U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2011–1125

A report to the Missouri Department of Conservation

Threats of Habitat and Water-Quality Degradation 

to Mussel Diversity in the Meramec River Basin, 

Missouri, USA

Threats of Habitat and Water-Quality 

Degradation to Mussel Diversity in the 

Meramec River Basin, Missouri, USA

By Jo Ellen Hinck, Christopher G. Ingersoll, Ning Wang, Tom Augspurger, 

M. Christopher Barnhart, Stephen E. McMurray, Andrew D. Roberts, and 

Lynn Schrader

A report to the Missouri Department of Conservation

Open-File Report 2011–1125

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Hinck, J.E., Ingersoll, C.G., Wang, N., Augspurger, T., Barnhart, M.C., McMurray, S.E., Roberts, A.D., and 

Schrader, L, 2011, Threats of habitat and water-quality degradation to mussel diversity in the Meramec River 

Basin, Missouri, USA. US Geological Survey Open File Report 2011–1125, 18 p.
iii

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided by Area Strategic Integrated Science and Technology 

Funds of the U.S. Geological Survey. The findings and conclusions in this article do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. J. Scott Faiman provided additional 

information on native mussels in Missouri, and Aaron Garringer and Kimberly Chojnacki produced the map. W. Gregory Cope, James Fairchild, and Christopher Schmitt reviewed earlier 

drafts of this paper. 

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Materials and Methods.................................................................................................................................2

Results and Discussion.................................................................................................................................3

Physical Habitat Attributes of Mussel Populations ........................................................................3

Mussel Distributions in the Meramec River Basin .........................................................................4

Identifying Threats to Mussel Populations in the Meramec River Basin....................................4

Habitat Parameters .....................................................................................................................6

Excess Sedimentation........................................................................................................6

Altered Stream Geomorphology and Flow .....................................................................6

Altered Riparian Vegetation and Condition....................................................................7

Impoundments.....................................................................................................................7

Invasive Species.................................................................................................................7

Water-Quality Parameters..........................................................................................................7

Ammonia and Copper.........................................................................................................8

Chlorine.................................................................................................................................9

Temperature.........................................................................................................................9

Future Research and Management Needs for Mussel Populations............................................9

Continue to Implement the Best Management Practices to Restore Riparian 

Habitat..............................................................................................................................9

Conduct Further Analyses of Historical Mussel Distribution, Land Use, and WaterQuality Data.....................................................................................................................9

Monitor Zebra Mussels in the Meramec River Basin .........................................................12

Conduct Landscape Scale Modeling to Predict Mussel Distributions.............................12

Protect Water Quality in Greater Biodiversity Areas as a Matter of Public Policy........12

Implement Monitoring Studies to Assess Effects of Wastewater Treatment Plants 

and Areas of Suspected Nonpoint Source Pollution on Mussel Beds ...............12

Determine Sublethal Effects of Chemical Contaminants of Concern (for example, 

Ammonia, Metals, Common Use Pesticides, Synthetic Hormones, Medications, 

Personal Care Products) to Mussels ........................................................................13

Derive Risk-Based Guidance Values for Mussel Protection..............................................13

Summary........................................................................................................................................................13

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................13
Figure

1. Map of the Meramec River Basin, Missouri, USA..................................................................2

Tables

1. Unionid mussels found in the Meramec River Basin based on historical survey 

data from 1977–78 (Buchanan, 1980) and 1997 (Roberts and Bruenderman, 2000). 

Taxonomy based on Turgeon and others (1988), except where accepted changes 

have occurred. Only resurveyed sites from the Meramec River (n = 28), Bourbeuse 

River (n = 17), and Big River (n = 5) are included. Number of sites (n = 50) based 

on living and dead individuals ....................................................................................................5

2. Toxicity data for freshwater mussels based on water-only exposures. Number of 

species included in the range of effect concentrations is in parenthesis for each 

life stage.......................................................................................................................................10

Conversion Factors

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Volume

liter (L) 33.82 ounce, fluid (fl. oz)

liter (L) 2.113 pint (pt)

liter (L) 1.057 quart (qt)

liter (L) 0.2642 gallon (gal)

liter (L) 61.02 cubic inch (in3) 

Mass

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

milligram (mg) 0.00035 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

Length

kilometer (km) 0.6214 miles (mi)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows: 

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).

Salinities are given in parts per thousand equivalent to grams per liter (g/L).
Abstract

The Meramec River Basin in east-central Missouri is an 

important stronghold for native freshwater mussels (Order: 

Unionoida) in the United States. Whereas the basin supports 

more than 40 mussel species, previous studies indicate that 

the abundance and distribution of most species are declining. Therefore, resource managers have identified the need 

to prioritize threats to native mussel populations in the basin 

and to design a mussel monitoring program. The objective 

of this study was to identify threats of habitat and waterquality degradation to mussel diversity in the basin. Affected 

habitat parameters considered as the main threats to mussel 

conservation included excess sedimentation, altered stream 

geomorphology and flow, effects on riparian vegetation and 

condition, impoundments, and invasive non-native species. 

Evaluating water-quality parameters for conserving mussels was a main focus of this study. Mussel toxicity data for 

chemical contaminants were compared to national water 

quality criteria (NWQC) and Missouri water quality standards (MWQS). However, NWQC and MWQS have not been 

developed for many chemical contaminants and some MWQS 

may not be protective of native mussel populations. Toxicity 

data indicated that mussels are sensitive to ammonia, copper, 

temperature, certain pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and personal 

care products; these compounds were identified as the priority 

water-quality parameters for mussel conservation in the basin. 

Measures to conserve mussel diversity in the basin include 

expanding the species and life stages of mussels and the list of 

chemical contaminants that have been assessed, establishing a 

long term mussel monitoring program that measures physical 

and chemical parameters of high priority, conducting landscape scale modeling to predict mussel distributions, determining sublethal effects of primary contaminants of concern, 

deriving risk-based guidance values for mussel conservation, 

and assessing the effects of wastewater treatment plants and 

non-point source pollution on mussels. A critical next step to 

further prioritize these needs is to conduct a watershed risk 

assessment using local data (for example, land use, flow) when 

available.

Introduction

Native unionoid mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida) 

are important components of aquatic ecosystems, and global 

declines in mussels have emphasized the need for their protection and conservation. Of the approximately 300 mussel 

species in North America, nearly 70 percent are of special concern, threatened, endangered, or extinct (Williams and others, 

1993). Missouri has 69 species of native mussels (Missouri 

Department of Conservation [MDC], 2008). The Meramec 

River Basin in east-central Missouri contains one of the most 

diverse unionoid faunas in the central United States with 

more than 40 species reported (Buchanan, 1980; Roberts and 

Bruenderman, 2000), several of which have special conservation status. Pink mucket (Lampsilis abrutpa) and scaleshell 

(Leptodea leptodon) are Federal and State endangered species, 

and ebonyshell (Fusconaia ebena), elephantear (Elliptio 

crassidens), and snuffbox (Epioblasma triquerta) are State 

endangered species. In addition, 9 other species in the basin 

are of conservation concern in Missouri (Roberts and Bruenderman, 2000). Mussel populations in the basin appear more 

stable in terms of diversity and abundance than other regions 

in the United States (Abell and others, 2000), but declines of 

endangered and threatened species have been reported (Roberts and Bruenderman, 2000). Therefore, resource managers 

are developing a mussel conservation strategy that addresses 

the main threats to native populations. 

The Meramec River Basin drains 5,566 square kilometers 

before entering the Mississippi River downstream form St. 

Louis, Missouri (fig. 1; Buchanan, 1980). Base flows are sustained by springs indicative of the area’s karst topography and 

two primay tributaries, the Big and Bourbeuse Rivers. Courtois, Crooked, Dry, Dry Fork, Huzzah, and Indian Creeks and 

the Little Meramec River are smaller, but important tributaries 

to the Meramec River. The upper basin is primarily forest and 

agriculture with a relatively small human population (about 

50,000), whereas the lower basin is heavily populated (greater 

than 500,000) and urbanized. Overall, water quality is considered good compared to other basins in the State, but point 

and non-point source pollution from hundreds of dischargers 

Threats of Habitat and Water-Quality Degradation 

to Mussel Diversity in the Meramec River Basin, 

Missouri, USA

By Jo Ellen Hinck, Christopher G. Ingersoll, Ning Wang, Tom Augspurger, M. Christopher Barnhart, 

Stephen E. McMurray, Andrew D. Roberts, and Lynn Schrader
2 Threats of Habitat and Water-Quality Degradation to Mussel Diversity in the Meramec River Basin, Missouri, USA

occurs within the basin (Annis and others, 2009). Livestock 

grazing, logging, and mining (lead, sand, and gravel) are 

primary activities within the basin (Blanc and others, 1998), 

which have the potential to affect mussel populations. Cattle 

access to streams in the basin can lead to increased stream 

channel disturbance (runoff, erosion, and sediment production), excessive nutrient loading, and injury to riparian areas 

(for example, Brim Box and Mossa, 1999). In-stream gravel 

mining can increase sediment transport in rivers and streams 

(Brown and others, 1998; Hubbs and others, 2006) and tailing 

ponds from lead mining operations may release heavy metals, 

sediments, and nutrients into streams. In addition, sediments, 

contaminated runoff, and hydromodification threaten water 

quality in urbanized areas of the lower basin. 

The objective of this study was to identify and evaluate 

the threats of habitat and water-quality degradation to mussel 

diversity to be considered in mussel monitoring efforts within 

the Meramec River Basin. A review of the physical habitat 

attributes important to maintaining healthy native mussel 

populations was the first objective. Secondly, mussel distributions and declines of species in the basin were described, and 

then lists of habitat and water-quality threats in the basin that 

have the potential to affect mussel distributions and density 

were developed. Mussel-specific toxicity data were compiled, 

summarized, and compared to national water quality criteria 

(NWQC) and Missouri water quality standards (MWQS) to 

screen potential water-quality threats to mussel populations. 

The final objective was to develop research and management 

needs for conserving mussel diversity in the basin. These 

objectives are complementary to the goals of the Missouri 

Mussel Conservation and Management Plan (Missouri Department of Conservation, 2008) and could be adapted to other 

basins where mussel conservation is a priority. 

Materials and Methods

Historical data from mussel surveys conducted in 

1977–78 and 1997 (Buchanan, 1980; Roberts and Bruenderman, 2000) were reviewed and tabulated. The 1997 survey resampled many of the 1977–78 study sites on the main stem of 

Figure 1. Meramec River Basin, Missouri, USA

#

#

Huzzah Cr

Indian Cr

Dry Creek Courtois Creek

Meramec R

Big R

Crooked Cr

Bourbeuse R

Little 

Meramec 

River

Dry Fork Cr

Meramec R

Big River

Sullivan (07014500)

Paulina Hills 

(07019280)

91°30' 91°00' 90°30' 90°00'

38°30'

38°00'

37°30'

0 5 10 20 Miles

0 5 10 20 Kilometers

MISSOURI

ILLINOIS

MISSOURI

St. Louis

Meramec 

River Basin

EXPLANATION

Meramec River Basin

# U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station

Identification number for the gage is in parentheses
Results and Discussion 3

the Meramec River to determine the current status of mussels 

in the basin and used similar methodology to allow for comparisons with the 1977–78 survey (Roberts and Bruenderman, 

2000). The 1997 survey specifically documented the status of 

rare and endangered taxa. 

Water-only chemical toxicity data for mussels, regardless of species, were compiled from the scientific literature 

and reviewed. Data preference was for acute (short-term) 

exposures of 24 hour (h) for glochidia and 96 h for juveniles 

(American Society for Testing and Materials, 2010), but acute 

toxicity data from shorter exposure durations were included 

if these were not available. Acute effects endpoints were 

generally median lethal effect concentrations (LC50s) and 

median effect concentrations (EC50s) based on immobilization because these are the most commonly reported values 

for short-term exposures. Although not an objective of the 

current study, effect concentrations would need to be lowered to estimate a no- or low-effect threshold for a chemical 

contaminant. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1985) uses a multiplier of 0.5 to approximate a 

low level of effect from EC50 data. More conservative no- or 

low-effect acute concentrations can be estimated by applying a 

factor of 0.43 as derived by Dwyer and others (2005). Suitable chronic data (for example, no observed effect concentrations, no observed adverse effect levels, chronic values) were 

included when available. These data were then summarized by 

chemical parameter and life stage and compared to the current 

NWQC (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999, 2006, 

2007, 2009) and the MWQS (Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources, 2008) to screen potential water-quality threats to 

mussels. The toxicity of several metals including cadmium, 

copper, lead, nickel, and zinc is affected by water-quality 

characteristics such as water hardness or dissolved organic 

carbon, and the toxicity of ammonia is dependent on pH and 

temperature. Therefore, normalization of these water-quality 

parameters for these contaminants is needed to compare effect 

concentrations directly to NWQC and MWQS. 

Results and Discussion

Physical Habitat Attributes of Mussel 

Populations 

Mussels in the Meramec River Basin occur in dense, 

patchy aggregations, referred to as mussel beds, in which a 

variety of species may be found. Mussel beds require appropriate food sources, host fishes, temperature, depth, flow, minimal sedimentation by fine-grained particulates, and minimal 

pollutants in the water or sediments (Strayer, 2008). However, 

habitat requirements of mussels are not well understood (Gore 

and others, 2001) and life history characteristics of specific 

species are lacking (Resh and Rosenberg, 2010). In the 

Meramec River Basin, mussel beds genrally were more successful in areas of stable substrate and constant flow. Flooding 

can rearrange stream-bed habitat and scour riparian corridors, 

which can cause mussel mortality by desiccation, damage by 

moving coarse substrate, crushing from deposit of large substrata, and downstream relocation (Hastie and others, 2001); 

host fish mortality and dislocation also may be important 

factors. Mussel populations also may be affected by climate 

change. Reduced flows, increased temperature, and habitat 

alteration may result in prolonged periods of drought for mussel beds, increased sedimentation, algal growth, and organic 

debris, and declines in host fish (Hastie and others, 2003).

Microhabitat measurements such as current speed, water 

depth, distance to shore, and sediment size are of limited use 

for predicting mussel abundance and distribution (Strayer and 

Ralley, 1993; Layzer and Madison, 1995; Gore and others, 

2001; Gangloff and Feminella, 2007). Flow requirements 

for mussels differ among species and with time (Layzer and 

Madison, 1995; Gore and others, 2001). For example, the 

patchiness of mussel communities may be the result of mussels utilizing flow refugia, or stable riverbed areas with low 

hydraulic stresses during floods (Strayer, 1999). Strayer and 

Ralley (1993) concluded that measuring physical parameters, 

such as current speed, water depth, distance from shore, presence of macrophytes, and sediment size, were of limited use 

in predicting the density and distribution of mussels in lotic 

systems at the microhabitat scale, but such parameters modeled at the landscape scale may have greater predictive power. 

More complex models that incorporated hydraulic characteristics and geomorphology also have been suggested (Layzer and 

Madison, 1995; Gangloff and Feminella, 2007; Newton and 

others, 2008; Strayer, 2008). For example, Gangloff and Feminella (2007) reported that shear stress during high flow events 

affected mussel distributions; stream geomorphology affected 

mussel abundance; and stream size affected species richness.

Many species of mussels are considered indicators of 

high quality aquatic habitats because of their sensitivity to 

environmental perturbations (Grabarkiewicz and Davis, 2008). 

As a group, mussels generally are sensitive to changes in 

their habitat or watershed that alter flow, substrate stability, 

and sedimentation. Prolonged time to reproductive maturity, 

host specificity for transformation of juveniles, low juvenile 

survival rate to maturity, and limited dispersal make mussels 

potentially susceptible to habitat disturbances. Unlike many 

aquatic organisms, mussels are long lived and sedentary, with 

little ability to move away from threats in the local environment. The multiple life-stages of unionoid mussels (glochidia, 

juveniles, and adults) are a unique life history characteristic, 

which results in various exposure pathways including surface 

water, sediment, pore water, diet, and host fish tissue (Cope 

and others, 2008). For example, juvenile and adult mussels 

are suspension- and deposit- feeders, which expose them to 

chemical pollutants in sediments and water (Vaughn and others, 2008). 
4 Threats of Habitat and Water-Quality Degradation to Mussel Diversity in the Meramec River Basin, Missouri, USA

Mussel Distributions in the Meramec River 

Basin

Mussel surveys in the basin were conducted in 1977–78 

(Buchanan, 1980) and in 1997 (Roberts and Bruenderman, 

2000). The 1977–78 survey was prompted by proposed dam 

construction in basin. Buchanan (1987) concluded that high 

quality streams within the basin were able to maintain their 

diverse and abundant mussel populations even after large dieoffs; however, this may not be true for greatly altered streams 

(for example, channelization, increased urban or agricultural 

runoff). Typical habitat for mussels in the basin was speciesspecific, with five distribution categories described including 

headwater species, upper and middle river species, middle 

and lower river species, lower river species, and cosmopolitan 

(Buchanan, 1980). Flow, water depth, and substrate requirements differed among species (Buchanan, 1980). 

Overall, mussel distribution and diversity in the basin 

declined from 1977 to 1997. Of the 42 species collected, 

all were found at fewer sites in 1997 compared to those in 

1977–78 (table 1). The number of individual mussels collected 

also was generally lower in 1997 (table 1). Elephantear and 

ebonyshell (both State endangered species) and pondmussel 

were collected in 1977–78 but were not found in 1997 

(table 1). In addition, the distribution of slippershell (Alasmidonta viridis; State species of conservation concern), salamander mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua; State species of conservation concern), yellow sandshell (Lampsilis teres), lilliput 

(Toxolasma parvus), and fawnsfoot (Truncilla donaciformis) 

decreased to one location in the basin (table 1). Distributions, 

based on the number of sites present, of federally endangered 

pink mucket and scaleshell declined between 1977–78 and 

1997 surveys (table 1). Declines in the distributions between 

1977–78 and 1997 for other species of concern including 

elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata), giant floater (Pyganodon 

grandis), sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus), snuffbox, black 

sandshell (Ligumia recta), northern brokenray (Lampsilis reeviana brittsi), rock pocketbook (Arcidens confragosus), 

and spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) also occurred 

(table 1). Mussel density and diversity was greatest in the 

lower basin (Buchanan, 1980, Roberts and Bruenderman, 

2000), and few sites resampled in the upper basin supported 

mussels (Roberts and Bruenderman, 2000). Although several 

small tributaries in the upper basin are considered Outstanding 

State Resource Waters (Blanc and others, 1998), mussel populations generally have not been diverse in the Dry Fork Creek 

of the Meramec River, Huzzah Creek, or Courtois Creek. The 

low diversity of mussel beds in smaller tributaries may be 

attributed to steeper gradients, greater velocities, lack of soft 

substrates, absence of appropriate fish hosts, or a combination 

of these factors (Morris and Corkum, 1999). 

Of the 42 mussel species found in the basin during the 

1977–78 survey (Buchanan, 1980), the ellipse (Venustaconcha 

ellipsiformis), flutedshell (Lasmigona costata), giant floater, 

northern brokenray, plain pocketbook (Lampsilis cardium), 

slippershell, and Wabash pigtoe (Fusconaia flava) were the 

most common species in the upper basin. There were fortyone mussel species identified in the basin in 1997 (Roberts 

and Bruenderman, 2000), with an average of 9 species and 

184 living mussels per site. Many of the mussel beds sampled 

by Buchanan (1980) were still viable in 1997, but most new 

beds were found in the lower basin. Of the few mussels found 

in the upper basin, mucket (Actinonaias ligamentina), pimpleback (Quadrula pustulosa), plain pocketbook, purple wartyback (Cyclonaias tuberculata), threeridge (Amblema plicata), 

and Wabash pigtoe were the most common species in 1997 

(Roberts and Bruenderman, 2000). Overall, mucket, threeridge, spike (Elliptio dilatata), Wabash pigtoe, plain pocketbook, round pigtoe (Pleurobema sintoxia), pink heelsplitter 

(Potamilus alatus), pimpleback, and ellipse had the broadest 

distributions in the basin in 1977–78 and 1997 (table 1). In 

1997, the most common mussels in the basin (in order of relative species abundance) were spectaclecase, mucket, threeridge, washboard (Megalonaias nervosa), pimpleback and 

round pigtoe. Few young (for example, greater than 10 years 

old) mucket, spectaclecase, or threeridge were found, and 

there was little evidence of recruitment for washboard, round 

pigtoe, or pimpleback in the basin (Roberts and Bruenderman, 

2000); however, slow growth rates may confound these data. 

In addition, recruitment of various mussel species has been 

reported in the lower basin but not the upper basin (Roberts 

and Bruenderman, 2000). 

Several factors may affect mussel distribution and abundance in the basin. Appropriate host fish species may not be 

available in all reaches or have a short residency time. Host 

fish parasitized by glochidia may have temporary immunity 

for other mussel species; therefore, mussels may have to 

compete for host fish (Rogers and Dimock, 2003). Host fish 

also can have an acute, nonselective tissue response that leads 

to premature glochidia detachment or host fish can acquire 

immunity after multiple infections (Roberts and Barnhart, 

1999). In addition, host infection strategies (for example, lure 

type) could affect mussel distribution and abundance (Barnhart 

and others, 2008). Further elucidating the life history strategies of mussels in the basin (for example, timing and method 

of glochidia release, timing of glochidia transformation on 

host fish) may aid in understanding some species declines in 

the basin. 

