Status and Population Genetics of the Alabama Spike (Elliptio Arca) in the Mobile River Basin

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Status and Population Genetics of the Alabama Spike (Elliptio Arca) in the Mobile River Basin STATUS AND POPULATION GENETICS OF THE ALABAMA SPIKE (ELLIPTIO ARCA) IN THE MOBILE RIVER BASIN A Thesis by DANIEL HUNT MASON Submitted to the Graduate School at Appalachian State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE August, 2017 Department of Biology STATUS AND POPULATION GENTICS OF THE ALABAMA SPIKE (ELLIPTIO ARCA) IN THE MOBILE RIVER BASIN A Thesis by DANIEL HUNT MASON August, 2017 APPROVED BY: Michael M. Gangloff, Ph.D. Chairperson, Thesis Committee Matthew C. Estep, Ph.D. Member, Thesis Committee Lynn M. Siefermann, Ph.D. Member, Thesis Committee Zack E. Murrell, Ph.D. Chairperson, Department of Biology Max C. Poole, Ph.D. Dean, Cratis D. Williams School of Graduate Studies Copyright by Daniel Hunt Mason 2017 All Rights Reserved Abstract STATUS AND POPULATION GENETICS OF THE ALABAMA SPIKE (ELLIPTIO ARCA) IN THE MOBILE RIVER BASIN Daniel H. Mason B.A., Appalachian State University M.A., Appalachian State University Chairperson: Dr. Michael M. Gangloff Declines in freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionioda) are widely reported but rarely rigorously tested. Additionally, the population genetics of most species are virtually unknown, despite the importance of these data when assessing the conservation status of and recovery strategies for imperiled mussels. Freshwater mussel endemism is high in the Mobile River Basin (MRB) and many range- restricted taxa have been heavily impacted by riverine alterations, and many species are suspected to be declining in abundance, including the Alabama Spike (Elliptio arca). I compiled historical and current distributional data from all major MRB drainages to quantify the extent of declines in E. arca range based on naïve occupancy. I calculated change in area of occurrence (AOO) between 1987-2002 and 2003-2016 using 12 digit USGS HUCs as occurrence units. Concurrently, I used microsatellite markers to describe the population-level genetic characteristics of E. arca and identify differentiated lineages within the species. I did not detect a statistically significant change in the occupancy rates over the past 30 y. Calculations iv indicate that AOO increased by 5.6% from 1987-2002 to 2003-2016. My data provide no evidence to indicate that E. arca warrants elevated conservation status. However, genetic data show conflicting measures of diversity, and low rates of gene flow between drainages. Intraspecific genetic structure in E. arca is most significantly related to the geographic separation of the Tombigbee and Tallapoosa River Drainages, at both microsatellite and mitochondrial loci. Secondary structure is present among sites. My research shows that despite a lack of evidence for population declines or decrease in occupied area, detection is low for E. arca even with a species-specific study design, and that there are at least two divergent meta- populations within the species. These findings represent the first population genetic data for a Gulf Slope freshwater mussel and will help inform management decisions for this native and imperiled taxon. v Acknowledgments I’d like to acknowledge and thank Drs. Matt Estep, Sarah Marshburn, Mike Gangloff and Lynn Siefferman, who have contributed a great deal to this thesis through their assistance and critiques. I also owe great thanks to Carla Atkinson, Stuart McGregor, the Franklin family, Monica Winebarger, Worth Pugh, Ashley Yuan, Tara Early, Gary Pandolfi, Michael Thompson, Susie Geda, Dave Werneke, Alex Lamle and the biological staff of the Westervelt Co. for their assistance and support during my field work. The data graciously contributed by Stuart McGregor, Jason Wisnewski, Jeff Powell, Jim Williams and Paul Johnson made much of this study possible, and I wish to express my gratitude for their professional generosity and encouragement. This project was also made possible by internal funding from the Office of Student Research and the Graduate Student Association Senate, and external financial support from Sigma Xi and the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission. To Nik Hay, Morgan Harris, Raquel Fagundo, Justin Fischer, Jason Selong and the Gangloff-Siefferman lab members, thank you all for your guidance, encouragement, jokes and lively debates. Carra, I want to thank you for not shunning me despite nearly losing a tooth to my right elbow, and for encouraging my development as a disseminator of science. Gerrit, I’m glad that you’ve gotten your own taste of what it’s like to become a Master, thanks for your wit, humor and for keeping me connected to the world. To Thomas Franklin, I struggle to imagine where I would be without your help and most of all friendship, thank vi you for both. Certainly none of what I’ve achieved would have ever been possible without the