An Assessment of the Current Distribution and Status of Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae) in the Muskegon River, Michigan Prepared by: Stephanie M. Carman and Reuben R. Goforth, Ph.D. Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909-7944 For: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Coastal Zone Management Unit November 2003 Report Number 2003-18 Front Cover Photograph Courtesy of David Kenyon, Michigan Department of Natural Resources An Assessment of the Current Distribution and Status of Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae) in the Muskegon River, Michigan Prepared by: Stephanie M. Carman and Reuben R. Goforth, Ph.D. Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909-7944 For: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Coastal Zone Management Unit November 2003 Report Number 2003-18 Contents INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Muskegon River Watershed, Michigan ....................................................................................................................... 1 Muskegon River Initiative ........................................................................................................................................... 3 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Historical Data Compilation ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Current Mussel Distribution Surveys ......................................................................................................................... 3 Current vs. Historical Mussel Status .......................................................................................................................... 4 Physicochemcial Habitat Measures and Analysis ...................................................................................................... 5 Fish Community Data and Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 6 Spatial Data and Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 10 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................................................10 Historical Data Compilation ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Current Mussel Distribution Surveys ....................................................................................................................... 10 Current vs. Historic Mussel Status ............................................................................................................................ 12 Mussel-Physicochemical Habitat Analyses ................................................................................................................ 14 Mussel-Fish Community Analyses ............................................................................................................................ 14 Spatial Analysis Results ............................................................................................................................................. 14 Local Buffer Land Cover Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 14 US1 Buffer Land Cover Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 14 US2 Buffer Land Cover Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 17 US3 Buffer Land Cover Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 17 DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................................................................................38 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................41 LITERATURE CITED ...............................................................................................................................................41 Muskegon River Mussel Assessment- i Muskegon River Mussel Assessment- ii List of Tables Table 1. Historical (1934) mussel survey sites (VDS) in the Muskegon River watershed (van der Schalie 1941). Sites that were visited by MNFI during the summer of 2002 are indicated on the right. ..................................................... 6 Table 2. Mussel survey sites in tributaries of the Muskegon River visited by MNFI during Summer 2002. ................... 7 Table 3. Mussel survey sites in the mainstem of the Muskegon River visited by MNFI during Summer 2002. ............. 8 Table 4. Sites used for comparison of historical (VDS 1934, van der Schalie 1941) and current (MNFI 2002) mussel populations in the Muskegon River watershed. ......................................................................................................... 13 Table 5. Historical mussel survey results for tributaries of the Muskegon River reported by van der Schalie (VDS, 1941). The number of live individuals observed for each species is provided. Current State of Michigan listing status for relevant species is shown in parentheses (SC=special concern, E=endangered)........................................ 15 Table 6. Historical mussel survey results for the mainstem of the Muskegon River reported by van der Schalie (VDS, 1941). The number of live individuals observed for each species is provided. Current State of Michigan listing status for relevant species is shown in parentheses (SC=special concern, E=endangered)........................................ 16 Table 7. Muskegon River watershed mussel survey results for tributary sites visited by MNFI in Summer 2002. Numbers reflect the number of live individuals found for each species. Current State of Michigan listing status for relevant species is provided in parentheses (SC=special concern, E=endangered). The presence of the exotic species Dreissena polymorpha and native spherid fingernail clams at a site is indicated by an “X.” ........................ 18 Table 8. Muskegon River watershed mussel survey results for mainstem sites visited by MNFI in Summer 2002. Numbers reflect the number of live individuals found for each species. Current State of Michigan listing status for relevant species is provided in parentheses (SC=special concern, E=endangered). The presence of the exotic species Dreissena polymorpha and native spherid fingernail clams at a site is indicated by an “X.” ........................ 21 Table 9. Comparison of historical (1934; van der Schalie 1941) and current (2002) mussel species survey data in the Muskegon River watershed. An “X” indicates the presence of live individuals and an “S” indicates the presence of spent shells only. Current conservation status for relevant species is provided in parentheses (SC=special concern and E=endangered). .................................................................................................................................................. 23 Table 10. Correlations of local land cover properties with principal components from the PCA of local land cover data for unionid mussel survey sites in the Muskegon River watershed, Michigan. Pearson correlation coefficients (R) and statistical significance values (p) are provided for each buffer land cover component (n=50). Significant correlations (p<0.005) are highlighted in gray. The percentage of the variance in the data explained by each component is also provided....................................................................................................................................... 33 Table 11. Correlations of US1 buffer land cover properties with principal components from the PCA of US1 buffer land cover data for unionid mussel survey sites in the Muskegon River watershed, Michigan. Pearson correlation coeffi- cients (R) and statistical significance values (p) are provided for each buffer land cover component (n=50). Signifi- cant correlations (p<0.005) are highlighted in gray. The percentage of the variance in the data explained by each component is also provided....................................................................................................................................... 33 Table 12. Correlations of US2 buffer land cover properties with principal components from the PCA ordinations of US2 buffer land cover data for unionid mussel survey sites in the Muskegon River watershed, Michigan. Pearson correlation coefficients (R) and statistical significance values (p) are provided for each buffer land cover compo- nent (n=50). Significant correlations (p<0.005) are highlighted in gray. The percentage of the variance in the data explained for each component is also provided. ....................................................................................................... 37 Table 13. Correlations of US3