EPA-R3-73-009
FEBRUARY 1973
Ecological Research Series
Pollution As A Result of Fish
Cultural Activities
I
55
\
r*L
UJ
o
Office of Research and Monitoring
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related
fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ECOLOGICAL
RESEARCH series. This series describes research
on the effects of pollution on humans, plant and
animal species, and materials. Problems are
assessed for their long- and short-term
influences. Investigations include formation,
transport, and pathway studies to determine the
fate of pollutants and their effects. This work
provides the technical basis for setting standards
to minimize undesirable changes in living
organisms in the aquatic, terrestrial and
atmospheric environments.
-------
EPA-R3-73-009
February 1973
POLLUTION AS A RESULT OF FISH
CULTURAL ACTIVITIES
By
Russell N. Hinshaw
Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources
1596 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Project 18050 EDH
Project Officer
Dr. Donald A. Hilden
Office of Air and Water Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20^60
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.0,20402
Price $2.60 domestic postpaid or $2.25 QPO Bookstore
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has "been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the con-
tents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial pro-
ducts constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
Pollution as a Result of Fish Cultural Activities
Fish hatchery activities have been suspected as a source of pollution.
This study was undertaken to evaluate this in hatchery discharges in
relationship to possible pollution.
A program of semi-monthly physical-chemical analysis was conducted for
a year at six trout hatcheries. These determinations were taken at
the hatchery inflow and outfall, the receiving water above and below
the hatchery outfall.
Bottom fauna was sampled once a month during the summer and bi-monthly
through the winter on selected stations in the receiving waters.
Flow data was recorded for the influent, effluent, and receiving waters.
There was no correlation between the pounds of food fed in the hatch-
eries and:
1. changes of chemical quality in the receiving waters
2. changes in kinds and numbers of bottom fauna organisms
in the receiving waters
The analysis of samples revealed degradation of the water quality through
every hatchery and in the receiving water. This degradation was bene-
ficial from a fisheries standpoint but water quality and public health
considerations may require cleanup before acceptable levels could be
achieved.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. 18050 EDH between
the Environmental Protection Agency and Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
INTRODUCTION 1
MATERIALS AND METHODS 3
RESULTS 5
KAMAS HATCHERY 7
Discussion - Physical-Chemical and Bottom Fauna Results 9
Conclusions 15
MIDWAY HATCHERY 16
Discussion Physical-Chemical and Bottom Fauna Results 18
Conclusions 23
LOA HATCHERY 25
Discussion - Physical-Chemical and Bottom Fauna Results 27
Conclusions 31
WHITE TROUT FARM 32
Discussion - Physical-Chemical and Bottom Fauna Results 3^-
Conclusions k-0
SPRINGVILLE - STATE AND FEDERAL HATCHERIES 4l
Discussion Physical-Chemical and Bottom Fauna Results 43
Conclusions 50
CONCLUSIONS 52
BIBLIOGRAPHY 53
APPENDIX A: Physical-Chemical Data 5^
APPENDIX B: Statistical Analysis Data . 151
APPENDIX C: Bottom Fauna Data 159
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
TABLE 1 Summary of Statistical Analysis 6
PLATE 1 Kamas Hatchery 8
PLATE 2 Midway Hatchery 17
PLATE 3 Loa Hatchery 26
PLATE k White Trout Farm 33
PLATE 5 Springville (State and Federal) Hatcheries lj-2
VI
-------
INTRODUCTION
The almost complete absence of literature on the subject indicates that
the _quality of hatchery effluents has not, generally, been considered a
serious enough problem to warrant investigation. The primary emphasis
of pertinent work has been on the effects of pollutants' on fish, rather
than the effects of fish cultural activities on other beneficial uses
downstream.
There are over 600 State and Federal fish cultural stations currently
operating in the United States. These hatcheries produce a minimum of
12 million pounds of trout annually. They utilize each year more than
4l million pounds of fish food of which almost 23 million pounds are
offal, meats, fish and other organic material. The remaining 18 million
pounds of feed are commercially prepared pellets or other dry feeds. If
accurate data were available for private fish cultural enterprises,
these totals would be increased substantially.
The pollution potential of such a large fish cultural program could have
a decided effect on the quality of water receiving hatchery effluents.
It is generally believed that, except in rare cases, fish cultural waste
waters are unlikely to cause major immediate pollution problems. Chronic
effects on smaller receiving waters, however, have received less atten-
tion and are little understood. Recent surveys in Utah associated with
efforts to arrive at stream classification have indicated that pollution
from this source is a possibility. Some deterioration of stream and
reservoir habitat, with resultant impact on the fishery resources, are
now suspected of having occurred as a result of long term release of
hatchery effluents into these waters.
There are a number of factors associated with fish cultural effluents
that have potential or known existing detrimental effects on the quality
of the receiving waters, the aquatic habitat, and the fauna dependent
upon that habitat. Most of these may be broadly grouped into three
categories.
The first category includes pathogens and parasites passing from the
hatchery into the natural waters. The close proximity in which the
fish are held as part of the cultural activities facilitates trans-
mission of diseases and results in frequent epizootics (Davis, 1956).
To what extent the release of these pathogenic and parasitic forms in-
to the receiving waters affects other fishes, aquatic fauna, and the
existing ecosystem is largely unknown.
A second category is composed of chemicals and drugs employed to control
either prophylactically or therapeutically, diseases and parasites with-
in the hatchery. These are introduced into the water either directly or
-------
through fish food. Again, little is known of their effect upon the system
of the receiving waters.
The third group of factors include those that contribute to chemical and/
or physical change of water quality. Organic wastes from fish metabolic
processes (Brockway, 1950), waste feed as well as algae and detritus
from pond and raceway cleaning can in the process of decomposition re-
duce dissolved oxygen levels, increase biochemical oxygen demand (B.O.D.),
carbon dioxide, ammonia, nitrate and nitrite levels. Particles of waste
not broken down within the hatcheries add to the turbidity, suspended
and settleable solid levels of the effluent, and, the completely degraded
portions of the waste can elevate the total dissolved solid level. The
larger suspended solids deposited in the slower moving reaches of re-
ceiving waters can build up sludge beds.
The first and second categories, although important to an understanding
of the total effect of hatchery wastes on the aquatic habitat and organ-
isms, are sporadic in nature. The third category of factors, however, are
encountered almost continuously throughout a substantial portion of the
year under normal hatchery operating procedures. They constitute the most
suspect and possibly significant sources of pollution. This study was
designed to determine the levels, periodicity and effects of these pol-
lutants on receiving waters and on aquatic organisms.
-------
METHODS AND MATERIALS
The hatcheries selected for this study include four Utah State Division
of Wildlife Resource trout hatcheries located near the cities of Kamas,
Midway, Springville, and Loa; a federal hatchery at Springville; and a
commercial hatchery (White's Trout Farm) at Paradise, Utah. These six
hatcheries were chosen because they represent a diversity of production
levels, feeding programs, and operational practices.
The feeding programs of commercial hatcheries frequently differ from
those of Federal and State hatcheries. The commercial hatchery studied
used both a dry feed- and a wet feed composed primarily of offal from
commercially dressed fish, chickens, warm-blooded animals, and whole
rough fish. The State and Federal hatcheries investigated fed a bal-
anced diet of dry food pellets.
Concrete rearing ponds were periodically cleaned throughout the year in
State and Federal hatcheries. Algae and other growths were detached dur-
ing pond cleaning and with the flow-through character of the raceway
system entered the effluent. In hatcheries which used dirt rearing ponds
these problems were of a smaller magnitude because this type of pond was
seldom cleaned.
To sample all phases of fish rearing, a bi-weekly sampling program was
conducted during the period of November, 1968 through October, 1969-
The specific sampling stations for each hatchery were designed to in-
clude (l) the hatchery inflow, (2) the hatchery effluent, (3) the re-
ceiving water above entry of the hatchery waste water, (h) the receiving
water one hundred feet downstream and (5) the receiving water one
thousand feet downstream. Due to the complexity of the water supply
systems and outfalls in some hatcheries, the number of stations varies
with each individual hatchery (see Plates 1, 2, 3, h and 5). At some
hatcheries multiple inflows and outfalls were sampled.
Dissolved oxygen, pH, carbon dioxide, and temperature were determined
every two hours to detect any significant changes during the day. For
all other measurements composite samples in lieu of "grab" samples were
used to encompass the daily period of operation at each installation.
Each of these samples was comprised of four sub-samples collected at
each station at 2-hour intervals, beginning at 9^00 A.M.
These composite samples were examined for levels of biochemical oxygen
demand (B.O.D.), most probable number (M.P.N. ) coliform, total hardness,
methyl orange alkalinity, specific conductance, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia,
settleable, suspended and total dissolved solids, and turbidity.
Ford Chemical Laboratory, Salt Lake City, analyzed1 the composite samples
-------
for B.O.D., M.P.W. coliform, ammonia,, and suspended and total dissolved
solids using procedures outlined in Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater, 12th Edition. Settleable solids and specific
conductance were also run using the "Standard Methods" procedure. M.O. '
alkalinity, total hardness, nitrites, nitrates, turbidity and dissolved
oxygen determinations were run using the Each Chemical Company DR-EL
analysis kit. Carbon dioxide levels were determined using the method of
Weedham and Needham (1966) and hydrogen ion concentrations were deter-
mined using the Helige comparator.
Flow data were taken at each installation utilizing a Gurley current
meter and cross sections or discharges over weirs. This was 'done to
compare the volume relationships of the effluent and receiving waters.
Accurate water measurements were difficult' to obtain at some of the
hatcheries since there were more than one source and/or outfalls. Also,
the volume of flow increased throughout some hatchery systems.
The poundage of fish fed and the poundage of feed utilized at each instal-
lation were determined and compiled monthly throughout the study period.
Bottom Fauna
Bottom fauna collections were made monthly during the summer and bi-monthly
through the winter from stations located above and below the point of dis-
charge in the receiving water, and, where possible, from the hatchery
water source. This combination of stations allowed an analysis of changes
in the numbers and kinds of aquatic invertebrates present in the receiving
waters below the point of discharge at each hatchery. The locations of
bottom fauna stations were the same as those used for chemical analysis
(see Plate 1 through 5) and are similarly numbered. Water velocity re-
quired the use of hand-screens for collecting bottom fauna in all hatch-
eries except Loa where a Surber square foot sampler was used.
In collecting the handscreen samples, a five or ten square foot area was
disturbed, and the aquatic invertebrates captured. The Surber sampler
was used to obtain three square foot samples at each sampling station.
The organisms collected were then segregated, identified and counted.
Populations of aquatic invertebrates sampled at the stations above the
point of discharge were compared with those of the receiving water from
stations 100 feet and 1,000 feet downstream. These populations were
classified as to "pollution tolerant" or "pollution intolerant" forms
based on the kinds of organisms present and on percentage of increase
or decrease of populations at each station.
-------
RESULTS
Results of the various physical - chemical parameters are graphed in
Figures 1 through 192, Appendix A. Each parameter has been separated
into groups. The first grouping compares the source water to the hat-
chery effluent. The second grouping compares the receiving water above [
the hatchery outfall to the 100 and 1,000 foot stations below the outfall.
Analysis of variance compared the receiving water above the outfall and
the station 1,000 feet below the outfall. The results from the 100 foot
station on the receiving water was omitted from the analysis. This sta-
tion was located too close to the .outfall for sufficient mixing of the
effluent and receiving water. Appendix B contains the results of the
statistical analysis, Tables 2 through 8. These results are summarized
in Table 1, page 6. Bottom fauna results were also analyzed statistically,
but because of insufficient samples these data were not usable.
The tabulated bottom fauna data are listed in Appendix C, Tables 8 through
2k-. These tables list the kinds and number of bottom fauna found at the
stations on the receiving water- Bottom fauna results are graphed and
contained in Appendix C, Figures 193 through 2l8.
-------
- HATCHERT -
Parameter
Kamas Midway Loa
VJhite
Springville
State Federal #1 Federal#2
M.O. Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Nitrate
Nitrite
Settleable Solids
Sp. Conductance
Turbidity
Ammonia
B.O.D.
M.P.N, Coliform
Susp, Solids
Total Dis. Solids
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Carbon dioxide
Temperature
-x-*
JHfr
}'-
#K
-X-
e
-x-s?
SHf
ป t
JHt
*
ปป
* ป .
ซ
a a *
ป e
SHfr
5H5-
JHJ-
K-
ซ Indicates significance at the 93>$ confidence interval,
-^Indicates significance at the 99% confidence interval.
Table 1. Summary of Statistical A
of Variance on the Receiving ฅaters
Above and Below the Hatchery Effluents
-------
KAMAS HATCHERY
Plate 1 (page 8) shows physical layout and positions of the various sam-
pling stations. Stations 1 and 2 were located at the source springs for
the hatchery house and raceways. Station 3 was at the outfall just above
entry to the receiving water, Beaver Creek. Comparison of the- springs
with the outfall revealed the impact that the hatchery had on the spring
water.
Three stations were located on the receiving water. .Station k was located
above the outfall on Beaver Creek. Stations 5 and 6 were located 100 feet
and 1,000 feet below the outfall, respectively. Comparison of station k
with stations 5 and 6 indicated changes in chemistry and bottom fauna due
to the effluent from the hatchery.
Physical-chemical relationships are illustrated in Figures 1 through 32,
Appendix A. Statistical analysis data is recorded in Table 2, Appendix B.
Bottom fauna results are listed in Tables 9 through 11 and Figures 193
through 196, Appendix C.
7
-------
Spring
Plate 1. Kamas Hatchery and Beaver Creek showing sampling stations
-------
Discussion - Physical-Chemical and Bottom Fauna Results
Methyl Orange Alkalinity
M. 0. alkalinity values for Kamas hatchery, stations 1, 2, and 3> indica-
ted no change except a slight decrease during the spring runoff, (Fig-
ure l). The influence of spring runoff was demonstrated by a lowering
of values in the receiving water, stations 4, 5, and 6 (Figure 2). Val-
ues at station k averaged 48 mg/1 and concentrations increased at sta-
tions 5 and 6 as the water traveled downstream. There is a significant
increase in M. 0. alkalinity "by the addition of the hatchery effluent
(Table l). This increase was due to the quality of the source water and
not the result of hatchery activities.
Total Hardness
Hardness values (Figures 3 and 4) were affected by the spring runoff
similar to the alkalinities. There was no change in hardness due to
fish propagation activities on the waters through the hatchery. For
the receiving water, hardness at the clean water station (4) averaged
lower than stations 5 and 6, which increased to an average of 29 and
97 mg/1 respectively. The addition of the effluent increased the total
hardness significantly at the 99$ confidence interval in Beaver Creek
(Table l); however, this change was not the result of hatchery activities
Turbidity and Settleable Solids
Turbidity increased in the hatchery as well as settleable solids (Fig-
ures "[; 8, and 5, 6) respectively. When the water from the hatchery was
added to Beaver Creek, concentrations of settleable solids and turbidity
were increased. This addition resulted in the receiving water concen-
trations being raised '57% for settleable solids and 8% for turbidity
over the original values for station 4 of 0.03 ml/1 settleable solids
and 14 Jackson Turbidity Units. Station 6 was located far enough down-
stream to allow some precipitation of these solids, resulting in lower
concentrations of turbidity and settleable solids. Hatchery activity,
based upon the 95% confidence interval, did not significantly alter
water quality. Thus, the receiving waters above and below the point
of hatchery discharge were from the same population (Table l).
Suspended Solids
Concentration of suspended solids at the source springs averaged 1.7
mg/1 and were increased 28% through hatchery activities (Figures 9 and
10). Values at station 4 averaged 6.8 mg/1 which were increased at
station 5> t>y the addition of hatchery effluent. At station 6 suspended
solids were even higher than at station 5- Hatchery activity based
-------
upon the 95% confidence interval, did not significantly alter water
quality. Thus, the receiving waters above and below the point of hatch-
ery discharge were from the same population (Table l).
Total Dissolved Solids
Total dissolved solids concentrations (Figures 11 and 12) were increased
5% over the spring source average of 398 mg/1 by hatchery activities.
This water when added to the receiving water at station 4 which had an
average concentration of 3^6 mg/1 raised the values an average of 3%.
Total dissolved solids were regularly higher at station 6 than at sta-
tion 5. Hatchery activity, based upon the 95% confidence interval, did
not significantly alter water quality. Thus the receiving waters above
and below the point of hatchery discharge were from the same population.
(Table l).
Specific Conductance
Specific conductance measured at the springs, stations 1 and 2, averaged
155 u mhos/cm. These readings remain relatively constant through the
hatchery (Figure 13). When this effluent was added to Beaver Creek, the
low conductance at station k (130 u mhos/cm) was increased 30% at station
5. Hatchery activity, based upon the 99% confidence interval significantly
altered water quality. Thus, the receiving waters above and below the
point of hatchery discharge were from different populations (Table l).
Nitrate
Nitrate concentrations are depicted in Figures 15 and 16. The levels
for stations 1, 2, and 3 (l-59 mg/l) were maintained through the hatchery
and were added to the receiving water at this level. These concentrations
increased the levels in the receiving waters about 22% above the 1.6 mg/1
nitrate found at station k. Hatchery activity, based upon the 95% confi-
dence interval, did not significantly alter water quality. Thus, the
receiving waters above and below the point of hatchery discharge were
from the same population (Table l).
Nitrites
Nitrite (Figures 17 and 18) is a product of bacterial degradation on
ammonia and organic substances and was more than doubled between the
source and hatchery outfall. The source waters recorded average levels
of 0.006 mg/1 and the outfall a level of 0.016 mg/1 nitrite. The ni-
trites introduced by the hatchery increased this product 33% in the
receiving water at station 5. Low levels of nitrite at station k were
increased at station 6. Hatchery activity, based upon the 99 % confi-
dence interval significantly altered water quality. Thus, the receiving
waters above and below the point of hatchery discharge were from different
10
-------
populations (Table l). Bacterial degradation of ammonia and organic
nitrogen products continued downstream, and this action has been re-
flected in nitrite levels which were higher in station 6 than in station
5. Nitrites oxidize readily to nitrates, and some correlation would be
expected between these two anions. There were no discernible relation-
ships to indicate that this was the case at this hatchery and its re-
ceiving waters.
Ammonia
Ammonia concentrations (Figures 19 and 20) at stations 1 and 2 averaged
0.21 mg/1. These were raised 3k% in the outfall by the addition of
fish excretory products and breakdown of organic nitrogen compounds.
Some concentrations measured at the Kamas Hatchery were above those
which are known to affect fish metabolism (Brockway, 1950) When these
concentrations at station 3 were combined with those found at station
h- (0.2k mg/l) in the receiving water, the resultant levels were raised
27$> at station 5- Comparison of station k with station 6 revealed that
hatchery activity based upon the 99$ confidence interval significantly
altered water quality. Thus, the receiving waters above and below the
point of hatchery discharge were from different populations (Table l).
M.F.N. Coliform
M.P.N. Coliform bacterial counts (Figures 21 and 22) were increased ten
fold through the hatchery over the average concentration in the source
waters of 1600 bacteria/100 ml. An analysis of food has revealed as
high as 60 M.P.N. coliform per gram and this increase through the hatch-
ery may be related to this source. Beaver Creek counts, station k,
average over 61,000 coliform bacteria per 100 ml of water- This con-
centration was increased about 13$ after the hatchery outfall was
added, station 5- Concentrations at station 6 were higher than those
found at station 4. However, hatchery activity, based upon the 95$
confidence interval, did not significantly alter water quality. Thus,
the receiving waters above and below the point of discharge were from
the same population (Table l).
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical oxygen demand (B.O.D.) concentrations (Figures 23 and 2^)
averaged only 0.03 mg/1 for the source springs. Adding food and waste
products to the hatchery water increased B.O.D. 16 fold. The hatchery
effluent, when combined with an average concentration of 3.3 mg/1 B.O.D.
of Beaver Creek at station k, increased levels at station 5 21$ and con-
tinued to increase downstream. Statistical analysis of the changes
between the upstream receiving water, station k} and the lower receiving
water, station 6, showed that hatchery activity, based upon the 99$ con-
fidence interval, significantly altered water quality. Thus, the receiving
11
-------
waters above and below the point of hatchery discharge were from dif-
ferent populations (Table l).
Dissolved Oxygen
Fish utilization reduced D.O. levels slightly through the hatchery (Fig-
ure 25). The addition of the hatchery effluent to Beaver Creek also
reduced D.O. levels at stations 5 and 6 (Figure 26). However, the con-
centrations encountered were not decreased to levels which would be
critical for fish propagation. Hatchery activity, based upon the
confidence interval, did not significantly alter water quality. Thus,
the receiving waters above and below the point of hatchery discharge
were from the same population (Table l).
Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen Ion Concentration
Carbon dioxide concentrations were lowered throughout the hatchery, ac-
companied by a rise in pH (Figure 27, 28, and 29, 30 respectively) . Ee-
duction of carbon dioxide at the source springs to an average of 3-1 mg/1
carbon dioxide at the outfall resulted from aeration over baffles in
the raceways. The loss of carbon dioxide decreased the hydrogen ion
concentration. The hatchery effluent has a minimal effect on the carbon
dioxide content of the receiving water. Concentration of carbon dioxide
remains essentially constant between stations k and 5> but continued
aeration in Beaver Creek between stations 5 and 6 allowed additional
carbon dioxide to escape into the atmosphere which resulted in a slight
rise of pH at station 6. Changes in carbon dioxide and pH concentrations
due to hatchery activities, and based upon the 95% confidence interval,
did not significantly alter water quality. Thus, the receiving waters
above and below the point of hatchery discharge were from the same pop-
ulation (Table l).
Temperature
Water temperatures (Figures 31 and 32) through the hatchery remained
within a range of 5ฐF. with no yearly fluctuations. However, Beaver
Creek water varied from a low of 32ฐF. in the winter to a high of 63ฐF.
in the summer- During the winter months the relatively warm water aver-
aged 51ฐF. from the hatchery and was mixed with cold Beaver Creek water.
The resultant difference was about 8ฐF. between stations k and 5. At
the confluence of the hatchery effluent and Beaver Creek, there was an
average difference of 20ฐF. The effluent did not affect the temperature
of the receiving water as much during the balance of the year. The
relatively warm hatchery effluent when added to Beaver Creek caused dif-
ferences which were significant at the 95% confidence interval (Table l).
12
-------
Bottom Fauna
Bottom fauna was collected and later analyzed from stations k, 5, an^ 6
on the receiving water of the Kamas Hatchery (See Plate 1 for layout).
The substrate found at station 4 above the hatchery outfall consisted of
fist-sized rocks to football-sized boulders. The shores were lined with
willows about 8 feet high. No aquatic plant islands occurred in this area
Station 5, located 100 feet below the outfall, had a similar rocky sub-
strate; however, several aquatic plant islands have formed where silt
and sludge precipitated around the base of the plants that formed the
islands. Willows line the banks here also.
Station 6, located 1,000 feet below the outfall, had a substrate of small
rocks but was similar to station 4; there were no islands of aquatic
plants. The results of the bottom fauna analysis are contained in Tables
9, 10, and 11 and Figures 193 through 196 (Appendix C).
The vater of Beaver Creek had concentrations of dissolved substances de-
rived from mountains composed of Precambian quartzite. These mountains
dissolve slowly in water, and the surface runoff and spring water from
these sources are about as pure as distilled water. Consequently, the
productivity of these waters is low and supports relatively few organisms.
When dissolved materials like bicarbonate ions and nutrients, are added
by the hatchery, growth of all organisms is enhanced (Figure 193)- Pol-
lution tolerant organisms increased 93%; and clean water forms increased
6k% (Figures 19^ and 196). Throughout this report the term "pollution
tolerant organisms" designates those animals which are classified as
Annelida, Gastropoda, and the Diptera family Chironomidae. These organ-
isms can also be found in clean, unpolluted water but have the ability
to live in heavily polluted environments.
In the case of the Kamas Hatchery there was a large increase of pollution
intolerant organisms accompanied by a larger increase of pollution toler-
ant forms. This indicated that possible degradation of the water has
occurred, but coupled with this increase there was an increase in number
of kinds of organisms (Figure 195)- The influence of the hatchery was
believed to be one of beneficial enrichment.
Between stations 4 and 5j "the kinds of organisms present increased from
18 to 22. The term "kind" refers to a group of organisms identified
as belonging to a particular class, order, family, or genera. These are
listed in the tables of results and retain their identity for the analysis
of organisms collected at all the stations examined in this study. A
reduction in kinds of organisms would be indicative of a deleterious
situation.
An increase of k^% of clean water organisms and a decrease of 9% of
13
-------
the pollution tolerant organisms occurred between stations 5 and 6.
Numbers of kinds increased from 22 to 2k, indicating an improving
situation.