loving support of my family and Alexandria Albers, to whom I will never truly be able to explain their significance in my life, nor fully repay them; thank you. vii Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. vi List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures ......................................................................................................................x Foreword ............................................................................................................................ xi Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Methods................................................................................................................................5 Results ................................................................................................................................12 Discussion ..........................................................................................................................17 References ..........................................................................................................................26 Appendix A ........................................................................................................................49 Appendix B ........................................................................................................................58 Appendix C ........................................................................................................................98 Vita ...................................................................................................................................106 viii List of Tables Table 1. Summary table of genetic diversity statistics ......................................................43 Table 2. Summary data of 2016 mussel surveys................................................................44 Table 3. Pairwise Fst between sites ....................................................................................47 ix List of Figures Figure 1. Map of past E. arca occurrence records .............................................................38 Figure 2. Map of current E. arca occurrence records ........................................................39 Figure 3. Map of 2016 survey sites and E. arca detections ...............................................40 Figure 4. STRUCTURE bar plots ......................................................................................41 Figure 5. PoPS map of Q-matrices ....................................................................................42 Figure 6. COI haplotype network ......................................................................................43 x Foreword The research resulting in this thesis will be submitted to Conservation Genetics, an international peer-reviewed journal; the body of this thesis has been formatted according to the style guide for that journal. xi Introduction Southeastern North America’s freshwater ecosystems support a huge fraction of the continent’s invertebrate and vertebrate biodiversity. However, many of its freshwater habitats have been subjected to extensive anthropogenic modification. The Mobile River Basin (MRB) is an ancient drainage system, dating from at least the Cretaceous period (Adams 1929; Conant 1964), but today it is one of the most fragmented drainages in the world (Pringle et al. 2000). The MRB and its fauna have been extensively altered by 30 large dams, thousands of low head dams (≤ 10 m high), extensive regions of canals and locks, and the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, a 377 km barge canal linking the Tombigbee River and the Tennessee River drainages in northeastern Mississippi. These extreme habitat modifications fragment stream habitat and have been associated with dramatic changes to MRB freshwater mussel populations (Gangloff et al. 2015; Gangloff and Feminella 2007; Hamstead 2013; Hartfield and Jones 1990; Jones 1991; Mirarchi et al. 2004; Williams et al. 1992). Numerous freshwater mussel taxa have been reported to be experiencing alarming rates of extinction and population declines in the southeastern US (Groombridge and Jenkins 1998; Lydeard and Mayden 1995) yet there are few widely applicable hypotheses about why these declines are occurring (Haag and Williams 2014). It is possible that mussel populations have
Recommended publications
  • Francis Marion National Forest Freshwater Mussel Surveys: Final Report
