measure, and relocate them. We will begin at the downstream end of the prescribed
search area and work upstream. The likelihood of harm is low for all species since our goal is to
relocate mussels removed from the prescribed search area.
Collecting will begin downstream, before any drilling activity has begun. The river will be divided into
two sections (A, B), each section having 60 rows, each row being 1 m wide by 5.5 m long. The rows
will be used to guide the placement of the quadrats. It is recommended that all mussels collected and
measured from the first section (A) be transplanted before collecting from the upstream section (B) so as
not to stress the mussels already picked from the first section. The less time the mussels are kept in pails
of water, the better. This will ensure that the entire area is searched in a systematic manner with the
1 m2 quadrat. The mussels will be transplanted in a stratified random fashion, with all coded mussels
randomly placed in one area and all uncoded mussels randomly placed in another area. This will aid in
finding the marked mussels for the monitoring study. To further aid in relocating mussels, we will use
brightly coloured Hallprint Shellfish tags glued to the posterior part of the shell. In addition, coloured
tent pegs will be driven into the river bed beside each coded mussel to help locate coded ’native‘ and
’transplanted‘ mussels. Mussels will be buried in their normal positions, that is, with posterior end
sticking out of the sediments
NOTE: Please attach the project workplan/proposal to this application
4. Following from the criteria in Section 73 of SARA ; if impacts on a listed
species are likely, the proponent should specify:
A What alternatives to the proposed method of conducting the activity have you
considered? How is the chosen method the best solution to reduce impact to the
species?
The classical methods (Surber sampler, Ponar grab, Peterson grab, etc.) for collecting benthic organisms
either take too small a sample to reliably sample mussels or they are likely to cause harm to the mussels.
Hand picking is by far the best method to keep the likelihood of harm low.
B What mitigation measures have been included, and how do they minimize the
potential impacts on listed species and/or habitats? What mitigation measures have
been considered and not included, and for what reasons were they rejected?
Unionids are best collected by hand, not by grabs or suction devices. Grabs have powerful jaws which
could crush thin-shelled species and juveniles. Suction devices would collect juveniles and light
mussels but not heavier, thick-walled species like Actinonaias. Neither devices are good for accurately
determining presence because the areas sampled are less than 250 cm2. Much of the bottom of the XXX
River at the bridge site is sand, gravel, boulders, and cobble. Also, there are small to extensive beds of
aquatic plants, not easily sampled by standard sampling devices. The plant beds will have to be
removed by hand in order to examine the sediments below.
46
C Will the sampling program jeopardize survival or recovery of the species, in light of
responses to 4A and 4B above? If not, why not?
No. Our goal is to determine if mussel species at risk are present in the prescribed search area. If
species at risk are present, we expect to relocate the mussels from the prescribed search area to a site
immediately upstream with similar habitat features. The relocation activities are to be done immediately
before drilling begins. All activities are aimed at reducing impact on mussels and ensuring a low level
of harm to the mussel community.
For internal use only
5.