Water Flows
Flows (cfs) were measured monthly throughout the sampling year and were
highly variable. At times the measured volume at the outfall was less
than the cumulative flows entering the hatchery system. Flows, even from
the spring sources, were also highly variable. This discrepancy can be
explained by measurement error in determining the source flows of hatch-
ery water rather than water loss in the hatchery system. Because of
this variability, the median of the range of flow from the springs, out-
fall and the receiving water was compared. The flows found at the out-
fall of the Kamas Hatchery was 1/3 as great as the receiving water.
-------
Conclusions
Of the 16 tests, only carbon dioxide was upgraded. All other tests
show a degradation of the vater or remained unchanged. However,, the
influence on the receiving water chemistry by hatchery effluent' gen-
erally was degrading.
An analysis of variance vas conducted on the changes made by the hatch-
ery waters on the receiving stream. Methyl Orange Alkalinity, total
hardness, nitrite, specific conductance, ammonia,, B.O.D. and temperature
were increased significantly (Table l). The hatchery source waters were
originally different from Beaver Creek and many parameters were not in-
creased by hatchery activities; however, hatchery use increased nitrite,
ammonia and B.O.D. levels. When effluent was added to Beaver Creek there
was a significant increase of these parameters in the receiving water.
This enrichment increased food organisms for the fishery present.
Since the receiving water above the outfall was very low in nutrients
necessary to support aquatic organisms, the effect of the Kamas Hatchery
effluent on Beaver Creek was of beneficial.enrichment improving the
natural fish food habitat. The addition of bicarbonates from the springs
supplying the hatchery and the nitrogenous compounds and other nutrients
from the hatchery enhanced the growth of organisms in the stations below
the outfall. The hatchery effluent increased the growth of individuals
and kinds of bottom fauna in Beaver Creek. This increase is indicative
of an enrichment situation, and not necessarily the degradation of the
resource which actually depends on the increased food supply for survival
Figure 197 shows the relationship of the food fed and the fish present
for the year sampled. A comparison of this graph with the chemistry
graphs shows no correlation between the amount of food fed and the fish
present with the degradation of the water- There seems to be an inverse
relationship that is believed to be caused by spring runoff and not any
fact connected with fish cultural activities.
-------
MIDWAY HATCHERY
Midway Hatchery (Plate 2) required seven stations for sampling. Sta-
tions 1 and 2 were the main sources for the hatchery water. Because
of a high water table, large quantities of ground water seeped into the
runs and ponds. For this reason the springs constituted only a part
of the water supply. Stations 3 and 7 are located at the outfalls that
flowed directly into the receiving water, Snake Creek.
Stations k, 5> and 6 were located on Snake Creek. Station k was above
the outfalls, and station 5 was 100 feet below. Station 6 was situated
1,000 feet below the outfall at the -lower end of a pasture just above a
railroad bridge.
Physical-chemical data is shown in Appendix A in Figures 33 through 6k.
Statistical analysis of variance is recorded in Table 3, Appendix B
and bottom fauna findings are listed in Tables 12, 13, and 14 and Fig-
ures 198 through 202, Appendix C.
16
-------
Feed Storage and ,->r
Maintenance
Buildings
Snake Creek
TT
Plate 2. Midway Hatchery and Snake Creek showing sampling stations
17
-------
Discussion - Physical-Chemical and Bottom Fauna Results
Methyl Orange Alkalinity
M.O. Alkalinity (Figures 33 and 3)4.) was reduced through Midway Hatchery.
Station 1 was the primary source for hatchery outfall station 1, and
the west spring station 2 formed the source for station 3 outfall. There
was some crossflow in the hatchery runs plus considerable inflow of
ground water- Station 2 spring had an average concentration of M.O.
alkalinity of 3^5 mg/1. The concentrations at the other spring, station
1, and the outfalls station 3 and 7 were slightly lower. Mixing of the
two outfalls with the receiving water} station k (282 mg/l), caused a
very slight rise at stations 5 and 6. Hatchery activity, based upon the
95$ confidence interval, did not significantly alter water quality. Thus,
the receiving waters above and below the point of discharge were from the
same population (Table l). The receiving water showed a periodic reduc-
tion of M.O. alkalinity during the spring runoff.
Total Hardness;
Hardness values (Figures 35 and 36) showed a slight reduction from 532
mg/1 between stations 1 and J, but no similar change was evident between
stations 2 and 3. Hardness of lj-59 mg/1 in the receiving water was not
altered and hatchery activity based upon the 95$ confidence interval,
did not significantly alter water quality. Thus, the receiving waters
above and below the point of discharge were from the same population
(Table l). Dilution during spring runoff resulted in some periodic
lower concentrations.
Turbidity, Settleable, and Suspended Solids
Turbidity throughout Midway Hatchery (Figure 37) was composed entirely
of suspended solids (Figure 39) since there were no settleable solids
(Figure hi] in the hatchery waters sampled. Station k- on Snake Creek,
above the outfall,, had the highest average values for turbidity (13.5
Jackson Turbidity Units), suspended solids (8.3 mg/l), and settleable
solids (0.1 ml/1), Figures 38, kO, and ^2 respectively. Turbidity at
station k was reduced to 1/3 that of station 5 after the addition of
hatchery effluent. Turbidity increased 2 JTU between stations 5 and 6.
A large reduction of turbidity at station 5 was probably the result of
incomplete mixing. There was a significant decrease of turbidity based
upon the 95$ confidence interval between stations k and 6 (Table l)
which altered, water quality.
Settleable materials were reduced as the receiving water passed from
station ii through station 6 resulting from slower velocities and an
aquatic weed-choked streambed. Yearly runoff fluctuations were present
but barely discernible. Changes in settleable solid concentrations due
18
-------
to hatchery activities, based upon the 95% confidence interval, signifi-
cantly altered water quality while suspended solids were not significant
at the same interval (Table l).
Total Dissolved Solids
Examinations for total dissolved solids (Figure 43) of the source waters
showed that the west spring, station 2, averaged higher TDS (694 mg/l)
than the east spring, station 1 (6?8 mg/l). At low flows TDS values
decreased, but with the increased flows of spring runoff the levels
increased. The outfall from the hatchery averaged 686 rag/1 TDS. When
this water was added to the receiving water at station 4 (Figure 44)
which had an average concentration of 683 mg/l, the values were decreased
3% at station 5. Again with mixing, the concentrations were higher at
station 6 than at station 5. Hatchery activity, based upon the 95% con-
fidence interval, did not significantly alter water quality. Thus, the
receiving waters above and below the point of discharge were from the
same population (Table l).
Specific Conductance
Specific conductance measures concentrations of ionizable material in
water. The average values of the springs, stations 1 and 2, were 1040
and 1230 u mhos/cm, respectively (Figure 45). These readings remained
constant through the hatchery for the east system, stations 1 and 7,
and was reduced through the west system stations 2 and 3 over 100 u
mhos/cm. When this effluent was added to Snake Creek, the conductance
at station 4 (921 u mhos/cm) increased 6% (Figure 46) at station 5-
A slight reduction occurred at station 6; however, the change between
stations 4 and 6 due to hatchery activities, based on the 95% confidence
interval, did not significantly alter water quality. Thus, the re-
ceiving waters above and below the point of hatchery discharge were from
the same population (Table l). No annual fluctuations were observed
in the hatchery waters; but station 4 on Snake Creek was influenced
strongly by spring runoff water. Concentrations at stations 5 and 6
remained stable, possibly because of the large quantities of highly
conductive water introduced from the hatchery.
Nitrate
Nitrate concentrations are depicted in Figures 47 and ij-8. Levels for
the source water averaged higher (3-71 mg/l) in nitrates than the ef-
fluent, stations 3 and 7 (3-32 mg/l). These concentrations increased
the levels in the receiving waters about 18% above the 2.3 mg/l nitrate
found at station 4. Concentrations of nitrate decreased between stations
5 and 6. Hatchery activity, based upon the 95% confidence interval, did
not significantly alter water quality. Thus, the receiving waters above
and below the point of hatchery discharge were from the same population
(Table l).
19
-------
Nitrite
Nitrite (Figures k$ and 50) is a product of bacterial degradation and
was increased over 6 fold between the source and hatchery, outfall. The
source waters recorded average levels of 0.006 mg/1 and the outfall
averaged 0.037 mg/1 nitrite. The effect' of the concentrations of nitrites
introduced by the hatchery effluent resulted in a 36/0 increase in the re-
ceiving water between stations 4 and 5. Further increases between stations
5 and 6 suggest that additional degradation of ammonia and organic com-
pounds was occurring. Hatchery activity, based upon the 95$ confidence
interval, significantly altered water quality. Thus, the receiving waters
above and below the point of hatchery discharge were from different popu-
lations (Table l).
I
Ammonia
Ammonia concentrations (Figure 51) at stations 1 and 2 averaged 0.36 mg/1.
These levels are increased 2 fold by the addition of fish excretory pro-
ducts and breakdown of organic nitrogencompounds. Levels at the, outfall
often exceeded values considered by Brockway (1950) to be detrimental to-
fish. "When effluent, stations 3 and J, ^ere combined with those in Snake
Creek, station k, (O.Qk mg/l), the resultant levels were raised 2% at
station 5 (Figure 52). Between station 5 and station 6 the average ammonia
concentrations increased 5$. Hatchery activity, based upon the 95$ con-
fidence interval, did not significantly alter water quality. Thus, the
receiving waters above and below the point of hatchery discharge were from
the same population (Table l).
MPN Coliform
Coliform bacteria counts (Figure 53) were increased 16 fold through the
hatchery over the average concentration in the source waters of 5,720
bacteria/100 ml. Snake Creek counts at station k (Figure 5^) averaged
5^,000 coliform bacteria/100 ml of water. This concentration was in-
creased 31$ after the hatchery outfalls, were added above station 5.
Cattle pastured in the field below station 5 could be responsible for
the 62$ increase between stations 5 and 6. Hatchery activity, based upon
the 95$ confidence interval, did not significantly alter water quality.
Thus, the receiving waters above and below the point of hatchery discharge
were from the same population (Table l).
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical oxygen demand (B.O.D.) concentrations (Figure 55) averaged
0.58 mg/1 and 2.Ik mg/1 for stations 1 and 2, respectively. Adding food
and fish waste products to the hatchery water supply increased B.O.D. 5
fold. The hatchery effluent, when combined with Snake Creek at station k
(Figure 56) which had an average concentration of 5.46 mg/1 B.O.D.
increased levels 2.5$ at station 5- B.O.D. concentrations continued to
20
-------
increase downstream to station 6; however, hatchery activity, based up'on
the 95/0 confidence interval, did not alter water quality. Thus, the re-
ceiving waters above and below the point of hatchery discharge were' from
the same population (Table l). The high B.O.D. levels in Snake Creek
can possibly be attributed- to organic wastes from summer homes and exten-
sive livestock grazing throughout the valley.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen (D.O^ concentrations (Figure 57) were increased 25% in
the hatchery system by aerating baffles. 'Initial aeration was provided
at the springs by converted diesel engine blowers. The addition of the
hatchery effluent to Snake Creek reduced D.O. levels at station 5
(Figure 58). D.O. concentrations were not decreased to a level which
would be critical for fish propagation. D.O. concentrations between sta-
tions 5 and 6 were enhanced by photosynthetic action of aquatic plants,
and hatchery activity, based upon the 95$ confidence interval, did not
significantly alter water quality. Thus, the receiving waters above and
below the point of hatchery discharge were from the same population
(Table l).
Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen Ion Concentrations
Carbon dioxide concentrations (Figures 59 and 60) were lowered through
the hatchery, - accompanied by a rise in pH (Figures 6l and 62). High
average carbon dioxide levels of 29 mg/1 and 56 mg/1 were found at sta-
tions 1 and 2 respectively. As carbon dioxide was liberated to the
atmosphere by aeration, the pH became increasingly alkaline. The
hatchery effluent when combined with Snake Creek increased carbon dioxide
39% which in turn depressed pH 6% between stations k- and 5- Concentra-
tions of carbon dioxide and pH levels remained constant between stations
5 and 6 . Hatchery activity, based upon the 95% confidence interval for
carbon dioxide and the 99% confidence interval for pH, significantly
altered water quality. Thus, the receiving waters above and below the
point of hatchery discharge were from different populations (Table l).
Temperature
Water temperatures (Figures 63 and 64) at the spring stations 1 and 2
varied only 6ฐF. throughout the year. Extremes occurred during the summer
and winter at stations 3 and 7- The influence of hatchery effluent on
Snake Creek water temperature was minimal because the water temperature
in the hatchery system adjusted to that of the receiving water while
transversing a series of long dirt ponds.
Bottom Fauna
Bottom fauna was collected and later analyzed from stations k, 5> and 6
on Snake Creek, the receiving water, of the Midway Hatchery (see Plate 2
for layout.) The substrate found at station 4 above the hatchery outfall
21
-------
consisted of small gravel to baseball-sized rock. This material was com-
posed of limestone which underlies the valley from outcroppings to about
15 feet below the ground surface. Willows border the stream providing
shade and cover.
Station 5 was located 100 feet below the outfall at the upper end of a
pasture. The stream bottom was composed of walnut-sized gravel with
islands of aquatic plant communities. In the warmer months, watercress
and associated vegetation almost choke the entire stream, and it is in
these areas that silt and sludge precipitate around the base of the plant
islands. Wo willows were found in the pasture area.
Station 6 was located 1,000 feet below the outfall at the lower end of
the pasture. This area had a substrate of gravel, sand, and small rocks,
plus the aquatic plant islands where a few sludge bars and silt collect.
Results of the bottom fauna analysis are recorded in Tables 12, 13, and
Ik and Figures 198 through 202, Appendix C.
Analysis of bottom fauna (Figures 198-199) from stations k and 5 reveals
an increase of 36^ of the pollution intolerant organisms and an increase
of 83^ of pollution tolerant kinds (Figure 201). These changes, coupled
with a reduction in kinds of organisms (Figure 200), suggested a degrad-
ing water situation. Increased pollution tolerant and decreased pollution
intolerant populations indicated a continuing degradation between stations
5 and 6. The increase of 0.3 kinds of organisms was not significant in
this area to offset the rise of pollution tolerant forms and the reduction
in populations of clean water organisms.
The quality of Snake Creek as an aquatic environment was reduced by the
impact of the effluent from the Midway Hatchery.
Water Flows
Snake Creek flows are 2.5 times greater than the combined Midway Hatchery
outfalls. A dilution of this magnitude would be comparable to that found
at Kamas Hatchery. The amount of degradation, however, was not similar
at the two hatcheries. The quality of the receiving water at Midway is
much lower than at Kamas, allowing a continuance of the degradation
process downstream from stations 5 and 6.
22
-------
Conclusions (
Analysis of the waters of Midway Hatchery revealed that the average
M.P.N. coliform counts and B.O.D. through the hatchery were increased.
Snake Creek, the receiving water, had high levels of B.O.D. before the
hatchery effluent was added. M.P.N. coliform counts were also high be-
fore the hatchery effluent entered the receiving water. After the ef-
fluent entered Snake Creek the concentrations were increased even further.
Concentrations of ammonia found in the Midway Hatchery outfalls and re-
ceiving waters were above values that Brockway (1950) reports reduces
concentrations of oxygen in fish blood. In an aquatic habitat pH dir-
ectly affects the toxicity of ammonia. The high carbon dioxide concen-
tration in Midway Hatchery waters and the resultant acidic water ap-
parently reduced the toxicity of ammonia (Tabata, 1962).
The highly buffered water of the Midway Hatchery reduced pH fluctua-
tions. When ammonia was introduced into the hatchery waters this buf-
fering effect allowed high concentrations to persist without producing
visible detrimental effects on fish and aquatic organisms.
Suspended solids, turbidity, nitrite, ammonia, B.O.D., and M.P.N. coli-
form bacteria increased through the hatchery indicating an enrichment
of the water. The slight reduction or constant levels of M.O. alkal-
inity, hardness, settleable solids, specific conductance, TDS, nitrates,
D.O., pH and carbon dioxide suggest a stable or increase of water quality.
Analysis of nitrites, nitrates, M.P.N. coliform count, D.O., carbon dioxide
and pH show degradation of the receiving water- The results of the other
tests on the receiving water indicated a slight increase or stable water
quality in Snake Creek. Statistical analysis confirmed the significant
increase of nitrite, settleable solids, specific conductance and tur-
bidity in the receiving waters. When these results were weighed and
their relative importance and contribution to water quality was consider-
ed, the consequences of fish culture on Midway waters resulted in water
quality deterioration.
Bottom fauna analysis confirmed the lowering of water quality in Snake
Creek. This poorer quality water enabled pollution tolerant organisms
to reproduce at a greater rate than those which are intolerant of or-
ganic pollution. A decrease in the kinds of organisms also suggests
degradation of the receiving water-
Figure 202 shows the relationship of food fed and fish present at the
Midway Hatchery. Comparison of this data with chemical analysis re-
vealed little or no correlation between the amount of fish food utilized
and/or the pounds of fish in the hatchery system and the water quality of
the hatchery effluent.
23
-------
Even with the degradation of the water quality below the hatchery many
nutrients promoted vegetation and bottom fauna growth which is bene-
ficial to the fishery below the hatchery. However,, from a public health
standpoint the increased M.P.IT, coliform and B.O.D. would be detrimental.
-------
LOA HATCHERY
Four stations were chosen to sample Loa Hatchery (Plate 3). The source
was the total flow from several springs located along the mountainside.
Water was collected in a gravel-filled ditch and fed to a headbox, sta-
tion 1. Station 2 was the outfall from the hatchery. Stations 3 and 4
were located 100 and 1,000 feet below the outfall., respectively. The
situation at this hatchery is unique. The source of Spring Creek, the
receiving water, is the hatchery outfall.
Physic'al-chemical data is contained in Figures 65 through 80, Appendix A,
Statistical analysis is recorded in Table k, Appendix B, Bottom fauna
results are found in Appendix C, Tables 15, 16, and 17 and Figures 203
through 207.
-------
;Springs
Station 1
Concrete ponds
^Collection system
Hatchery house
Feed house - -\
Concrete ponds-
Spring Creek
Plate 3. Loa Hatchery and Spring Creek showing sampling stations.
26
-------
Discussion - Physical-Chemical and Bottom Fauna Results
Methyl Orange Alkalinity
M. 0. alkalinity concentrations (Figure 65) showed a minimal rise averaging
106 mg/1 at station 1 to 110 mg/l at station 4. Spring runoff fluctua-
tions were not apparent in this hatchery system. Hatchery activity, based
upon the 95$ confidence interval, did not significantly alter water quality.
Thus, the receiving waters above and below the point of hatchery discharge
were from the same population (Table l).
Total. Hardness
Hardness (Figure 66) did not change appreciably from station 1 (104 mg/l)
through station 4 (ill mg/l). The hardness concentrations were not af-
fected by annual runoff and hatchery activity, based upon the 95$ confi-
dence interval, did not significantly alter water quality. Thus, the
receiving waters above and below the point of hatchery discharge were
from the same population.
Turbidity, Settleable and Suspended Solids
Turbidity, settleable solids and suspended solids (Figures 67, 68 and
69 respectively) were increased through the hatchery. Settleable solid
levels averaging less than 0.1 ml/1 were recorded for all stations. Sus-
pended solids at station 1 (0.09 mg/l) increased to a high of 5-8 mg/l
at station 4. At the same time, turbidity increased from 1.0 Jackson
Turbidity Unit at station 1 to 3.4 JTU at station 4. Suspended solids
and turbidity reached their highest values at station 4, believed to be
the result of direct access of cattle to the stream in the pasture below
the hatchery. The changes in turbidity were not significant at the 95$
confidence interval while hatchery activities, based on the 95$ confi-
dence interval for settleable solids and the 99$ confidence interval for
suspended solids, significantly altered water quality (Table l).
Total Dissolved Solids
Total dissolved solids (Figure 70) did not change significantly from
station 1 (190-mg/l) to station 4 (200 mg/l) because of hatchery activ-
ities. Through the months of January to October, the values were lower
than during November and December. There was no apparent reduction
during spring runoff. Hatchery activity, based upon the 95$ confidence
interval, did not significantly alter water quality. Thus, the receiving
waters above and below the point of hatchery discharge were from the same
population (Table l).
Specific Conductance
Specific conductance (Figure 71) at station 1 remained constant through-
out the year averaging 261 u mhos/cm. The increase of ionizable material
27
-------
added by hatchery activities, based upon the 95$ confidence interval,
did not significantly alter water quality. Thus, the receiving waters
above and below the point of discharge were from the same population
(Table l).
Nitrates, Nitrites, and Ammonia
Nitrate concentrations (Figure 72) were the same at stations 1, 2., and
3 (averaging 1.67 mg/l). At station 4, possibly because of cattle excre-
ment, the nitrate concentration was approximately 1 mg/l higher. Nitrites
(Figure 73) increased 3 fold through the hatchery but remained at the
same concentration at stations 2 and 3. At Station k nitrite concentra-
tions were increased U0$, believed to be caused by livestock use.
Ammonia (figure 7^) averaged 0.27 mg/l at station 1 and O.kk mg/l at
station 2. Ammonia concentration decreased at station 3 (0.38 mg/l).
The increase of ammonia at station k (0.8l mg/l) was again attributed to
livestock use. Changes in nitrate concentrations were not significant
at the 95$ confidence interval while hatchery activity, based upon the
99$ confidence interval for ammonia and nitrite, significantly altered
water quality. Thus, the receiving waters above and below the point of
hatchery discharge were from the same population on nitrate analysis and
from different populations on ammonia and nitrite analysis (Table l).
MPN Coliform
MPN coliform counts were increased over 9 fold through the hatchery, com-
parison of stations 1 and 2 (Figure 75)- Concentrations at stations 2
and 3 averaged 2^,150 bacteria/100 ml, MPN coliform at station k aver-
aged 69,90ฐ bacteria/100 ml. This increase could have resulted from the
deposition of cattle excrement in and along the stream. Changes in bac-
teria numbers between stations 1 and k- due to hatchery activity, based
upon the 99$ confidence interval significantly altered water quality.
Thus, the receiving waters above and below the hatchery discharge were
from different populations (Table l).
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical oxygen demand (Figure 76) of water in the hatchery system in-
creased an average of 20 times as it passed through the hatchery. Con-
tinued breakdown of food pellets and other organic compounds further
increased B.O.D. at station 3 below the outfall to an average of k.6 mg/l.
This increase continued downstream and at station k- averaged 5.5 mg/l.
Hatchery activity, based upon the 99$ confidence interval, significantly
altered water quality. Thus, the receiving waters above and below the
point of hatchery discharge were from different populations (Table l).
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen (Figure 77) concentrations were reduced by fish usage in
the Loa Hatchery. The lower concentrations at station 2 (6.2 mg/l) were
28
-------
increased at station 4 to 6.8 mg/1 by riffles, waterfalls and plant action
in the stream below the hatchery. Hatchery activity, based upon the 99%
confidence interval, significantly altered water quality. Thus, the re-
ceiving waters above and below the point of hatchery discharge were from
different populations.
Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen Ion Concentration
Carbon dioxide (Figure 78) is raised kOO% above an average of O.l4 mg/1
at station 1 by hatchery activity. This increase lowered hydrogen ion
concentrations (Figure 79) at station 2 an average of about 0.2 of a pH
unit. Loss of carbon dioxide at station 3 resulted from agitation over
riffles between stations 2 and 3. Station k carbon dioxide concentra-
tions averaged 0.5 rag/1, but pH values did not decrease. Hatchery acti-
vity, based upon the 99% confidence interval, significantly altered
water quality. Thus, the receiving waters above and below the point of
hatchery discharge were from different populations (Table l).
Temperature
The effect of the hatchery on temperatures is negligible (Figure 80).
The spring remained a nearly constant 60 degrees F. throughout the year
and the lower stations fluctuated with the seasons. Temperature in
these areas ranged from a minimum of 56 degrees F., to a maximum of 6k
degrees F. Hatchery activity, based upon the 95% confidence interval,
did not significantly alter water quality. Thus, the receiving waters
above and below the hatchery discharge were from the same population
(Table l).
Bottom Fauna
Bottom fauna organisms were gathered with the Surber-square foot sampler
at stations 1, 2, and k (see Plate 3 for layout). The invertebrates at
station 1 lived in a substrate of walnut-sized gravel, interspersed with
watercress and other small aquatic plants. Springs flowed from the ground
in many small rivulets which were collected into a head box, station 1.
Representative samples were selected from these small streams above the
collection canal.
In station 2, below the hatchery, there were softball-sized rocks mingled
with smaller gravel and sand. Watercress grew abundantly through the
summer months along the shore. The lower sampling area, station 4, was
characterized with a sand and gravel bottom with a moderate number of
larger rocks stabilizing the substrate. Little vegetation occurs on the
banks in this area except grasses and sedges; and these are cropped close
by grazing cattle.
The concentrations and variety of invertebrates (Figures 203 and 20k]
which occurred at these sampling sites was indicative of the enrichment
added by the hatchery. This enrichment resulted in a 6.8% (Figure 206)
29
-------
increase in number of pollution intolerant organisms and a 6Q% increase
in pollution tolerant invertebrates. In some of the slower reaches,
solids were precipitated and small silt and sludge beds were found. -
These areas were also sampled along with the more open sectors providing
a better representative sample of all organisms present in the stream.
The creek running below station 2 to station 4 permitted some recovery
with a resultant 6kฐ/o increase of clean water organisms and a kO% decrease
of pollution tolerant invertebrates. This large increase of clean water
organisms (Figure 20^-) occurred at station 4 notwithstanding the presence
of additional nutrients contributed to the stream by cattle pastured in
this area.
The change in kinds of organisms (Figure 205) throughout the study area
was found to be minimal, indicating that the eutrophication of the stream
by the Loa Hatchery, though present, did not alter the composition of
aquatic invertebrates to any great extent.
Flows
The spring flow at the Loa Hatchery forms the major portion of Spring
Creek below the hatchery. The median flow was 18 CFS which carried the
total chemical and biological loadings from the hatchery. Water flows
from this source did not vary as widely as in sources from other' hatch-
eries.
30
-------
Conclusions
Chemical analysis of the Loa Hatchery water revealed that B.O.D., M.P.N.
celiform bacteria, suspended solids, ammonia and carbon dioxide were in-
creased by hatchery activities.
M.0. alkalinity, total hardness, specific conductance, total dissolved
solids, nitrates, and temperatures did not change significantly because
of"hatchery activities.
Analysis of variance were conducted on the changes made by the hatchery
on the stream. Nitrite, settleable solids, ammonia, B.O.D., MPN coliform,
suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, pH and carbon dioxide were changed
significantly. These changes confirmed an enrichment of,the water where
many more organisms were present to utilize the available nutrients.
Bottom fauna analysis showed that the influence of the Loa Hatchery is
one of enrichment. The high quality water which the hatchery used per-
mitted greater concentrations of detrimental chemicals to be placed into
the water before any degradation was observed. Increased growth and
greater numbers of bottom fauna organisms indicated a beneficial result
from the,hatchery activities.
Consideration of the above factors reveal that the hatchery degraded the
quality of the water- Comparison of the three lower stations shows a
continuing degradation of water quality in Spring Creek. The hatchery
influence was shown in the difference in water quality at stations 1 and
2. Further degradation of the stream is a result of some other factor,
such as livestock use in the stream below the hatchery-
As in Kamas and Midway hatcheries, the expected increased pollutional
loadings do not correspond with the increased use of food for a larger
number of fish in the hatchery (Figure 207).
-------
WHITE TROUT FARM
Water courses sampled at White's Trout Farm consisted of four inflows
(stations 1 through k} and two outfalls at stations 6 and 7. A third
outfall used for irrigation purposes did not enter Little Bear River and
was not sampled. See Plate k for layout. Station 1, source water from
Little Bear River,, was used in the ponds and-runs. The springs at sta-
tions 2, 3, and 4- were used for growing fry and fingerling. For facility
in analysis, the data for these three springs was combined into one sta-
tion., designated as station 2. Chemical characteristics of these springs
did not vary sufficiently to warrant separation. The two outfalls, sta-
tions 6 and 7> were located at the lower end of the hatchery complex and
entered the Little Bear River about 100 feet apart.
The impact that hatchery effluent had on the Little Bear River was assessed
by comparing station 5, found above the outfalls, with stations 8 and 9
which lie downstream from the outfall 100 feet and 1,000 feet, respectively
Physical and chemical data can be found in Appendix A, Figures 8l through
112 and statistical analysis is recorded in Table 5, Appendix B. Bottom
fauna analysis is tabulated in Appendix C, Tables 18, 19 and 20 and
Figures 208 through 212.
32
-------
Springs
Station 2 ---
-Station 5
Plate H. White's Trout Farm and Little Bear River showing sampling stations.
33
-------
Discussion - Physical-Chemical and Bottom Fauna Results
Methyl Orange Alkalinity
Figures 8l and 82 for M.O. alkalinity show concentrations at the various
stations. Concentrations at station 2, the springs, averaged 36 mg/1
higher than Little Bear River water- The levels of M.O. alkalinity at
station 2 remained constant throughout the year, while Little Bear
River water (station l) varied between 100 mg/1 and 260 mg/1. The out-
falls,, stations 6 and 7; reflected the lower values of station 1 rather
than the spring water -
There was no great difference in concentrations of M.O. alkalinity be-
tween the clean water station (5) and the lower receiving water stations
(8 and 9)* A reduction of values during the spring runoff in April and
May was evident. The decrease on the second sample in January reflected
dilution brought about by a severe rainstorm. Hatchery activity, based
upon the 95% confidence interval, did not significantly alter water quality.
Thus, the receiving waters above and below the point of hatchery discharge
were from the same population (Table l).
Total Hardness
Total hardness followed the same pattern as the M.O. alkalinity and aver-
aged highest at station 2 (277 mg/l), Figure 83. Hardness was reduced
by high runoff periods during January and again in April and May. The
outfalls, stations 6 and 7> reflected concentrations found at station 1,
averaging 235 mg/1 hardness.
The receiving water (Figure 84) above the outfall at station 5, had an
average increase of 12 mg/1 above station 1 which was the source of this
water. The lower receiving water stations were reduced an average total
hardness about 1%. Hatchery activity, based upon the 95/0 confidence in-
terval, did not significantly alter water quality. Thus, the receiving
waters above and below the point of hatchery discharge were from the same
population (Table l).
Turbidity
Turbidity (Figures 85 and 86) increased slightly through the hatchery.
Very little turbidity is contributed by the springs (station 2). The
highest concentrations (24.8 JTU) enter the hatchery at station 1, a
diversion of Little Bear River. Outfalls at 'stations 6 and 7 averaged
only 1.2 JTU below this influent water. The addition of hatchery efflu-
ent increased receiving water concentrations from 26.5 JTU at station 5,
to 28.6 JTU at station 8. Turbidity at station 9 increased after complete
mixing had occurred. Hatchery activity, based upon the 95/0 confidence
interval, did not significantly alter water quality. Thus, the receiving
waters above and below the point of hatchery discharge were from the same
population (Table l). A severe rainstorm and flood in January and the
34
-------
spring runoff in April and May caused turbidity to increase throughout
the system.
Settleable Solids
Hatchery operations increased settleable solids (Figures 87 and 88) about
3 fold. The springs, station 2, contributed minute quantities of settle-
ables while the incoming Little Bear River water contributed an average
of 0.1 ml/1. Outfall stations 6 and 7 averaged 0.29 ml/1. Higher con-
centrations were noted during June at station 6 and in September at
station 7- Although large amounts of settleable solids were released
at station 6, they settled before there was an observable influence on
station 8. Wien station 7 carried high concentrations of settleable
solids, a direct effect was caused on station 8. Station 9 averaged
0.32 ml/1 settleable solids throughout the year- Hatchery activity}
based upon the 95$ confidence interval between stations 5 and 9, did not
significantly alter water quality. Thus, the receiving waters above and
below the point of hatchery discharge were from the same population (Table
1).
Suspended Solids
Concentrations of suspended solids at the springs and influent from the
Little Bear River averaged 2.1 mg/1 and 27.7 mg/1, respectively. They
were increased 20% through hatchery activities (Figures 89 and 90). Values
at station 5 averaged 26.9 mg/1 and were increased at station 8 to 48.4
mg/1 by the addition of hatchery effluent. At station 9 suspended solids
were increased to concentrations higher than at station 5 Hatchery acti-
vity, based upon the 95% confidence interval did not significantly alter
water quality. Thus, the receiving waters above and below the point of
hatchery discharge were from the same population (Table l).
Total Dissolved Solids
Hatchery activities increased total dissolved solid (Figures 91 and 92)
concentrations lk% over the influent source at station 1 which averaged
285 mg/1. The effluent when added to station 5 (317 mg/l) raised the
values in the receiving water 9%. After thorough mixing at station 9
the concentrations were not increased above those levels found at station
5. Hatchery activity, based upon the 95% confidence interval, did not
significantly alter water quality. Thus, the receiving waters above and
below the point of hatchery discharge were from the same population
(Table l).
Specific Conductance
Specific conductance is an index of concentrations of ionizable material
in water. The average values of specific conductance of the influent
waters (Figure 93) a"t stations 1 and 2, were 505 u mhos/cm. These read-
ings are reduced approximately 12% through hatchery activities. When
35
-------
this effluent was added to the Little Bear River, the average specific
conductance of station 5 (527 u mhos/cm) was decreased Q
-------
MPN Coliform
MPN coliform bacteria counts (Figure 101) were increased 44 times through
the hatchery over the average concentration in the source waters of 3,000
bacteria/100 ml. Little Bear River counts at station 5 (Figure 102) aver-
aged over 65,000 coliform bacteria per 100 ml of water. This concentra-
tion was increased over three-fold after the hatchery outfall was added,
station 8. Concentrations at station 9 were 4.8 times higher than those
found at station 5- Hatchery activity, based upon the 99% confidence in-
terval, significantly altered water quality. Thus, the receiving waters
above and below the point of hatchery discharge were from different popu-
lations (Table l).
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical oxygen demand (B.O.D.) concentrations (Figure 103) averaged
1.0 mg/1 for the source waters. Adding food and waste products to the
hatchery water increased B.O.D. 6.5 times. The hatchery effluent, when
combined with station 5 (Figure 109), which had an average concentration
of 3.7 mg/1 B.O.D., increased B.O.D. levels at station 8 over 200%.
B.O.D. concentrations continued to increase downstream an additional 8%,
between stations 8 and 9- Stations 1 and 5 a^e from the Little Bear
River source, but station 5 B.O.D. levels are over 3 times higher, pos-
sibly because of livestock use between these stations. Increases of B.O.D.
as a result of hatchery activity based upon the 99% confidence interval,
altered water quality. Thus, the receiving waters above and below the
point of hatchery discharge were from different populations (Table l).
Dissolved Oxygen
Fish utilization reduced dissolved oxygen (D.O.) levels slightly through
the hatchery (Figure 105). The addition of the hatchery effluent to
Little Bear River also reduced D.O. levels at stations 8 and 9 (Figure
106). However,, the concentrations encountered were not decreased to levels
which would be critical for fish propagation. The reduction between sta-
tions 5 an^ 9 due tฐ hatchery activity, based upon the 99% confidence in-
terval, significantly altered water quality. Thus, the receiving waters
above and below the point of hatchery discharge were from different popu-
lations (Table l).
Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen Ion Concentrations
Carbon dioxide values (Figure 107) were found to be highest in the spring
sources. Hydrogen ion concentrations (Figure 109) were consequently
lower. Incoming water from Little Bear River had lower carbon dioxide
and higher pH averaging differences of 0.6 mg/1 and 0.7 pH unit, respec-
tively, than the springs, station 2. Carbon dioxide concentrations were
lowered through the hatchery, accompanied by no apparent change in pH.
An.average reduction of 0-5 mg/1 of carbon dioxide through the hatchery
37
-------
could "be attributed to aeration and photosynthetic action in the dirt
ponds. The hatchery effluent increased the average carbon dioxide con-
centrations between stations 5 and 8 (Figure 108) with an average de-
crease of pH of 0.6 of a unit. Aeration in Little Bear River between
stations 8 and 9 permitted additional carbon dioxide to escape into the
atmosphere resulting in a rise of pH at station 9- The decrease of car-
bon dioxide from station 5 to station 9 due "to hatchery activities,, based
on the 99/o confidence interval, significantly altered water quality while
at the same time pH changes did not significantly t,lter water quality at'
the 95/o confidence interval (Table l).
Temperature
Water temperatures (Figure 111) at the hatchery springs varied only 3.5
degrees F. throughout the year- Little Bear River water, stations'! and
5, the outfalls station 6 and 7, and the lower receiving water, stations
8 and 9, varied from a low of 33-5 degrees F., in the winter to a high of
66.0 degrees F. in the summer.
Bottom Fauna
Bottom fauna was collected and later analyzed from stations 5> 8 an(3- 9
on the receiving water of White's Trout Farm (see Plate k for layout).
Station 5 was designated as the clean water area. It included inter-
spersed rubble and football-sized boulders. These rocks were normally
covered uniformally with short filamentous algae growth throughout most
of the year. The banks were lined with high willows shading part of the
stream.
The same substrate was found 100 feet below the outfalls at station 8,
but the filamentous algae had been partially replaced with sewage fungus
(Sphaerotilus natans). This growth flourishes in water enriched with
organic material. The hatchery effluent from station 7 had not mixed
completely with Little Bear River so only a portion of the stream was
covered with the growth of sewage fungus.
Station 9 was located 1,000 feet downstream and was composed of stable
rubble, gravel and sand. Filamentous algae predominated with a few
patches of sewage fungus adhering to the rocks during low flow periods
in late summer. High willows and Box Elder trees lined the banks in
this section of the river. Results of the bottom fauna analysis are
contained in Tables 18, 19 and 20 and Figures 208 through 212 (Appendix C)
Relative numbers of pollution and clean water organisms collected at sta-
tions 5, 8 and 9 are summarized in Figures 208. Throughout all the sec-
tions, the numbers of pollution tolerant organisms exceeded those of the
clean water forms (Figure 209).
At station 5 pollution tolerant organisms (Figures 208 and 209) were
about three times as abundant as the clean water forms, but after the
hatchery effluent was added at station 8 the abundance of pollution
38
-------
tolerant organisms exceeded clean water forms by a ratio of 25 to 1. The
large increase of pollution tolerant organisms and the subsequent loss
of seven kinds of organisms (Figure 210) was indicative of a biologically
degraded water environment immediately below the outfalls.
At station 9 the river began to recover. Numbers of pollution tolerant
organisms were reduced 10 percent (Figure 211) below those at station 8,
and clean water organisms recovered 58 percent, but the numbers of kinds
of organisms had not returned in abundance to those concentrations found
above the hatchery outfalls at station 5-
Water Flows
Flows (cfs) were measured monthly throughout the sampling year and were
highly, variable. Because of the variability, some of which was contri-
buted by measurement error, the median of the range of flow from the
outfalls and receiving water was compared. The outfalls contributed 1/2
at the minimum flow to 1/3 at maximum flows of the Little Bear River-
A greater pollutional effect on the receiving water was evident in low
late-fall flows than during high water flows in the spring.
39
-------
Conclusions
Changes in chemical and bottom fauna quality of the water as a result
of White's Trout Farm activities is discussed in two phases. First, the
effects on the water flowing through the hatchery and second, the effects
on the receiving water.
Settleable and suspended solids, turbidity, total dissolved solids,
nitrites, ammonia, B.O.D., M.P.N. coliform, and carbon dioxide increased,
while D.O. and pH were reduced. This degradation of water quality pro-
gressed through the hatchery. Other tests, which had little or no reduc-
tion in concentrations, were M.0. alkalinity, total hardness, specific
conductance, and nitrates. Of this group, nitrates have the greatest
significance in assessing the degree of pollution on a body of water.
Nitrates were possibly assimilated by aquatic vegetation before large
concentrations were built up.
The chemistry of the receiving water was changed when the outfalls were
added. Settleable and suspended solids, turbidity, TDS, nitrates, ammonia,
B.O.D., M.P.N. coliform, and carbon dioxide were increased indicating a
degradation of water quality in Little Bear River- Statistical analysis
of the various parameters showed a significant change in concentrations
of ammonia, B.O.D., M.P.N. coliform, dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide.
These changes are indicative that the hatchery activities were degrading
the waters of the Little Bear River.
Analysis of bottom fauna collections revealed a large increase of pollu-
tion tolerant organisms accompanied by a reduction in pollution intolerant
forms between stations 5 and 8. Numbers of kinds were reduced drastically
between these two stations also denoting a degradation of the aquatic
habitat. An increase in numbers and kinds of organisms found at sta-
tion 9; 1,000 feet below the outfall, suggested a recovery from the
degradation evidenced at station 8.
Chemical parameters and bottom fauna examined for hatchery and receiving
waters indicated deterioration of water quality.
The amounts of wet food and dry food pellets used at White's Trout Farm
are shown in Figure 212. Information for the poundage of fish fed each
food was not available. Of all parameters mentioned only the nitrate
and nitrite levels could be correlated with feeding levels which were
highest from June through October. The significance of this correlation
is somewhat diminished because of the lack of correlation of the B.O.D.,
ammonia, and M.P.N. coliform tests with the amount of food fed. Based
on results from this study, the amount of food fed had little or no rela-
tionship with the eutrophication of the outfall waters. The level of
enrichment was related to fish metabolism and its waste materials. These
results, therefore, are similar to those found for the previous hatcheries.
-------
SPRINGVTLLE - STATE AND FEDERAL HATCHERIES
The Federal and State hatcheries at Springville, Utah,, formed a complex
of inflows and outfalls that influenced each other in chemistry and
"bottom fauna characteristics. Layout of the two hatcheries can be seen
in Plate 5- Station 1 was the source for the Federal hatchery and a
partial source for the State hatchery. Station 2 was a spring used at
the State hatchery for supplying the hatchery house. Station 3 was "the
total outfall of the State hatchery. Outfalls for the Federal hatchery
included stations 5, 10, 11 and 12, the latter was the outfall of a
pond. Stations 8 and 9 were outfalls of growing ponds but were not sam-
pled for this study because the ponds were not used during the sampling
period. Station 4, 100 feet below State outfall, was divided into two
streams, one was diverted through the inoperative Geneva Steel-Ironton
ฅorks (ironton Canal) and the other flowed into Utah Lake. Comparison
of station 4 with stations 6 and 7 showed the influence of the outfall
from the Federal hatchery, station 5, on this water- Comparison of sta-
tion 4 with stations 13 and l4 indicated changes due to the other Federal
outfalls, stations 10, 11 and 12. Comparing stations 6 and 12 revealed
changes through the fingerling pond.
Physical and chemical results are collected in Appendix A, Figures 113
to 192 inclusive. Statistical analysis of the receiving waters is re-
corded in Tables 6, 7 and 8, Appendix B. Summaries of bottom fauna
collections are listed in Appendix C, Tables 21 through 24 and Figures
213 through 218.
-------
^Springs
Cement Ponds
State
Hatchery
House
Highway 89-91
Plate 5. SprlngvDle federal and State Hatcheries and Spring Creek showing sampling stall
-------
Discussion - Physical-Chemical and Bottom Fauna Results
Methyl Orange Alkalinity
Methyl orange alkalinity (Figures 113 through 117) was stable at all
stations throughout the year. Average M. 0. alkalinity increased 5$
through the Federal hatchery. All other stations examined averaged
235 mg/1 alkalinity throughout the year with no apparent annual runoff
dilution. The changes of M.O. alkalinity in the receiving water due
to State and Federal hatchery activity, based upon the 95$ confidence
interval, did not significantly alter water quality. Thus, the receiv-
ing waters above and below the hatchery discharges were from the same
population (Table l).
Total Hardness
Hardness (Figures 118 through 122) was found to fluctuate considerably
throughout the year with minimum readings at all stations the first col-
lection in June. Station 2 averaged kd mg/1 lower than other hatchery
stations. Average concentrations at station 11, one of the outfalls
from the Federal Hatchery, had concentrations 35 mg/1 above the inflow,
station 1. Other stations in the hatchery complex were within 10 mg/1
of the average of 37^ mg/1 total hardness. The changes of hardness due
to State and Federal hatchery activities, based upon the 95$ confidence
interval, did not significantly alter water quality. Thus, the receiving
waters above and below the hatchery discharges were from the same popula-
tion (Table l).
Turbidity
Turbidity concentrations (Figures 123 through 127) were increased as the
water supply traversed the hatchery and raceway systems. Turbidity of
the State hatchery increased 9%; and at the Federal hatchery, 12$ above
the inflow concentration of 1.26 Jackson Turbidity Units, station 1.
Turbidity in the receiving waters, Spring Creek and the Ironton Canal,
were reduced by slow flows and filtration in a watercress-choked water-
way. Concentrations were generally lowered during the months of March,
Api*il, and May. State hatchery activity, based upon the 95$ confidence
interval, did not significantly alter water quality while federal hat-
chery activities, based upon the 95$ confidence interval significantly
altered water quality in the Ironton Canal and based upon the 99$ con-
fidence interval, significantly altered water quality in Spring Creek
(Table l).
Settleable Solids
Settleable solids (Figures 128 through 132) showed an increase in concen-
trations throughout both hatcheries and raceway systems. The levels of
this parameter were very low, averaging less than 0.2 ml/1 so that the
-------
changes were minimal. Settleable solids were reduced in the Ironton Canax
because the stream was deep with low velocity which allowed many particles
to precipitate. An increase in settleable solids in Spring Creek was
apparently caused by the activity of cattle which' had direct access to
the stream. Spring runoff did not noticeably affect the amount of settle-
able solids in the receiving waters. The changes in settleable solids
due to hatchery activities, based upon the 99/o confidence interval, signi-
ficantly altered water quality in Spring Creek only. Thus, the receiving
waters above and below the Federal hatchery discharges on Spring Creek
are from different populations (Table l).
Suspended Solids
Concentrations of suspended solids (Figures 133 through 137) at the source
spring, station 1, averaged 0.48 mg/1 and increased about 5 fold after
traversing the State hatchery and increased 12 fold through the Federal
hatchery. Suspended solids were an average of 1-33 mg/1 higher at the
outfall of the Federal fingerling pond. Values at station k averaged
3.18 mg/1 which increased at stations 6 and 13 by the addition of hatchery
effluent. At stations 7 and iM- suspended solids were even higher than at
stations 6 and 13 respectively. Spring runoff did not influence the levels
of suspended solids. State and Federal hatchery activities, based upon the
99/o confidence interval, significantly altered water quality in all receiv-
ing waters. Thus, the receiving waters above and below the point of hat-
chery discharges were from different populations (Table l).
Total Dissolved Solids
Total dissolved solids concentrations (Figures 138 through 1^2) increased
about 3/0 at the State hatchery, 6% at the Federal Hatchery and 1$ at the
fingerling pond. After the effluent was added to the receiving water at
station k which had an average concentration of 656 mg/1 the values in-
creased 2/ in the Ironton Canal and h% in the lower Spring Creek. The
lowest concentration of T.D.S. was noted in January with the high point
in the late September sample. Shortly before the September collection,
the hatcheries had been disinfected to eliminate infectious pancreatic
necrosis virus. Federal hatchery activities, based upon the 95/> confi-
dence interval, significantly altered water quality in Spring Creek while
the State and Federal hatchery (Ironton Canal) receiving waters were not
altered significantly, at this same confidence interval.
Specific Conductance
Specific conductance measures concentrations of ionizable material in
water and are recorded in Figures 1^3 through ikj. The State hatchery
concentrations were increased an average of 3$ although station 2 aver-
aged 90 u mhos/cm less than station 1. Federal hatchery outfalls aver-
aged 965 u mhos/cm, the same as the influent water of station 1. The
use of the water through the fingerling pond increased specific conduct-
ance Ik- u mhos/cm. The Ironton Canal water averaged 990 u mhos/cm for
kk
-------
stations 4, 6 and 7- Spring Creek conductance increased an average of
15 u mhos/cm, as a result of hatchery effluent contribution. State hat-
chery activity, based upon the 99$ confidence interval,, significantly
altered water quality while Federal hatchery activities did not signifi-
cantly alter water quality at the 95/0 confidence interval (Table l).
Nitrate
Nitrate concentrations are depicted in Figures 148 through 152. Hatchery
use decreased nitrates in the water. Station 2, the hatchery house
spring, was 33/0 higher than station l(2.49 mg/l), but its contribution
to the total flow was so small that there was little change in the outfall
concentrations. The water through the Federal Hatchery and fingerling
ponds was reduced 10$ and 3$, respectively. The concentrations found at
the Federal hatchery decreased the levels in the Ironton Canal 4.8$ and
Spring Creek 11$ below the 2.6 mg/1 found at station 4. Hatchery activ-
ities, based upon the 95$ confidence interval, did not significantly alter
water quality. Thus, the receiving waters above and below the hatchery
discharges were from the same population (Table l).
Nitrite
Nitrite (Figures 153 through 157) is a product of bacterial degradation
on ammonia and organic substances. The source waters averaged 0.01 mg/1.
The State hatchery increased these concentrations 2.5 times and the
Federal hatchery increased nitrite levels almost 3 fold. Nitrite concen-
trations were doubled as the water supply traversed the Federal finger-
ling pond. The effect of nitrite concentrations in the effluent from
the Federal hatchery resulted in an almost 3 fold increase of this pro-
duct in Spring Creek, station 13- Bacterial degradation of ammonia and
organic nitrogen products continued downstream, and was reflected in
nitrite levels which were almost doubled between stations 13 and 14.
Nitrites readily oxidize to nitrates, and some correlation would be ex-
pected between these two anions. However, in this case, there were no
discernible relationships to indicate this was true. No increase was
noted in the Ironton Canal between stations 6 and 7- State hatchery ac-
tivity, based upon the 95$ confidence interval, significantly altered
water quality in upper Spring Creek. Federal hatchery activities, based
upon the 99$ confidence interval, significantly altered water quality in
lower Spring Creek but in the Federal receiving water (Ironton Canal)
the change in nitrite concentrations were not significant at the 95$ con-
fidence interval (Table l).
Ammonia
Ammonia concentrations (Figures 158 through 162) at station 1 averaged
0.24 mg/1. These were 33$ higher at the State hatchery outfall and
averaged 37$ higher at the Federal hatchery outfalls. The ammonia content
of the water supply was reduced 23$ while traversing the Federal hatchery
fingerling pond. When these concentrations were combined with the
45
-------
receiving water below station k (0.38 mg/l), the resultant ammonia levels
increased 2Q% at station 6 and k^% at station 13- Unaccountably, ammonia
levels at stations 7 and lk} were higher than at stations 6 and 13 res-
pectively. State and Federal hatchery activities, based upon the 99%
confidence interval, significantly altered water quality in the receiving
waters. Thus, the receiving waters above and below the hatchery discharges
were from different populations (Table l).
M.P.M. Coliform
M.P.N. coliform bacteria counts (Figures 163 through 16?) were increased,
28 fold by effluent from the State hatchery and 93 fold by effluents from -..
the Federal hatchery, based on average concentrations in the source, water
(Station l) of 7^2 bacteria/100 ml. Coliform "bacteria concentrations
doubled in the Federal fingerling pond. Upper Spring Creek counts (Sta- .
tion k) averaged 13,660 coliform bacteria/100 ml of water which increased
about 2.5 times in the Ironton Canal and almost 100 fold in the lower
Spring Creek. Concentrations at station 7 and Ik continued to increase
above those found at stations 6 and 13 respectively. State and Federal
hatchery activities, based upon the 99% confidence interval, significantly
altered water quality. Thus, the receiving waters above and below the
hatchery discharges were from different populations (Table 1).
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical oxygen demand (B.O.D.) concentrations (Figures 168 through
172) averaged 0.07 mg/1 for the source springs. Adding food and waste
products to the water supply at the State hatchery increased B.O.D. 12
fold and at the Federal hatchery raised B.O.D. levels 59 fold. When
this effluent was mixed with an average concentration of 3.2 mg/1 B.O.D.
of Spring Creek at station k the levels were increased 17$ in the Ironton
Canal at station 6. After hatchery effluents were added to Spring Creek
at station 13, B.O.D. increased 19$. Concentrations continued to increase
at station 7 on the Ironton Canal and station Ik on Spring Creek. State
and Federal hatchery activities, based upon the 99% confidence interval,
significantly altered water quality. Thus, the receiving waters above
and below the hatchery discharges-were from different populations (Table 1).
Dissolved Oxygen
Fish utilization reduced D.O. levels slightly through the hatchery systems
(Figures 173 through 177). An average reduction in D.O. of 0.2 mg/1
occurred at the State hatchery and at the Federal hatchery the reduction
averaged 0-9 mg/1. D.O. levels decreased Q.k mg/1 in the Federal hatchery
fingerling pond.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Federal fingerling pond became
critical for fish propagation during the period of February through May
so special aeration equipment was employed to alleviate the situation.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations in Ironton Canal receiving water were not
k6
-------
reduced significantly and the D.O. in Spring Creek receiving water was
enhanced by photosynthetic action, riffles, and waterfalls. State and
Federal hatchery activities^ based upori the 95% confidence interval,
significantly altered water quality in Upper Spring Creek and Ironton
Canal while at this confidence interval lower Spring Creek water quality
was not significantly altered.
Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen Ion Concentration
Carbon dioxide concentrations (Figures 178 through 182) were lowered in
the State and Federal hatcheries, while pH -remained stable at 7-3 (Figures
183 through 187). Aeration by baffles in the raceways resulted in a re-
duction- of the average carbon dioxide concentration from 6.8 mg/1 at the
source spring to an average of ^.7 mg/1 in the outfall of the State hat-
chery. Carbon dioxide concentrations in Federal hatchery were reduced
from 6.8 mg/1 at the springs to 5.0 mg/1 at the outfalls. The effects
of propagation in the Federal fingerling pond increased carbon dioxide an
average of 0.5 mg/1 accompanied by no change in pH. The effect of the
Federal hatchery effluent on the Ironton Canal decreased carbon dioxide
concentrations 1.1 mg/1 while the pH remained stable at "f.k.
Average carbon dioxide concentrations in Spring Creek receiving water were
reduced from 5-1 mg/1 at station k to 3-1 mg/1 at station 13 to 2.0 mg/1
at station 1^ by the influence of hatchery effluent. Hydrogen ion concen-
trations increased from 7-^- at station k to 7-6 at station 1^- as carbon
dioxide was liberated into the atmosphere by aeration over riffles and
utilization in photosynthesis. State and Federal hatchery activities,
based upon the 99% confidence interval, reduced carbon dioxide levels
significantly to alter water quality. Hatchery activities, based upon
the 95% confidence interval, did not change pH or water quality signifi-
cantly. Thus, the receiving waters above and below the hatchery discharges
were from different populations with carbon dioxide and were from the same
population with pH (Table'l).
Temperature
Water temperatures (Figures 188 through 192) in the State hatchery fluc-
tuated within a range of 11ฐF., and the Federal hatchery temperatures
varied l6ฐF. The median for both hatcheries was 59ฐF- A low winter tem-
perature of 4^ฐF. was recorded for Spring Creek and the Federal fingerling
pond, and the summer high for these waters was 66ฐF. The Ironton Canal
ranged from a winter low of 53ฐF. to a summer high of 63ฐF.
Bottom Fauna
Bottom fauna was collected and later analyzed from stations 1, k, 7 and
Ik on the source and receiving waters of the Springville hatcheries (see
Plate 5 for layout). The substrate found at station 1, located above
the hatcheries, consisted of walnut-sized gravel. Some aquatic weeds
and watercress lined the banks and the bottom gravel was covered v'th
-------
filamentous algae. There was no tree or shrub cover along the banks.
The substrate at station 4, the State hatchery outfall, and also the upper
receiving water station for the Federal hatchery, was football-sized
boulders interspersed with rubble. During the summer luxuriant gro'wths
of watercress grew in the slower flowing reaches and along the banks.
Station 7, located 1,000 feet below station 5 outfall, had a substrate
of pea-sized gravel interspersed with areas where 'silt and sludge had
precipitated around the base of the plants to form islands. Willows
line the east bank of the Ironton Canal at this sampling station.
Station 14, located 1,000 feet below station 12 on Spring Creek, had a
substrate of rubble and small gravel interspersed with islands of small
vegetation. Watercress with small concomitant sludge beds were found at
station l4. The stream was shaded throughout the day by large cottonwood
trees.
Bottom fauna collections are summarized in Tables 21 through 24 and
Figures 213 through 218, Appendix C.
At station 1 pollution intolerant organisms outnumbered pollution tolerant
organisms about 2.5 to 1 (Figures 213 and 2l4). This situation is indica-
tive of a relatively clean water situation. Station 4 contained 4.4
pollution tolerant organisms for each of the clean water variety. This
was an increase of $6% for pollution tolerant organisms (Figure 216) and
52^ for clean water organisms above those found at station 1. State hat-
chery activities resulted in an increase of 0.6 in kinds of organisms.
Numbers of organisms at station 7 in the Ironton Canal were dramatically
reduced by the effects of hatchery effluents. Pollution tolerant organisms
were reduced by 87% and clean water invertebrates were reduced by 48% com-
pared to station 4. The numbers of kinds (Figure 215) were reduced to
levels found at station 1. A reduction of available habitat was respon-
sible for the reduction in numbers of organisms and kinds of organisms.
Bottom fauna at station l4 approximated the numbers of invertebrates found
at station 7- Numbers of kinds of organisms were higher at station 14
than at station 7, which suggested an improved situation in the Spring
Creek arm of the receiving water.
Although Spring Creek was degraded as a hygenic water source by State hat-
chery activities, there was a great increase of pollution tolerant organ-
isms accompanied by a moderate increase of pollution intolerant inverte-
brates, which was beneficial from a fisheries viewpoint.
The Federal Hatchery also degrades Ironton Canal and Spring Creek but to
a lesser degree than the State hatchery. In retrospect, however, it is
believed that two additional sampling areas could have been chosen to
48
-------
give a more exact evaluation of the effects of effluent from the Federal
hatchery. These stations should have been located below stations 5 and 12.
Water Flows
Station 3 composed the total outfall flow from the State hatchery. This
flow ranged from Ik to 18 cfs. Four flows composed the total outfall
from the Federal hatchery. Station 5 constituted about kO% of the Federal
hatchery flow. The other outfalls, stations 10, 11 and 12 contributed the
remainder of the hatchery outfall flow. Measurement error in estimating
partial flows was as high as 10% of the total outfall from the Federal
hatchery. Impact of the effluent from the Federal hatchery was greater
on Spring Creek than on the Ironton Canal.
-------
Conclusions
The complex arrangement of outfalls from the State and Federal hatcheries
at Springville caused difficulty in assessing the effects of fish culture
on water quality in Spring Creek and the Ironton Canal.
Comparison of stations 1 and 2 with 3 revealed that degrading loads of
nutrients were added to the water system by the State hatchery. Changes
in M.0. alkalinity, total hardness, total dissolved solids, nitrates,
ammonia, dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide were indicative of improved
water quality. Settleable and suspended solids, turbidity, specific con-
ductance, nitrite, B.ti.D., and M.P.N. coliform, increased in concentration
which is indicative of degraded water quality.
Statistical analysis revealed that the levels of nitrite, specific conduc-
tance, ammonia, B.O.D., M.P.N. coliform, suspended solids, dissolved
oxygen, and carbon dioxide were changed significantly by State hatchery
activities. These changes were indicative of an increased nutrient load
and degraded water quality.
The Federal hatchery outfalls, numbered 5, 10 and 11, when compared to
station 1 showed that settleable and suspended solids, turbidity, nitrites,
ammonia, BjO.D., M.P.N. coliform, and dissolved oxygen were changed, in-
dicating degraded water quality. Station 12 was the outfall from the
lower fingerling pondk The results from this sampling point were similar
to the other Federal hatchery outfalls except that dissolved oxygen con-
tent of the water supply was increased while passing through the pond.
The receiving waters separated into two branches, Ironton Canal and Spring
Creek, represented by stations k} 6, 7 and 4, 13 and 14, respectively.
Settleable and suspended solids, ammonia, B.O.D., and M.P.N. coliforra in-
creased in the Ironton Canal. Statistical analysis were conducted on the
changes made by the Federal hatchery on the Ironton Canal and Spring
Creek. Turbidity, ammonia, B.O.D., M.P.N. coliform, suspended solids,
dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide were changed significantly (Table l).
These changes suggest a hygenic degradation and eutrophication of the
water in this branch of Spring Creek.
On Spring Creek proper there was a significant increase in nitrites.,
settleable solids, turbidity, ammonia, B.O.D., M.P.N. colifortn, suspended
solids and total dissolved solids. A decrease in carbon dioxide occurred
between station k and the lower comparison station l4. These changes in-
dicated a degradation of water quality in Spring Creek.
Bottom fauna analysis also indicated that the hatcheries were degrading
the water. The difference in numbers and quality of organisms found be-
tween stations 1 and h indicated a poorer water quality through the State
hatchery. The comparison of stations 4 to 7 and h to 1^ shows a recovery
from the degraded quality at station k. However, it is noted that the
50
-------
State outfall constitutes the source of receiving water for the Federal
hatchery and the Federal hatchery further degrades this water by addition
of the effluent to the stream. Chemical comparison of station 1 with sta-
tions 5> 10 and 11 indicates lower quality water is released from the
Federal hatchery.
Figures 217 and 218 show the relationship of the food used and the number
of fish raised at the Springville State and Federal hatcheries. As in
the hatcheries previously considered, there was no observable correlation
between degradation of the water and the number of fish present and food
used.
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Fish cultural activities caused a progressive degradation of water quality
in the hatchery system ,which when added to the receiving water, caused
subsequent degradation of the receiving water. The effect of this degrada-
tion was closely correlated with the quality of water prior to hatchery
use. A high quality water showed the degradation less than a water of , ,
lower quality.
Kamas and Loa had this high quality water available for hatchery use and
the receiving waters were not degraded significantly. The water supplies
of the other hatcheries studied showed a high degree of enrichment before
use and when the hatchery wastes were added, resulted in degradation which
could be quite serious from a public health standpoint.
In all but the Kamas and Midway hatcheries the M.P.N. coliform counts in-
creased significantly as a result of hatchery activities. This increase
might be interpreted as a potential hazard to public health of the area.
The counts, however; may not have the impact as initially evident because
the levels were determined by "Standard Methods Multiple-Tube Fermentation
Technique" which gives results of all organisms present which produce gas
on lactose fermentation. The tests performed report not only human fecal
contamination but also contributions from fish and animal excrement, fish
food, soil and many other sources. Since fish are not suspect of adding
greatly to the coliform levels and food is suspect of contributing only a
minor portion to these high concentrations, other sources are probably re-
sponsible for this large increase. Further studies should be conducted to
determine the sources of the high coliform levels.
B.O.D. levels were increased significantly through hatchery activities at
all installations except Midway. The highest concentrations were found at
the commercial hatchery which utilized a combination of animal offal fed
wet, and dry pelleted food.
The use of wet animal offal for fish food increased the potential for
degrading the water in the hatchery and the receiving waters. Incomplete
utilization by fish left residues which subsequently decayed in the race-
ways and increased enrichment to a point that severe degradation of the
receiving water occurred. When pelleted food was fed exclusively, most
of the food was consumed immediately as seen in lower B.O.D. concentrations
and concomitant parameter levels in hatcheries using pelleted food.
The enrichment of the receiving waters by hatchery activities has increased
the growth and propagation of many fish food organisms. This situation
from a fishery point of view is probably desirable. However, this enrich-
ment when evaluated from public health and a water quality standpoint
may not be desirable.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY'
American Public Health Association Ins., et al."Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater." Twelfth edition. Boyd
Printing Company, Inc., Albany, N. Y. 1965.
Alabaster, J. S., and Herbert, D. M., "Influence of Carbon Dioxide on
the Toxicity of Ammonia," Nature 174:404, 1954.
Bean, E. L., "Development of Water Quality Ideals," Jour. A.W.W.A.
53:1361, 1961.
Brockway, D. R., "Metabolic Products and Their Effects," Progressive
Fish Culturist, 12:3, pp. 127-129, 1950.
Davis, H. S., Culture and Diseases of Game Fishes, University of California
Press, pp. 185-186, 1956.
Gaufin, A. R., and Tarzwell, C. M., "Aquatic Insects as Indicators of
Stream Pollution," Public__Health Reports, 67:1, pp. 59-64, 1952.
Gaufin, A. R., and Tarzwell, C. M., "Aquatic Macro-Invertebrate Communi-
ties as Indicators of Organic Pollution in Lytle Creek," Sewage and
Industrial Wastes, 28:7, PP- 906-924, 1956.
Grantham, B. J., "The Value and Use of Macro-Invertebrates in Evaluating
Stream Pollution Conditions," Proceedings Mississippi Water Resources
Conference, 1966.
Hinshaw, R. N., "The Pollutional Degradation of the Jordan River as-
Shown by Aquatic Invertebrates," Utah Fish and Game publication
number 66-11, 1966.
Lloyd, R., and Herbert, D. W. M., "The Influence of Carbon Dioxide on
the Toxicity of Un-Ionized Ammonia to Rainbow Trout (Salmo
gairdnerii Richardson)." Ann. Appl. Biol. 48:339, I960.
Needham, J. G., and Needham, P. R., "Fresh Water Biology," Holden
Day Inc., San Francisco, California, 1966.
State of Washington, "Toxic Effects of Organic and Inorganic Pollutants
on Young Salmon and Trout," Bulletin number 5, pp. 183-187, 1960.
Tabata, K., "Toxicity of Ammonia to Aquatic Animals with Reference to
the Effect of pH and Carbon Dioxide," Bull. Tokai, Reg. Fish.,
Res. Lab. 34, pp. 67-74, 1962; Biol. Abstr. 45=755, 1964.
53
-------
APPENDIX A
PHTSICAL - CHEMICAL DATA
-------
I
360
320
300-
280
260-
140
220
209
180
166
148
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Station 1 -
Station 2 -
aปปHrw 3 *.
^
X
*v
d
**?
4-V-
1
. ! ..
i
!
1
"
1
1
1
-
"M"
=t
in
1
T>t ~i
t
*f
-'"
*
'
^
><
/(
'
^
\
\s
\
k
H
I
V
>,
Is
Vf-,
\
j
H
f
[*
tr
/
y*
/
/'
/
Yl
~-,t
^S
ป*
^
"S
t
^
>*
X
,**
s*
X1-.
**,
1234567
Months of Pickup
Flgura 1. Kamas Hatchery, M.O. Alkalinity. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
440
420
400
380
360
340
320
300
280
260
S 240
S
< 220
1 200
D>
3 180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
St
St
st
s
/
sf*
11
1
ation 4 | [
ation 5
atlon 6
I
y
/
/
"*y^
,
/
\ L
\J
I
J\
1 \
'
12
I
r^^^
\ ,
i
A
/ \
' i
^
\
v
i
i*
J
J
T
T
i
jf
\
\
\
\
A
2
/
/
/
^
^
\
V
-X1*1
"?SL
^
/
/
\
\
\
\
jf
?f
\
\
i
\
j\
^v
\
**\
\
^,
r>
\
\
^"^
\
3 4 5
Months of Pickup
/
/
/
TV
1 '
,ป
/'
J^
6
^^
X*
"^s^
,,***
^Sif
/
/
/
/
s^
10
Figure 2. Kamas Hatchery, M.O. Alkalinity. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
-------
420
400
380
360
340
320
inn
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
St
St
su
Ttl
HI or
Mior
ปtlor
H-+
1 -
2 -
3 -
V
I 1
4-4- Zj
X
^v
Aj
">
/
/
!
-1
!
T>?
/
/
/
r-
\
N
^
\,
* \t
/i
^
./
vS(,
^s,
\
4_
J(
V-V
s\
N
*f
\
1
^
f
/
f
/'
'
S
\
\
I
V
/
/'
//
/(
/'
f
^1
^"
V
' //
v^
^r
^
i ^
x.\*
V
-rf
'V
;
\
,-HV
?j
V
'7-
: 1 2 " 4 5 6 7
Month of Pickup
Figure 3. Kamas Hatchery, Total Hardness. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
440
420
400
380
360
340
3iio
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
80
60
40
20
0
^f
St
.-/-,
X*
atlo
atlo
atlo
\
^
/
/
k^
i 4 . j_i
i 5
i 6
\
*
^
1 ^.
,'
*
\
~\
-r
T
A
r\
A
i
1
V
V
4-
w
-ft
/
-
S
^-t-
/
I
i
!
-H-
\
\
ป
ป
/
' ?S
r-'
y^
\
^
L-
^~
^ ^
Si
\
v
\
\
A-
A
-t*>
^-
s*"
-H-
^-'J
^
*1
/
-/
?
^r
,
S
^*
2_
^
^-
X
J
/
^
1.
/ \
V
\
^^
-/-
~/
ซ*
/
/
/
j^>c
345
Month of Pickup
Figure 4. Kamas Hatchery, Total Hardness. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
-------
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55.
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
1
Station
Station
Station
t
1
1.
11
\
\
\
1 H
3-
f
/,
f-t-
/
12
\
\
/
i
\
,\
1
2
^>
\^
/
/
/
N
\
N
,\
/
/,
3456
Month of Pickup
s
X
7
J 9
10
Figure 5. Kamas Hatchery, Settleable Solids. Stations 1, 2, and 3.
Station 4 II
Station 5 .
Station 6 . 1
^
V ]*.
2 3 4 S
Month of Plclcup
Figure 6. Kamas Hatchery, Settleable Solids. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
57
-------
68
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
46
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
f
i
' St
St
: st
\
atlo
atlo
atloi
/
/ ,
i 1
i 2
1 3
\
,\
r
1 1 . 1
/
/\
/
\
\
\
/
\
^
"ft
\
\
<5T"
ft
ft-
1
v
-^v
**r*
f
ฃ
\
-\
'
-/
\
Flgura 7. Kamaa Hatchery, Turbidity. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
3 4 5
TLtti Of Pickup
Figure 8. Kamas Hatchery, Turbidity. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
58
-------
11 12
3 4 5
Month of Pickup
Figure 9. Kamas Hatchery, Suspended Solids. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
-Xv
4 S
rrf P
-------
880
860
U4U
820
800
780
760
740
720
700
630
660
640
620
580,
560
540
520
500
4*8
460
440
420
400
380
360
340
320
300
280
260
240
220
280
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
n
r
-+-H-
Sti
8tซ
=F*
tlon
tlon
I
2
3 -
^i
__.
-H-
'A-^
V
*
I
\
t
"T" j
"
O^I
h
w
ps
\
.__
\x
ral
-^i
^
s
r^
-
1
ks.
^ytf
/
/
k-F
^
_ 1-
^
./
ftjts^
=t-f
/
-H-
^H
^
*+=
-f
-/-
/
i~
ฃ
. /ป
\
\
\
\.
//'
//
-'
E3**
1234567 B
Month of .Pickup
Figure 11. Kamas Hatchery, Total Dissolved Solids. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
Figure 12. Kamas Hatchery, Total Dissolved Solids, Stations 4, 5 ajid 6.
60
-------
810
860
840
820
800
780
760
740
7201
III
660
640
620
600
580
560
540
520
500
480
460
440
420
W
360
340
320
300
180
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
. 0
Sti
St
St<
^f?
11
itlor
itior
itlor
^x*1
*y
^Cq
1
2
3 -
S
-H-
--^>
i ;
j
i
1
1
v
*&Ls^
^f^-^1
;
[
""
~
1
I
12
j
h*^
"S,
**f*
p.
I
1
^V
S
1
T
1
I
I
j i
V 1
\ ]
^
j
j-
V,
^N
vrv
, I1 '
ฃ\
/
Jt^l
^
f- !
|
i
-
--
'
L|1
j4^i
ir
jf~ ,
f
h-
-
^/
A\
I
t-i
i
hi
\
\
\
--V
\>*
.
i
i
! r
nz
\1_
-^nt:
~nr
T3?*
I
1
i
^
yt
/*"%
N
1234567 89 10
Month of Pickup
Flgura 13. Kamas Hatchery, Specific Conductance. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
380
860
840
820
800
780
760
740
720
700
680
660
640
620
600
580
560
540
520
500
480
460
440
420
400
380
360
340
320
300
180
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
St
St
St
~
- 1
T-h
ition
iticm
itior
J
5
6
'~-4-''~
}
/
/
^r\
~~~,
,
i
I
j
1
,
1
fv
N T
/
f~\
r"
^=-
i-/:
\
4%,
/ Y
/ i
^
i
\
^r
*-ii
i
^
i
yฃ
'
^~H-
**
^v.
V
*N
.' \
\ ป
'
\
V
A
vs
^-^
|
1
VN
,Sb
\
A ^
^ \
Vj
|
i
1
1
^
,"
t^
^*"
~^
/
^
/
f
f
y '
__-
-^^
^s^
--
/
/
*\
s*
i
I
/
(
/
/
\ -\
v
\
\
\
N
**
t---
4 H
1234567 6
.Month. oL Pickup
tlgure 14, Kamas Hatchery, Specific Conductance. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
61
-------
345
Month of Pickup
Figure 15. Kamas Hatchery, Nitrate. Stations 1, Z and 3.
Figure 16. Kamas Hatchery, Nitrate. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
62
-------
3456
Month of Pickup
Figure 17. Kamas Hatchery, Nitrite. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
0.22
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
n.oo
Station
Station
Station
/
* /
yS
* ''I
1
1
4 -1 |
6
1
i~
\
X,
>
t
/
/
'. ,
I
./
,+-
f
l\
r- \
1
[
JT
V
\
\\-
\\
i
i
t/
'/
y.
\
s
\
^ \
/-'
/
/
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
;
1
l
| i
/ /
1
/
i
\
1
1
I
I
1
1
\ \
\
\
c=b=
*
\
\
\\
Vr
* \
v
?^
i
44^
^ /
;A
S.
i
i
V
v-s
A
\
\
"*=t
x
>!