    Francis Marion National Forest Freshwater Mussel Surveys: Final Report Contract No. AG-4670-C-10-0077 Prepared For: Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests 4931 Broad River Road Columbia, SC 29212-3530 Prepared by: The Catena Group, Inc. 410-B Millstone Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 November 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Objectives ................................................................................. 1 2.0 STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................ 2 3.0 METHODS .............................................................................................................. 2 4.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 3 5.0 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 19 5.1 Mussel Habitat Conditions in the FMNF (Objective 1) ..................................... 19 5.2 Mussel Fauna of the FMNF (Objective 2) ......................................................... 19 5.2.1 Mussel Species Found During the Surveys ................................................ 19 5.3 Highest Priority Mussel Fauna Streams of the FMNF (Objective 3) ................. 25 5.4 Identified Areas that Warrant Further Study in the FMNF (Objective 4) .......... 25 6.0 LITERATURE CITED .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report- HWY-2009-16 Propagation and Culture of Federally Listed Freshwater Mussel Species
    Final Report- HWY-2009-16 Propagation and Culture of Federally Listed Freshwater Mussel Species Prepared By Jay F- Levine, Co-Principal Investigator1 Christopher B- Eads, Co-Investigator1 Renae Greiner, Graduate Student Assistant1 Arthur E- Bogan, Co- Investigator2 1North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine 4700 Hillsborough Street Raleigh, NC 27606 2 NC State Museum of Natural Sciences 4301 Reedy Creek Rd- Raleigh, NC 27607 November 2011 Technical Report Documentation Page 1- Report No- 2-Government Accession No- 3- Recipient’s Catalog No- FHWA/NC/2009-16 4- Title and Subtitle 5- Report Date Propagation and Culture of Federally Listed Freshwater November 2011 Mussel Species 6-Performing Organization Code 7- Author(s) 8-Performing Organization Report No- Jay F- Levine, Co-Principal Investigator Arthur E- Bogan, Co-Principal Investigator Renae Greiner, Graduate Student Assistant 9- Performing Organization Name and Address 10- Work Unit No- (TRAIS) North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine 11- Contract or Grant No- 4700 Hillsborough Street Raleigh, NC 27606 12- Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13-Type of Report and Period Covered North Carolina Department of Transportation Final Report P-O- Box 25201 August 16, 2008 – June 30, 2011 Raleigh, NC 27611 14- Sponsoring Agency Code HWY-2009-16 15- Supplementary Notes 16- Abstract Road and related crossing construction can markedly alter stream habitat and adversely affect resident native flora. The National Native Mussel Conservation Committee has recognized artificial propagation and culture as an important potential management tool for sustaining remaining freshwater mussel populations and has called for additional propagation research to help conserve and restore this faunal group.
    [Show full text]
  • Download BALMNH No 25 2007
    ••• 11111111 ••• ••• ... .... ... ••• ALABAMA MUSEUM of Natural History Bulletin 25 August 1, 2007 Systematics, Evolution and Biogeography of the Etheostoma simoterum Species Complex (Percidae: Subgenus Ulocentra) Distribution and Satus of Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia Unionidae) of the Lower Coosa and Tallapoosa River Drainages in Alabama The Osteology of the Stonecat, Noturus flavus (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae), with Comparisons to Other Siluriforms 8 1 BULLETIN ALABAMA MUSEUM OF NATURAL mSTORY The scientific publication of the Alabama Museum of Natural History. Dr. Phillip Harris, Editor. BULLETIN AlABAMA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY is published by the Alabama Museum of Natural History, a unit of The University of Alabama. The BULLETIN succeeds its predecessor, the MUSEUM PAPERS, which was terminated in 1961 upon the transfer of the Museum to the University from its parent organiza­ tion, the Geological Survey of Alabama. The BULLETIN is devoted primarily to scholarship and research concerning the natural history of Alabama and the Southeast. It appears twice yearly in consecutively numbered issues. Communication concerning manuscripts, style, and editorial policy should be addressed to: Editor, BULLETIN AlABAMA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, The University of Alabama, Box 870345, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0345; telephone (205) 348-1831 or [email protected]. Prospective authors should exam­ ine the Notice to Authors inside the back cover. Orders and requests for general information should be addressed to BULLETIN AlABAMA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, at the above address or emailed to [email protected]. Yearly subscriptions (two issues) are $30.00 for individ­ uals, $50.00 for corporations and institutions. Numbers may be purchased individual­ ly. Payment should accompany orders and subscriptions and checks should be made out to "The University of Alabama." Library exchanges should be handled through: Exchange Librarian, The University of Alabama, Box 870266, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0340.