Identifying Threats to Mussel Populations in the 

Meramec River Basin

Threats were divided into habitat parameters and 

water-quality measurements. These groups were addressed 

separately, as lack of suitable physical habitat supersedes 

water-quality issues that may exist. Within each of these 

discussions, a list of top parameters to maintain mussel diversity and distribution is presented based on current scientific 

information from published studies. These lists are intended 

to be protective of mussel populations in general and are not 

specific to the basin. The primary data referenced should be 
Results and Discussion 5

Table 1. Unionid mussels found in the Meramec River Basin based on historical survey data from 1977–78 (Buchanan, 1980) and 1997 

(Roberts and Bruenderman, 2000).

[n, number of sites. Taxonomy based on Turgeon and others (1988), except where accepted changes have occurred. Only resurveyed sites from the Meramec 

River (n = 28), Bourbeuse River (n = 17), and Big River (n = 5) are included. Number of sites (n = 50) based on living and dead individuals.]

Species Common name

Number of sites Number of living individuals

1977–78 1997

Distribution 

change 

(percent)

1977–78 1997

Actinonaias ligamentina Mucket 46 39 -14 3,261 1,417

Alasmidonta marginata 1 Elktoe 33 7 -52 63 11

Alasmidonta viridis 1 Slippershell 5 1 -8 35 0

Amblema plicata Threeridge 43 34 -18 3,120 1,088

Arcidens confragosus 1 Rock pocketbook 8 2 -12 8 9

Cumberlandia monodonta 1,2 Spectaclecase 21 18 -6 446 189

Cyclonaias tuberculata Purple wartyback 23 16 -14 71 77

Ellipsaria lineolata Butterfly 23 15 -16 99 75

Elliptio crassidens 3 Elephantear 4 0 -8 Shell only 0

Elliptio dilatata Spike 46 33 -26 886 213

Epioblasma triquerta 3 Snuffbox 17 3 -28 14 17

Fusconaia ebena 3 Ebonyshell 3 0 -6 3 0

Fusconaia flava Wabash pigtoe 49 35 -28 448 159

Lampsilis abrupta 3,4 Pink mucket 9 4 -10 15 7

Lampsilis cardium Plain pocketbook 49 36 -26 586 103

Lampsilis reeviana brittsi 1 Northern brokenray 14 3 -22 76 26

Lampsilis siliquoidea Fatmucket 17 11 -12 1,115 98

Lampsilis teres Yellow sandshell 37 8 -58 120 13

Lasmigona complinata White heelsplitter 17 6 -22 26 2

Lasmigona costata Fluted shell 40 10 -60 77 31

Leptodea fragilis Fragile papershell 36 14 -44 70 50

Leptodea leptodon 3,4 Scaleshell 9 6 -6 11 30

Ligumia recta 1 Black sandshell 33 20 -26 144 22

Ligumia subrostrata Pondmussel 3 0 -6 5 0

Megalonaias nervosa Washboard 16 13 -6 583 331

Obliquaria reflexa Threehorn wartyback 22 11 -22 34 71

Plethobasus cyphyus 1,2 Sheepnose 29 11 -36 44 30

Pleurobema sintoxia Round pigtoe 45 31 -28 395 354

Potamilus alatus Pink heelsplitter 43 27 -32 414 248

Potamilus ohiensis Pink papershell 4 2 -4 17 3

Pyganodon grandis Giant floater 31 10 -42 249 28

Quadrula metanevra Monkeyface 22 12 -20 30 56

Quadrula pustulosa Pimpleback 42 33 -18 707 395

Quadrula quadrula Mapleleaf 6 3 -6 67 82

Quadrula merrucosa Pistolgrip 42 21 -42 63 33

Simpsonaias ambigua 1 Salamander mussel 1 1 0 5 5

Strophitus undulates Creeper 40 8 -64 140 20

Toxolasma parvus Lilliput 9 1 -16 24 10

Truncilla donaciformis Fawnsfoot 9 1 -16 10 2

Truncilla truncata Deertoe 27 11 -32 52 55

Utterbackia imbecillis Paper pondshell 20 3 -34 83 20

Venustaconcha ellipsiformis Ellipse 43 27 -32 384 209

1

 State—species of conservation concern.

2

 Federally listed—endangered (candidate).

3

 State listed—endangered.

4

 Federally listed—endangered.
6 Threats of Habitat and Water-Quality Degradation to Mussel Diversity in the Meramec River Basin, Missouri, USA

examined if specific species are of concern. In addition, these 

parameters also can affect host fish distribution and density, 

which can lead to indirect effects on mussels. Furthermore, the 

absence of host fish would preclude mussel persistence even if 

adequate habitat and water quality were available. Site specific 

data for the habitat and water-quality parameters described 

herein are lacking in the Meramec River Basin; therefore, the 

parameters identified could be used to direct future mussel 

monitoring in the basin. 

Determining habitat parameter and water-quality thresholds that are protective of mussel populations is complex, 

and a single numerical criterion for any given parameter 

may not be appropriate for all mussel species or their unique 

life-stages (Cope and others, 2008). Descriptions of various 

habitat parameters important to mussel conservation have been 

reviewed previously and are discussed briefly (for example, 

Brim Box and Mossa, 1999; Richter and others, 2000; Lydeard 

and others, 2004; Strayer, 2008). Prioritization of waterquality parameters, especially for chemical contaminants, is 

lacking and is considered in more detail. Specifically, few protective chemical contaminant thresholds have been developed 

for mussels because of limited research and the general lack of 

NWQC and MWQS for a variety of contaminants (for example, pesticides, industrial chemicals, personal care products) 

and mixtures of contaminants. Furthermore, the contaminant 

exposure pathways (that is, water, sediment, diet), exposure 

durations, and relative sensitivities of the various mussel life 

stages are not well defined (Cope and others, 2008). 

Habitat Parameters

Streams and rivers are dynamic systems, which limits 

the ability to determine a specific numerical range for physical habitat characteristics that will support a diverse mussel 

assemblage. Previous reviews have identified various habitat 

parameters that could be considered for mussel conservation (Brim Box and Mossa, 1999; Richter and others, 2000; 

Lydeard and others, 2004; Strayer, 2008). Habitat parameters 

important to mussel diversity and distribution are described 

below. 

Excess Sedimentation

Deposition of fine-grained sediments is considered one 

of the main limiting factors of mussel and fish host diversity 

and distribution (Henley and others, 2000; Beussink, 2007). 

Mussel distribution can be affected by bed material composition, dynamics of suspended bed material load, and substrate 

composition changes related to land use (Brim Box and 

Mossa, 1999). Increased sediment loads can be from various 

sources including bank erosion and degradation, overland 

erosion, and channel degradation. The primary source of 

sedimentation in the basin is the conversion of riparian areas 

(Roberts and Bruenderman, 2000). Excess sediments alter 

the chemical and physical composition of the water and can 

interfere with respiration and feeding of aquatic biota (Watters, 

1999). Mussel species differ in their sensitivities to sediment 

regime changes (Brim Box and Mossa, 1999), but in general, 

increased sedimentation leads to suffocation, reduced feeding 

efficiency, and decreased growth and survival (Aldridge and 

others, 1987). Fine sediments (sand, silt, and clay) are the primary concern for mussel beds, although some mussel species 

including giant floater, flat floater, paper pondshell, and yellow 

sandshell prefer a substrate of sand and fine sediment (Henley 

and others, 2000). Sand typically is carried in the bed load and 

may cause physical smothering (that is, burial), whereas silt 

and clay remain suspended, which may interfere with respiration and feeding (Henley and others, 2000). 

The most comprehensive assessment of sediment loading 

would be to conduct a sediment budget for the Meramec River 

Basin, but this may not be financially feasible. Alternatively, 

reconnaissance surveys could be conducted to document likely 

sources (for example, outside bends with exposed sediments, 

cattle crossings, in-stream gravel mining, undercutting of 

stream banks) in reaches where sedimentation is suspected to 

be problematic in the basin. Areas where stormwater runoff is 

documented also could be surveyed. Turbidity and discharge 

could be monitored in these areas to better understand temporal and spatial changes in sediment loads. Baseline versus 

post-storm monitoring would help determine the severity of 

sediment load increases after storm or flood events.

Altered Stream Geomorphology and Flow

Measurements of stream geomorphology include water 

depth, bottom and mid-depth current velocity, shear stress, 

channel width, bankfull depth, bankfull width, channel gradient, and bed substrate size. Mussel abundance and richness 

have been associated with current velocity, stream size, and 

shear stress (Gangloff and Feminella, 2007). Shear stress also 

has been suggested as a primary factor in determining habitat 

suitability for juvenile mussels (Layzer and Madison, 1995). 

Gangloff and Feminella (2007) reported that mussel abundance consistently was low at sites subject to high-shear stress 

and suggested that habitat conditions during flooding, and not 

summer base flow, limited mussel abundance. Changes in land 

use can alter stream geomorphology, which could affect mussel diversity and distribution (Gangloff and Feminella, 2007). 

Geomorphology characteristics are flow-conditional, and 

flow requirements for mussels vary temporally and by species 

(Layzer and Madison, 1995). In addition to flow, which is 

being measured at various locations in the basin (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis), other stream geomorphology data could 

be monitored. 

Characteristics of stable mussel beds in the Meramec 

River Basin include firm substrates with a thin layer of algae. 

Typical substrates include rocks of varying sizes intermixed with finer sediments (fine-grained sand, silt, and clay; 

Buchanan, 1980). Degraded mussel beds in the basin have 

unconsolidated substrates lacking algal coatings and do not 

contain finer-grained sediments. In-stream gravel mining, 

conversion of riparian vegetation, and increased runoff from 
Results and Discussion 7

impermeable surfaces may be affecting mussel bed stability 

in the lower basin. In-stream gravel mining activity increases 

substrate instability, bank erosion, sedimentation, and pollutant release (Brown and others, 1998; Hubbs and others, 

2006). Recreational activities within the basin, such as the use 

of power boats and personal watercraft, cause turbulence and 

increase sediment resuspension that also can affect mussel 

beds (Aldrich and others, 1987).

Altered Riparian Vegetation and Condition

Distributions of mussel species can vary among riparian 

habitats (Morris and Corkum, 1999). Removal of the riparian corridor can disrupt mussels by increasing runoff, water 

temperatures, bed erosion, and channel degradation. Wetland 

habitats also are important to consider for their buffering 

capacity of high flows during rainfall events and filtering of 

contaminants. Riparian corridor information is available for 

the Meramec River Basin (Sowa and others, 2007) but would 

need to be updated as development and associated impervious 

surfaces are likely to increase with time and best management practices (for example, limiting cattle access to streams) 

continue to be applied in the basin. Restoring and protecting 

riparian areas may help conserve mussel populations in the 

Meramec River Basin.

Impoundments

Dams and the impoundments created by dams have 

caused well-documented effects on mussel populations. Creation of impoundments flood stream channels, alters flow and 

velocity, changes water depths, and alters sedimentation (Watters, 1996). Dams also can disrupt reproduction of mussels by 

limiting the movement of host fish, altering fish host assemblages and benthic diversity, decreasing genetic diversity 

through isolation, reducing low flows, and depleting oxygen 

levels. Dams with a height as low as 1 meter can restrict mussel distributions, most likely as a result of disrupted host fish 

movement and migration (Watters, 1996). There are hundreds 

of dams in the basin (Annis and others, 2009); mussel beds 

near these impoundments could be monitored to determine 

effects on mussel populations.

Invasive Species

Several non-native species pose a risk to mussel diversity and density in the Meramec River Basin. Zebra mussels 

(Dreissena polymorpha) have been confirmed in the lower 

Meramec River, where they likely were introduced when boats 

from the Mississippi River went upstream during high flows. 

Unlike unionoid mussels, zebra mussels do not require an 

intermediate host species for their reproduction so their proliferation can be rapid. Zebra mussels are very invasive once 

introduced to a system and can compete with many native 

mussel species for habitat (Ricciardi, 2003). Zebra mussels 

also can starve and suffocate native mussels by attaching to 

their shells (Mackie, 1991). However, zebra mussel density 

and distribution currently are not monitored in the basin. 

Asian clams (Corbicula fluminea), which also are not 

native to the Meramec River Basin but have a widespread 

distribution (Roberts and Bruenderman, 2000), are a potential 

threat to native mussel populations. Neves (1987) suggested 

that Asian clams may compete with unionoid mussels for food 

and habitat, and introduce diseases and parasites to aquatic 

systems. Adult Asian clams can affect recruitment of glochidia 

and juvenile unionoid mussels through incidental siphoning 

(Yeager and others, 2000). In addition, ammonia production 

resulting from large die-offs of Asian clams also may be deleterious to native mussels (Bidwell and others, 2003).

Water-Quality Parameters

Common water-quality parameters measured in surface 

waters include bacteria, trace elements, chemical contaminants, major cations, major anions, dissolved oxygen, pH, 

temperature, total dissolved gas, and turbidity. Water quality 

generally is considered good in streams, rivers, and lakes with 

diverse and abundant mussel populations (Grabarkiewicz 

and Davis, 2008). However, water quality can be degraded 

by point and non-point source pollution, which can affect 

aquatic organisms including mussels. Specifically, organic 

nutrients from agricultural practices and municipal effluents 

can degrade water quality by causing eutrophication, which 

can negatively affect mussels or fish hosts by decreasing 

water flow from increased plant biomass, depleting dissolved 

oxygen, altering pH, and altering food sources (Fuller, 1974). 

In addition, common pollutants (such as ammonia, nitrates, 

phosphorus, chlorine, and oxygen consuming wastes) and 

chemical contaminants (such as metals, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals) can enter streams through wastewater treatment facilities. The possible long-term effects of these 

compounds on mussels and host fish or their quantities in the 

Meramec River Basin are unknown. 

Studies to determine water-quality needs for mussel 

populations in the Meramec River Basin have not been conducted. Some water-quality parameters including temperature, 

pH, alkalinity, hardness, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, conductivity, ammonia, nitrates, and sulfates were measured occasionally at mussel beds during the 1997 survey (Roberts and 

Bruenderman, 2000). In addition, two active gaging stations 

on the Meramec River (near Sullivan and Paulina Hills) collect water-quality data regularly (fig. 1; http://waterdata.usgs.

gov/nwis). Quantitative chemical contaminant data specific to 

mussels in the basin are limited to heavy metal (lead and cadmium) concentrations in plain pocketbook mussels in the Big 

River (Czarnezki, 1987; Schmitt and others, 1987), despite the 

numerous lead mines in the basin (Annis and others, 2009). 

The mining of heavy metals has negatively affected biota in 

the Big River in the lower Meramec River Basin (known as 

the Old Lead Belt), where lead and cadmium deposited in 

streambed sediments have accumulated in biota downstream 

from the mining district. The failure of tailing pond dams, 
8 Threats of Habitat and Water-Quality Degradation to Mussel Diversity in the Meramec River Basin, Missouri, USA

continual erosion of tailing piles, and exposure to contaminated sediments have eliminated much of the benthic community, including mussel populations, in the Big River (Schmitt 

and others, 1987; Roberts and others, 2009).

The NWQC and MWQS for the protection of aquatic life 

exist for less than 50 chemicals (http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable/index.html). Mussels can be more 

sensitive to certain contaminant classes than fish and other 

aquatic invertebrates commonly used to derive such criteria 

(Augspurger and others, 2007); therefore, established NWQC 

and MWQS for aquatic organisms may not be protective of 

mussels to all contaminants. In general, chemical contaminant 

sensitivity data are lacking for mussels. Few of the waters 

within the Meramec River Basin have been analyzed for 

chemical contaminants; therefore, potential exceedences of 

MWQS or risk-based estimates of protective values for mussels are unknown. Toxicity effects data were summarized and 

compared for chemical contaminants from the scientific literature to NWQC and MWQS to screen potential water-quality 

threats to mussels (table 2). 

Mussel-specific toxicity data based on water-only exposures were available for only 17 of 39 parameters for which 

there are MWQS to protect aquatic life, and most data were 

limited to acute effects on early life stages of mussels (for 

example, glochidia or juveniles; table 2; Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008). Parameters for which there 

were MWQS (or NWQC) but no mussel-specific toxicity data 

include 2,4-dichlorophenol, 2-chloronaphthalene, aldrin, alkalinity, aluminum, arsenic, beryllium, chloride, chromium (III), 

cyanide, demeton, dieldrin, dissolved oxygen, endosulfan, 

endrin, ethylbenzene, guthion, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, 

hexachlorocyclopentadiene, hydrogen sulfide, iron, lindane, 

methoxychlor, mirex, oil and grease, p,p’-DDT, parathion, 

phenol, selenium, silver, sulfide, total dissolved gases, and tributyltin; therefore, it is not known if these criteria are protective of mussels. Of the 17 parameters with mussel-specific toxicity data, effect concentrations for 4-nonylphenol, cadmium, 

chlorine, malathion, mercury, pentachlorophenol, and zinc 

are greater than the MWQS and NWQC for these chemicals, 

indicating that these aquatic criteria are protective of mussels 

(table 2). Mussel sensitivity data for chlordane, chlorpyrifos, 

chromium (VI), diazinon, lead, nickel, and toxaphene are 

limited to one species; therefore, too little information is available to determine if the MWQS and NWQC are protective of 

mussels. Mussel-specific effects data for ammonia and copper 

are less than MWQS and NWQC and may not be protective of 

mussels. These contaminants are discussed in more detail in 

the following sections. Acute toxicity data indicate that mussels are sensitive to certain glyphosate-containing pesticides, 

carbaryl, chlorothalonil, pyraclostrobin, and pharmaceuticals 

(for example, human prescription antidepressant drugs, fluoxetine) (Conners and Black, 2004; Gooding and others, 2006; 

Bringolf and others, 2007a, b; Cope and others, 2008), but 

NWQC and MWQS have not been developed for these chemical contaminants. If a particular chemical contaminant, which 

has no or limited toxicity data for mussels, is suspected in the 

Meramec River Basin, consultation with experts on mussel 

sensitivity and toxicology would be useful to determine the 

risk to the mussel species present. 

Ammonia and Copper

Early life-stages of various mussel species (glochidia 

and juveniles) are particularly sensitive to ammonia and copper (Wang and others, 2007a, b, 2008, 2009), and mussels 

adversely are affected at concentrations below MWQS and 

NWQC (table 2). As a result, the primary water-quality parameters to be measured for protecting mussel populations include 

ammonia and copper. Ammonia and copper are two of the 

most common pollutants in surface waters. Sources of ammonia include residential, agricultural and animal runoff, and 

wastewater treatment plants, and sources of copper include 

sediment loading from mining, agricultural applications, and 

natural weathering. Obtaining concentrations of ammonia 

and copper that protect mussels also may protect them from 

other water-quality issues; the best management practices and 

wastewater treatment necessary to manage these two pollutants could help manage other pollutants.

For ammonia, Wang and others (2007b) concluded that 

chronic NWQC (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1999) may not protect mussels and determined a protective 

range would likely be 0.25 to 0.5 milligram of nitrogen per 

liter (mg/L) at pH 8. Mussels are more sensitive to ammonia 

as pH increases (Wang and others, 2008); therefore, a pH 

adjustment is required for determining a threshold for the 

Meramec River Basin. This adjustment could be a sliding 

NWQC (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999) or 

a normalization to a pH at the high end of the normal range 

in the Meramec River Basin. To address mussel sensitivity 

to ammonia, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has 

drafted an update of the NWQC for ammonia that includes 

toxicity data for mussels (table 2; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). 

Copper is the most thoroughly studied chemical contaminant in terms of mussel toxicity (table 2). Acute toxicity 

data are available for numerous species, but effect concentrations vary by different test water characteristics (for example, 

hardness, dissolved organic carbon) and species. Given the 

acute and chronic effects data from the literature and accounting for hardness, the hardness-dependent MWQS may not be 

protective of mussel populations. However, deriving a protective value for copper is complex as the toxicity of copper is 

affected by various water characteristics, including hardness, 

alkalinity, pH, and dissolved organic carbon (Erickson and 

others, 1996, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007, 

Wang and others, 2009). A biotic ligand model (BLM) has 

been developed to enable mechanistic modeling of copper 

bioavailability and acute toxicity as a function of these waterquality variables (Santore and others, 2001; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007). Whereas BLM-based NWQC 

for copper are more protective to mussels relative to previous 

hardness-dependent NWQC (March and others, 2007; Wang 
Results and Discussion 9

and others, 2009), the BLM has not been applied widely to 

state-derived standards. However, the BLM-based NWQC 

for copper only includes limited data for some mussel species (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007) and do 

not adequately protect all mussels (Wang and others, 2007a, 

2007b, 2009). Chemical toxicity data along with other local 

water-quality data could be used to derive a protective copper concentration specific for mussels in the Meramec River 

Basin. 

Chlorine 

Primary sources of chlorine include wastewater treatment facilities and industrial plants, which could be monitored 

in the Meramec River Basin. Effect concentrations for early 

life-stage mussels are greater than NWQC and MWQS for 

chlorine (table 2). Therefore, waters achieving these NWQC 

and MWQS for chlorine could be protective of mussels, but 

some additional considerations are needed for discharge outfalls and mixing zones. Point source discharges may exceed 

their permitted NWQC, although little monitoring typically 

is conducted at outfalls. One discharge event, even if in short 

duration, that exceeds the criterion could kill mussels or 

entire mussel beds because mussels cannot move away from 

the point source discharge. Mixing zones can have regulated contaminant concentrations that exceed the NWQC for 

chlorine. Therefore, mussel beds in a mixing zone may have 

greater exposure to greater contaminant concentration because 

they are relatively sedentary. These considerations would 

not only apply to chlorine, but also apply to other chemical 

contaminants. 

Temperature 

Lethal temperatures are available for some mussel species, but NWQC and MWQS for temperature are limited 

(table 2). Nevertheless, temperature is an important parameter 

to consider as climate change concerns increase. Stream temperature can increase as a result of the lack of riparian cover, 

wastewater treatment plant outflows, and drought (Pandolfo 

and others, 2010). Temperature changes can affect mussels by 

altering food availability, host fish residency, and reproductive 

cues (Watters and O’Dee, 1998). For some mussels, greater 

temperatures (21 oC) reduced the transformation success of 

glochidia to juveniles on fish hosts, and juvenile mussels 

remain attached to the host fish for longer intervals at lower 

temperatures (10 oC; Roberts and Barnhart, 1999). This greater 

transformation success at low temperatures may be related to 

immunosupression of the host fish and would likely be species 

specific. Upper thermal tolerances also are species specific 

(Pandolfo and others, 2010). Pandolfo and others (2010) 

reported that median lethal temperatures ranged from 21 to 

43 oC in glochidia and 33 to 39 oC in juveniles of eight mussel 

species. 

Future Research and Management Needs for 

Mussel Populations

Continue to Implement the Best Management 

Practices to Restore Riparian Habitat

Restoring riparian and wetland habitats in the Meramec River Basin is likely to have positive effects on mussels 

by decreasing water temperature, sediment loads, and the 

physical destruction of habitat. Best management practice 

implementation also allows resource staff to educate private 

landowners on the importance of mussel populations in the 

Meramec River Basin and potentially conduct more reconnaissance on mussel bed status. For example, a private landowner 

may report a die-off in a stream reach not being monitored or 

historically assessed. 

Conduct Further Analyses of Historical Mussel 

Distribution, Land Use, and Water-Quality Data

Timing is critical to identify the primary threats to mussels in the Meramec River Basin that contribute to losses in 

abundance and diversity (Missouri Department of Conservation, 2008). The most recent mussel survey in the Basin is 

already dated (Roberts and Bruenderman, 2000), and additional surveys have not been conducted because of logistical 

and budgetary constraints. Moreover, more extensive analyses 

of existing survey data have not been conducted. Species 

co-occurrence could be used to understand relations and 

habitat partitioning at specific sites. Evaluation of the 1977–78 

survey in conjunction with the 1997 survey indicates possible causes for distribution changes and identifying mussel 

beds with diminished populations of certain species (table 1). 

For example, are the declines in the endangered sheepnose 

between 1979 and 1997 related to in-stream gravel mining, 

sedimentation, or turbidity? Incorporating other existing quantitative information such as water quality and fish assemblages 

would enhance these analyses. Changes in fish assemblages 

between surveys may help determine why species distributions 

have changed. Analysis of historical data also may highlight 

data gaps in mussel distributions which may require additional 

monitoring. Previous surveys were limited to bank-accessible 

sites; therefore, substantial mussel beds potentially occurring in boat-only accessible segments of the river have not 

been identified. Long-term monitoring protocols could be 

implemented at sites identified as high priority (MDC, 2008). 

Moreover, collecting and analyzing water-quality data would 

be informative to compare with toxicity effect thresholds of 

chemical contaminants. 
10 Threats of Habitat and Water-Quality Degradation to Mussel Diversity in the Meramec River Basin, Missouri, USA

Table 2. Toxicity data for freshwater mussels based on water-only exposures.

[Number of species (n) included in the range of effect concentrations is in parenthesis for each life stage. National water-quality criteria (NWQC) and Missouri 

water-quality standards (MWQS) are not mussel specific. Normalization of various water-quality parameters (for example, water hardness, pH, dissolved organic 

carbon) is needed to directly compare effect concentrations of certain metals and ammonia to NWQC and MWQS (for example, March and others, 2007; Wang 

and others, 2010). mg/L, milligrams per liter; NA, not available; >, greater than; μg/L, micrograms per liter; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; °C, degrees Celsius]

Life stage and criterion Acute effect 1 Chronic effect 2 Reference

4-Nonylphenol (mg/L)

Glochidia (n = 6) 0.49–1.19 0.13–0.34 Milam and others, 2005

NWQC 0.0066 0.028 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

MWQS NA NA Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008

Total ammonia (mg/L as nitrogen)3

Glochidia (n = 8), pH 8.3 5.0–>16 NA Wang and others, 2007a

Juveniles (n = 6), pH 8.2–8.3 2.3–11 0.37–0.67 Wang and others, 2007a, 2007b

Juvenile (n = 1) [un-ionized ammonia (mg/L as 

ammonia nitrogen)], pH 7.9–8.1

0.093–0.14 NA Newton and others, 2003

NWQC, pH 8.0 8.40 1.71 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999

NWQC (draft), pH 8.0 4.35 0.35 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009

MWQS, pH 6.5–9.0 8.40 1.71 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008

Cadmium (μg/L) 4

Glochidia (n = 4), 

hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 46–149

>33–>1,000 NA Lasee, 1991; Black, 2001; Clem, 1998; Wang and others, 

2010

Juveniles (n = 5), 

hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 42–145

9–107 NA Keller and Zam, 1991; Lasee, 1991; Warren 1996; 

Black, 2001; Wang and others, 2010

NWQC 2.0 0.25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

MWQS 2.4–11 0.2–0.5 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008

Chlordane (μg/L)

Juveniles (n = 1) 880 NA Keller, 1993

NWQC 2.4 0.0043 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

MWQS NA NA Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008

Chlorine (μg/L)

Glochidia (n = 10) 47–220 NA Valenti and others, 2006; Wang and others, 2007a

Juveniles (n = 4) 80–>100 NA Wang and others, 2007a

NWQC 19 11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

MWQS 19 10 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008

Chlorpyrifos (μg/L)

Glochidia (n = 1) 500–730 NA Bringolf and others, 2007c

Juveniles (n = 1) 250–330 20 Bringolf and others, 2007c

NWQC 0.083 0.041 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

MWQS NA 0.041 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008

Hexavalent chromium (μg/L)

Juveniles (n = 1), variable water hardness 39–618 NA Keller and Zam, 1991

NWQC 16 11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

MWQS 15 10 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008

Copper 4

Glochidia (n = 24), 

hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 40–190 

6.9–137 NA Black, 2001; Connors and Black, 2004; Cherry and 

others, 2002; Gillis and others, 2008; Jacobson, 1990; 

Jacobson, 1997; McCann, 1993; Milam and others, 

2005; Wang and others, 2007a; Warren, 1996

Juveniles (n = 8), 

hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 40–216 mg

6.8–>396 4.6–8.5 Black, 2001; Jacobson, 1993; Keller and Zam, 1991; 

Klaine and others, 1997; McCann, 1993; 

Wang and others, 2007a, 2007b; 2009; Warren, 1996

NWQC, moderately hard water 5 2.34 1.17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007

MWQS, hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 100 13 7 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008

Diazinon (μg/L)

Glochidia (n = 1) 19,400 NA Conners and Black, 2004

NWQC 0.17 0.17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

MWQS NA NA Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008
Results and Discussion 11

Life stage and criterion Acute effect 1 Chronic effect 2 Reference

Lead (μg/L) 4

Glochidia (n = 1), hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 47 >332 NA Wang and others, 2010

Juveniles (n = 1), 

hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 41–47

154–330 NA Wang and others, 2010

NWQC 65 2.5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

MWQS 65 3 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008

Malathion (mg/L)

Glochidia (n = 6) 8–374 NA Keller and Ruessler, 1997

Juveniles (n = 6) 24–215 NA Keller and Ruessler, 1997

NWQC NA 0.0001 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

MWQS NA 0.0001 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008

Mercury (μg/L)

Glochidia (n = 1) 14 NA Valenti and others, 2005

Juveniles (n = 2) 99–171 4 Keller and Zam, 1991; Valenti and others, 2006

NWQC 1.4 0.77 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

MWQS 2.4 0.5 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008

Nickel (μg/L) 4

Juveniles (n = 2) 190–252 46 Keller and Zam, 1991; Kemble and others, unpub. data

NWQC 470 52 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

MWQS 469 52 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008

Pentachlorophenol (μg/L)

Glochidia (n = 6) 580–1,390 300–660 Milam and others, 2005

Juveniles (n = 1) 610 NA Keller, 1993

NWQC 19 15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

MWQS NA 14 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008

Temperature (°C)

Glochidia (n = 8) 21–43 NA Pandolfo and others, 2010

Juveniles (n = 7) 33–39 NA Pandolfo and others, 2010

NWQC NA NA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

MWQS NA 32.2 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008

Toxaphene (mg/L)

Juveniles (n = 1) 740 NA Keller, 1993

NWQC 0.73 0.0002 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

MWQS NA NA Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008

Zinc (μg/L) 4

Glochidia (n = 6), 

hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 40–160

321–2,685 NA Clem, 1998; McCann, 1993; Wang and others, 2010

Juveniles (n = 5), 

hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 40–100

145–516 NA Keller and Zam, 1991; McCann, 1993; 

Wang and others, 2010

NWQC 120 120 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

MWQS 117 107 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008

1 Acute effects include lethal and effect concentrations of variable duration as described from the original reference.

2

 Chronic effects include no observed effect concentrations, no observed adverse effect levels, and chronic values as described from the original reference.

3 Dependent on pH and temperature.

4 Water hardness dependent. Values for NWQC and MWQS are calculated as hardness (mg/L as CaCO3

) 100, except for copper.

5 NWQC are Biotic Ligand Model-based criteria, which are dependent on a number of water-quality parameters (for example, calcium, magnesium, dissolved 

organic carbon).

Table 2. Toxicity data for freshwater mussels based on water-only exposures.—Continued 

[Number of species (n) included in the range of effect concentrations is in parenthesis for each life stage. National water-quality criteria (NWQC) and Missouri 

water-quality standards (MWQS) are not mussel specific. Normalization of various water-quality parameters (for example, water hardness, pH, dissolved organic 

carbon) is needed to directly compare effect concentrations of certain metals and ammonia to NWQC and MWQS (for example, March and others, 2007; Wang 

and others, 2010). mg/L, milligrams per liter; NA, not available; >, greater than; μg/L, micrograms per liter; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; °C, degrees Celsius]
12 Threats of Habitat and Water-Quality Degradation to Mussel Diversity in the Meramec River Basin, Missouri, USA

Monitor Zebra Mussels in the Meramec River 

Basin

Zebra mussel monitoring is warranted because they are 

pervasive in much of the United States and have been found 

in the lower basin and elsewhere in Missouri. Zebra mussels 

in the Meramec River would surpass habitat and water-quality 

parameters as the main threat to native mussels if they become 

established throughout the basin. Zebra mussels can destroy 

native mussel populations by competing for habitat and food 

sources, and they are difficult or impossible to eradicate once 

introduced. Potential infestations may increase if boat and 

personal watercraft traffic increases in the basin. Monitoring could focus on the lower basin or areas with greater boat 

traffic. 

Conduct Landscape Scale Modeling to Predict 

Mussel Distributions

Landscape scale modeling may be the most useful tool 

to predict mussel distributions. Landscape scale analysis has 

already been conducted in the Meramec River Basin (Bayless 

and others, 2003; Sowa and others, 2007), and some biodiversity data, although not mussel specific, are available. Applying 

similar models to mussel distributions is in agreement with 

the goals of the Missouri Mussel Conservation and Management Plan (MDC, 2008) and could help identify data gaps. 

Other landscape scale models could be adapted to identify 

the stressors that limit a species distribution to certain river 

reaches (for example, Kapo and Burton, 2006). For example, 

physical (for example, sedimentation, substrate composition, 

turbidity) or chemical factors (for example, dissolved oxygen, 

ammonia, copper) potentially limiting species distributions 

of the Anodontinae and Lampsilinae in the Meramec River 

upstream from the Bourbeuse River confluence could be 

modeled. Future threats also could be incorporated into these 

models including mine development in the New Lead Belt, 

storm water runoff, biosolids applications, and personal care 

products and pharmaceuticals in wastewater treatment plant 

effluents.

Protect Water Quality in Greater Biodiversity 

Areas as a Matter of Public Policy

If all the toxicological information is generated and 

summarized to derive what could be protective environmental 

concentrations for mussels (for example, March and others, 

2007), managers still may not be certain of the effect of large 

wastewater treatment plants or substantial sources of nonpoint source pollutants near important mussel beds. Even if 

mussel toxicity data are considered in permitted discharge 

limits, there may be some areas where the size of the discharge 

and the limits of available dilution would still be problematic 

because of the frequency and consequences of episodic events. 

Periodic exceedences of permitted discharge limits typically 

are anticipated and allowed. Whereas engineering failures are 

rare and may not pose a substantial risk to short-lived, mobile, 

and common species that re-colonize an area after an accident 

(for example, fish), these incidences would be a concern for 

rare, long-lived, relatively sedentary species like mussels. In 

areas of greater mussel diversity and excellent water quality, protecting the existing conditions may be an attractive 

option under antidegradation policies or designated uses. For 

example, the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation has designated mussel refugia in an attempt to provide 

mussel species a degree of protection and to facilitate their 

reproduction (March and others, 2007). North Carolina has a 

program allowing for site-specific water-quality standards for 

streams with federally-listed species, and that approach has 

been applied to a stream supporting the endangered Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) (Black, 2001; North 

Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 

2007). These approaches may represent attractive options for 

situations like endangered mussel management (where risk 

aversion is an important consideration even when the risk is 

well-characterized) and for dealing with the current uncertainty in deriving protective limits for mussels. 

Implement Monitoring Studies to Assess Effects 

of Wastewater Treatment Plants and Areas of 

Suspected Nonpoint Source Pollution on Mussel 

Beds

The Meramec River Basin has more than 100 wastewater 

treatment plants, and the lower 100 kilometers (km) of Meramec River alone receives effluent from 6 facilities (Annis and 

others, 2009). Large concentrations of dead shell material have 

been observed in the channel downstream from several wastewater discharges in the Meramec River indicating the past 

presence of mussel beds (Andy Roberts, oral commun., 2009). 

Although the cause of the dead mussel beds was not determined, wastewater facilities are sources of ammonia, chlorine, 

personal care products and pharmaceuticals, and increased 

temperatures, all of which could have deleterious effects on 

mussel populations. Monitoring upstream and downstream 

from a facility would help determine differences in richness and abundance in native mussel beds; mussel sampling 

would be augmented with water-quality data collection. In situ

exposures with propagated juveniles or laboratory testing of 

effluents would help delineate the effects on survival, growth, 

and reproduction. In addition, non-point source pollution from 

cattle grazing near and in streams, mining activities (gravel, 

lead), and urban runoff also are important to consider in monitoring studies (for example, Gangloff and others, 2009). 
References Cited 13

Determine Sublethal Effects of Chemical 

Contaminants of Concern (for example, 

Ammonia, Metals, Common Use Pesticides, 

Synthetic Hormones, Medications, Personal 

Care Products) to Mussels

The toxicity of many common and emerging contaminants to mussels is unknown, and much of the data that are 

available have focused on lethal effects on early life stages of 

mussels. Moreover, many of these compounds are not regulated, and therefore do not have any associated MWQS or 

NWQC. More research on sublethal effects of contaminant 

exposure (that is, biomarkers associated with biotransformation enzymes, oxidative stress, reproductive effects, and 

immunology) and testing of older life stages of mussels may 

help determine if contaminants are affecting mussel recruitment as well as other biological processes. In addition to laboratory exposures, in situ exposures combined with analytical 

chemistry measurements using propagated juveniles ready for 

release into the Meramec River Basin could be used to examine the effects of multiple stressors (Cope and others, 2008) at 

specific sites of interest. 

Derive Risk-based Guidance Values for Mussel 

Protection

When there is a need to estimate a protective concentration for a compound with little or no mussel toxicity data, data 

generation needs to be considered as has been done recently 

for several compounds (Bringolf and others, 2007a, b, c; 

Wang and others, 2007a, b, 2010). Protective concentrations 

for mussels can be estimated through aquatic risk assessment tools such as species sensitivity distributions (Suter 

and others, 2002) and interspecies correlation modes (Dyer 

and others, 2006). Both of these modeling approaches can 

make use of small datasets to provide estimates of protective 

concentrations. Examining the magnitude to which mussels 

are more sensitive to ammonia, glyphosate, copper, and other 

chemical contaminants than commonly tested fish and other 

invertebrates to derive adjustment factors for mussels also is 

warranted. 

Summary

The Meramec River Basin supports high quality aquatic 

habitats with diverse mussel populations. However, surveys 

within the basin indicate that mussel distributions and diversity have declined throughout the past several decades. The 

main threats for mussels in the basin include excess sedimentation, altered stream geomorphology and flow, effects on 

riparian vegetation and condition, impoundments, invasive 

non-native species, and water-quality degradation. Although 

these threats were identified for the basin, these factors also 

could be considered in other basins where mussel conservation 

is a priority. Basin-specific information including mussel and 

fish host distribution surveys, water-quality data, land use data, 

and invasive species distributions would be needed to refine 

these potential threats. Determining habitat parameter and 

water-quality thresholds that protect native mussel populations 

is an essential, but complex task. Important habitat parameters 

to consider include excessive sedimentation, altered stream 

geomorphology and flow, altered riparian vegetation and 

condition, impoundments, and invasive species. In terms of 

water quality, mussels are more sensitive to certain changes in 

water quality and contaminants than other aquatic organisms; 

therefore, existing national water quality criteria and Missouri 

water quality standards may not be protective of mussels. Specifically, ammonia, copper, chlorine, temperature, glyphosatecontaining pesticides, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals pose the most severe risk to mussels based on the current 

scientific literature. Few of the organic compounds to which 

mussels are exposed in the environment have been evaluated 

in laboratory toxicity tests. In addition, many toxicological 

endpoints associated with older life stages of mussels have 

not been addressed (for example, mussel reproduction), and 

chronic exposures have been short-term relative to mussel life 

history (for example, only waterborne exposures conducted for 

as many as 28 days). Increasing water temperatures associated 

with global climate change or industrial discharges also could 

affect mussel populations. Research and management needs to 

conserve mussel diversity in the Meramec River Basin remain. 

Priority needs include establishing a long term mussel monitoring program that measures physical and chemical parameters of high priority, conducting landscape scale modeling to 

predict mussel distributions, determining sublethal effects of 

primary contaminants of concern, deriving risk-based guidance values for mussel conservation, and assessing the effects 

of wastewater treatment plants and nonpoint source pollution 

on mussels inhabiting the basin. A critical next step to further 

prioritize these needs is to conduct a watershed risk assessment using local data (for example, land use, flow) when 

available. 

References Cited

Abell, R.A., Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., Hurley, P.T., Diggs, 

J.T., Eichbaum, W., Walters, S., Wettengel, W., Allnutt. T., 

Louks, C.J., and Hedao, P., 2000, Freshwater Ecoregions of 

North America. A Conservation Assessment: Island Press 

(WWF), Washington, D.C., 368 p.

Aldridge, D., Payne, B.S., and Miller, A.C., 1987, The effects 

of intermittent exposure to suspended solids and turbulence 

on three species of freshwater mussels: Environmental Pollution, v. 45, p. 17–28.
14 Threats of Habitat and Water-Quality Degradation to Mussel Diversity in the Meramec River Basin, Missouri, USA

American Society for Testing and Materials, 2010, Standard 

guide for conducting laboratory toxicity tests with freshwater mussels: E2455-06 in Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 

V. 11.06. West Conshocken, Pa., p. 1,365–1,416.

Annis, G.M., Diamond, D.D., and Garringer, A.J., 2009, 

Stream-reach specific watershed data: threats to aquatic 

ecosystem integrity: Final Report and Data for Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Mo., 55 p.

Augspurger T., Dwyer, F.J., Ingersoll, C.G., and Kane, C.M., 

2007, Editorial: Advances and opportunities in assessing 

the contaminant sensitivity of freshwater mussel early life 

stages: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 26, 

p. 2,025–2,028.

Barnhart, M.C., Haag, W.R., and Roston, W.N., 2008, Adaptations to host infection and larval parasitism in Unionoida: 

Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 27, 

p. 370–394.

Bayless, M.A., McManus, M.G., and Fairchild, J.F., 2003, 

Geomorphic, water quality, and fish community patterns 

associated with the distributions of Notropis topeka in a 

Central Missouri watershed: The American Midland Naturalist, v. 150, p. 58–72.

Beussink, Z.S., 2007, The effects of suspended sediment on 

the attachment and metamorphosis success of freshwater 

mussel parasitic life stages: Master’s Thesis, Missouri State 

University, Springfield, Mo., 55 p.

Bidwell, R.J., Cooper, N., and Bruenderman, S.A., 2003, The 

influence of Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) die-offs on 

sediment quality: Implications for native unionid mussels: 

Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, 

Mo. 25 p.

Black, M.C., 2001, Water quality standards for North Carolina’s endangered mussels. Final Report: Department of 

Health Science, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.

Blanc, T.J., Caldwell, M., and Hawks, M., 1998, Meramec 

River Watershed: Missouri Department of Conservation 

Report, Sullivan, Mo. Also available at http://extra.mdc.

mo.gov/fish/watershed/meramec/contents/.

Brim Box, J., and Mossa, J., 1999, Sediment, land use, and 

freshwater mussels: Prospects and problems: Journal of the 

North American Benthological Society, v. 18, p. 99–117.

Bringolf, R.B., Cope, W.G., Eads, C.B., Lazaro, P.R., Barnhart, M.C., and Shea, D., 2007a, Acute and chronic toxicity 

of technical-grade pesticides to glochidia and juveniles of 

freshwater mussels (Unionidae): Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry, v. 26, p. 2,086–2,093.

Bringolf, R.B., Cope, W.G., Mosher, S., Barnhart, M.C., and 

Shea, D., 2007b, Acute and chronic toxicity of glyphosate 

compounds to glochidia and juveniles of Lampsilis siliquoidea Unionidae): Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 

v. 26, p. 2,094–2,100.

Bringolf, R.B., Cope, W.G., Barnhart, M.C., Mosher, S., 

Lazaro, P.R., and Shea, D., 2007c, Acute and chronic toxicity of pesticide formulations (Atrazine, chlorpyrifos, and 

permethrin) to glochidia and juveniles of Lampsilis siliquoidea: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 26, 

p. 2,101–2,107.

Brown, A.V., Lyttle, M.M., and Brown, K.B., 1998, Impacts 

of gravel mining on gravel bed streams: Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society, v. 127, p. 979–994.

Buchanan, A.C., 1980, Mussels (Naiades) of the Meramec 

River Basin, Missouri: Missouri Department of Conservation Aquatic Series, no. 17, 76 p.

Buchanan, A.C., 1987, Die-off impacts on the mussel fauna 

of selected reaches of the Bourbeuse and Meramec Rivers, 

Missouri: in Neves, R.J., eds., Proceedings of the workshop 

on die-offs of freshwater mussels in the United States: June 

1986 Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, 

Davenport, Iowa, p. 44–54.

Cherry, D.S, Van Hassel, J.H., Farris, J.L., Soucek, D.J., and 

Neves, R.J., 2002, Site-specific derivation of the acute 

copper criteria for the Clinch River, Virginia: Human and 

Ecological Risk Assessment, v. 8, p. 591–601.

Clem, S.A., 1998, Complexities in early life stage testing of 

freshwater mussels to selected metals: Master’s Thesis, 

Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, Ark.

Conners, D.E, and Black, M.C., 2004, Evaluation of lethality and genotoxicity in the freshwater mussel Utterbackia 

imbecillis (Bivalvia: Unionidae) exposed singly and in 

combination to chemicals used in lawn care: Archives of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 6, 

p. 362–371. 

Cope, W.G., Bringolf, R.B., Buchwalter, D.B., Newton, T.J., 

Ingersoll, C.G., Wang, N., Augspurger, T., Dwyer, F.J., 

Barnhart, M.C., Neves, R.J., and Hammer, E., 2008, Differential exposure, duration, and sensitivity of unionoidean 

bivalve life stages to environmental contaminants: Journal 

of the North American Benthological Society, v. 27, 

p. 451–462.

Czarnezki, J.M., 1987, Use of the plain pocketbook mussel, 

Lampsilis ventricosa, for monitoring heavy metal pollution 

in an Ozark stream: Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 38, p. 641–646. 
References Cited 15

Dwyer, F.J., Mayer, F.L., Sappington, L.C., Buckler, D.R., 

Bridges, C.M., Greer, I.E., Hardesty, D.K., Henke, C.E., 

Ingersoll, C.G., Kunz, J.L., Whites, D.W., Augspurger, 

T., Mount, D.R., Hattala, K., and Neuderfer, G.N., 2005, 

Assessing contaminant sensitivity of endangered and 

threatened aquatic species: Part 1. Acute toxicity of five 

chemicals: Archives of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology, v. 48, p. 143–154. 

Dyer, S.D., Versteeg, D.J., Belanger, S.E., Chaney, J.G., and 

Mayer, F.L., 2006, Interspecies correlation estimates predict 

protective environmental concentrations: Environmental 

Science and Technology, v. 40, p. 3,102–3,111.

Ellis, M.M., 1936, Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments: Ecology, v. 17, p. 29–42.

Erickson, R.J., Benoit, D.A., Mattson, V.R., Nelson, H.P., and 

Leonard, E.N., 1996, The effects of water chemistry on 

the toxicity of copper to fathead minnows: Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 15, p. 181–193.

Fuller, S.L.H., 1974, Clams and mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia): 

in Hart, C.W. Jr, and Fuller, S.LH., eds., Pollution ecology 

of freshwater invertebrates: Academic Press, N.Y. 

p. 215–273.

Gangloff, M.M., Siefferman, L., Seesock, W., and Webber, 

E.C., 2009, Influence of urban tributaries on freshwater 

mussel populations in a biologically diverse piedmont 

(USA) stream: Hydrobiologia, v. 636, p. 191–201.

Gangloff, M.M., and Feminella, J.W., 2007, Stream channel 

geomorphology influences mussel abundance in southern 

Appalachian streams, USA: Freshwater Biology, v. 52, 

p. 64–74.

Gillis, P.L., Mitchell, R.J., Schwalb, A.N., McNichols, K.A., 

Mackie, G.L., Wood, C.M., and Ackerman, J.D., 2008, 

Sensitivity of the glochidia (larvae) of freshwater mussels to copper: Assessing the effect od water hardness and 

siddoleved organic carbon on the sensitivity of endangered 

spcecies: Aquatic Toxicology, v. 88, p. 137–145.

Gooding, M.P., Newton, T.J., Bartsch, M.R., and Hornbuckle, 

K.C., 2006, Toxicity of synthetic musks to early life stages 

of the freshwater mussel Lampsilis cardium: Archive of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 51, 

p. 549–558.

Gore, J.A., Layzer, J.B., and Mead, J., 2001, Macroinvertebrate instream flow studies after 20 years: a role in stream 

management and restoration: Regulated Rivers: Research 

and Management, v. 17, p. 527–542.

Grabarkiewicz, J. and Davis, W., 2008, An introduction 

to freshwater mussels as biological indicators: EPA260-R-08-015, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, D.C., 122 p.

Hastie, L.C., Boon, P.J., Young, M.R., and Way, S., 2001, The 

effects of a major flood on an endangered freshwater mussel 

population: Biological Conservation, v. 98, p. 107–115.

Hastie, L.C., Cosgrove, P.J., Ellis, N., and Gaywood, M.J., 

2003, The threat of climate change to freshwater pearl mussel populations: Ambio, v. 32, p. 40–46.

Henley, W.F., Patterson, M.A., Neves, R.J., and Lemly, A.D., 

2000, Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on lotic food 

webs: a concise review for natural resource managers: 

Reviews in Fisheries Science, v. 8, p. 125–139.

Hubbs, D., McKinney, D., Sims, D., Lanier, S. and Black, 

P., 2006, Aggregate extraction impacts on Unionid mussel 

species richness and density: Proceedings of the Annual 

Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies, v. 60, p. 169–173.

Jacobson, P.J., 1990, Sensitivity of early lifestages of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) to copper. Master’s 

Thesis, Virginia Poltechnic Institute and State University, 

Blacksburg, Va.

Jacobson, P.J., Farris, J.L., Cherry, D.S., and Nevees, R.J., 

1993, Juvneile freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) 

responses to acute toxicity testing with copper: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 12, p. 879–883.

Jacobson, P.J., Neves, R.J., Cherry, D.S., and Farris, J.L., 

1997, Sensitivity of glochidial stages of freshwater mussels 

(bivalvia: Uniondea) to copper: Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry, v. 11, p. 2,384–2,392.

Kapo, K.E., and Burton, G.A., 2006, A geographic information 

systems-based, weights-of-evidence approach for diagnosing aquatic ecosystem impairment: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 25, p. 2,237–2,249.

Keller, A.E., 1993, Acute toxicity of several pesticides, organic 

compounds, and a wastewater effluent to the freshwater 

mussel, Anodonta imbecilis, Ceriodaphnia dubia, and Pimephales promelas: Bulletin of Environmental Contamination 

and Toxicology, v. 51, p. 696–702.

Keller, A.E., and Zam, S.G., 1991, The acute toxicity of 

selected metals to the freshwater mussel, Anodonta imbecilis: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 10, 

p. 539–546.

Keller, A.E., and Ruessler, D.S., 1997, The toxicity of malathion to unionid mussels: relationship to expected environmental concentrations: Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry, v. 16, p. 1,028–1,033. 
16 Threats of Habitat and Water-Quality Degradation to Mussel Diversity in the Meramec River Basin, Missouri, USA

Klaine, S.J., Warren, L.W., and Summers, J.M., 1997, The 

use of juvenile mussels (Utterbackia imbecillis, Say) as a 

standardized toxicity testing organism. Final Report TIWET 

09535: The Institute of Wildlife and Environmental Toxicology (TIWET), Clemson University, Pendleton, S.C.

Lasee, B.A., 1991, Histological and ultrastructural studies 

of larval and juvenile Lampsilis (Bivalvia) from the upper 

Mississippi River: PhD Dissertation, Iowa State University, 

Ames, Iowa.

Layzer, J.B., and Madison, L.M., 1995, Microhabitat use by 

freshwater mussels and recommendations for determining 

their instream flow needs: Regulated Rivers: Research and 

Management, v. 10, p. 329–345.

Lydeard, C., Cowie, R.H., Ponder, W.F., Bogan, A.E., 

Bouchet, P., Clark, S.A., Cummings, K.S., Frest, T.J., Gargominy, O., Herber, D.G., Hershler, R., Perez, K.E., Roth, 

B., Seddon, M., Strong, E.E., and Thompson, F.G., 2004, 

The global decline of nonmarine mollusks: Bioscience, 

v. 54, p. 321–330.

Mackie, G.L., 1991, Biology of the exotic zebra mussel, 

Dreissena polymorpha, in relation to native bivalves and its 

potential impact in Lake St. Clair: Hydrobiologia, v. 219, 

p. 251–268.

March, F.A., Dwyer, F.J., Augspurger, T., Ingersoll, C.G., 

Wang, N., and Mebane, C.A., 2007, An evaluation of freshwater mussel toxicity data in the derivation of water quality 

guidance and standards for copper: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 26, p. 2,066–2,074.

McCann, M.T., 1993, Toxicity of zinc, copper, and sediments 

to early life stages of freshwater mussels in the Powell 

River, Virginia: MSc Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

and State University. Blacksburg, Va.

Milam, C.D., Farris, J.L., Dwyer, F.J., and Hardesty, D.K., 

2005, Acute toxicity of six freshwater mussel species 

(glochidia) to six chemicals: Implications for daphnids 

and Utterbackia imbecillis as surrogates for protection of 

freshwater mussels (Unionidae): Archives of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology, v. 48, p. 166–173.