Jurisdictional Science evaluation of the application (complete ONE
option): to be completed by DFO Science
a) The proposed research complies with the conditions of Section 73 and may
proceed:
b) The proposed research would comply with the conditions of Section 73 and
may proceed only if the following additional conditions are met (specify):
c) The proposed research cannot proceed within the conditions of Section 73 for
the following reasons:
d) The information in the application is inadequate to assess the potential
impacts of the proposed research on SARA species. Additional information is
required on (specify):
Signature of Jurisdictional Science Authority:
47
6. If Option a) is met, or the applicant agrees to the conditions in Option b), then the
Jurisdictional Science Authority should initial each of the conditions below which apply to the
proposed research:
A
The activity is scientific research relating to the conservation of SARA-listed species
and will be conducted by qualified persons
B
The activity benefits the SARA-listed species or is required to enhance its chance of
survival in the wild
C
Affecting the SARA-listed species is incidental to the carrying out the activity (Note—
Fisheries Management may choose to evaluate the project on this condition,
particularly for research not directed at the SARA species listed in 3C)
For office use
Licence Type:
Scientific
Trans
Date Received
DFO Processing
Officer
Date Required
Sara Species
Permit #
Cites Required
Animal Care
Permit Required
Previous Report
on File:
Previous Permit #
Return Application to:
48
Regions to fill in
APPENDIX 2: AN EXAMPLE OF A COMPLETED DATA SHEET
Date: August 1, 2006
Construction Site WC1
Code
Species
A&B001 Spike (Elliptio dilata)
A&B002 Spike
A&B003 Wavyrayed Lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola)
A&B003 Elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata)
A&B004 Wabash Pigtoe (Fusconaia flava)
A&B005 Wabash Pigtoe
A&B006 Wabash Pigtoe
A&B007 Wabash Pigtoe
A&B008 Wavyrayed Lampmussel
Length mm
82.07
107.48
12.31
66.44
100.34
84.25
12.31
22.15
42.10
Width mm
38.15
51.39
9.29
39.78
73.96
61.71
9.29
16.20
28.10
Height, mm
24.58
32.97
4.83
25.69
40.32
30.97
4.83
8.23
17.07
Relocated to:
RS1
RS1
RS1
RS1
RS1
RS1
RS1
RS1
RS1
Mussels from relocation site, RS1
C&B001 Spike
C&B002 Wavyrayed Lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola)
C&B003 Elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata)
C&B004 Wabash Pigtoe (Fusconaia flava)
C&B005 Wabash Pigtoe
100.48
11.31
76.22
90.11
44.28
49.39
9.00
99.48
53.98
30.78
30.97
4.55
27.66
33.32
15.77
Put back into:
RS1
RS1
RS1
RS1
RS1
3.83
28.86
6.03
4.57
4.42
4.07
Put back into
CS1
CS1
CS1
CS1
CS1
CS1
Mussels from control site, CS1
D&E001 Elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata)
D&E002 Wabash Pigtoe (Fusconaia flava)
D&E003 Wabash Pigtoe
D&E004 Wabash Pigtoe
D&E005 Wabash Pigtoe
D&E006 Wavyrayed Lampmussel
19.33
93.84
28.88
22.50
22.19
22.72
9.35
46.74
13.26
10.78
10.33
10.24
Notes
Photos taken
Photos taken
Photos taken
Photos taken
49
50
APPENDIX 2: AN EXAMPLE OF A COMPLETED DATA SHEET (cont’d)
Date: September 1, 2006
Construction Site WC1
Code
Species
A&B001 Spike (Elliptio dilata)
A&B002 Spike
A&B003 Wavyrayed Lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola)
A&B003 Elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata)
A&B004 Wabash Pigtoe (Fusconaia flava)
A&B005 Wabash Pigtoe
A&B006 Wabash Pigtoe
A&B007 Wabash Pigtoe
A&B008 Wavyrayed Lampmussel
Mussels from relocation site, RS1
C&B001 Spike
C&B002 Wavyrayed Lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola)
C&B003 Elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata)
C&B004 Wabash Pigtoe (Fusconaia flava)
C&B005 Wabash Pigtoe
Mussels from control site, CS1
D&E001 Elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata)
D&E002 Wabash Pigtoe (Fusconaia flava)
D&E003 Wabash Pigtoe
D&E004 Wabash Pigtoe
D&E005 Wabash Pigtoe
D&E006 Wavyrayed Lampmussel
Length mm
82.07
107.48
13.55
66.44
100.34
15.36
23.05
42.10
Width mm
38.15
51.39
11.20
39.78
73.96
10.39
17.22
28.10
Height, mm
24.58
32.97
5.33
25.69
40.32
5.83
8.83
17.07
Relocated to:
RS1
RS1
RS1
RS1
RS1
RS1
RS1
RS1
RS1
100.48
15.21
76.22
90.11
44.28
49.39
11.10
99.48
53.98
30.78
30.97
6.44
27.66
33.32
15.77
Put back into
RS1
RS1
RS1
RS1
RS1
19.33
93.84
9.35
46.74
3.83
28.86
Put back into
CS1
CS1
24.55
23.99
23.42
11.58
11.63
10.94
5.37
5.52
4.57
CS1
CS1
CS1
Notes
Some growth
Not found
Some growth
Some growth
Some growth
Not found
Some growth
Some growth
Some growth
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement