Laserfiche WebLink
Section 779.20 (c) Continued. <br />• Foidel Creek station and least abundant in lower Fish Creek. Total <br />mean densitites (Surber plus Ekman samples) were 188 organisms/ft2 <br />at the upper Foidel Creek station, while at lower Fish Creek, the <br />mean density was about 26.5 organisms/ft2. Greatly diminished <br />flows were present at all the Foidel Creek stetions. <br />Upper Foidel Creek. At upper Foidel Creek above Reservoir No. 1, <br />surface flow in the channel was miniscule. The channel was approxi- <br />matel}• 6 inches wide and the water was 3 to 4 inches deep. The <br />water within the channel was clogged with either filamentous green <br />algae or sedges. The bottom was well shaded by streambank grasses <br />and sedges and consisted largely of fine sand, silt, and play. <br />Results of aquatic macro invertebrate sampling at upper Foidel Creek <br />are presented in Table 64, Density, Perce.it Relative Abundance, <br />Diversity, and Equitability of Aquatic ;tacroinvertebrates Collected <br />• from Foidel Creek above Reservoir No. 1 and in Reservoir No. 1. In <br />the creek channel above Reservoir No. 1, the predominant aquatic <br />macroinvertebrate group was tubificid worms (oligochaeta: <br />Tubificidae). Tub ificid~ comprised 41 percent of the total density <br />or 14 organisms/f t2. Midges (Diptera: Chironomidae) and predaceous <br />diving beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) were next in abundance <br />and comprised 23.5 and 17.6 percent of the total density, respectively. <br />Total density in the stream channel sample was 34 organisms /f t2. <br />This compares to 90 organisms/ft2 found during the 1975 baseline <br />study b}• Dames & Moore. <br />In Reservoir No. 1 the predominant group was again tubificid worms <br />which had a mean density of 130 organisms/ft2. The next must <br />abundant taxon was the midge Chironomus sp. (Diptera: Chironomidae) <br />which had a mean number of 127 organisms/f t2. Total mean densities <br />found in the stream channel above the reservoir were considerably <br />less than in the reservoir (34 organisms/f t2 vs. 265 organisms/ft2). <br />. Substrate characteristics, water stability, and food availability <br />779-223 <br />