Freshwater Mussel Status Report Habitat, Populations, Reproduction and Contaminant Assessment In and Near the Massena/Akwesasne St. Lawrence River Area of Concern (AOC) for Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI) Advancements USEPA GLRI Project ID: GL-97221310 Prepared by: Lee H. Harper Riveredge Associates J. Mark Erickson St. Lawrence University and Jessica L. Jock Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Environment Division November 2015 STATUS REPORT - FRESHWATER MUSSELS IN AND NEAR AOC Suggested citation: Harper L.H., J.M. Erickson, and J.L. Jock. November 2015. Freshwater mussel status report: habitat, populations, reproduction and contaminant assessment in and near the Massena/Akwesasne St. Lawrence River Area of Concern (AOC) for Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI) advancements. GL-97221310. 99 pp. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Data were gathered in and near the Massena/Akwesasne Area of Concern (AOC) to assist with the evaluation of Beneficial Use Impairments (BUI) for freshwater mussels in a project funded by a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) grant (GL-97221310) to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (SRMT) through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was developed and an Interim Status Report completed from 2012 qualitative surveys to identify data gaps and guide the 2013 investigations. Field work was conducted during summer and fall 2013 to investigate freshwater mussel populations, reproduction, and contaminants. This study is relevant to 3 BUIs within the AOC: restriction on fish and wildlife consumption, degradation of fish and wildlife populations, and degradation of benthos. 2013 Field surveys were conducted in the Grasse, St. Regis, and Raquette Rivers by snorkel and scuba at 19 sites; 7 inside the AOC and 12 outside and upstream of the AOC to examine mussel populations and reproduction. The 7 sites (segments) surveyed inside the AOC represent 5.7% of the total number of river segments inside the AOC. Thirteen of the 19 total sites had information on mussel presence and abundance from previous surveys conducted between 1991and 2006 Erickson 9 to 23 years earlier, although 11 of these sites were upstream and outside the AOC, and only two were inside the AOC. There were no surveys conducted in the St. Lawrence River in 2013. The 2013 surveys identified 13 species of mussels in and adjacent to the AOC, including five (5) New York State Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Mussel communities inside and outside the AOC in the Grasse, Raquette, and St. Regis Rivers had similar species richness at the 19 survey sites across all three rivers. Compared to earlier Erickson surveys, species richness was generally slightly higher in 2013 than in previous studies. Two new native species are now present inside the Grasse River AOC that were not found 17 years ago, although this could be due in part to greater sampling effort. Across all rivers, the Grasse River has the highest species richness (n=13) and perhaps the least understood mussel fauna of rivers surveyed inside and outside the AOC. Zebra mussels continue to threaten native unionid mussels in the lower reaches of the rivers, near the confluence of the main stem St. 3 Lawrence River backwater influence, in particular American Veterans Campground (AmVets) site on the lower Grasse River. At most sites, mussels were found to represent a broad array of age classes from 1 year old to 20 or more years of age based on counts of external rings. Gravid individuals of several species were found inside and outside the AOC and in each of the three tributary rivers. Combined, these data suggest largely stable mussel populations and the occurrence of successful reproduction and recruitment, except in areas of zebra mussel. Thirty composite mussel samples of five individual Elliptio complanata were collected from the tributary rivers of the AOC and analyzed for contaminants (aluminum, cadmium, lead, mercury, organochlorine pesticides, fluoride, dioxins/furans, PCB congeners, and PAHs); 15 samples inside the AOC and 15 samples outside (upstream) of the AOC. Not all samples could be run for all tests due to sample mass limitations. No pesticides, PAHs, nor fluoride were detected in any samples. With the three rivers combined, total PCBs inside the AOC were significantly higher than total PCBs outside the AOC. Two dioxins (HpCDD and OCDD) and one furan (TCDF) were also significantly higher inside the AOC than outside the AOC. No other contaminants were significantly different inside versus outside the AOC when the data were pooled among rivers. Across all rivers inside the AOC (only), total PCBs were significantly highest in the Grasse River. Total PCBs were not detected inside the AOC from the St. Regis River. The furan TCDF was also significantly highest in the Grasse River inside the AOC. Across all rivers outside the AOC, there were no significant differences in contaminant concentrations. Contaminant levels in 2013 were similar or lower to mussel tissue collected in the AOC from 1983 to 1991. Although 97% of mussels collected (n=38) on the St. Lawrence and Ottawa Rivers in 1985 had DDE, no DDE was detected in any sample in 2013. While consumption of mussels was not examined by EPA’s human health risk assessment for the Grasse River, the average PCB concentrations for mussels inside the AOC on the Grasse River exceed the EPA remedial goal of 10 ng/g for fish tissue PCB concentrations to be protective of Mohawk health. Average PCB concentrations inside the AOC for the Raquette and St. Regis 4 Rivers, and for all three rivers outside the AOC, do not exceed this level, although 3 of 12 samples from the Raquette River did. For protection of wildlife which may consume aquatic organisms, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation advises a limit of 110 ng/g PCBs. This threshold was exceeded in 2013 inside the AOC for the Grasse River only. Further field studies are necessary to identify any occurrence of rare, threatened or endangered species, and to determine the impacts of lower Grasse River remediation on the freshwater mussel community. Mussels appeared to be more common in shallow nearshore areas with emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation, although this is a general qualitative impression that needs to be supported with additional field surveys. Such surveys would also identify the extent of zebra mussel infestation. Full restoration of the freshwater mussels and the habitats they depend on will be a necessary part of Grasse River remediation activities, and restored BUIs. 5 STATUS REPORT - FRESHWATER MUSSELS IN AND NEAR AOC TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. 8 LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. 8 LIST OF PHOTOS .............................................................................................................. 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... 10 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................ 11 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 12 1.1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................ 12 1.2 FRESHWATER MUSSELS OF THE AOC ........................................................ 18 1.3 PREVIOUS STUDIES OF FRESHWATER MUSSELS IN THE AOC ..................... 24 1.4 AOC REMEDIATION SUMMARIES ............................................................... 25 1.4.1 GENERAL REMEDIATION SUMMARY .............................................. 25 1.4.2 SITE SPECIFIC RIVER SEDIMENTS, BANK, AND/OR WETLAND SOIL REMEDIATION SUMMARIES ............................................................ 26 2.0 METHODS .............................................................................................................. 31 2.1 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................. 31 2.2 STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................... 33 2.3 2012 QUALITATIVE MUSSEL SURVEYS ...................................................... 34 2.4 2013 FIELD SURVEY METHODS.................................................................. 34 2.5 2013 SAMPLING DESIGN ............................................................................ 35 2.6 CONTAMINANT SAMPLE COLLECTION METHODS ....................................... 39 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 41 3.1 ACHIEVEMENT OF DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES IN THE FIELD ................... 41 3.2 SPECIES OF MUSSELS ................................................................................. 44 3.3 MUSSEL POPULATIONS .............................................................................. 49 3.3.1 2013 MUSSELS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE AOC............................. 49 3.3.2 2013 DATA COMPARED TO EARLIER STUDIES ............................... 53 3.4 REPRODUCTION.........................................................................................