DOCSLIB.ORG

Species Status Assessment Report for the Fluted Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus Subtentum (=Subtentus)), Version 1.0

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Species Status Assessment Report for the Fluted Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus Subtentum (=Subtentus)), Version 1.0 FLUTED KIDNEYSHELL (PTYCHOBRANCHUS SUBTENTUM (=SUBTENTUS)) SPECIES STATUS ASSESSMENT Version 1.0 Photo courtesy of Bret Ostby, Virginia Tech U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 Atlanta, Georgia February 2021 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document was prepared by Michael Compton (Office of Kentucky Nature Preserves) in coordination with Jessica Miller (USFWS), Anthony Ford (USFWS), and Victoria Davis (USFWS). We would also like to recognize and thank the following individuals who served on the expert team for this SSA and provided substantive information and/or insights, valuable input into the analysis, and/or reviews of a draft of this document: Don Hubbs (Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency), Monte McGregor (Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources), Jordan Richard (USFWS), and Brian Watson (Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources). Further peer review was provided by Gerald Dinkins (University of Tennessee) and Wendell Haag (U.S. Forest Service) (Appendix A). We appreciate their input and comments, which resulted in a more robust status assessment and final report. Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Species Status Assessment Report for the Fluted Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus subtentum (=subtentus)), Version 1.0. February 2021. Atlanta, GA. SSA Report – Fluted Kidneyshell i February 2021 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION .........................................................................1 INDIVIDUAL NEEDS: LIFE HISTORY AND BIOLOGY .... 4 2.1 Taxonomy ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Description ...................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Habitat ............................................................................................................................. 6 2.4 Feeding and Diet ............................................................................................................. 6 2.5 Life History and Reproduction ..................................................................................... 7 2.6 Population Needs .......................................................................................................... 10 2.7 Species Needs ................................................................................................................ 10 2.8 Range and Distribution ................................................................................................ 11 FACTORS INFLUENCING VIABILITY ................................14 Water Quality Degradation ......................................................................................... 14 Habitat Degradation .................................................................................................... 18 Climate Change ............................................................................................................ 21 Invasive Species ............................................................................................................ 22 Impervious Surfaces ..................................................................................................... 23 Undefined Threats ........................................................................................................ 24 Regulatory Mechanisms and Conservation Efforts .................................................. 24 CURRENT CONDITION AND SPECIES VIABILITY ........26 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 26 Description of Populations .......................................................................................... 30 Harpeth Population ................................................................................................. 30 Obey Population...................................................................................................... 31 Buck Creek Population ........................................................................................... 33 Big South Fork Population...................................................................................... 34 Rockcastle Population ............................................................................................. 35 Upper Cumberland Population ............................................................................... 37 Buffalo Population .................................................................................................. 38 Upper Duck Population........................................................................................... 39 Pickwick Lake Population ...................................................................................... 40 Lower Elk Population ............................................................................................. 41 Upper Elk Population .............................................................................................. 42 Wheeler Population ................................................................................................. 44 SSA Report – Fluted Kidneyshell ii February 2021 Guntersville Population .......................................................................................... 45 Lower French Broad Population ............................................................................. 46 Nolichucky Population............................................................................................ 