FY07-09 proposal 200707800

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleCharacterizing the Geographic Distribution of Freshwater Mussels in the Columbia Basin Using Museum Collection Data.
Proposal ID200707800
OrganizationWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Short descriptionAll available collection records will be examined for accuracy, species identifications will be checked, and location and date of collection will be recorded. Species occurrence data will be plotted in a GIS and made available online.
Information transferData will be plotted in a GIS maintained by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Program and provided upon request. Species occurrence maps will also be made available online by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Contacts
ContactOrganizationEmail
Form submitter
Kirk Krueger WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat, HAS kruegklk@dfw.wa.gov
All assigned contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide

LatitudeLongitudeWaterbodyDescription

Section 3. Focal species

primary: Freshwater Mussels

Section 4. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding sourceRelated IDRelated titleRelationship
[Funding Source left blank] [no entry] This work contributes to the overall goal of recovering functional salmon producing rivers in the Columbia River Basin by addressing a common information limitation that has not been previously addressed.

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectivesFull descriptionAssociated subbasin planStrategy
[BO Title left blank] The goal of this work is to collect, verify and make available to managers and researchers freshwater mussel occurrence information that is critical to their effective management and conservation. None [Strategy left blank]

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element nameWork element titleDescriptionStart dateEnd dateEst budget
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Data acquisition and assessment. Museums, natural resource agencies, academic institutions and researchers will be queried for information on mussel occurrences and collection methods. Collection record data will be assessed for accuracy of species identification by an experienced biologist and based on the qualifications of the collector. 7/1/2007 12/31/2007 $30,000
Biological objectives
Metrics
Focal Area: Systemwide, all available data sources.
Create/Manage/Maintain Database Database design and population with mussel occurrence data. A database will be designed to promote the mapping of mussel occurrence data in a GIS and the selection of data by spatial, temporal and taxanomic criteria. 1/1/2008 1/31/2008 $8,700
Biological objectives
Metrics

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget
ItemNoteFY07FY08FY09
Personnel 1 Biologist for 4 months $16,900 $0 $0
Fringe Benefits 1 Biologist for 4 months $4,800 $0 $0
Personnel 1 Information Tech for 1.5 months $0 $4,650 $0
Fringe Benefits 1 Information Tech for 1.5 months $0 $1,650 $0
Travel Travel by Biologist to verify data $2,000 $0 $0
Overhead [blank] $6,800 $1,900 $0
Totals $30,500 $8,200 $0
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: $38,700
Total work element budget: $38,700
Cost sharing
Funding source/orgItem or service providedFY 07 est value ($)FY 08 est value ($)FY 09 est value ($)Cash or in-kind?Status
Totals $0 $0 $0

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $0
FY 2011 estimated budget: $0
Comments: [Outyear comment field left blank]

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

FY07 budget FY08 budget FY09 budget Total budget Type Category Recommendation
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0 $0 $0 $0 Expense Basinwide Do Not Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0 $0 $0 $0 Basinwide

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.