^
/
X,
A,
J
X
X
,'
v
X
1
\
1
=4=
1
3 4 S
Month nf Plrknp
Floure 18. Kamas Hatchery, Nitrite. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
63
-------
345
Month of Pickup
Figura 19. Kamas Hatchery, Ammonia. Stations 1, 2 and 3,
9 10
Flgure 20. Kamas Hatchery, Ammonia. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
-------
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
'2,000,000
I. 000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
st
at
V-
V t
\t
jr
'\
i '
I
itlor
stlor
stlor
\
\
.
\
\
\
^
/*
i 2
3l
1
1
/
1
4
,
\
7
A
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
V
\
\
\
,
-f
1
1
, _
*
^
/
/
V
/
y
;
f
\,.l
\i
"A
i \
I A
\
4-
V
\
\
-*
^
4
\
\
\
+V
1
1
t
1
*,
' '"S
1
1
I
1
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
i-V-
~f
1
\
\
S;
-i
1 1
i l
i
i
"rV
\
\
\
\
y^
\
/
'i
i
i
i
1
>i
X
1
\
/
/-
/
/
A-
X
=**
J
\
\
\,
\
><
/
/
4
-f
/-
-H-
i
i
i
i
r
^
V*
\
V.
]^
\
\
\
\
i
1
-i-
i
j
n
LJ
i
,
i
\
A^
\
S
Vf
\
4 .
\
\
\
\
4i
-\
\
i 'i
\
\
\
A
^
1234567
Month nf Pickup
Figure 21. Kamas Hatchery, MPN Collform. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
Figure 22. Kamas Hatchery, MPN Conform. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
65
-------
10. S
10.0
1.5
ป.o
1.5
1.0
7.5
7.0
(.5
i.O
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
o.s
0.0
Sta
Sts
fitn
\ '
\
\
i
tion
tion
tlon
P
1
r
-/-
[
*
1-1
2-
3
f
-]
H-
^
~~r
/
/
/
1
-V
-\
-4-
/
/
/
/
l-
r
/
i
/
/
v
\
\
\
\
1
-f
/
1
-i
/
ฃ
^
'
'
>
1
*
1 \
Hr
^
i
/
-ป--
T
V
--""
1
11 12 12345
Mnnth of Pickun
9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Figure 23. Kamas Hatchery ,
i
-
Station
Station
Statlor
\ \
\ \
S
A
'S
J-H-
6
-4
//I
/A
-^
i
1
i
Ff
11
i
i
1A
fr
^
\
T
-V
-4
^
2
-^-"J
/
^
/
/
77
/
f
*
/
i
-------
12
11 12
Figure 25. Kamas Hatchery, Dissolved Oxygen. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
Figure 26, Kamas Hatchery, Dissolved Oxygen. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
67
-------
10.5
10.0
9.5
9.0
1.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
O.i
0.0
__l L_
St
St
Sti
\
p
1
itlor
itlor
itlor
\
\ i
\
\
f ^
1 -
2 .
3 -
-X
\
(
1 <
V
-H-
^
^
1 ?
/
^
i [
r^-
A.
^
-\ *
X
~1
h-
1
t
\ /
ni /
r
A
r~
N
x'
-,-
V
\
V
V
^
4 ^
1 1 ! |
i
i
r
H
.-1-
1
u,
\
s
'i
y
I
-i
T
-h
i~^y
_J
"/"
L^-f
/*
^.
-i
\
i
i
i
(
\v
\
\
\
1 ^-
T
-f
/
~~/~
1
I
f
X
y
\
\
1
\
\
L
\
V
'
\
\
~f~
**
^
-H-
/
/
7
^
^
^
/
4
\
V
\
'S
\
\
\
/
-f
/
T
9 10
Figure 27. Kamas Hatchery, Carbon Dioxide. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
10.5
10.0
9.5
9.0
B.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.0
1.5
1 .0
0.5
0.0
1
i
Station 4 _j^
Station 5 >
Station 6
i
\
I
1
/
-4
TT
//
,
r
^
\
i
I
1
b
1
i
""F*
1
a i 5 6
L Of PickliP
Figure 28. Kamas Hatchery, Carbon Dioxide. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
-------
..2-
ป.0-
Statlon 1 | |
Station 2 .
Station 3 -
jฃ.
7.0-
(.0
.8
.6-
,4 -
~~T
8.0-
11 12
3 4_ 5 6
Month of Pickup.
Flgura 29. Kamas Hatchery, Hydrogen Ion Concentration. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
.2-
9.0-
Statlon 4
Station 5
Station 6
| i [
7.0-
\
3456
.Month oi Pickup
8 9 10
Figure 30. Kamas Hatchery, Hydrogen Ion Concentration. Stations 4, 5 and 6,
-------
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
SB
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
Sta
Sti
Stj
X"1
\
__
tion
tion
Uon
N
i _
2
3-
H-
-+-1
EEp
1
ft-
\~
I i
p 1
-
r*~
\
^
i
-t-
/
/
1
_L_LJ
*,,
^
\
\
. \-
"^
-\
'"7"
k^
,
/
/
y(
x
v
'^*ซ
=*-
^- --
^f
^
1
s
/
s
*1
V
s.
H
t
/-
h
=rf~=
^
11 12 1234567 8 9 10
-Month of Pickup
Figure 31. Kamas Hatchery, Temperature. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
Figure 32. Kamas Hatchery, Temperature. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
70
-------
Figure 33. Midway Hatchery, M .O. Alkalinity. Stations 1, 2, 3 and 7 .
680
8to
Sko
Sao
800
780
760
Tito
720
700
680
660
640
620
600
580
560
5Uo
520
500
It8o
It 60
kko
420
1*00
380
360
340
320
'300
280
260
2ltO
220
200
180
160
Ito
120
100
80
60
to
20
h"
' 1
_ Station
-Station
- Station
1
1 4 .|.
6
1
\
i
]
\
.
i
1
i
I
|
]
i
1
i
i i
| ,
|
L^ :l .
ฅ-+-] 1 ; 1 '
J
;
i i
^\
\'^'
J,
rt=^="
^r?*-
T i
^_ i__
r
I
i^-K^
1
,*'
^
i
1
*.x
A ^
N
*x_
\
\
, \
*-,
-^
^
,
//
\f
s
y
^
l~"^*ซ>
^
*
S
&
V
r-**
\r~
\~
,
1 .
r 7
f
,ฃ
~*^:,
<.
^
^7-
?* j ^
' ^
a
345
Mnnfh nf Piclcup
10
Figure 34. Midway Hatchery, M.O. Alkalinity. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
71
-------
3 4 5
Month of Pickup
Figure 35. Midway Hatchery, Total Hardness. Stations 1, 2, 3 and?.
345
Month of P_ickup
Figure 36. Midway Hatchery, Total Hardness. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
-------
88
fl*>
T8
T6
T4
T2
TO
68
61)
62
ง
56
5^
5Z
50
48
46
44
It2
to
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
It
2
0
L
Station
Station
Station
Station
1 J
i
2 H-f
,
/
/
^
f ,
1
1
1
\
\
\
\
4-i
h
P
i
i
1
~v^J
^
t
\
\
V
f 1
Sv
s
^
y
/
^-^^
{
\
\
\
~A
/
/
I
$ .
\
\
\
*4*^
1
4"
,/
ฃ*
/
/
/
/
-h-1
-4-
\
\
^,
*
^,
1^
s
4-
4~<
1
12 3 4. 5. 6 7
Month, of Pickup
Figure 37 . Midway Hatchery - Turbidity. Stations 1,2,3 and 7 .
Figure 38. Midway Hatchery, TufbidUy. Stations A, 5 and 6.
73
-------
86
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
72
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
I 1 1
-St
-it.
-St.
-Str
t
l\
UL
jtion
itlon
tlon
tion
y
\
\\
\\
rr'AA
TV ^]
t-
\
1-
2-
3 "
7 -
\
V S
11 12
H-
i-i-
j
-^
-fl
-\-
-+4-\J
i
V
j.,.,
2
~^\
C^
?
^*\ i '
3
j
-^t
L^
4 5
Moath of Pickup
.
6
""^k
"-S
7
f
i
*f-~
*~~t^
^"
>f
"SI
8
jC
,
[
-T
V
-%
^
\L"f
>.
9 10
Figure 39. Midway Hatchery, Suspended Solids . Stations 1,2,3 and 7 .
345
Month, of Pickup
Figure 40. Midway Hatchery, Suspended Solids. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
-------
Q. to
.1*2
.to
.38
36
&
32
.30
.28
.26
.Sit
.22
.20
.18
.16
.lit
.12
.10
.08
.06
.04
.02
'0.0
1
Rtn
- 1 1
tlon
Won
tlon
tlon
I'M
2 --M--
1
""
1
1
i
i
. i
j
I
1
1
4-
i
i
L
{ [
.._
.._.
i
I
i
!
-
1
1
1234567 8
Month of Plckun
Figure 41. Midway Hatchery, Settleable Solids. Stations 1,2,3 and 7.
Figure 42. Midway Hatchery, Settleable Solids. Stations 4, 5 and B.
75
-------
880
flfri
81*0
820
800
780
760
71*0
720
700
6fln
660
61.0
620
600
580
560
51*0
520.
500
1*80
1*60
1*1*0
1*20
1*00
380
360
31*0
320
300
280
260
2l*0
220
200
180
160
l!*0
120
100
80
60
1*0
20
0
Station
-Sta
-ata
~yta
, *
tlon
tion
tlon
1s
j
zzi
i
3
7 -
^S
i
-^
.
"5
""*~ Vv;
x
h
tt-t,
*/
>
h
^
i
n
-^
i
I
i
i
i
j
\
r
| [
i
,
1
i
i
I
|
1
^
--
-<
SJ
'-^
Jf
y
=?i
f*
i
&
x
1
j .J
L_
i
i
' . L
-j j i
i \
zz
!
"1
i
"
1
1 i
^J
^-~--,
y
7*^
i
1 i
^v
Sc
X]
--
I
^
_
sS*
/
u
---
ff*
11 12 1234567 ff 9 10
Month ol Pickup
Figure 43. Midway Hatchery, Total Dissolved Solids. Stations 1,2,3 and 7.
4 5
Month of Pickup
Figure 44. Midway Hatchery, Total Dissolved Solids. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
76
-------
Figure 45. Midway Hatchery, Specific Conductance. Stations 1,2,3 and 7 .
1760
1720
1680
161*0
1600
1560
1520
11(80
11)1(0
lltOO
1360
1320
1280
121*0
1200
1160
1120
, 1080
| 101.0
~x 1000
o 960
| 920
a 880
.H 8i*o
3 800
760
720
680
61*0
600
560
520
1*80
It 1*0
1*00
360
320
280
21*0
200
160
-120
80
1*0
0
1
j-Station
[-Station
I
i i i
6 '
i
i 1 !
I ' ;
' i
1
~
1 :
1
/
X i
>^\-Xi
(
\
^-^
'^".,
S
T
1
^
J^\
r~Y^~,
X
^
"S^
yJ
,/
345
Month of Pickup
Figure 46. Midway Hatchery, Specific Conductance. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
-------
Figure 47. Midway Hatchery, Nitrate. Stations 1,2,3 and 7.
3 4 5
Month of Pickup
Figure 48. Midway Hatchery, Nitrate. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
78
-------
456
Monlh of Pickup
Figure 49. Midway Hatchery, Nitrite, Stations 1,2,3 and 7.
.Station 4
Station 5
Station 6
36
.28
.26
.18
=F
3456
Month Qf Pickup
10
Figure 50. Midway Hatchery, Nitrite. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
79
-------
It k
It. 2
Il.O
3-8
j.b
3.1*
3-2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.1l
2.2.
2.0
1.8
1.6
l.lt
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
O.k
0.2
n.o
1
1 1 i 1
_ Station 1 1 1 i
-Station 2 --// 1
- Station 3 <
V
l\
\
\
\
\
. \
TV
'K
\
^-Y
J\
\\
\
V
V
\
^
t*tv
s
\
~T-*1
i i
i
I
-rt
i
p~.
ft
/! \
=:
-f
'
1
1
> 1
1
I
1
/ 1 \ 1 / \ 1
'z-i
k--^M-
^
-t=
1?"
^.
i
i
^
f^S
1
r
,
1
i
L
1
1
I
]
]
'
I
1
I
I
1
1
|
*i-
/'
4-'
^
~->
>
^r~
r^
1234567 8
Month., at Einkup.
Figxire 51. Midway Hatchery, Ammonia. Stations 1,2,3 and 7.
3456
Month of Pickup
Figure ,52. Midway Hatchery, Ammonia. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
-------
8,000,000
6,000,000
1*, 000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
too, ooo
200,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
1(0,000
20,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
1(,000
2,000
1,000
800
600
koo
200
0
Stn
Stn
N
V
Uon
tlon
Uon
Uon
1 ,^.
2 4-1-
7 1
, l_
_J\
I
1
r
I
xtt
y
jr\-
\
\
\
\
\
^
V
\
-( '
1
/
//
//
/_
/f
{ I
/
i
-t-
,y
f
/
/
/
t
I
^ ,
V
\
\
\
\
\
\
\_
/
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\\
\\
*
V
1 1\
\
s
^
\
\
\
^
^- ~(
/
/
/
/
K/
r^
l-
>
y
f*
"^
r
\
\
-V-
-L
^*""
. .
"/J
/
/
I
I
T
1
T
J
I ,
r *
>
\1
\
\J
\
A
\
T
X-
,\
If
J
,,/
<
ji
/
f
\
\
\
{
\
-\
=*
iy
y -
( 1
\ "*
V T
\ 1
\f"
^.
1
T-
-r
1
3-
T
1
T
J
~1
1
f
^s
x,
^
-^
^~
I .*-
\ \
il
-f
-+
1
/
,
'
\
\
A
,
1
0~
1
-V
-1
1
\
\
^
\
v
\
1
/
/'
*
;
t
1
^~
1
J-
/l
^
L
T
v
-v-
1
^
~f
'+
'. 1234567 8
Mbnth of Pickup
Figure 53. Midway Hatchery, M.P.N. Conform. Stations 1,2,3 and 7.
6,000,000
Figure 54. Midway Hatchery, M.P.N. Collform. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
8l
-------
kk
ks
la
38
36
32
30
28
26
2lt
22
20
16
16
12
10
8
6
it
2
0
-at
1
I
-4
tion
tlon
tion
ition
">
\
1 -
2 -
3 -
|
7 ' 1
i^
\
I
s
t_
"^^
wi
x^
X
s
l*^4
v^
1
-Id
y
i-fJ
,*?"
*>s
^
" f
V
i\
s
r- '
Nv
" ^
^)
j^^"'
**!
^
-^
~*^.^
\,
>:
"^
_^^
tti
ปJซn
"T*7"
1X
a
i
_r
,'
"?-
4-
kw.<
V
\
-V
y
-T
V
y
/
^
J.
/
!t
H *
~-<
,^-
T
\
-f
\
S\
-^
/"*
j
-H
>^v
X
^v
12 1234567 89
Month nf Plrlfiip
Figure 55. Midway Hatchery, Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Stations 1,2, 3 and 7 .
3456
Month of .Picfaxp
re 56. ivlicway Hatchery, Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
-------
.6
.It
.2
12.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
U.O
.8
.6
.It
2
10.0.
.8
.6
.It
.2
9:8
.6
.It
.2
8.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
7-0
.8
.6
.It
.2
ฃ.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
5-0
.8
.6
-.It
.2
It.O
-III
-Station
Rtn
-Sta
\
.V
'/I
tion
tlon
tion
\
Ju
_L_
~^-
>
\
i
-f-
iiii
1 "
1
-4
-f
/
/
/
/-,
i.
x^
/
V
,/
p1
\
^
\>
\
^<
^
#*.
,/r-.
A-
,
/
--*^
X
^
y^
\
^
v
f
?
i
/
i
V
^T
>'J
S~
*^.
-*<
rx-'
^x
X '
V
N^
/
. > A
x^
y
,Jl
A
\
N--
vHi.
"
~H
/^
/
ป*
^
/
/
A
bt1
V-
\
^
Jf
>[
f~
-/-
/
V
/
$
s
V
^v
K
N0
I h
J__
\
\
\
1
_4_
1
-Y
A
?i
I
/
'
_i
,
>-
\
\
/
/
/
/'
\--t-
S>
^
K^<
1234567 6
Month of Pickup
Figure 57. Midway Hatchery, Dissolved Oxygen. Stations 1,2,3 and 7.
.6
.It
.2
12.0
.8
.6
.it
.2
11.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
10.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
9.0
.8
.6
.it
.2
8.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
7-0
.8
.6
.It
.2
6.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
5.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
It.O
tion
tion
tlon
1
1
\
\
*-ft
t
'V
^1
l
1 i.U. .
6
N
^
^V
1
--XA
_K
N
^
/
/
/
^
\ \
\ \
\ \
\
\
i
\t-
i_
/
/
/
/
/
/
N
^XA~
\,
)
/
}
/
/
"*-.
f-
^-^
\
y*
s
\
\
y
1
;
i
i
-^
+f
!/
i
\
\
\
\N,
\k
\
f
/
/
/
; /
' f
U
i
if
/
j-
r
1
\
\
ป _J
X*,
/^
-
V
\v
1
\
\
%v
\
\
\
\
\
\
1
^
\
\
/ ^
i
i
i
i
/
~-
\
j
^
Vป
\
\
\
s
/
/
/ ,
/ /
A
/
f
I/
/
t
"H
r
V
/
--K
,
,
11 12
345
Mnnth nf Plp.i
-------
86
84
82
80
Tซ
76
7k
72
70
68
66
6k
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
k6
44
42
ko
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-
-Sti
-Rtr
/
\
V
\
A
!
tlon 1 .
tlon 2
tlon 3 -
tion 7 -
;K.
/
J
7
7
r~
\
N
>
\
'
\.
\
j^.
\
i\
\
j^
\
\
~\
\
\
\
1
-H-
-/-/-
\
t
* \
^
'\
r"-"~"1
,
4
i
t
ป
i
A-
; i \
4A T
ฃ
,
^
I
/J
'/
y
i
"if
1
J--I-
>^
-v
V
f
T
/
_/-
I
h
1
1
U~ ซ
t-
T
i
V
\
H
\
A
rC
jf
*
q-
7
I
J.
1
J-
J
4
*
/
/
/
/-
k^
^-^i.
I
-L
1
+
\
-^
\
X
/.
/'
I
1-
J_
1
*
,
-V-
(
"
^
'\
\
/
//
'
T
/
/'
i/
A
^
\
f
/
/
/
/
/
r>-
-
_i
-*.
H-
f
L .
I**"
*~-^
N
*"
~1
-r
\
-V
i_-V^
s
-i-
T
IT
\',
\A
1
\
\-
\
J
*\^
/
V
,/
~1
I
/
y
/I
V-
X
J
s
/
/
^
\
\
\
,*
N,
j
/
>
<
/
X
y
^j
>
\
>
X
i
86
84
62
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
10
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
11
1
-St,
~-~*
4-
i
12 1234567 89 10
Month ฃ}f Pickup
'Figure 59. Midway Hatchery, Carbon Dioxide. Stations 1,2,3 and 7.
it Ion
tion
tion
^
-v,
1
4 ซJ
/
1 *
6
-=;
-h
^x
j*^~
=ฅ
i
M-
=t=
2
H=
-t=
4
Mnr
^
th n
i
^ ^
5
f PI
\
^v
:kup
/
6
\
/
/
7
^
V
f
^~-
' \
9
'^=N
=*r"
1
0
Figure 60. Midway Hatchery, Carbon Dioxide. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
8U
-------
.8 -
9.0-
.8-
Statlon 1 --,'' .
Station 2 --/../ -
Station 3
Station 7
.6
.it
.2
e.o
.2
T.O
N,
X
>S
.2
6.0
5-0
Figure 61. Midway Hatchery, Hydrogen Ion Concentration. Stations 1,2,3 and 7.
Station 4
Station 5 -
Station 6
1) 12
9 10
Figure 62. Midway Hatchery, Hydrogen Ion Concentration. Stations 4, 5 and 6.
85
-------
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
SO
48
46
44
42
10
38
36
34
32
-Sta
-Sta
~Sti
4?
^
\
\
! 1 1
tlon 1 -H
tion 2 /-^
tion 3
s
N,
V
\s
^
>^,
^v
N
\
,'/
,'/
/
y
V
\
\ \,
\
\
V
. >c
V
X
X
1
/
/
/
/
r ~><^)
/
/
/
/
/^
h 1
/
.W
* >
' >
1
^
"^o
rf
rV
/
/ /
/
->t
-X
*v
>C
/
1
*
I
,-''
,\-
f-
('
xs
^<
Si~h
V
y
A
v
\
^
V
L^o
h-^
^.^
s
\
1234567 8
Month nf Pickup
Figure 63. Midway Hatchery, Temperature. Stations 1,2,3 and 7.
7>*
72
70
68
66
62
60
58
56
5"*
52
50
1*6
1*1*
1*2
1*0
38
36
3>*
32
1
1
\
J^\
1
1
tion
tlon
tion
V
-to
Jr
1
4 W-ซ
g
ฃ^
H-
2
_bk__
N^T
~~j*
. V
s
Vs
\
^
^_ .
'
^-
y
/
y^
1
-7^-
*~7
/ '_
^S"
ry^
Mo
/T
y
/
1
nth f
V
\
\
if Pi
cfcui
y
//*
//
7-
^y
/
(
L
X
j
'
-X^*
_xy^1
y
/
^,^*
^
_/
7
^x.
^
'vv
^ \
7\
*'
^-V^
3
-x^^
1
i
^
y\.
\
)
^
\
^.
1
^y
\
y~
0
Plaure 64. Midwav Hatcherv, Temperature. Stations 4. 5 and 6.
-------
3*
360
340
320
300
280
260
eUo
220
200
180
ISO
1UO
120
100
BO
60
1.0
20
0
1 1
.
-H-
tion
tion
tlon
tion
1 1 1
2 rf-r-
jtf
ft.
X
X
/
/
/
^
\^
i>
y
,yr
i
I
^
t^
*>
, V
ซ*
i i
s
*-,
ป).
ff
iv
-1-
i
i
s^.
V"
ซ-<
^
7^
..jj.
^
^
X--
^
ซV
X'1
->
4 5
Month of Pickup
Figure 65. Loa Hatchery, M.O. Alkallnit/. Stations 1 , 2, 3 and 4 .
kko
420
400
380
360
320
300
280
s S6ฐ
z sw
3 200
3 180
160
lUO
120
100
60
60
ko
20
|
^
Stc
.
tion
tion
tion
tion
1 -H-
2 -( I-
4
/
i
1
\
\
\
^.^
^x"
x>"
IT'
V"^'
t1^
/J"
v/11
TX'
V
A"" -A
/.
y
V
\
\
\^
*^
'ซ"
TJ?
V-x
,."
*f
^^
/
'
, J
t T
J.
,1
\\
^
\
\
'^^
^Jnt,
/
ef^
,
0^1
"*
11 12 1
34567
Month of Pickup
89 10
Figure 66. Loa Hatchery, Total Hardness. Stations 1,2,3 and 4.
87
-------
1 234567
Month of Pickup
Figure 67. Loa Hatchery, Turbidity. Stations 1, 2, 3 and 4.
i.05
1.00^
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
S 0.60
>o.5:
ฑj 0.50
1 ฐ'1'5
0.1*0
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
1
M-
1
tion
tion
tion
tion
1
i i
2 -1-1-
4
2
tt
\ft
2
H
i"
i
3
1
T
(
I
\
':
vl on'
-i
i
It
h of
h
^
1
S
Pic
cup
)
(
S
r
//
y
I
H
-4
i
0
t-
Figure 68. Loa Hatchery, Settleable Solids. Stations 1,2,3 and 4.
-------
21 ;o
20.0
19.0
1B.O
17-0
16.0
15.0
1U.O
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
9-0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
ll.O
3-0
2.0
3.0
0.0
1
Sta
t
,*<*
,
tlon
tlon
tlon
tlon
i
1
i
i
\ I
\ 1
\
i
\
\
\
V
i
2 -y-)..
/
\
\
/
/
/
'S.
'
/
' /
' /
i1
,7
'
/
i
^i
1
\\
\\
i
1
ซ
\
~*f
-/
/
/
/ y|
^
>^
"-
' .
N^
V
S
,
\
\ \
\\
V
\1
\\
\
>,
>[
4
/
/ /
//
/-
f
f
if '
--"
*f.
\W
V
\>
^
\ x
-iy
A
^
H
li
I/
,f
,
\
^\
^
T-
i^l
1
1
i
\S
tr*1
i
\
'(
\
\
i
\ i
x
'T
.
xx
^
^x
\
p ""%
?^'
-*c'
^'
\
\
\
.
N
/
/
/
.
\
*-v
/
/.
^
r^
\
!V
y
V^
V^
s
^
X
11121 234567 8
Mnnth of Pickup
Figure 69. Loa Hatchery, Suspended Solids. Stations 1,2,3 and 4.
kko
kza
1400
380
360
3110
320
300
280
u ฃ60
1BO
-4J-
Station 1 (-
Station 2 -f-
Station 3
Station 4
m
345
Month, of Pickup
Figure 70. Loa Hatchery, Total Dissolved Solids. Stations 1,2,3 and 4.