47 Holston Population.................................................................................................. 48 North Fork Holston Population ............................................................................... 49 South Fork Holston Population ............................................................................... 50 Clinch Population.................................................................................................... 51 Powell Population ................................................................................................... 53 Species Viability............................................................................................................ 54 Current Condition Summary ...................................................................................... 61 FUTURE CONDITIONS ...........................................................62 Future Scenario Considerations ................................................................................. 62 Uncertainty ................................................................................................................... 65 Future Scenarios ........................................................................................................... 65 5.3.1 Scenario 1 ............................................................................................................... 65 5.3.2 Scenario 2 ............................................................................................................... 70 5.3.3 Scenario 3 ............................................................................................................... 74 Future Viability ............................................................................................................ 78 Overall Summary ......................................................................................................... 80 LITERATURE CITED .........................................................................................82 APPENDIX .............................................................................................................99 SSA Report – Fluted Kidneyshell iii February 2021 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background This species status assessment (SSA) report describes a comprehensive review of the available data and analytical process to assess the viability of the endangered Fluted Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus subtentum (=subtentus)). During this process, the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, representation, and redundancy (or the “3Rs”) were evaluated for the species. The Fluted Kidneyshell is a relatively large (up to 13 centimeters (cm) (5 inches (in)) in length) freshwater mussel found historically within the Cumberland and Tennessee River drainages of the Ohio River basin in Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. The species typically occupies riffle and run habitat in small to large rivers in substrates mixed with sand and gravel and is occasionally associated with cobble and boulder. Spawning occurs in late summer, and the species is considered a long-term brooder. Several benthic fish species, such as the banded sculpin, fantail darter, and rainbow darter, are host species for the parasitic larvae (glochidia). The species is moderately long-lived; it has been estimated to live as long as 26 and 49 years (Davis and Layzer 2012, pp. 88-89; Henley et al. 2002, p. 19). Identified threats to the species include degradation of water quality, particularly heavy metals, endocrine disruptors, nutrients and organic pollution; habitat degradation, particularly sedimentation, channel alteration and gravel mining, and impoundments and barriers; climate change; impervious surfaces; and invasive species. Regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts have the potential to positively influence the persistence of populations. Methodology The SSA process
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1955
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 382 INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1955 PART 2. SOUTH ATLANTIC SLOPE AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO BASINS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fred A. Seaton, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 382 INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS TO SEPTEMBER 30,1955 PART 2. SOUTH ATLANTIC SLOPE AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO BASINS By P. R. Speer and A. B. Goodwin Washington, D. C., 1956 Free on application to the Geological Survey, Washington 25, D. C. INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS TO SEPTEMBER 30,1955 PAET 2. SOUTH ATLANTIC SLOPE AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO BASINS By P. R Speer and A. B. Goodwin EXPLANATION This index lists the streamflow and reservoir stations in the South Atlantic slope and Eastern Gulf of Mexico basins for which records have been or are to be published in reports of the Geological Survey for periods prior to September 30, 1955. Periods of record for the same station published by other agencies are listed only when they contain more detailed information or are for periods not reported in publications of the Geological Survey. The stations are listed in the downstream order first adopted for use in the 1951 series of water-supply papers on surface-water supply of the United States. Starting at the headwater of each stream all stations are listed in a downstream direction. Tributary streams are indicated by indention and are inserted between main-stem stations in the order in which they enter the main stream. To indicate the rank of any tributary on which a record is available and the stream to which it is immediately tributary, each indention in the listing of stations represents one rank.
