FY07-09 proposal 200707800

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: The database can be updated by the collectors with additional collection records as they are collected at no cost.

Termination date: 01/31/2008
Comments: Database will be stored and maintained as part of regular activities of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Program, Habitat Assessment Section.

Final deliverables: A database that is compatible with spatial plotting of freshwater mussel occurrences will be maintained by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Access to the data will be available through the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Program.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The goal of this project is to establish mussel distributions based on museum collections. This work would help determine if the Basin has lost some species. If the quality of the collection is good enough, they could get useful information on biodiversity and distribution. However, the background statement does not adequately describe what is currently known. For example, there is an incomplete discussion of the Nedeau et al. (2005) report in freshwater mussels of the Pacific Northwest. There should have been a description of the subbasins where mussel distribution and species composition data are sparse or lacking. Additionally, there was no mention of specifically which museums contained mussel collections or the adequacy of those collections. In addition, this proposal does not make a convincing case that mussel sample libraries would be adequate from the Northwest alone to provide greater understanding of the present and historical distribution of freshwater mussels in the Columbia River Basin. If this exercise was completed, the proposers should evaluate samples from early survey work in museums nationwide -- Philadelphia, Washington DC, New York, Berkeley and San Francisco, etc. They would need to contact all major museums in the US and ask about mussels in the Columbia River system (a broadcast query to likely over a 100 museums). Mussel specialists in federal agencies such as the USGS should be contacted. Also, does evidence exist from initial inquiries that the historical distribution (as described) is incomplete or specimens misidentified, and that additional data are available for use? This is an important question because most early museum researchers were quite thorough. Also, more rigor is needed in describing the methods for proper species identification and no provision was made for ground-truthing the museum records. Is this work designed to fill gaps in the 2005 report on freshwater mussels of the Pacific Northwest. If so, they should explain the gaps/problems in the report and justify this project.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The goal of this project is to establish mussel distributions based on museum collections. This work would help determine if the Basin has lost some species. If the quality of the collection is good enough, they could get useful information on biodiversity and distribution. However, the background statement does not adequately describe what is currently known. For example, there is an incomplete discussion of the Nedeau et al. (2005) report in freshwater mussels of the Pacific Northwest. There should have been a description of the subbasins where mussel distribution and species composition data are sparse or lacking. Additionally, there was no mention of specifically which museums contained mussel collections or the adequacy of those collections. In addition, this proposal does not make a convincing case that mussel sample libraries would be adequate from the Northwest alone to provide greater understanding of the present and historical distribution of freshwater mussels in the Columbia River Basin. If this exercise was completed, the proposers should evaluate samples from early survey work in museums nationwide -- Philadelphia, Washington DC, New York, Berkeley and San Francisco, etc. They would need to contact all major museums in the US and ask about mussels in the Columbia River system (a broadcast query to likely over a 100 museums). Mussel specialists in federal agencies such as the USGS should be contacted. Also, does evidence exist from initial inquiries that the historical distribution (as described) is incomplete or specimens misidentified, and that additional data are available for use? This is an important question because most early museum researchers were quite thorough. Also, more rigor is needed in describing the methods for proper species identification and no provision was made for ground-truthing the museum records. Is this work designed to fill gaps in the 2005 report on freshwater mussels of the Pacific Northwest. If so, they should explain the gaps/problems in the report and justify this project.