My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE46306
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE46306
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:48:31 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 12:42:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
EXHIBIT 21 AQUATIC BIOLOGY SURVEY OF FOIDEL CREEK AND ITS UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 <br />Fish <br />Results of qualitative fish collections from Section 2 on Foidel Creek <br />are prespn.ted in Table 6. Only two species were collected from Station 2 and <br />neither one was abundant. The lack of fish (total of 16) found at this station <br />( is consistent with past sampling, which yielded nine fish in 1975 and only two <br />in 1979. Dipnetting at other stations yielded few fish. Station 3 on the <br />unnamed tributary contained some fathead minnows. In Foidel Creek, young <br />fathead minnows were found at Station 3 and fingerling white suckers at Sta- <br />tions 3 and 4. <br />Table 6: Species list and relative abundance of fish from Station 2 on <br />Foidel Creek, Colorado, 31 July 1980. <br />Scientific Name Common Name % of Total <br />Catostomidae (Suckers) <br />Catostomus commersoni White Sucker 62 <br />Cyprinidae (Minnows) <br />Pimephales promelas Fathead tlinnow 38 <br />Total numbers collected 16 <br />CONCLUSIONS <br />Biological differences bet;veen stations on the unnamed tributary to <br />Foidel Creek appeared to be primarily related to available habitat. Continued <br />monitoring of these stations should help determine the consistency of the <br />_ trend observed. <br />Differences between stations in Foidel Creek were primarily related to <br />t <br />~ amount of water present at the stations. Diversity values were what would be <br />expected in an intermittent stream, since the nature of intermittant streams <br />precludes the development of the diverse benthic communities observed in <br />permanently flowing streams (Hynes 1970). Cessation of flow in these streams <br />i <br />-14- <br />i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.