    [Show full text]
  • List of TMDL Implementation Plans with Tmdls Organized by Basin
    Latest 305(b)/303(d) List of Streams List of Stream Reaches With TMDLs and TMDL Implementation Plans - Updated June 2011 Total Maximum Daily Loadings TMDL TMDL PLAN DELIST BASIN NAME HUC10 REACH NAME LOCATION VIOLATIONS TMDL YEAR TMDL PLAN YEAR YEAR Altamaha 0307010601 Bullard Creek ~0.25 mi u/s Altamaha Road to Altamaha River Bio(sediment) TMDL 2007 09/30/2009 Altamaha 0307010601 Cobb Creek Oconee Creek to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Cobb Creek Oconee Creek to Altamaha River FC 2012 Altamaha 0307010601 Milligan Creek Uvalda to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 2006 Altamaha 0307010601 Milligan Creek Uvalda to Altamaha River FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Oconee Creek Headwaters to Cobb Creek DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Oconee Creek Headwaters to Cobb Creek FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010602 Ten Mile Creek Little Ten Mile Creek to Altamaha River Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010602 Ten Mile Creek Little Ten Mile Creek to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010603 Beards Creek Spring Branch to Altamaha River Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010603 Five Mile Creek Headwaters to Altamaha River Bio(sediment) TMDL 2007 09/30/2009 Altamaha 0307010603 Goose Creek U/S Rd. S1922(Walton Griffis Rd.) to Little Goose Creek FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010603 Mushmelon Creek Headwaters to Delbos Bay Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010604 Altamaha River Confluence of Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers to ITT Rayonier
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Affiliation Statement for Buffalo National River
    CULTURAL AFFILIATION STATEMENT BUFFALO NATIONAL RIVER, ARKANSAS Final Report Prepared by María Nieves Zedeño Nicholas Laluk Prepared for National Park Service Midwest Region Under Contract Agreement CA 1248-00-02 Task Agreement J6068050087 UAZ-176 Bureau of Applied Research In Anthropology The University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85711 June 1, 2008 Table of Contents and Figures Summary of Findings...........................................................................................................2 Chapter One: Study Overview.............................................................................................5 Chapter Two: Cultural History of Buffalo National River ................................................15 Chapter Three: Protohistoric Ethnic Groups......................................................................41 Chapter Four: The Aboriginal Group ................................................................................64 Chapter Five: Emigrant Tribes...........................................................................................93 References Cited ..............................................................................................................109 Selected Annotations .......................................................................................................137 Figure 1. Buffalo National River, Arkansas ........................................................................6 Figure 2. Sixteenth Century Polities and Ethnic Groups (after Sabo 2001) ......................47
    [Show full text]
  • Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards ( 1) Purpose. The establishment of water quality standards. (2) W ate r Quality Enhancement: (a) The purposes and intent of the State in establishing Water Quality Standards are to provide enhancement of water quality and prevention of pollution; to protect the public health or welfare in accordance with the public interest for drinking water supplies, conservation of fish, wildlife and other beneficial aquatic life, and agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other reasonable and necessary uses and to maintain and improve the biological integrity of the waters of the State. ( b) The following paragraphs describe the three tiers of the State's waters. (i) Tier 1 - Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected. (ii) Tier 2 - Where the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the division finds, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation provisions of the division's continuing planning process, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Eating Fish from Georgia Waters 2017
    Guidelines For Eating Fish From Georgia Waters 2017 Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, S.E., Suite 1252 Atlanta, Georgia 30334-9000 i ii For more information on fish consumption in Georgia, contact the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division Watershed Protection Branch 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, S.E., Suite 1152 Atlanta, GA 30334-9000 (404) 463-1511 Wildlife Resources Division 2070 U.S. Hwy. 278, S.E. Social Circle, GA 30025 (770) 918-6406 Coastal Resources Division One Conservation Way Brunswick, Ga. 31520 (912) 264-7218 Check the DNR Web Site at: http://www.gadnr.org For this booklet: Go to Environmental Protection Division at www.gaepd.org, choose publications, then fish consumption guidelines. For the current Georgia 2015 Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations, Click on Wild- life Resources Division. Click on Fishing. Choose Fishing