    [Show full text]
  • Elliptio Arca) 57 Mm (2¼ Inches)
    Alabama spike (Elliptio arca) 57 mm (2¼ inches). Sipsey River, Alabama. Photo by Jason Wisniewski, GA DNR. Specimen provided by the McClung Museum courtesy of Gerry Dinkins. Common Name: ALABAMA SPIKE Scientific Name: Elliptio arca Conrad Other Commonly Used Names: none Previously Used Scientific Names: none Family: Unionidae Rarity Ranks: G2G3Q/S1 State Legal Status: Endangered Federal Legal Status: none Description: Typically compressed to moderately inflated shell, elliptical or elongate in shape. Maximum length is approximately 90 mm (3.5 inches). Anterior margin is broadly rounded while posterior margin is typically rounded to biangulate. Ventral margin relatively straight to slightly arcuate. Posterior ridge sharply angular to round in larger individuals. Umbos slightly projecting above hingeline. Periostracum typically dark brown to black in adults. Juveniles may be yellow to green with fine rays near the umbo. Left valve with two, triangular, stumpy pseudocardinal teeth and two low, and straight lateral teeth. Right valve with one low, serrated pseudocardinal tooth and one, typically high, straight, and long lateral tooth. Umbo cavity typically shallow and wide. Nacre variable but typically bluish white to salmon. Similar Species: Delicate spike (Elliptio arctata). The Alabama spike can be distinguished from the delicate spike by the former typically having a thicker, heavier shell and longer length. The Alabama spike is typically more inflated and has heavier teeth. Habitat: Gravel or sand shoals in medium sized creeks to large rivers. Occasionally found in sand-bottomed runs with slow, steady current. Rarely found in slack water or silt. Diet: The diets of unionids are poorly understood but are believed to consist of algae and/or bacteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Population Structure of Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae) in Lake Chicot, Arkansas John L
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 47 Article 13 1993 Distribution and Population Structure of Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae) in Lake Chicot, Arkansas John L. Harris Arkansas State University, [email protected] Peter J. Rust Arkansas State University Stephen W. Chordas III Arkansas State University George L. Harp Arkansas State University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Harris, John L.; Rust, Peter J.; Chordas, Stephen W. III; and Harp, George L. (1993) "Distribution and Population Structure of Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae) in Lake Chicot, Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 47 , Article 13. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol47/iss1/13 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 47 [1993], Art. 13 Distribution and Population Structure of Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae) inLake Chicot, Arkansas John L.Harris, Pete Rust, Steven W. Chordas, III,and George L.Harp Department of Biological Sciences Arkansas State University State University, AR 72467 Abstract A systematic survey of mussel concentrations (= beds) inLake Chicot was conducted during June 10-15, 1991.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Factors Potentially Affecting the Propagation And
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist Water Investigations Program Patrick E. O’Neil, Director FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTING THE PROPAGATION AND REINTRODUCTION OF FRESHWATER MUSSELS (BIVALVIA: UNIONIDAE) INTO THE BUTTAHATCHEE RIVER SYSTEM, ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI Open File Report 0609 by Stuart W. McGregor, Marlon R. Cook, and Patrick E. O’Neil With field and laboratory assistance from Mirza A. Beg, Lifo Chen, Neil E. Moss, and Robert E. Meintzer Prepared in cooperation with the World Wildlife Fund Agreement Number LX 30 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2006 CONTENTS Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................ 2 Discussion........................................................................................................................ 2 Mussel fauna .............................................................................................................. 2 Sediment toxicity ....................................................................................................... 13 Sedimentation monitoring.......................................................................................... 21 Stream discharge.................................................................................................. 23 Sedimentation .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SCIENTIFIC COLLECTING PERMITS Valid: One Year from Date of Issuance Resident - Nonresident