Missouri Department of Conservation, 2008, Missouri Mussel 

Conservation and Management Plan. Resource Science 

Division, Columbia, Mo., 52 p. 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2008, Missouri 

Water Quality Criteria. Available at http://www.dnr.mo.gov/

env/wpp/wqstandards/wq_criteria.htm. Accessed on September 24, 2010.

Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership, 2009, Stream 

reach specific watershed data: threats to aquatic ecosystems 

integrity: Final Report to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 83 p.

Morris, T.J., and Corkum, L.D., 1999, Unionid growth patterns 

in rivers of differing riparian vegetation: Freshwater Biology, v. 42, p. 59–68.

Neves, R. J., 1987, Recent die-offs of freshwater mussels in 

the United States: An overview: Neves, R. J., ed., Proceedings of the Workshop on Die-offs of Freshwater Mussels in 

the United States: Blacksburg, Va.: Virginia Tech Press, 

p. 7–18.

Newton, T.J., Allran, J.W., O’Donnell, J.A., Bartsch, M.R., 

and Richardson, W.B., 2003, Effects of ammonia on 

juvenile unionid mussels (Lampsilis cardium) in laboratory sediment toxicity tests: Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry, v. 22, p. 2,554–2,560.

Newton, T.J., Woolnough, D.A., and Strayer, D.L., 2008, 

Using landscape ecology to understand and manage freshwater mussel populations: Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society, v. 27, p. 424–439.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, 2007, ‘Redbook’ Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of 

North Carolina (15A NCAC 2B .0100 and .0200): Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of 

Water Quality, Raleigh, N.C., 145 p.

Pandolfo, T.J., Cope, W.G., and Arellano, C., 2010, Temperature tolerance of juvenile freshwater mussels (Unionidae) 

under the added stress of copper: Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry, v. 29, p. 691–699.

Resh, V.H., and Rosenberg, D.M., 2010, Recent trends in lifehistory research on benthic macroinvertebrates: Journal 

of the North American Benthological Society, v. 29, 

p. 207–219.

Ricciardi, A., 2003, Predicting the impacts of an introduced 

species from its invasion history: an empirical approach 

applied to zebra mussel invasion: Freshwater Biology, v. 48, 

p. 972–981.

Richter, B.D., Braun, D.P., Mendelson, M.A., and Master, 

L.L., 2000, Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna: Conservation Biology, v. 11, p. 1,081–1,093.

Roberts, A.D., and Barnhart, M.C., 1999, Effects of temperature, pH, and CO2

, on transformation of the glochidia 

of Anodonta suborbiculata on fish hosts and in vitro: Journal of North American Benthological Society, v. 18, 

p. 477–487.

Roberts, A.D., and Bruenderman, S., 2000, A reassessment 

of the status of freshwater mussels in the Meramec River 

Basin, Missouri: Missouri Department of Conservation, 

141 p.
References Cited 17

Roberts, A.D., Mosby, D., Weber, J., Besser, J., Hundley, J., 

McMurray, S., and Faiman, S., 2009, An assessment of 

freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae and Unionidae) populations and heavy metal sediment contamination 

in the Big River, Missouri. US Fish and Wildlife Service 

Report, 114 p.

Rogers, C.L., and Dimock, R.V., 2003, Acquired resistance 

of bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus to glochidia of 

the freshwater mussel Utterbackia imbecillus (Bivalvia: 

Unionidae) after multiple infections: Journal of Parasitology, v. 89, p. 582–594.

Santore, R.C., Paquin, P.R., DiToro, D.M, Allen, H.E, and 

Meyer, J.S., 2001, Biotic ligand model of the acute toxicity of metals. 2. Application to acutre copper toxicity in 

freshwater fish and Daphnia: Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry, v. 20, p. 2,397–2,402.

Schmitt, C.J., Finger, S.E., May, T.W., and Kaiser, M.S., 1987, 

Bioavailability of lead and cadmium from mine tailings to 

the pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis ventricosa): in Neves, 

R.J., eds., Proceedings of the workshop on die-offs of 

freshwater mussels in the United States: June 1986 Upper 

Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Davenport, 

Iowa, p. 115–142.

Sowa, S.P., Annis, G., Morey, M.E., and Diamond, D.D., 

2007, A GAP analysis and comprehensive conservation 

strategy for riverine ecosystems of Missouri: Ecological 

Monographs, v. 77, p. 301–334.

Strayer, D.L., 1983, The effects of surface geology and stream 

size on freshwater mussel (Bivalvia, Unionidae) distribution 

in southeastern Michigan, U.S.A.: Freshwater Biology, 

v. 13, p. 253–264.

Strayer, D.L, and Ralley, J., 1993, Microhabitat use by an 

assemblage of stream-swelling unionaceans (Bivalvia), 

including two rare species of Alasmidonta: Journal of the 

North American Benthological Society, v. 12, p. 247–258.

Strayer, D.L., 1999, Use of flow refuges by Unionid mussels 

in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological 

Society, v. 18, p. 468–476.

Strayer, D.L., 2008, Freshwater Mussel Ecology: A multifactor approach to distribution and abundance: University of 

California Press, Los Angeles, Calif., 204 p.

Suter, G.W. II, Traas, T.P., and Posthuma, L., 2002, Issues and 

practices in the derivation and use of species sensitivity 

distributions: in Posthuma, L., Suter, G.W. II, and Traas, 

T.P., eds., Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology: 

Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Fla., p. 437–474.

Turgeon, D.D., Bogan, A.E., Coan, E.V., Emerson, W.K., 

Lyons, W.G., Pratt, W.L., Roper, D.F., Scheltema, A., 

Thompson, F.G., and Williams, J.D., 1988, Common and 

scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United 

States and Canada: mollusks: American Fisheries Society, 

Special Publication 16, 277 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985, Guidelines 

for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for 

the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses:U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and 

Development, Washington, D.C., 104 p. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999, 1999 Update 

of ambient water quality criteria for ammonia: EPA 822/

R99/014. Technical Report. Office of Water, Washington, 

D.C., 153 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006, National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: available at http://www.

epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable/#K (accessed on 

September 24, 2010), Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007, Aquatic life 

ambient freshwater quality criteria – copper, 2007 revision: 

EPA-822-R-07-001, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., 

204 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009, Draft 2009 

update of aquatic life ambient water quality criteria for 

ammonia – freshwater: EPA-882-D-09-001, Office of Water, 

Washington, D.C., 192 p.

Valenti, T.W., Cherry, D.S., Neves, R.J., and Schmerfeld, J., 

2005, Acute and chronic toxicity of mercury to early life 

stages of the rainbow mussel, Villosa iris (Bivalvia: Unionidae): Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 24, 

p. 1,242–1,246.

Valenti, T.W., Cherry,D.S., Currie, R.J., Neves, R.J., Jones, 

J.W., Mair, R., and Kane, C.M., 2006, Chlorine toxicity of 

early life stages of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae): Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 25, 

p. 2,512–2,518.

Vaughn, C.C., Nichols, S.J., and Spooner, D.E., 2008, Community and foodweb ecology of freshwater mussels: Journal 

of the North American Benthological Society, v. 27, 

p. 409–423.

Wang, N., Ingersoll, C.G., Hardesty, D.K., Ivey, C.D., Kunz, 

J.L., May, T.W., Dwyer, F.J., Roberts, A.D., Augspurger, T., 

Kane, C.M., Neves, R.J., and Barnhart, M.C., 2007a, Acute 

toxicity of copper, ammonia, and chlorine to glochidia and 

juveniles of freshwater mussels (Unionidae): Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 26, p. 2,036–2,047.
18 Threats of Habitat and Water-Quality Degradation to Mussel Diversity in the Meramec River Basin, Missouri, USA

Wang, N., Ingersoll, C.G., Greer, I.E., Hardesty, D.K., Ivey, 

C.D., Kunz, J.L., Brumbaugh, W.G., Dwyer, F.J., Roberts, 

A.D., Augspurger, T., Kane, C.M., Neves, R.J., and Barnhart M.C., 2007b, Chronic toxicity of copper and ammonia 

to juvenile freshwater mussels (Unionidae): Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 26, p. 2,048–2,056.

Wang, N., Erickson, R.J., Ingersoll, C.G., Ivey, C.D., Brunson, 

E.L., Augspurger, T., and Barnhart, M.C., 2008, Influence of 

pH on the acute toxicity of ammonia to juvenile freshwater 

mussels (fatmucket, Lampsilis siliquoidea): Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 27, p. 1,141–1,146. 

Wang, N., Mebane, C.A., Kunz, J.L., Ingersoll, C.G., May, 

T.W., Arnold, W.R., Santore, R.C., Augspurger. T., Dwyer, 

F.J., and Barnhart, M.C., 2009, Evaluation of acute copper 

toxicity to juvenile freshwater mussels (fatmucket, Lampsilis siliquoidea) in natural and reconstituted waters: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 28, p. 2,367–2,377.

Wang, N., Ingersoll, C.G., Ivey, C.D., Hardesty, D.K., May, 

T.W., Roberts, A.D., Augspurger, T., van Genderen, E., 

and Barnhardt, M.C., 2010, Sensitivity of early life stages 

of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) to acute and chronic 

toxicity of lead, cadmium, and zinc in water: Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 29, p. 2,053–2,063.

Warren, L.W., 1996, The use of juvenile mussels, Utterbackia 

imbecillis Say (Bivalvia: Unionidae), as a standardized toxicity testing organism: Master’s Thesis, Clemson University, 

Clemson, S.C.

Watters, G.T., 1996, Small dams as barriers to freshwater 

mussels (Bivalvia, Unionida) and their hosts: Biological 

Conservation, v. 75, p. 79–85.

Watters, G.T., 1999, Freshwater mussels and water quality: a 

review of effects of hydrologic and instream habitat alterations: Proceedings of the First Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Symposium, p. 261–274.

Watters, T.G. and O’Dee, S.H., 1998, Metamorphosis of freshwater mussel glochidia (Bivalvia: Unionidae) on amphibians and exotic fishes: The American Midland Naturalist, 

v. 139, p. 49–57.

Williams, J.D., Warren, M.L., Cummings, K.S., Harris, J.L., 

and Neves, R.J., 1993, Conservation status of freshwater 

mussels of the United States and Canada: Fisheries, v. 18, 

p. 6–22.

Yeager, M.M., Neves, R.J., and Cherry, D.S., 2000, Competitive interactions between early life stages of Villosa iris

(Bivalvia: Unionidae) and adult Asian clams (Corbicula 

fluminea): Proceedings of the First Freshwater Mollusk 

Conservation Society Symposium, p. 253–259.

Prepared by:

Rolla Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Director, U.S. Geological Survey

Columbia Environmental Research Center

4200 New Haven Road, Columbia, MO 65201

(573) 875–5399

Or visit the Columbia Environmental Research Center website at:

http://www.cerc.usgs.gov

Hinck and others—Threats of Habitat and Water-Quality Degradation to Mussel Diversity in the Meramec River Basin, Missouri, USA—Open-File Report 2011–1125