Regulations. Or, go to http://www.gofishgeorgia.com For more information on Coastal Fisheries and 2015 Regulations, Click on Coastal Resources Division, or go to http://CoastalGaDNR.org For information on Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) source reduction, reuse options, proper disposal or recycling, go to Georgia Department of Community Affairs at http://www.dca.state.ga.us. Call the DNR Toll Free Tip Line at 1-800-241-4113 to report fish kills, spills, sewer over- flows, dumping or poaching (24 hours a day, seven days a week). Also, report Poaching, via e-mail using [email protected] Check USEPA and USFDA for Federal Guidance on Fish Consumption USEPA: http://www.epa.gov/ost/fishadvice USFDA: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/seafood.1html Image Credits:Covers: Duane Raver Art Collection, courtesy of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussel Survey of Clinchport, Clinch River, Virginia: Augmentation Monitoring Site: 2006
    Freshwater Mussel Survey of Clinchport, Clinch River, Virginia: Augmentation Monitoring Site: 2006 By: Nathan L. Eckert, Joe J. Ferraro, Michael J. Pinder, and Brian T. Watson Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Wildlife Diversity Division October 28th, 2008 Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................... 4 Objective ............................................................................................................................ 5 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 6 Methods.............................................................................................................................. 6 Results .............................................................................................................................. 10 Semi-quantitative .................................................................................................. 10 Quantitative........................................................................................................... 11 Qualitative............................................................................................................. 12 Incidental............................................................................................................... 12 Discussion........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Changes in the Freshwater Mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) Fauna of the Cuyahoga River, Ohio, Since Late Prehistory Michael J.S
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Biological, Geological, and Environmental Faculty Biological, Geological, and Environmental Sciences Publications Department 2002 Changes in the Freshwater Mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) Fauna of the Cuyahoga River, Ohio, Since Late Prehistory Michael J.S. Tevesz Cleveland State University Louie Rundo Cleveland State University Robert A. Krebs Cleveland State University, [email protected] Brian G. Redmond Cleveland Museum of Natural History Ann S. Dufresne Cleveland Museum of Natural History Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/scibges_facpub Part of the Biology Commons How does access to this work benefit oy u? Let us know! Recommended Citation Tevesz, M. J. S., L. Rundo, R. A. Krebs, B. G. Redman and A. S. DuFresne. 2002. Changes in the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) fauna of the Cuyahoga River, Ohio, since late prehistory. Kirtlandia 53: 13-18. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological, Geological, and Environmental Sciences Department at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biological, Geological, and Environmental Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHANGES IN THE FRESHWATER MUSSEL (MOLLUSCA: BIVALVIA) FAUNA OF THE CUYAHOGA RIVER, OHIO, SINCE LATE PREHISTORY MICHAEL J. S. TEVESZ, LOUIE RUNDO, ROBERT A. KREBS Department of Biological, Geological, and Environmental Sciences Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio 44115-2406 [email protected] BRIAN G. REDMOND AND ANN S.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Monday, November 9, 2009 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:08 Nov 06, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09NOP3.SGM 09NOP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 57804 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR October 1, 2008, through September 30, for public inspection by appointment, 2009. during normal business hours, at the Fish and Wildlife Service We request additional status appropriate Regional Office listed below information that may be available for in under Request for Information in 50 CFR Part 17 the 249 candidate species identified in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General [Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2009-0075; MO- this CNOR. information we receive will be available 9221050083–B2] DATES: We will accept information on at the Branch of Candidate this Candidate Notice of Review at any Conservation, Arlington, VA (see Endangered and Threatened Wildlife time. address above). and Plants; Review of Native Species ADDRESSES: This notice is available on Candidate Notice of Review That Are Candidates for Listing as the Internet at http:// Endangered or Threatened; Annual www.regulations.gov, and http:// Background Notice of Findings on Resubmitted endangered.fws.gov/candidates/ The Endangered Species Act of 1973, Petitions; Annual Description of index.html.