-------
440
420
400
360
360
340
320
#0
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
.11*0
120
100
80
60
ho
20
0
Sta
-Sta
-Sta
-Sta
^
tlon
tlon
tlon
tlon
ZI
1 -
2 -
3-
4
w-
h-4-
^
~v
*s
*&7
=*=
=ป=
1
J_
^
-fc
^
7/f
ง
jSt*
2<,
12
^
f
*-,
*&
I
./
Z_
>*
V-
5
K
/
%
j^^
***.
,'*
*
y
r^
^
*.
^Y
V
3S
-^a
3 4
Month of
5
Pickup
B 9
Figure 71. Loa Hatchery, Specific Conductance. Stations 1 , 2, 3 and 4.
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
Station 2 -(--^
Station 3
'Station 4 ~
ฃ 2.2
sฃ
\
2 345 67
Month of Pickup
Figure 72. Loa Hatchery, Nitrate. Stations 1,2,3 and 4.
a 9
90
-------
345
Month of Pickup
Figure 73. Loa Hatchery, Nitrite. Stations 1,2,3 and 4.
Station 1 ] j
Station 2 -f-t-.
Station 3
'Station 4
-r
Aฃ.
21 234567
Month of Pickup
Figure 74. Loa Hatchery, Ammonia. Stations 1,2,3 and 4.
10
91
-------
3456
Month of Pickup
Figure 75. Loa Hatchery, M .r .N . CoLiform. Stations 1, 2, 3 and 4 .
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
lit
13
02
11
10
9
e
7
6
5
1(
3
2
1
0
i
|
V
i
\ . ',
X
tion
tion
tion
tion
/
i (
^
|
2 -f >-
/f-
i
f\ ~~~~
\
4
n^
i
,v
//
i I
I
t
~^
/*~
i
\
\
\
\
1
-1-1
+-
/ /
,/
a
t
'VyT
}
/
'
^~
\
\
\
\
N
"^-^
-A
^
/
1
\s
\\
-\ '
-f
-4-
"-,
s
=H-
_j_
\
\
/ T"A
/'' \
/
/
1
1-
/
1
J
' ' ^
/
/
/
/
~^T*
,
i
1
1
1
1
*
\'|
\
,
/
1
1 /
y
v
\
\
i
-v^
^
^--
i
LJ-^
//
>^S
>\
^
-ซ
^
12 1 234567 89
Month of Pickup
Figure 76. Loa Hatchery, Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Stations 1,2,3 and 4.
92
-------
.6
.h
.2'
12.0"
.8
.6
.It
.2
11.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
10.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
9.0
.8
.6
.It
S
8.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
f.o
.8
.6
.It
.2
0.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
5.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
it.O
.. .. | 1
-Sta
*i
V,
k \
^
tion
tlon
Uon
tion
^
*=*
i -M-
2 -(-ป
H
VO
H^
^rr^
(-^"^
,
f \
X*
v
I""*"
^
^>
\
S
Y
,-ฅ-
-^
--(-
~-?^
^
s
A'
s*
^*
^
^
*<< ,
~~*^
-
^
"^
*
Nv
\
^
\
~V-
^v-
/
/
\"
^
^*
N
Y.
r-h
^V~
/
,
J
^y
S
\
>
\
\
V,
/
/ /
' /
/
/ V
/
t
vt
^
)t
X
^
v
' y>
jf
r^i
^-fa
ft
*&'
--*
,*
A
v^
y.
"5
12 1 23456
Month of Pickup
Figure 77. Loa Hatchery, Dissolved Oxygen, Stations 1,2,3 and 4.
345
Month' of Pickup
Figure 78, Loa Hatchery, Carbon Dtoxlde. Stations 1,2,3 and 4.
93
-------
.2-
9.0-
.8 -
.6 -
.4 -
.2 -
8.0-
.8 -
.6 -
.4 -
.2-
7.0 -
Station 1 44
Station 2 -)--)--
Station 3 ~
'Station 4
V"
'"7?
12 1 234567 89
Month of Pickup
Figure 79. Loa Hatchery, Hydrogen Ion Concentration, Stations 1,2,3 and 4.
10
_l_
T2
TO
68
66
6U
62
60
Station 1 f-tf
Station 2 -{/---
Station 3
Station 4 ~
l-t-
S 56
U6
Iปl4
140
38
36
11 12
456
Month of Pickup
Figure 80. Loa Hatchery, Temperature. Stations 1,2,3 and 4.
-------
IlltO
1420
4400
300
360
3"tO
320
300
280
260
2440
220
200
ISO
160
HO
120
100
-80
60
to)
20
0
Station 1
Station 2
Station 6
Station 7
ฑ*
11 12 1
34 567
Month of Pickup
Figure 81. White's Trout Farm, M.O. Alkalinity. Stations 1,2,6 and 7.
1
uo
4420
1400
3-0
3L-0
3&40
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
ISO
160
140
120
100
Station 5-4H
Station 8
Station 9
s
*T*
4 5
Month of Pickup
Figure 82. White's Trout Farm, M .O . Alkalinity . Stations 5 , 8 and 9 .
95
-------
Figure 83. White's Trout Farm, Total Hardness. Stations 1,2,6 and 7.
4 56
Month of Pickup
Figure 84 . White's Trout Farm, Total Hardness. Stations 5, 8 and 9.
96
-------
Station 1 tt
Station 2 -th
Station 6
Station 7
11 12 1
Figure 85. White's Trout Farm, Turbidity. Stations 1,^,6 and 7.
4 5 6
Month of Pickup
Figure 86. White's Trout Farm, Turbidity. Stations 5, 8 and 9.
97
-------
20.0
19-0
18.0
17.0
16.0
15-0
Ik.o
13-0
| 12'ฐ
g 11.0
$
g 10.0
3 9-0
a.o
T.o
6.0
5-0
It.O
3-0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1
Stat
Stat
Stat
Stnt
on
on
on
ion
_i_
? +
1-
/
T'
v
/
V
V
V
-I
y
^r-|
,
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
-
\
\
\
\
\
|
i
i
I
I
)
I
1
1
1
I
1
/
1
I
i
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
-
12 1234 56789
Month of Pickup
Figure87. White's Trout Farm, Settleable Solids. Stations 1, 2, 6 and 7 .
10
21-0
20-0
19-0
1B.O
17.0
16.0
15.0
13.0
S 12.0
a 11.0
| 10.0
S 9-0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
It.O
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1
ion
ion
ion
9
T~
Ed
h
It
-
^ ,
u
t
-1
J
-V
=&
^
~ r
/
^
11 12 1
4 5 6
Month of Pickup
Figure 88. White's Trout Farm , Settleable Solids . Stations 5 , 8 and 9 .
-------
4 5
Month of Pickup
Figure 89. White's Trout Farm, Suspended Solids, Stations 1,2,6 and 7.
4 5
Month of Pickup
Figure 90. White's Trout Farm, Suspended Solids. Stations 5, 8 and 9.
99
-------
1050
1000
950
900
800
750
TOO
650
600
550
500
450
ItOO
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1 ' '
Station
Station
Station
\\
\\
V
f -
*"-O
-H
i 1 1
2 -H-
6
i
u^
~h
**=
1
H-
1
-^r*
=t=
i
3B
^
JปX\
\ V"
\
Y
\
/
f/
..-^
r~rr
H
Kl
,
\\
/
}
^
/,'
1,
T<
r~
^
V-,
<
/
A
i-r -
H-
-i-
.',-,
tป-J
Jr-
V*
-^s
t
^^
4 5
Month of Pickup
Figure 91. White's Trout Farm, Total Dissolved Solids. Stations 1,2,6 and 7 .
10
1100
1050
1000
950
900
850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
1450
ItOO
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Stat
Stat
Sta
i
*
V
ion
ion
ion
'>
5 1 1 <
-ฃ
A
;
^
T~
\
\
y
I/T-
-f--
V
*\
-k
-i'
L
__
?V
^-
Ss
%~"~
v^
V
x
^
>-
-r
^
piei
11 12 12 34 567 89
Month of Pickup
Figure 92. White's Trout Farm, Total Dissolved Solids . Stations 5 , B and 9 .
100
-------
1100
100"
950
900
850
BOO
750
700
650
600
550
500
koa
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
] 1
Sta
Sta
Sta
Sta
"T1
^~
ion
ion
ion
ion
^/^
; '
*K
i _j
1
2 -H-
^ ,
*-,
-/
u
y
"Vi"
_L
^
:\
\
.
\-
r
I f
r/*
r
4.
j
/
,
i
' 4
~,i.
f-,
^
KN
K
4-
\
v\
V
\
X
^
-^<
y
' ^~
*
-^7
A
J.
>*
-^
j^
/
-#
/r
/-A
/-
'V
^-v
V
)
/*>
/
^7*
.__.
^V
>T~'
*W
A-
i-r '
^
k _ ,
HH
1
^f,
^L_
' f^
JL'
^*>
11 ซ121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Month of Pickup
Figure 93. White's Trout Farm, Specific Conductance. Stations 1,2,6 and 7.
1100
1050
1000
950
900
850
300
750
700
650
600
550
500
kjo
1(00
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Sta
Hr-
|
tlon
ion
ion
^1"
9
^.
>s
s%
i
1
>
U
I1
^
V
1
/
//
//
/
If.
II
/f
^
^f*1"
-N.
^
>s
y
\
il\
u
4
V
1-
/r
^
,
f=f--
W-
/s
/:
/.*
<*
/
A
/f
/f.
r
-y -
ji,
n
/r
,/
y1
tf^- '
V-^
r-V^
n-<
^
\r^
~\
*^^,
12
4 5
Month of Pickup
Figure 94. White's Trout Farm, Specific Conductance. Stations 5, 8 and 9.
101
-------
*
Station 1 -p
Station 2
Station 6
Station 7
3-
xs
12 1
34 567
Month of Pickup
Figure 95. White's Trout Farm, Nitrate. Stations 1 , 2, 6 and 7 .
11.0
10.5
10.0
9-5
9-0
8.5
8.0
7-5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5-5
5.0
"1.5
k.o
3-5
3-0
2-5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Sta
Sta
Sta
1
V'
*
Ion
ion
Ion
/
)<
9
N\
-+-
r^
\\
\
\
>
*-
r
r~
-\-
\
\
~h
P^l
-/
/
~/*i
i
#
f"
\
\
-\
/
/ '
. '
'
' y
y
^
/
v
^
"\
TS
"^^x.
^
,
\
\
#
^ll
\
\
-\-
k \
~^ T
*V V
A
V
11 12 1
234 567
Month of Pickup
Figure 96. White's Trout Farm, Nitrate. Stations 5, 6 and 9.
102
-------
,
o-38
0.3>>
1 ฐ'32
0.30
O.S8
0.2k
0.2k
S 0.22
g 0.20
IO
& 0.18
S ฐ'16
O.U
0.12
0.10
O.OB
0.06
0.04
0.09
' 0.00
Station
Station
Station
Station
-4-
H
1 1 .
2 -1
'
\
/,
1
r^
^
/>,
. i*
\,
"y
-4-
.-"
ofcL
/
/
/, >
y
N v
N
T^,
\
M
^
,, '
"-f^
/
L
^j
^
r^
^y
fr-
>
^
\
\
\
\
\
^
/
/
-+-
\
l^ ^
s,
s
r^
frf3
4 5
Month of Pickup
Figure 97. White's Trout Farm, Nitrite. Stations 1,2,6 and 7.
34 56
Month of Pickup
Figure 98. White's Trout Farm, Nitrite. Stations 5, 8 and 9.
103
-------
2.2
2.1
2.0
i-9
i.O
1.7
1.6
1.5
i.li
1.3
1.2
1,1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.14
0.3
0.2
0.1
n,n
Sta
Sta
Sta
Sta
1
\ '
V
\
.)
v
ion
Ion
Ion
Ion
^
\t
~'\
y.
i _4
2 -H"
7
uf
\
-V-
7*-.
/
/i
t
Li<-
r-Y
" -s.
/
/
t
iV
^
s
\
\
' \
v.
' S
H
\
1
\
ซ\
M
'0
N'
cx
V
/
/
/
I ^
"*t"
\
1
y
^c
J^.
'^ "
"\
I/
/
/
/
-t-
u
w
\\
\\
\
\
1
^
H-
\
I+-1
^
*+*
1
1
/ ,'
,
**=
y
^
!
\
. '
f 4
!
1
1
*
.
\,
\i
\
\
{.
f
S~
r*H
1
11 12 1
34 56
Month of Pickup
Figure 9 9 . White' s Trout Farm , Ammonia . Stations 1,2,6 and 7 .
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
l.li
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0,k
0,3
0.1
0.0
1 1
Station
Station
Station
i
^
A-u
1 1
1 \
\ \
\ 1
1
\
1
'
\ *
*
s ,
\ ;
Si
\
S,
"-^
o *"'"
9
^S
V
\
~
. "
' .
/
/
/
'*ltv(
,
S^.-
it
/
/-
/
r
\\
\
\\
\ '
\
*<*,
\,
,\
V
ป\
\
\
\
\
ฑ~
?_.
,
' /
/ .
^
.1
ฃ
-.
S
\ s
V \
" \.
s
\^r
f
>f
J
^
^>r"
/
/
/
1
s
a
1
1
\
V
1,
,
'V
M
X
*-.
^J
^
,
It
ll
-if
^r
^^s
1
>
-y-
-\
i
sc
' V
T^
'
12 1 2
34 567
Month of Pickup
Figure 100. White's Trout Farm, Ammonia. Stations 5, 8 and 9,
-------
' '
,000,000
600,000
1(00,000
200,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
llO,000
20,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
k, 000
2,000
1,000
800
600
km
200
0
Stat
Stat
Stat
Stat
N
1
/
,
' ,
r
1
1~
)
/
/
J
7
f
\ '
ion
ion
ion
ion
/
^
\
'\
\
A-
\
-y
1 -4
.. \ . ,
2 -t-h-
/
,
"t
1
1
^
/
,
\
A-
\
i
s^
,
/
,/
/^
^
r^
-f
',
V
\
v
1
v
\
\
\
N.
f
\
>
\
)(
\
\l
V
A
(
1 \
-1-
ฑ~l
f
r "
/
f
\
\,
\
>
-V1
/
/
/
/
r
x-"
xv
\
\
1
"1
/
p
/
"f.
/
/
r
-^
.
\
1
\
v
\
\-
T
J
H
/
/
/
/
\
>.
>^
71-
/
/
/^
1
V
\
L
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
*
^ '
/
/
/
/
/
;
,1
v.
\
\
/
/
v
Y*
s
\
/
r
;
r-
1
r
t
t
1
/
V
\
,\
N,
-^-
-i
i-4_
/
\*
^
/
/
/
/
/
1
T
T
T
T
t-
^
11 12 1
34 567
Month of Pickup
Figure 101. White's Trout Farm, M.P.N. Conform. Stations 1,2,6 and 7 .
,000,000
,000,000
,000,000
,000,000
800,000
600,000
Uoo,ooo
200,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
to, ooo
20,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
u.ooo
2,000
1,000
BOO
600
^00
200
Station 5 -) fr
Station 8
Station 9
y>\
g
4 5
Month of Pickup
Figure 102. White's Trout Farm, M.P.N, Coliform. Stations 5B 6 and 9.
105
-------
1(3.0
to.o
38.0
36.0
31*. o
32.0
ป ..0
Sft-9
26.0
2k. 0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
llt.O
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
lt.0
a-o
0.0
1 1
Station 1 ( \
Station 2 i-f-
Statlon 5
\
1
\
\ i
V
f ,
*t=
X
V
' *
N=
x
N
N
./
=&
f
. ,
=1=
\
, v
'
^X*
. V
H^
"s
=f=
^
\ \
\
, \
'\ '
y
H=-
\
^
=(=
^, J
C j
L ^.
H=H
. i
r /
/ .
/ *
k""
[-+-
\,
f
^.
/^
<-jf
;
/>
^
^ '
_t_
s
K **S
LH
/
/
/'
/'
//
~\-
\
\
A
A
A
\\
u
\<
^
^
^ /
*^
^
*-*-<
M^
/
7^
^ ,
^'
7
^
^
\
v
W
*- ,
L^
y
It
jT
^-
12 1
4 56
Month of Pickup
Figure 103. White's Trout Farm, Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Stations 1,2,6 and 7 .
to.o
38.0
36.0
31+. o
32.0
30.0
28.0
26.0
2k. 0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
Ik.O
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
lt.0
2.0
0.0
Station
Station
Station
\ ,
\
\
\
\
-^
V .
\
n~"
c ,
9
V
\
^
, >
V
N
^~
-^
^
'
f7
y
/
V
\ ,
\'
7^
f5
4 5
Month of Pickup
Figure 104. White's Trout Farm, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Stations 5, 8 and 9.
106
-------
.6 -
.It .
.2 -
12.0 -
ป8 .
.6 .
.It -
.2 -
11.0 .
.8 .
.6 -
.It -
2 -
lO'.O -
.8 -
.6 -
.k -
9-0 -
.8 -
.6 -
.It -
s!o -
.8 -
.6 -
A :
.2 -
T.O-
.8 -
.6 -
.It -
6.0 -
.8 -
.6 -
A -
.2 -
5,0'
.8
.6 -
A -
It.'o -
-IU
Statlon
Station 2 -f-(..
Station 6
Station 7
I
^s:
V \
7J
T.r
-M.
3ฃ
11 12 1
234 5
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 105. White's Trout Farm, Dissolved Oxygen. Stations 1, 2, 6 and 7.
5-0
4 56
Month oฃ Plckun
Figure 106. White's Trout Farm, Dissolved Oxygen. Stations 5, 8 and 9.
107
-------
10.5
10.0
9-5
9.0
6.5
8.0
T-5
7-0
6.5
6.0
5-5
5.0
k.o
3-5
3.0
2-5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1
Station
Station
Station
Station
-f
^
\
\
/
/
s
X
1 -t
a
7
r l
\
\
\
^r\
\
7-
" *
X
*
J
J^
^/
1
y
*x
V
*
,
f\ i \
y.\\ >
r
/
r^
*y
'
'
/
W
/
<
i
1
rf
/
/
i
s(_
*\
,
v
\v
*
1
\ /
v
V
\
\
V
^
^
N
fX
1
k t
/
X,
^
y
'
i/'
\ ,
X
\
\
\
"f '
~- ,
,
^
^
r^f'1'
.
"i '
A'
/
/
/
/-
#
,f
7
/
7
-*f
Y
~^-.
i
\
\
\
\
v
V
/
('I
4 5678
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 107. White's Trout Farm, Carbon Dioxide. Stations 1,2,6 and 1 .
10.5
10.0
9-5
9-0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5-5
5.0
"t-5
lt.0
3-5
3.0
2-5
2.0
-1-5
1.0
u-5
0.0
Station
Station
Station
V
\
\
.
\
=*=
/^
7f
=t=
9
,\
, S
^- .
-4ซ
/
^
.
N=i
^-
^
\
/
=H
__
\
\
T^1-
11 12 12 34 5678
Month oi Pickup
/
f*"
[V
It
It
|/;
rV
t
)
,1
Vr
i1!
M
i
=4=
9 10
Figure 108. White's Trout Farm, Carbon Dioxide. Stations 5, 8 and 9.
108
-------
,.2
9.0
..8
.6
.4
.2
a.o
.8
.6
.4
.2
7.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
6.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
5.0
Ul
Station
Station
Station
Station
/
/
ft.
/,
f
,
\
\.
\
^
,
C-'J
1-t-c-
2 -t-f-
\
X
/
-A .
"K
X,
SJj
^
*1
f^
V
^
'
'V
rY
1
/.
y^
/
/
N
r><.
rV^
'
^ /
^
-1-
r+- 1
X^
r-h
x
*
/'*
r\
V
'/
V-
/
^
^
s*
v
\-<
T
'/T
/ \
jff
\
^
* yi
V >
,\
V
f
\
" X.
r\
1
^
pf 1
IV>
X
y^
V
X
|t^
12
v
1
y^
iif^f'
r^f*
^^
2
/
/*" J
3
A^'
^
/
"*^s
L\^
.?*
x-
4 5
Month of Pickup
V
, r^
k^'
s
^
^y1
v'
j<^
s.
\f
S
s>
s
^
^x1^1
v
^
^ ^
7 8
,A
--X"
V
y
V;s
\
9
/
f*
*
.x*'
/
r*
/
f /
/
^
^<
* "
\^
10
Figure 110. White's Trout Farm, Hydrogen Ion Concentration. Stations 5, 8 and 9,
109
-------
74
72
70
ฃ8
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
42
40
38
36
34
32
Stat
Stat
Stat
Stat
i
\
K
\\
V
11
Ion
Ion
ion
ion
r ~\
s*/
/
) -
1 -V-+-
2 -\
6
7
w
/
&~
12
\ ~
\
v\
")
1
*
V
\
\
\
Vi
7
r\-
^
j( '
^>"
2
r f
/
4l
r
h
fit
/
3
r f1
/
'y
^
'x^
rr-
\
\
\
V1
^\
r^
J
/
ซL
/f
^7-
/
'
L
1
T
/
y
4 5
Month of Pickup
~r
\
s\
i~~\
6
i^
V
^
^V
/~
"^
7
rh
-*=
^
i
8
S
*5T
- +
x. ,
^
^-
9
"^C
- ^~
1=
TT
y\
V
n
r
JL
"1
|
fc*^
10
Figure 111. White's Trout Farm, Temperature. Stations 1,2,6 and 7.
-J1_
Station 5
Station 8
Station 9 -
tv
s
z
-X
1234 5676
Month of Pickup
Figure 112. White's Trout Farm, Temperature. Stations 5, 8 and 9.
110
-------
Wto
1*00
380
360
.-3"tO
320
300
280
960
2kO
220
200
180
160
lllO
120
100
80
60
ko
20
0
1
1
Station
Station
Station
.(
>r^
l H -1
1
,-K
i
i
is
^
_^^_
*\.
i
1
1
\
\,
i
!
I
i
i
i
y
^
Y
s
/
&L
\
x
1 I
1
1
"S-v
i
I
1
1
x^'
^ -^
1
S-^"
t-4 i
vป
f
1
"^
V
1
V
y
/
*s
[
456
Month of Pickup
Figure 113. Sprmgville Hatchery (State), M.O. Alkalinity. Stations 1, 2 and3.
kko
U20
koo
380
360
3UO
320
300
280
260
2ltO
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
ho
20
Station
Station
Station
Station
r^s
'*"
1 _
1
i_t
5 -I-1--
^f-
s.
1
1
V
1
V
/<
\^
V
**ft
, -H
/*
/
i
i
\
VS
i
i
/j
#f"
f '
"\_
y^
1
4V
1
1
1
L><
Y ^
N \
\, \
^-4.
^v
X,
^4
^f.
r^
/
>s
"(-.
1
/
/
^
.
V
A
r^
^v
nif\
/
/
/
/
/
'+.
\
s
^
^f
12 1 234567 89
Month of Pickup
Figure 114. Sprlngville Hatchery (Federal), M.O. Alkalinity. Stations 1 , 5, 10 and 11.
111
-------
VtO
1*20
1*00
380
360
31*0
320^
300
280
260
sko
220
200
180
160
lltO
120
100
60
1*0
Sta
Sta
(_
^^
ion
Ion
1
y.
m
-yf
-h
V
-
1 i
ff
\
i
,-f
5T
i
^f
1
V
X
rsป*
"it
*N
kv
x
7
xf
Y
i-^>-
^?*
"^t
^"H
^S
s<~
h
F-H
12 1 234567 89
Month of Pickup
Figure 115. Springvtlle Hatchery (Federal, Pond), M.O. Alkalinity. Stations 6 and 12.
10
WO
1*20
1*00
380
360
340
320
300
280
260
2lป0
220
200
180
160
1UO
120
100
80
60
1*0
20
0
1 ,
Station
Station
Station
4 t-|
7
i
[
I
^
-ซH
/
/
f>*
\
V
\^
13^
"ฐH
i
-H-
\^^
i
^
'
.4.
riSL
-H
H-j
\^
^
"h
4-
12 1 234567 69
Month of Pickup
Figure 116. Springvllle Hatchery (Receiving Water), M .O. Alkalinity. Stations 4 , 6 and 7 .
112
-------
42O
IKX)
360
31*0
320
300
280
260
2ltO
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
ItO
20
0
| |
Station
Station
Station
X
3^
,*
1
X,
1
1
1
,-1
,-x
1
1
1
,*S
1
1
rf
1
/
/
>
r
V
V
A
^
N^
*v
x>
/
^
>,
"
x!
