My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE48898
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE48898
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:50:49 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 1:49:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981044
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Doc Name
Appendix page 1 through A-2
Section_Exhibit Name
EXHIBIT 15 FISH SURVEY OF THE WILLIAMS FORK RIVER
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.
/
101
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
relative abundance (or 16.8 organisms/ft..2), 14.6 relative abundance (or \ <br />50.5 organisms/ft.2) and 11.6X relative abundance (or 34.5 organisms/ft.2) • J <br />at stations 1, 2 and 3 respectively. <br />The third most abundant major group of aquatic macroinvertebrates <br />found is the samples was Diptera (true flies). This group represented <br />33.7X, 33.1X, and 39.2X of the mean total density at stations 1, 2 and 3, <br />respectively. Of the six dipteraa families, midges (or family Chironomidae) <br />were the most abundant group. <br />Total mean densities at stations 1, 2, and 3 were 124.0, 346.2 and <br />298.7, respectively. Although subjective observations of the mean <br />densities suggested that the macroinvertebrate densities were drastically <br />different, statistical comparisons exhibited few significant values. <br />Overall densities (mean numbers of total organisms/ft2) at each <br />station were compared using Student's "t". Of the three comparisons, <br />only stations 1 and 2 exhibited significantly different densities (p< <br />0.025). Differences between stations 1 and 3 or 2 and 3 were not signifi- <br />cant at either the SX or lOX levels, respectively. From the data it is <br />apparent that although the number and kinds of taxa varied very Little <br />between stations the total mean densities were noticeably different. <br />Chemical and physical parameters measured and/or observed at the <br />stations are summarized in Table 5. The stations appeared to be similar <br />in most chemical and yhysical characteristics. The only exception was <br />that the substrate at Station 1 was comprised of Saud and gravel, while <br />stations 2 and 3 contained much less sand. Additional chemical/physical <br />measurements taken in 1976-1977 by U.S. Geological Survey (1977) are <br />shown is Table 6. Based on these measurements, the lower Dort ion of the <br />Williams Fork River appears to exhibit relatively good water Quality <br />conditions. <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.