    [Show full text]
  • Pleurobema Clava Lamarck Northern Northern Clubshell Clubshell, Page 1
    Pleurobema clava Lamarck Northern Northern Clubshell Clubshell, Page 1 State Distribution Photograph courtesy of Kevin S.Cummings, Illinois Natural History Survey Best Survey Period Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Status: State and Federally listed as Endangered umbos located close to the anterior end of the shell. Viewed from the top, the clubshell is wedge-shaped Global and state ranks: G2/S1 tapering towards the posterior end. Maximum length is approximately 3 ½ inches (90mm). The shell is tan/ Family: Unionidae (Pearly mussels) yellow, with broad, dark green rays that are almost always present and are interrupted at the growth rings. Total range: Historically, the clubshell was present in There is often a crease or groove near the center of the the Wabash, Ohio, Kanawha, Kentucky, Green, shell running perpendicular to the annular growth rings. Monogahela, and Alleghany Rivers and their tributaries. Beak sculpture consists of a few small bumps or loops, Its range covered an area from Michigan south to or is absent. Alabama, and Illinois east to Pennsylvania. The The clubshell has well-developed lateral and pseudo- clubshell currently occurs in 12 streams within the cardinal teeth and a white nacre. Shells of males and Tennessee, Cumberland, Lake Erie, and Ohio drainages. females are morphologically similar. Similar species These include the St. Joseph River in Michigan (Badra found in Michigan include the kidneyshell and Goforth 2001) and Ohio (Watters 1988), (Ptychobranchus fasciolaris) which is much more Pymatuning Creek (Ohio)(Huehner and Corr 1994), compressed laterally than the clubshell and has a kidney Little Darby Creek (Ohio), Fish Creek (Ohio and shaped outline; the round pigtoe (Pleurobema sintoxia) Indiana), Tippecanoe River (Indiana), French Creek which has a more circular outline and does not have (Pennsylvania), and the Elk River (West Virginia).
    [Show full text]
  • Micrdfilms International 300 N
    INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Mortality in Freshwater Mussels (Actinonaias Pectorosa) in the Clinch River, USA, Linked to a Novel Densovirus Jordan C
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Mass mortality in freshwater mussels (Actinonaias pectorosa) in the Clinch River, USA, linked to a novel densovirus Jordan C. Richard1,3, Eric Leis2, Christopher D. Dunn3, Rose Agbalog1, Diane Waller4, Susan Knowles5, Joel Putnam4 & Tony L. Goldberg3,6* Freshwater mussels (order Unionida) are among the world’s most biodiverse but imperiled taxa. Recent unionid mass mortality events around the world threaten ecosystem services such as water fltration, nutrient cycling, habitat stabilization, and food web enhancement, but causes have remained elusive. To examine potential infectious causes of these declines, we studied mussels in Clinch River, Virginia and Tennessee, USA, where the endemic and once-predominant pheasantshell (Actinonaias pectorosa) has sufered precipitous declines since approximately 2016. Using metagenomics, we identifed 17 novel viruses in Clinch River pheasantshells. However, only one virus, a novel densovirus (Parvoviridae; Densovirinae), was epidemiologically linked to morbidity. Clinch densovirus 1 was 11.2 times more likely to be found in cases (moribund mussels) than controls (apparently healthy mussels from the same or matched sites), and cases had 2.7 (log10) times higher viral loads than controls. Densoviruses cause lethal epidemic disease in invertebrates, including shrimp, cockroaches, crickets, moths, crayfsh, and sea stars. Viral infection warrants consideration as a factor in unionid mass mortality events either as a direct cause, an indirect consequence of physiological compromise, or a factor interacting with other biological and ecological stressors to precipitate mortality. Freshwater mussels (order Unionida) are important members of freshwater biomes, providing ecosystem services such as water fltration, nutrient cycling and deposition, physical habitat stabilization, and food web enhancement1.
    [Show full text]
  • Web-ICE Aquatic Database Documentation
    OP-GED/BPRB/MB/2016-03-001 February 24, 2016 ICE Aquatic Toxicity Database Version 3.3 Documentation Prepared by: Sandy Raimondo, Crystal R. Lilavois, Morgan M. Willming and Mace G. Barron U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Gulf Ecology Division Gulf Breeze, Fl 32561 1 OP-GED/BPRB/MB/2016-03-001 February 24, 2016 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 2 Data Sources ........................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 ECOTOX ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) ......................................................................... 4 2.3 Office of Pesticide Program (OPP) Ecotoxicity Database ................................................. 4 2.4 OPPT Premanufacture Notification (PMN) ...................................................................... 5 2.5 High Production Volume (HPV) ........................................................................................ 5 2.6 Mayer and Ellersieck 1986 ............................................................................................... 5 2.7 ORD ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]