/
/'
v,
W
^
,
v
r
"T"
*>
. -f
1121 234567 89
Month of Pickup
Figure 117. Springville Hatchery (Receiving water), M.O. Alkalinity. Stations 4, 13 and 14.
10
620
600
580
560
51*0
520
500
U80
3 k6o
380
360
320
300
280
260
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
11 12
34567
Month of Pickup
9 10
Figure 118. Springville Hatchery (State), Total Hardness. Stations 1, 2, and 3.
113
-------
620
600
560
520
500
1(80
3 ItOO
S
380
360
320
280
I I I
Station 1 -+-j
Station 5 -(.-(.-
Statlon 10
Station 11
11 IS
3 4 S
Month of Pickup
9 10
Figure 119. Sprlngvllle Hatchery (Federal), Total Hardness. Stations 1 , 5 , 10 and 11 .
6ito
620
560
5l(0
1(80
Station 6 } M)
Station 12
>C
HC*
5Ss,
[FS"
^
360
3^0
320
300
280
260
Id
T'
220 F
200 >
4 5
Month of Pickup
Flgur-. 120. Spilngville Hatchery (Federal pond), Total Hardness. Stations 6 and 12.
-------
3456
Month of Pickup
Figure 121. Springvtlle Hatchery (Receiving water), Total Hardness. Stations 4, 6 and 7 .
SkO
11 12
3456
Month of Pickup
Figure 122. Sprlngvllle Hatchery (Receiving water), Total Hardness. Stations 4, 13 and 14.
115
-------
k2
ko
38
36
32
30
28
M
c 26
if 2k
o
3 22
ง 2ฐ
2 18
fl
*"* 16
14
12
10
8
6
k
ฃ
0
1
i
1
1
i
I
'
'
4
I
A
Stat
Stat
\
\
JL
ion
ion
^ '
H-
2
3
i
'
v if\ '
^ -/I A
y !x
f*
11 12 1
i
r
r
i
i
i
i
l
i
i
i
i
i
i i i
\ i i
i
\
\
\
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i ']
t
i
"- __
^
]
~^.
j
/
jfc^
V
.-
^^
'
V
V
A,
n
x
/
/
//
#
/
-/
r
N
\
\
\
\\
\\
,
v
^
it
./
y
/-
2 3456 7
V,
\
"v
/L
/ ;
y
/
/
/
1
a
^
\
\
\
\
'
/
ฃ~
a 10
Month of Pickup
Figure 123. Springville Hatchery (State) , Turbidity. Stations 1 , 2 and 3 .
1*2
ko
38
36
3k
32
30
28
1 26
ฃ 2k
2
8 22
8 ฃฐ
2 18
O
fl 16
Ik
12
10
8
6
k
2
0
Station
Station
Station ]
Station
^7
-i
/
V
\
^
A-
1
5 -<-(.-
1 "
FปH
/
/
r
/.
ฃh
\
A
\
j
^
^
^
H-
v
^ \
X-
J.
-h
_/.
1 1ซ
A-
\
T
V*
\i
v'
-H
/
V /
SK'
A
i
>'^
4
*f-
y
7
h* '
V^if-
\
' \
\
t-
^ 1
\',
V\
/
/
7
7
T~^
,7
^V
//
\
\
f
^V
\\
W
^
'-,
*
i-H
-*-
1 /
-+f+-
3456
Month of Pickup
Figure 124, Springville Hatchery (Federal), Turbidity. Stations 1, 5, 10 and 11.
116
-------
I
3 4 5 S 7
Month of Pickup
9 10
Figure 125. Sprlngvllle Hatchery (Federal pond), Turbidity. Stations 6 and 12 .
11 12
2345
Month of Pickup
Figure 126. SpringviHe Hatchery (Receiving water), Turbidity. Stations 4, 6 and 7.
117
-------
11 12
3456
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 127. Spnngville Hatchery (Receiving water), Turbidity. Stations 4, 13 and 14.
It. 2
i*.o
3-8
3-6
3-1*
3-2
3-0
8.8
2.6
^ 2.1*
-------
4.2
4.0
3.8
3-6
3.4
3-2
3.0'
, =-6
9)
S21
S 2.2
1 2-<>
2 ,.8
1.6
1.4
1-2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0.0
1 1
1
Station
Station
Station
Station
5-l-r-
i
i i
r
i
i
i
; i
! I
i
i
1 i
i
i
i
i
i
I 1 i
!
i i ;
i ! 1
i
i
i
i
i i
i ii;
i ,'
j
.._
i
i
i
j
A
/l\
^4-^
_j
\ /
/ \ I/
^^^
n 't
\
\
, \
,1'
'
i i
, '
,
,
,
,
i ,
(
t
1
1
I,
ii
- I
1
1
1
'
1
1
1
1
,
1
1
' 1 I
11 12 1 234567 8 9 10
Month of Pickup
Figure 129. Springville Hatchery (Federal), Settleable Solids. Stations 1, 5, 10 and 11.
345
Month of Pickup
Figure 130. Springville Hatchery (Federal pond), Settleable Solids . Stations 6 and 12.
119
-------
U.2
It.O
3.8
3.6
3- It
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
3 H
< 2'2
a a.o
3 1.8
1.6
1.1*
i-2
1.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
0.0
1 1
Station
Station
Station
/
/
J
f-i*
\
A
\
V
:*-=!
7
^fct-
r
1
^
X
1 |
I
,
h
DJ-uLj
i i_i
_,
1
1 I
J
1
_l
1
3456
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 131, Springville Hatchery (Receiving water), Settleable Solids. Stations 4, 6 and 7,
It. 2
U.O
3.8
3.6
3- >t
3-2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2. It
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
l.lt
J..2
J..U
n
.6
.2
1
Station
Station
Station
1
it
^U
/
s,
\
i
13 lฅ"
14
-i-
i
I
H-
|
i
I
^T*~
'
j
T~
\
\
\^
^
*
3456
Month of Pickup
Figure 132. Springville Hatchery {Receiving water), Settleable Solids. Stations 4, 13 and 14.
120
-------
lln
38
36
3k
32
30
28
26
2U
S2
20
18
16
lit
1?
10
a
6
ii
2
0
1
Station
Station
Station
f
f
1 1 1
ป ' '
^
1
|
1
/
^,
_
V
iN i
i if i
^
_, *
"-.-<-
,
'
I
^ ^
'
~
1
i
^
,
1
4
,
1
/
/
/
\
\
x
*- ,
'
-+
t
-*-
vi
i t-i
1 r1
/i
/-,
tv
l\
12 1 234567 89
Month of Pickup
Figure 133. Sprlngville Hatchery (State), Suspended Solids. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
30
u 26
s
< 2k
6 ,,
Station 1 ~\f-
Station 5 _j._j._
Station 10
Station 11 ~
T
"1 T
"IT
3456
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 134. Springville Hatchery (Federal), Suspended Solids. Stations 1, 5, 10 and 11.
121
-------
nr
t-
111
in
-s
>
1
1
V., ,
\
A
1
"*>L
1
\^
~^\
2
1
's
\
-K:
1
M
A
/
/
'1^
\
\
\
\
\
\
"*?
^s
fTi ,
r-^
3
^(^
\^
T~"
1
U-^
, ( i
i J ซ
^^
ฃ
><
^
>*y^
?
\f
x-
a
Sr
)
\.
\
\
^*
v
X
0
.Month of Piokup
Figure 135. Springville Hatchery (Federal pond), Suspended Solids. Stations 6 and 12.
4-
Station
Station 6 -
Station 7
n 12
4567
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 136. Springville Hatchery (Receiving water), Suspended Solids. Stations 4, 6 and 7 ,
122
-------
,
1*0
38
36
_.
30
28
26
I 1
> 22
ง, 20
16
lit
12
10
8
6
It
2
0
Station
Station
Station
f
/
'
//
/
/
f
^
v
J
>r
|
_J
_l |
4-H-
ZJ
" i
~ p-
v.
"\
\
X
/
,*
\
V
\\
\\
\\
\\
V
y
^
'/
'/
/
,/
y
f
sr
-f-
,
\ v
\!
-(
'
s
f<
^
^ ',
\
_fJ3
t "* -f ^
>~Y
^^
-~^_
I-*-!
V"
^1-
H1
U"7*-
F*^a^
L j
lsk-.
\
>v
X,
^ J
^t
X
L/-^
Xs^
/*
y*
^
^iC-
'x.'"
\
I
v^
11 12 1 234567 8 9 10
Month of Pickup
Figure 137. Spr ngville Hatchery (Receiving water) , Suspended Solids. Stations 4, 13 and 14.
1100
1050
1000
950
900
850
800
750
700
S 650
> 600
1 550
3 500
1150
1(00
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
\ 1
Stat
Stat
Stat
ion
ion
ion
1-
K-
' I
^r<
1
S 1
^
V
i-
rV
\
\
\l
1
-ft
I/A
f\j
/*
t' f /
//
j*
H'-ll
-*-^
_^
^
-r~
-^ ]
:=rH
^W
F^
F^=j
,
s
^
,
11 12
10
Month of Pickup
Figure 138. Springville Hatchery (State), Total Dissolved Solids. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
123
-------
1100
1050
1000
950
900
850
BOO
750
700
ฃ 650
^ 600
1 550
>t
H
^
u
-r
\
}
-*-i
I
i
i
j
,/
/
>
-V-?
7^
-<
/
X
Tit-
,
p*;-1'1
/
/
/
^ -i
r-^ป
j
M-,
^
^
~F=
^
y.
H-1
i-
"Y-
!t-
^/
1
/
f*~
sff
1
1-J^
1
i
1_
^^
**
^y
*~~~h-
Vv^
-Y
t
f
~^
\
_Ltt
f
f
/
f
I
I
V
\\
\
\\
\
\\
H
1
f
\
^ r
3456
Month of Pickup
Tigure 140. Springviile Hatchery (Federal pond). Total Dissolved Solids. Stations 6 and 12.
-------
1100
1050
1000
950
900
850
800
T50
700
650
j 550
1ป50
1*00
350
300
S50
200
150
100
50
0
Station 4
Station 6
Station 7
fc
11 12
3456
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 141. Sprlngvllle Hatchery (Receiving water), Total Dissolved Solids. Stations 4, 6 and 7.
-E3-
1050
950
900
850
750
700
Sj 650
$ 600
"0
It 50
350
300
200
150
Station 4 ] H -
Station 13
Station 14
&
S^ฃ
11 12
3456
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 142. Springvllle Hatchery (Receiving water). Total Dissolved Solids. Stations 4, 13 and 14.
125
-------
1300
1250
1200
1150
1100
1050
1000
950
900
850
Boo
750
700
650
600
550
500
It50
koo
350
300
250
200
.
Stat
Stat
Stat
J
X
x
__4
on
on
on
yฃ
ff
| .
i H
2
3
I
^
>v.
N
1
r~!<.
A
4-
X
f*
^-~ !
X 1
X,
^
;<
<+*
^^
X,
/
1
fi
\ .
\
/
J
-t-
^\,
1
^
V
^\
3456
Month of Pickup
Figure 143. Springville Hatchery (State), Specific Conductance. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
1250
1200
1150
1050
850
700
650
600
550
500
1*50
too
350
300
250
200
Station 1 [ I
Station 5 --i~f-
Station 10
Station 11
^*V
345
Month of Pickup
Figure 144. Springville Hatchery (Federal), Specific Conductance. Stations 1, 5, 10 and 11.
126
-------
Figure 145. vJprin<;ville Hatchery (Federal pond), Specific Conductance.. Slations 6 end 12.
3456
Month of Pickup
Fiqure H6. Springville Hatchnry (Receiving water), Specific Conductance. Stations 4, 6 and 7.
127
-------
1250
1200
1150
1050
1000
950
900
B 850
"g 800
1 750
g TOO
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
Stat
Stat
Stat
V
x
e^
ion
ion
Lon
X.
4 -
13 -
14 -
ซ*ซ
H-
y
*f
l*Nj
Xv
^t^
^
x
1 i
^s
r~~i
X
&^H
*Y
5T~
\
?
H1
x*
>.
/s,
x"
\\
A\
^
1
V
^ \
tf
H
/'
'
s<
A
Month of Pickup
Figure 147. Springville Hatchery (Receiving water). Specific Conductance. Stations 4,13 and 14.
11.0
10.5
10.0
9-5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7-0
6-5
6.0
5-5
5-0
^5
li.O
3-5
3.0
2-5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Stat
Stat
Stat
J[-
(A-
*
r^
H
1 i
.on
ion
ion
I
h
1
4f
T
fr
ii
H
2
\
\
i
!
1
1
i
i
i
\
\
1
1
l
/
/
/
/
\ i /
V /,
rr
\ \
A
/ /
V-
J
*
\
\
0 \
)
1
1
1
i/ V
^^
-V
\
\
t\
J \
Vi
>X
\
.^A^
x.
^O1
J
/
/
;t
rt.
V
1 ,
^,
\
\
/
1 -.
'V^
/
i
/
^
J*1
,/"
\
\
\
1^
-v^
,
/
/
/
*lL
/J
/
..
i^-^
\
\
1 V
\
\
/
r
r
)t
\
^-,
^
*ฃ>.
k^^
.?
ซx^^
s-
/,
y?"
\
'\
i
H
11 12
34567
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 148. Springville Hatchery (State), Nitrate. Statln.-.s 1, 2 and 3.
123
-------
11.0
10.5
10.0
9-5
9-0
8.5
8.0
7-5
7.0
2 6'5
$ 6-ฐ
E -
E 5-5
O>
3 5.0
fc-5
k.o
3-5
3-b
z-5
2.0
1-5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Station
Station
Station
Station
I,
I*
ti
V
V
i
\
1
I
f
i
1
f
F
1
i i i
5 -H-
j
ft. ,
^
k-n
\
^
\
<
^A
^
V
\
y.
\>
\
V
11^
*/
A
J'
*-*
^
j^
\
\
S
^
_ _
/
r
\
>
V1
/
/
\
V-,
V
V
1
1
^-
-X
^
^
/
1 ->
11 12 1
23456
Month of Pickup
Figure 149. Springvllle Hatchery (Federal), Nitrate. Stations 1, 5 , 10 and 11.
11.0
10.5
10.0
9-5
9-0
8-5
8.0
T-5
7.0
6-5
6.0
5-5
5-0
lt-5
U.O
3-5
3-0
2-5
2.0
1-5
J..O
0.5
n.n
Station
Station
L
^
\_
![
\
j^
\
jf
i
.
1
/
f
f
1
1
1
!
c -^
> '
' 1~~.
> ^
7-1
7N
~A, s
/
"v-
,/
\-y~
\
\
\^
S
\
\
A
/
/
4f
tt
tV
^
s
[
\ *
p?
s
v"
/^
V
V
^
/
/~
1 ~*
^
^
1
. /
i/-'
^
IS
s<
^
7-
/
1
/-
"^
3456
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 150. Spnngville Hatchery (Federal pond), Nitrate. Stations 6 and 12.
129
-------
11.0
10.5
10.0
9-5
9.0
8.5
8.0
T-5
7.0
2 6.5
$ 6.0
e
I 5.5
1 5'ฐ
lt.5
lt.0
3.5
3-0
2.5
2.0
1-5
1.0
0-5
0.0
Stat
Stat
Stat
f
\L
Ion
ion
Ion
...
f
f
\\\ f
-1 f
1 I
ฅ
T
4 .
j_j_
6-^- 1
7 1
v
Y
-^
ซ ^
-K^
<
-=J
/
/
~-\-
-^ป~*
>
X-
Y
^
^
k X
^i
i,
\
V
-N
/
/
(A)"1
\
V
u '^
j
*
A
" /
J1-
V^r
vS
T
^
/
^
^ i
\'
^>
A
jy.
fi
s^
"S
X*.
"V
/*
*^
"r-i
11
3 4 S 6
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 151. Sprlngvllle Hatchery (Receiving water), Nitrate. Stations 4, 6 and 7 .
Milligrams/liter
I-1 t-" H1
Jiowiovjiovnowi OV/lov/lOv/lO^O
2.0
1-5
ฑ.0
u.5
0.0
1
Station
Station
Station
F
1
t-
3
^1
1
13 ' '
4
1
'
fV
-^
*
^
L-J
tf*
X^
-H
X
^X" j
\i
\
:U
1
^^
_
'/
?r*
*-*s^
><"
y"
V
y
cp
Sf
JVi
_^s
V
\
~V"
"~V
^
~yT~
1
?r
3456
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 152. Springville Hatchery (Receiving water}, Nitrate, Stations 4, 13 and 14.
130
-------
.80
.60
.50
Ao
30
.28
.26
s &
"of .22
g, .20
1 'l8
.16
.lit
12
.10
.08
.06
:0k
.02
0.00
1
Station
Station
Station
S
f.
\
,/
/
1
|
1
1
*V
V
N
1
1
1
t
1
kx"
r\.
(
>
V 1
I
1
/
/
//
t'
\
\
\,
V
1*
1
t
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
J
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
>
1
1
1
T
I
1
1
1
t{
-1
^
X^
~ฃ**^
s
.L.J.,
i - 4
st-
\
N
~A
^"
, '
"r^
'
^
*T
^
*i
~~*
^jt.
1.00
.90
.80
TO
.60
.50
30
.28
.26
.22
.20
.18
.16
.U
12
.10
.08
.06
.02
0.00
11121 234S67 89 10
Month of Pickup
Figure 153. Sprlngvllle Hatchery (State), Nitrite. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
\ 1
Stat
Stat
Stat
Stat
11
ion
Ion
Ion
Ion
^
7.
4
i ซ 1 l
5 -H-
11
'A
12
JCfc
1
I
^
_*
1
;
1
f
ฃ
ft
fr
\
\
i
JJy
2
4=
/
/
1
i
i
1
i
I
\
\
\
\
I
1
*$>
X.
ejf
=-=
i
n*-
3456
F^
^
^=
""
r^
-"
rt
/
rฃ
/
^
7 e
{
\
\
y^
^
K1"
A
/
f
;
f
V )_
L ^
;
*i
9 10
Month of Pickup
Figure 154. Sprlngvllle Hatchery (Federal), Nitrite. Stations 1, 5, 10 and 11.
131
-------
1.00
90
.80
.TO
.60
50
Station 6
Station 12
.28
.26
S -24
3 .18
2
.16
.14
1 234567 8
Month of Pickup
Figure 155. Springvllle Hatchery (Federal pond), Nitrite. Stations 6 and 12.
10
..00
90
.80
.70
.60
50
.1*0
30
.28
.26
.24
.22
.20
.18
.16
.111
1?
.10
.08
.06
.Oil
.02
'.00
Station 4 ^-
Station 6
Station 7
4 5
Month of Pickup
Figure 156. Springvllle Hatchery (Receiving water) , Nitrite. Stations 4 , 6 and 7 .
132
-------
12 1
3456
Month of Pickup
Figure 157. Sprlngvllli Hatdiery (Receiving water), Nitr-te. Stations 4, 13 and 14.
45
Month of Pickup
Figure 158. Springville Hatchery (State), Ammonia. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
133
-------
I I I I
Station 1 ||
Station 5 -)-f -
Station 10
Station 11 ~
I;
2 1.
Zx^CZ
ori
JISL,
5f
.1
0.0
234557
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 159, Springville Hatchery (Federal), Ammonia. Stations 1, 5, 10 and 11,
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
-.8
1.7
J..6
1-5
J..U
S 1.3
H
0}
I-
S 1-0
9
.6
.7
.6
5
,k
3
S
.1
0.0
Station
Station :
-/
/
j~
1
I
-1
I
~t~
'
1
c J
I
V
\,
\
!
I
/-,
//
/
>
^
V
\
\
*;
\
\
v-
fi
{
\
^
V
/
/
/
/y
/
j*.
\
Nj
V
\
\
V
\
\
\
\
\A
V
1
/
v+-
^
\
\
\
\
\
^
t
?
\
\
r- *
Jfd
x?
1
i
3?
^
i
^v=
%
^
7*-
3456
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 160. Springviile Hatchery (Federal pond). Ammonia. Stations 6 and 12.
-------
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.6
1-5
j.A
S -3
> 1'2
I 1.1
o>
3 i.o
X
9
.8
.7
.6
5
.It
3
.2
.1
0.0
2.2
2.1
2.0
J--9
1.8
1-7
1.6
1-5
i.l.
1 1'3
1 !*
10
& 1.1
| i.o
9
.8
7
.6
5
.It
.3
.2
.1
Static
Statio
/
i
-1
i
i '
' ^
-j
-f
r
11
Statio
Statio
Statio
1
Ml
'/
/ I
/ \
' I
M
i
fv
i\
[i
/"
f
/
f
/
f
i i
i 4 1
1
!
fl
-1
1
1
I
K
k^
^
!
1
i
1
1
|
\s*
1
i
_/
/
y^
V
V
,'A
As
i
^
_,/_
y '
I
S
, \
1
1
1
1 /
'/
/ 1
f-
\ '
\\l
\v
\
3
" jK
S
* >
^
y
>;
X
\
^ ^
12 1 2345
Month of Pickup
Figure 161. Springville Hatchery (Receiving water)
| __
1
n 14
,_
}L
y
1
1 '
1
1 f
'K\
_Ji \
~T
^
-
K
\
"X^
,s
\
N/ ^
T
- ^
iw>rx
i -^
I1
\
//
y
Y.
y
/
|
\
\,
\
\
\
\
i
N^i
S
*^-
i /
/
y
X
!,
Si
X
^
/
//
/
^*
\
\
7^
i
^i^
7k.
^
6 7
Ammonia. Stations 4,
\
,\
^
~^
N
>r
1^
hS
\
A
A
T1
H~ 1
I
"/
.
x^l
t^
9
6 and 7 .
-MS
^
^
V
vs
V
^
J
10
^^
^
1-
A
\
1-^
^1*-^
12 1
3456
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 162. Springville Hatchery (Receiving water), Ammonia. Stations 4, 13 and 14.
135
-------
,000,000
000,000
000,000
,000,000
,000,000
800,000
600,000
4oo,ooo
200,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
140,000
20,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
1,000
Boo
600
400
100
Stat
Stat
Stat
'
v
"*.
on
on
on
>
fl
*
I
3 --
1
/"
4.
1
1
/.
V
\r
\
\
\
\
\
1
1
f
1
1
1
/
/
/x
'
'
(
\
\
\
+\-
\
f
/
/
/
/
/
/
r\
s
\
\
\
\
\
\
ฑ=:
, '
?
\
\
^>
\
\
\
(
is
\
\
\
\
H*
, ,
/
**
\
^
^
\
\
\
\
^
^
t
,
,
i
,\
*-*-*
/
/
i
/
i
i
i
//
\i
\\
-\-
4
/
^
/
,
,
j
X
'
/
/
;
1
/
^
\
T
*
x,,
^=d
/
;
/
/
/ /
^
/
^f=
11 12 1
3456
Month of Pickup
Figure 163. Sprlngvllle Hatchery (State), M.P.N. Conform. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
100,000
80,000
_. 60,000
a
ฐ 40,000
T4 ฃ0,000
2 10,000
b
3 8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Station
Station
Station
Station
f
V
\ \
\
I-A
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
sc;
,
I
"^
ll
r
-
?<
?<
1
I , .
5 _(.-(..
11
\
A
f\
\\
ll
\\\
ll
I1
'1
-i
j
1
f
/
,
1
/
>
\
\
\
\
\\
k
\;
- /^
f '
H/-^
/
1
1
1
1
1
-1-
r^
1
1
J_
/
.(
1
.J
1
>
-1 t
~tr
I.
^\
-f
,
\\
\
\
\
\
H-t
I
f
/,
i
i
i
It
li
i,
L
JT
3
\
\ .
V
\*
^
\
/>
>
r-
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
^
1
^
rV"
\
-T
5<
\
\
I
\
\
\
\
\ 1
J^"*
. ,
\
-4^ฑ
V
\
^
\
\
^
/
/
/
/
/
/
-y
f\
^^
/
/
\
\
1
' \
x-
/
"f-
T
f
/
{
\
t
w
\
1
~7^
,
\
>
T
1
f-
-^
s '
'"A
^
^_
^
1
1
i
b:
f
V
\\
V
u
,\
=d
V
-A
_
=b
23456
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 164. Sprlngvi He Hatchery (Federal) , M.P.N. Conform. Stations 1 , 5 , 10 and 11 .
136
-------
800,000
600,000
llOO,000
200,000
100,000
80,000
g
0 60,000
o
^ 110,000
c
ซ 20,000
a 10, 000
8,000
6,000
ll.OOO
2,000
1,000
800
600
1*00
200
1
Station
Station
7
>
^l
1
i/
\
\
V
\
A-
^
1
1
I
, '
\
\
\
\
r-jt
! \T
I
1
I
1
' 1
t
//
IT
T:
r
u=4 i
1 I
1 ;
i\-
\
Hf
X
^
/
/
/
/
I
[
1
/
|
I
j
! 1 1
/I
I
1
fc-
N
.
i
! i
i
\ I i
1 1
\
\
\
\
v
\
\
\
\
\
J
1 ' !