    SCP – Page 1 SCIENTIFIC COLLECTING PERMITS Valid: one year from date of issuance Resident - Nonresident Alabama Game, Fish and Wildlife Law; Article 12; beginning with 9-11-231 PRIVILEGE: • An INDIVIDUAL, EDUCATIONAL OR AGENCY SCP authorizes permit holder to collect any wild invertebrate or vertebrate species or their eggs in this state for propagation or scientific purposes. • A FEDERAL / STATE PROTECTED SCP authorizes permit holder to collect endangered / protected species (copy of USFWS permit must be submitted if required by federal law). PERMITS TYPES: • INDIVIDUAL SCP: for an individual collector. • EDUCATIONAL SCP: for a professor/teacher and their current students. • AGENCY MEMBER SCP: for an agency and their current members. • FEDERAL / STATE PROTECTED SCP: Issued in addition to an Individual, Educational or Agency SCP. STUDENTS / AGENCY MEMBERS: • Each student / agency member must complete the Educational & Agency SCP Dependent Information Form and be approved to work under an Educational or Agency SCP. (See The SCP section online at https://www.outdooralabama.com/licenses/commercial-licenses-permits) COLLECTIONS: • A SCP Collection Data Form must be completed and faxed for approval prior to any scheduled collection. (See The SCP section online at https://www.outdooralabama.com/licenses/commercial-licenses-permits) • Annual reports required. Must be submitted prior to renewal requests. RESTRICTIONS: • Must have a SCP to obtain a Federal / State Protected Species permit. • Federal / State Protected permit must meet strict guidelines prior to issuance. • No species collected are to be sold. NOTE: • Electronic system processes all applications and reports. • For areas under Marine Resources jurisdiction, call (251) 861-2882. • Applicant should allow 3 weeks for processing and issuance.
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Habitat Matrix
    Study reference Fish/shellfish Habitat Requirements Threat/Stressor Fish/Habitat species Response Type DO Temp Salinity Direct Indirect Species 1 – Elliptio complanata Bogan and Proch Eastern elliptio Permanent 1997, Cummings body of and Cordeiro 2011, water: large Strayer 1993; rivers, small USACE 2013 streams, canals, reservoirs, lakes, ponds Harbold et al. Eastern elliptio Presence of Environmental Diminished 2014; LaRouche fish host stressors on fish reproductive 2014; Lellis et al. species species, success; local 2013; Watters (American eel migratory extirpation 1996 [Anguilla blockages rostrata], Brook trout [Salvelinus fontinalis], Lake trout [S. namaycush], Slimy sculpin [Cottus cognatus], and Mottled sculpin [C. bairdii]) Sparks and Strayer Eastern elliptio Rivers Interstitial Reduced Behavioral stress 1998 (juveniles) DO > 2-4 dissolved responses mg/L oxygen caused (surfacing, gaping, by extending siphons sedimentation, and foot), increased Study reference Fish/shellfish Habitat Requirements Threat/Stressor Fish/Habitat species Response Type DO Temp Salinity Direct Indirect nutrient exposure to loading, organic predation inputs, or high temperatures Gelinas et al. 2014 Eastern elliptio Freshwater Harmful algal Compromised blooms, algal immune system, toxins reduced fitness Ashton 2009 Eastern elliptio Multiple 20-24°C Land cover Decreased environment conversion in frequency of al variables upstream observation, lower (pH, mean drainage area, numbers of daily water elevated individuals temperature, nutrients, conductivity, acidification,
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Evaluation of Proposed, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species
    Biological Evaluation of Proposed, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Wildlife Habitat Improvement and Fuels Reduction Project Proposed Action within Winston County, Alabama Responsible Agency: USDA Forest Service National Forests in Alabama William B. Bankhead Ranger District Contact: Deciding Officer: District Ranger Glen D. Gaines Biological Evaluation Preparer: Biological Scientist Allison Cochran PO Box 278 Double Springs, Alabama 35553 Telephone 205-489-5111 FAX 205-489-3427 E-mail [email protected] [email protected] Type of Document Categorical Exclusion – BE Summary The proposed project will reduce midstory and understory trees and shrubs in two sites, totaling approximately 47 acres, noted on the attached maps. The project sites are located in the Black Pond and Hickory Grove communities. They are found in Forest Service management compartments 163 and 19. The sites proposed for treatment are loblolly pine stands. They were thinned in 2005 and 2006, respectively. Selected vegetation between 1 inch and 6 inches DBH will be removed in upland pine- dominant habitat. In compartment 163, the result will be an open pine stand with reduced fuel loading and advanced hardwood regeneration. In compartment 19, the result will be an open pine stand with reduced fuel loading. The result will allow for restoration and maintenance of native forest communities, including upland oak-hickory forest in compartment 163 and fire dependent pine woodlands in compartment 19. The purpose and need for the project is to improve wildlife habitat, improve conditions for native upland plants, restore and maintain native forest communities, and to decrease the risk of catastrophic wildfires by reducing fuels.
    [Show full text]
  • The Freshwater Bivalve Mollusca (Unionidae, Sphaeriidae, Corbiculidae) of the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina
    SRQ-NERp·3 The Freshwater Bivalve Mollusca (Unionidae, Sphaeriidae, Corbiculidae) of the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina by Joseph C. Britton and Samuel L. H. Fuller A Publication of the Savannah River Plant National Environmental Research Park Program United States Department of Energy ...---------NOTICE ---------, This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Depart­ mentof Energy.nor any of theircontractors, subcontractors,or theiremploy­ ees, makes any warranty. express or implied or assumes any legalliabilityor responsibilityfor the accuracy, completenessor usefulnessofanyinformation, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. A PUBLICATION OF DOE'S SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH PARK Copies may be obtained from NOVEMBER 1980 Savannah River Ecology Laboratory SRO-NERP-3 THE FRESHWATER BIVALVE MOLLUSCA (UNIONIDAE, SPHAERIIDAE, CORBICULIDAEj OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT, SOUTH CAROLINA by JOSEPH C. BRITTON Department of Biology Texas Christian University Fort Worth, Texas 76129 and SAMUEL L. H. FULLER Academy of Natural Sciences at Philadelphia Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Prepared Under the Auspices of The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory and Edited by Michael H. Smith and I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr. 1979 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 STUDY AREA " 1 LIST OF BIVALVE MOLLUSKS AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT............................................ 1 ECOLOGICAL
    [Show full text]
  • The Tombigbee River Basin
    Contents Water—Our Precious Natural Resource. 3 Mississippi’s Water Resources . 4 Welcome to the Tombigbee and Tennessee River Basins . 6 Special Plants and Animals of the Tombigbee and Tennessee . 10 Land Use and Its Effects on Water Quality . 13 Water Quality in the Tombigbee and Tennessee River Basins . 17 Mississippi’s Basin Management Approach . 21 Priority Watersheds . 22 Agencies and Organizations Cooperating for Improved Water Quality . 30 Sustaining Our Environmental Resources and Economic Development . 31 About this Guide Acknowledgments Mississippi’s Citizen’s Guides to Water Quality This guide is a product of the Basin Team for the are intended to inform you about: Tombigbee and Tennessee River Basins, consisting of representatives from 28 state Mississippi’s abundant water resources and federal agencies and stakeholder Natural features, human activities, and organizations (see page 30 of this document for water quality in a particular river basin a complete listing). The lead agency for developing, distributing, and funding this guide The importance of a healthy environment is the Mississippi Department of Environmental to a strong economy Quality (MDEQ). This effort was completed in 2008 under a Clean Water Act Section 319 Watersheds targeted for water quality restoration and protection activities Nonpoint Source grant, and includes publication services from Tetra Tech, Inc. How to participate in protecting or Copies of this guide may be obtained by restoring water quality contacting: Mississippi Department of Whom to contact for more information Environmental Quality Office of Pollution Control We hope these guides will enhance the 515 East Amite Street dialogue between citizens and key decision Jackson, MS 39201 makers to help improve our management of 601-961-5171 Mississippi’s precious water resources.
    [Show full text]