! i 1
]
1
/
/
/
^
I
/
/
H
li
/.
XI
^A
^
%
H
T
1
.
^
/
/
+
\-
\
\
\
V
/
/
4
1
f
1
/
?*
fi
t=H
X
s
\
\
\
\.
\
11 12
4567
Month of Pickup
figure 1PC-. SpnnqviUo Kafcher\- (federal pond), M.P.N. Coliform. Stations 6 and 12.
Figure 166. Springville Hatchery (Rpcciving water), M.P.N. Coliform. Stations 4, 6 and?.
137
-------
8,000,000.
6,00" 000
It, 000, 000
2,000,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
1|00,000
200,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
It0,000
20,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
It, 000
2,000
1,000
800
600
llOO
200
Stat
Stat
Stat
'-L-
1 1
ion 4 -
ion 13 -
Ion 14 -
-1-
J
J_
V1-
1
1
-J
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
1
H-
/
\f-
1
r \ 1
?
-J <
,
/
X
1
y*
/
1
ฃ.
=ฑJ
it
1
y1
\
n^
T"*"
r*"
\
1
V
V
^
\
A
^
\
\
X
.
'^
^
v
\
\
-\
\
Y~
T
I
1
1
,
/
f-
1
.J
+
-f-
^
f
/
1
(
\
;^
-v
\
\
1
s
i-
/
/
-f
/
/
/
\
'
,.
7
/
/
r
f
/
f
/
1-
1
v
)
V
\
>
\
\
t
\
\
\
\
,
y
/
*;
I
>
~v
^/
/
/
/
^
12 1
567
of Pickup
9 10
Figure 167. Springvllle Hatchery (Receiving water), M.P.N. Coliform. Stations 4, 13 and 14.
its
ItO
38
36
32
30
28
S 26
> 211
2 22
1 20
16
16
lit
12
10
8
6
It
2
0
S
s
s
1 1
ation
ation
ation
3
|
n--
1
I
_^,
1
1 '
^ -"
, '
J
\
_^,^,^,
^
^^i
1
/
1
-r
F
J^
\
/
/
^
"H^H^
11 12
3456
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 168. Springville Hatchery (State), Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Stations 1, 2 and 3
138
-------
Ill
1*0
38
36
3"ป
32
30
28
26
21*
18
16
11*
12
10
8
6
1*
2
0
1
Station
Station
Station
Station
L '
1
{
X^
1
5
1 -
*A
^-v"
"^-s^l ^j
/
\ v J
. , f ,
1 I '
. Y
/
\
~--^
^
^
_ ^
fs*'
"
1
|
1 I
^ii t
"~^
\
i
M-l-l-
^-1
-^
^
^(
r-^
,
jl
^\
1
1
p -A"^
f
-^^^
~i~
/
v^
1
%
i
1
*-J -
~--ป,
-"i
N^j.
Ns
>j
^/
T
7-
<
i- j|
11 12
3 4 S 6
Month of Pickup
Figure 169. Springville Hatchery (Federal), Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Stations 1, 5, 10 and 11.
uo
38
36
3J*
32
30
28
26
ฃ
i H
i 22
2
2 20
5 18
16
11*
12
10
8
6
It
2
0
1 .1 .
Stat
Stat
11
Ion
Ion
2 ' '
\,
'!
12
1
l
r ^-^N sl/X-
k^4" '1 y
i
k|
1 2
'
1
1
1
L
\
==}~,
1 4 5
1
f-
^
6
^ i
-H
' '
-^
7
^~
v
H
j
,A
9 9 10
Month of Pickup
Figure 170. Sprlngville Hatchery (Federal pond), Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Stations S and 12.
139
-------
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
5 24
1 -
1 "
1 ie
16
14
10
8
6
4
2
0
Stat
Stat
Stnt
i>f
ion
ion
ion
y.
4 -1
6 -
7
s
3^
H~
t&s
zr=
j
s
v
'^
1
/
, ^
\
\
\
x,
>^ป_
^*\
>
I
^
"^
-t-
^_ -i
ป J
/
\
>
3456
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 171. Spiingville Hatchery (Receiving water). Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Stations 4, 6 and 7.
1(2
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
IB
16
14
12
10
R
6
4
2
0
I
1
Station
Station
Station
S,
^*
I
.-..
ir^T
U ^
*
x
i _jซ4^
14 -
> T
-K
-T- -
h^I
I
1
j
1
1
1
!
^
U=!
1
?-
pp"
i
\
1 A-
/
-M
1
\^
fcPt
1
1
x-1
--/-
k-
H-
L(=!
^t^
-i
_x
M
)
tr~
c/
*-n
/
<
^
-^r
i^
^=
"Ni
t
fl
s
e
ซ
Ol
i
11 12 1
23456
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 172. Sprlngville Hatchery (Receiving water). Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Stations 4, 13 and!4
iko
-------
.6
A
,2
11.0
.8
.6
A
.2
10.0
.8
.6
A
.2
9-0
.8
.6
A
.2
8.0
.8
.6
A
'.8
.6
A
.2
6.0
.8
.6
A
.2
5-0
.8
.6
A
.2
ll.O
.8
.6
A
.2
3.0
Station
Station
Station
V
JL
\
k-T
"v*
"T
AJ
|
i -4_U
1
1
1
' }
/
N
N
V, x
\
S V
N-^
.
/
( t
'4
1 1
^/
\
x
^ t
V
\
, A
\
V
1
1
/
J.
/J
7
TJ
fl
/
\l/
\
-X
^
r
\
\
y
/
j
/
-+-
i "~
^^
^
/
~~ -
N
\
_J,
/
f
1
-i
1
1
/
V
\
-^
V
^\
V.
^
^A
V
^
/
s
\ ^
\
^
'\
\
\
J
/
'/'
i
j
/
it
\
r
: 1
*S1^
'\
^
\
^*
f
1
Jr*
V
\
J
f
^_ -
r
^
V
-^V
i
~- ^
*x^
j^
\
-\
-^
1
1
-1
^
^
J
j '
/I
'J
f
J_
1
V
A
\
/
-
f. ->
f^y.
12 1 234567 89
Month of Pickup
Figure 173. Springville Hatchery (State), Dissolved Oxygen. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
.6
A
.2
11.0
.8
.6
A
.2
10.0
.8
.6
A
.2
9.0
.8
.6
A
u .2
S 8.0
5. '8
1 A
& .2
3 T.O
.2
6.0
.8
.6
A
.2
5.0
.8
.6
A
.2
l*.0
.8
.6
A
.2
3.0
=
i
| 1
Station
Station
Station
Station
V
\\
\
A
\
'^
/*
<
N t
v ^
*vS
?<
i-H-
5 -H-
11 -
j
k /
'V
)
\,
v\
v
|
^
\ i
rNrt< -/V
* ^ &.-1 '- v
n
r /
//
I/
VT V j
y\^^\
^t
r ^
r "~^ซ
r t i
i
7
J,
-/
i/
T
V ^
^ \
Nr
rM
i-
-f.
~
s_
S*
*"
t~
^
k\
/
/*
"* * y
/
/
"V-
T
V
\
J^
\
"*!
/*
k
~-A
/
/
/
/
/
/ '
\
\
*^
\
\
X
r
\
^
\ '
S
T
4
1
r-
'/
7
7
V
A
*
/
i
/
r/
k^
*>
\
\
, i
>
S
\
\
A-
\
\
/*
}
1
/
/
~\
\~1~
*\
^ \
\ >(
\ ^
A
^
-J
f
t
*+.
I
t
/
w~
1
1
1
4
1
+
/
/
f
s
, N
v
*V
y
^
S
V
rV
y
1 ^
/
/
/
/
1 v
!
11 12 1
2 34567
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 174. Springville Hatchery (Federal), Dissolved Oxygen. Stations 1, 5, 10 and 11.
-------
.6
.It
.2
11.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
10.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
9-0
.8
.6
.4
.2
8.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
7-0
.8
.6
.It
.2
6.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
5-0
.8
.6
.4
.2
4.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
3.0
Stat
Stat
(^
\^
^
ion
ionl
X
6 -4
-4-
2
^
*y^
\
\
\
\
\
y^
)f
)
I
^
S
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
'
>^
/
/
\
'S
\
^
'"y^
s
\
\
^^
/
/
A
k. f>
f\t
"ซ
V
/
/
If
^
i
T^
/
/
i
i
\
s
J
/"
jt.
1
1
/
/
/
1
It
T
i
(-V-1
'v
>
,^
/^
Y
)
i-
-I
/
1
i
, i
V
V
X
^
1
V
vV
f /
/
x.
\Xl
\
\
\
\
^
45
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 175. Springville Hatchery (Federal pond), Dissolved Oxygen. Stations 6 and 12.
.6
.It
.2
11.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
10.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
9-0
.8
.6
.it
.2
8.0
.8
.6
.it
.2
7-0
.8
.6
.It
.2
6.0
.8
.6
Jt
.2
5.0
.8
.6
.it
.2
li.O
.8
.6
.it
.2
3.0
Station
Station
Station
(^^
S ,
N,
>-jt~~
<*
r~~>
|
I '
6*-,
'/
^N
:q
i
v /
^
A-
V
\
r^
i
s
\
>
y,
y.
v
^
1
V^
r-t-1
L\^
1
^^
^ ฃ
^
h
i
,
^
[
/
/
' 'y4
i^-
y -
^
ii
./
/
'
S'
x^
7
-ii
/
~r
f ,
r
'-fn
/
^/ ^
^
y
1 \
r=V
/
7^
s
S '
V
/I
/
J
'
^
?7^
1 ~^ )
/'
I
*T
>(
X
V
s
*
i
/
f
45
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 176. Sprmgville Hatchery (Receiving water)., Dissolved Oxygen. Stations 4, 6 and 7.
-------
."6
.1.
.2
11.0
.8
.6
.U
.2
10". 0
.8
.6
j I I
-j Station 4
-; Station 13
""(Station 14 ~
9.0
.8
.6
.It
B!O
.8
.6
J^-i^
V
tฃ
S
S2I
-\A-
.2
6.0
.8
.6
.U
.2
5.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
ll.O
.8
.6
.It
3.0
ฅ
4^H-
1121 234567 89
Month of Pickup
Figure 177 . Springville Hatchery (Receiving water), Dissolved Oxygen. Stations 4,13 and 14 .
3456
Month of Pickup
Figure 178. Springvilie Hatchery (State), Carbon Dioxide. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
-------
Station 1 .
Station 5 -
Station 10
Station
s
-y
\^
I
\7-
3ZI
\ฃ
12 1
23456
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 179. Sprlngvllle Hatchery (Federal), Carbon Dioxide. Stations 1, 5, 1C and 11.
Milligrams/liter
I
Stat
Sta
-H
Ion
Ion
f
\
"\
A
i
,T~
|
LjJ,
^Tfc
M
,
#
//
N
X,
^
|
}
/'
l(
/
^
S<
-4
\
\
\^
'N^
\
^
/
/
/
/-V--
\
\
\
\
v\
\
A
/
f^
-------
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
Station 4 \ \ -
Station 6
Station 7
S 9
XTTT
-5t-P
ZT
52
rS
^
H 12 1
3456
Month of Pickup
Figure 181. Springville Hatcher/ {Receiving water), Carbon Dioxide. Stations 4, 6 and 7.
E
in .
-8,
11 12 1
3456
Month of Pickup
Figure 182. Springville Hatcher/ (Receiving water), Carbon Dioxide
1*1-5
4, 1.", arid 14,
-------
.2
9.0
.8
.6
.it
.2
8.0
.8
.6
01 It
1 .2
.8
.It
.2
6.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
5.0
Station 1 ++ '
Station 2
Ss
inj
r-=T'
' I
X
1 ,
^
!
*
f
V
\^
, 1
"<
L_
*>
^v
/
<.
^
^s*^
I'X
\*l
N,
, '
/ /
/'
N-
N
^ ,
p
^
tฃ^ป
ป^-
JS
11 12
3456
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 183. Sprlngville Hatchery (State) , Hydrogen Ion Concentration. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
.2
9.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
8.0
.8
.6
2 .,,
o
X
a.
l.o
.8
.6
.It
6.0
.3
.6
.it
.*
5-0
,
Stat
Stat
Stat
Stat
^4**
ion
ion
ion
ion
^^
'
1_
|
5 --H-
11
'
i*-/
-J-^i
r~
-*^
"s^
S^,
/**
A*
s,
"* ^.
'
y JV-
11 12 1 2345
/
J*
6
.
f^M
ซ/
2^
7
>c
^
-S
V
,
6
ys
^i
9
^^
^
\ "
v
10
Month of Pickup
Fioure 184. Springville Hatchery (Federal), Hydrogen Ion Concentration. Stations 1, 5, 10 and 11.
-------
a
.2
9.0
.8
.6
.2
8.0
.8
T.O
.8
.6
.It
.2
6.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
5.0
1
Station
Station
jf
siC
"^C^
^/^
i
i
i
/
A'
.
'
1
I
I
\
I !
/
/
A"
^^
!
'
V
X.
^^
V
1
N"t"1
->tf^
1
f^
'
^\,
'
1
11 12
345
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 185. Springville Hatchery (Federal pond), Hydrogen Ion Concentration. Stations 6 and 12.
.2
9.0
.8
.6
.It
.2
a.o
.8
.6
.It
.2
T.O
.8
.6
.It
.2
6.0
.8
.6
.it
.2
5-0
| 1
Sta
Sta
Sta
ion
ion
ion
*s
**M
^
7
W
>f.
i
|
1
>
I~T
"t
j
1
I
Y,
j^
1
1
.
i
i-'
I
A
1
^,
^^
s
"X
,
,
/
^
,
I
r-^
N
\,
t-^.
1
ซr?
II 12
3456
Month of Pickup
Figure 186. Springville Hatchery (Receiving water), Hydrogen Ion Concentration. Stations 4, 6 and 7 .
. llj-7
-------
.2
9-0
.8
.6
.U
.2
8.0
.3
Station 4
Station 13
Station 14 ~
6.0
11 12 1 234567 8 9 10
Month of Pickup
Figure 187. Springville Hatchen/ (Receiving water), Hydrogen Ion Concentration. Stations 4, 13 and 14.
4-
72 -
70 -
68 -
66 -
61* -
62 -
60 -
5ซ '
Station 1 4-
Station 2
Station 3
as
4-
FF^H2
50 -
Ii8 -
1*6 -
Mi
345
Month of Pickup
Figure 188. Springville Hatchery (State), Temperature. Stations 1, 2 and 3.
-------
71*
T2
TO
68
66
61*
62
60
58
56
5>t
52
50
1ป8
U6
kk
Its
ko
38
36
3">
32
Station
Station
Station
Station
X
/y
/
' ' IS*
'/
f ' \
/ ?
( t
f
[ I
i
1
I
l
1
\V
^
^
\',
\j
\
\ \
1
/
'/
^
**r"
^
, *
*f*>
/
b^
Si?
>.
1
1
-1
^-*-i
A
N
~)
/
/
^Sn
s
\ '
\
JH
-jj
i
\
\
\
\
^
1
4
t
\
r
\
V
-V
&
11 12 1
345
Month of Pickup
10
Figure 189. Springville Hatchery (Federal), Temperature. Stations ] , 5, 10 and 11.
72
70
68
66
6k
62
ซ 60
s ซ
f 58
1 *
ฃ
ฃ H
50
itS
h6
kk
ko
38
36
3l>
32
Station
Station
-J?
'x
x^
I : '
c 1 1 ' ' -
.2
|
1
! I
i
\
-\
y
f
if" i
/
|
V^*^C 1
v i y
1
|
i 1
1
1
_ T
1
*it^
X/l N|
>H vx /
' \ Y y
/
\
i \
\
\
A
/
/
/
/
I
i
1
1
/ /
/
r^
V
"^
i
/
j (
\ \
/* '
,/
~~C?
^i "
\ \ yf~ \ '^
y(
J
/
\
\
|
i ;
I
\
1
=td
^
~
^x.
\
^A-
i
11 12 1
3456
Month of Pickup
9 10
Figure 190. Springville Hatchery (rederal pond), Temperature. Stations 6 and 12.
-------
71*
72
70
68
66
61*
62
60
58
56
52
50
1*6
1*2
38
36
32
I
Station
Station
Station
> ""I
r 'K
-Vs
ป
4 _|
-H
6
/
V
V
^
1
_
1
j
Jfi
/
i
L/1
V
-^
/
ffc^d
/XT
<*
i
rH
f
i j
ji
^
i
i
i
A
)
if
i i n
\.-y^
y
PPI
\
^
i
i
^<
i
r*!?i
|s<7
N^
*
^ป
^-
3456
Month of Pickup
Figure 191, Sprlngvllle Hatchery (Receiving water), Temperature. Stations 4, 6 and 7.
-I\-
Station 4 .
Station 13
1 Station 14 ~
Ax
T= '
X/'j
k&
ฑ
3456
Month of Pickup
Figure 192. Springville Hatchery (Receiving water), Temperature. Stations 4, 13 and 14.
150
-------
APPENDIX B
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
-------
TABLE 2. KAMAS HATCHERY TJECKETTNG WATER, STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Above ^Station U) Below (Station 6)
Parameter
M.O. Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Nitrates
Nitrites
Settleable Solids
Sp. Conductance
Turbidity
Ammonia
B.O.D.
M.P.N. Coliform
Suspended Solids
Total Dis. Solids
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Carbon Dioxide
Temperature
Mean
5o.oo
63.85
1.192
.14192-02
.3769-01
1U2.7
13.88
.2UOU
3.369
.6111;+ 05
1.115
277.5
8.1462
7.123
1.115
U2.72
Standard
Deviation
23.66
25.78
2.599
.7099-02
.6629-01
M.li5
12.53
.1190
1.631
.1829+06
7.039
261.9
.9855
1.233
.5883
11.16
Mean
122.7
1U5.0
1.565
.1738-01
.5885-01
285.6
9.769
.3950
5.088
.9219+05
6.900
306.8
8.119
7.250
1.077
1x8.25
Standard
Deviation
1|3.0U
51.63
2.U98
.2311-01
.11*96
89.09
12.92
.2001
1.169
.7739+05
7.33U
221.5
.6108
1.260
.2717
6.198
T Value
-7.5U6
-7.170
-.5283
-2.750
-.6593
-7.i4i5
1.166
-3.160
-It. 369
-.7971
-1.2li6
-.U362
1.U83
-.3671
.3026
-2.211
Probability
Significance
.5215-07
.14i70-07
.2998
.14137-02
.256U
.5215-07
,87&
.13UO-02
.3157-OU
.211i5
.1092
.3323
.9278
.3576
.6183
.1581-01
3.308
U.011
1.082
10.87
5.091
U.618
1.063
1.803
1.914;
5.58U
1.085
1.397
2.3kh
I.OUU
U.687
3.2UO
-x-x-
-:H(-
* .
v\~>\"
...
-x-;t
ป * *
-x-x-
-x-x-
* ป *
ซ *
ซ *
* * ป
e *
*
*
-x- Indicates significance at the 95$ confidence interval.
-s^-Indicates significance at the 99$? confidence interval.
-------
TABLE 3. MIDWAY HATCHERY EEGETVING WATER, STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Above (Station 1+) Below (Station 6)
VJl
uo
Parameter
M.O. Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Nitrates
Nitrites
Settleable Solids
Sp. Conductance
Turbidity
Ammonia
B.O.D.
M.P.N. Coliform
Suspended Solids
Total Bis. Solids
Dissolved Oxygen
PH '
Carbon Dioxide
Temperature
Mean
277.7
^25.1+
2.635
.1601+-01
.9538-01
900.6
11+.23
.5081
Iป. 912
.5396+05
1.892
670.6
7.951+
7.816
2.500
52.19
Standard
Deviation
35.70
80.31
2.319
.191+2-01
.101+7
133.5
Hi, 31
.5821+
1+.381
.709 Of 05
7.573
71+.97
.5736
.3300
1+.21+5
5.705
Mean
289.6
1+1+1+.2
3.151
.2588-01
.2962-01
972.1
6.577
.6027
5.708
.1973+06
6.808
671+.8
8.21+6
7.360
1+.31+6
51+.35
Sta nda rd
Deviation
21.63
51+.57
1.806
.9262-02
.3092-01
91+.1+3
6.351
.6321
1.625
.^375+06
9.295
U9.0L
.7295
.8167-01
1.381;
5.327
T Value
-1.U57
-.9897
-.8917
-2.33U
3.071
-2.231
2.1+93
-.5613
-.6372
-1.61+9
-.811+6
-.23+08
-1.606
6.707
-2.108
-1.1+12
Significance
.7575-01
.1635
.1876
.1183-01
.9983
.1510-01
.9920
.2885
.2631+
.5273-01
.2096
.1+053
.5727-01
1.0000
.2002-01
.8207-01
2.721+
2.166
1.61+8
1+.395 *
11.1+8 *ป
1.998 *
5.078 *
1.178
1.H5
38.08
l*5o6 .
2.31+0
1.618
16.33 *
9.1+08 *
1.11+7
*
m
0
0
*
e
0
*
9
-x- Indicates significance at the 95$ confidence interval.
-ftttlndicates significance at the 99.^ confidence interval.
-------
TABLE LL. LOA HATCHERY RECEIVING WATER. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
vn
-!=-
Parameter
H.O. Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Nitrates
Nitrites
Settleable Solids
Sp. Conductance
Turbidity
Ammonia
B.O.D.
M.P.N. Coliform
Suspended Solids
Total Dis. Solids
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Carbon Dioxide
Temperature
Above (Station 1)
Mean
99.23
105.8
1.766
.UOOO-02
s .1000-01
261.3
2.000
.2062
.6038
2676.
.ฃ538
s 190.6
6.951
7.820
.381+6-01
60.12
Standard
Deviation
6.88k
16.53
1.729
.5521-02
.2lil3-o5
23.98
2.263
.8295-01
.2973
6176.
.1985
1*9.83
.1703
.ll*U*
.1961
.3258
Below (Station 1;)
Mean
101.6
108 . 2
1.889
.2381-01
.5808-01
271.2
3.000
.1*831
5.1*77
e 7535+ 05
5.773
200.2
6.692
7.68U
.5000
60.08
Standard
Deviation
23.78
29.65
1.719
.2099-01
.972U-OL
58.81
2.U98
.3605
2.252
.9996+05
1*.U57
5>*. 1*2
.3610
.2055
.8121;
2.201
T Value
-.1*832
-.3582
-.2582
-1*.651*
-2.521
-.7905
-1.513
-3.817
-10.91*
-3.700
-5.965
-.661*5
3.31*1
2.708
-2.816
.7053-01
Probability
.3155
.3609
.3987
.1219-01;
.71*69-02
.2165
.6831-01
.1865-03
.2980-07
.2683-03
.1863-06
.251*7
.9992
.9953
.31*71-02
.5280
F
11.93
3.215
1.012
il*.l*5
.1625+10
6.011;
1.219
18.89
57.37
262.0
5oU.^
1.193
1*.1*96
2.027
17.16
1*5.61
Significance
...
...
.
-x-x-
st
. ซ .
...
-5S-X-
-X-X-
59f
-X-*
...
-x-s-
K*
-X-*
...
"- Indicates significance at the 95$ confidence interval.
-^Indicates significance at the 99^ confidence interval.
-------
TABLE 5. WHITE HATCHERT EECETVITJG WATER. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Above (Station 5) Below (Station 9)
Parameter
M.O. Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Nitrates
Nitrites
Settleable Solids
Sp. Conductance
Turbidity
Ammonia
B.O.D.
M.P.N, Coliform
Suspended Solids
Total Ms. Solids
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Carbon Dioxide
Temperature
Mean
220.&
2U1.6
1.82k
.3880-01
.3020
1|60.U
101.1
.3500
3.9li5
.7160+05
28.68
30U.2
9.272
7.50li
.0000
19.16
Standard
Devia tion
U9.57
52.81
1,878
.562^-01
.9950
101.7
359.0
.1793
1.233
.8616+05
92.20
52.25
.8259
1.93k
.0000
10.U9
Mean
218.8
238.3
2.578
.3050-01
.3U78
ii57.1
76.17
.6017
7.600
.3911+06
56.39
320.2
8.200
7.333
.la67
VT.51
Standard
Deviation
U7.03
U7.97
1.987
.3U*B-OL
.7273
95.67
217.1
.3160
5.017
.5076+06
U;5.7
50.11
1.306
1.926
.7173
8.5UO
T Value
.lliBU
.2263
-1.366
.6196
-.1808
.1175
.2929
-3.W7
-3.531
-3.102
-.7990
-1.097
3.1ili9
.3091;
-2.906
.6029
Significance
.5587
.5890
.8922-01
.7307
.U287
.51^65
.611)5
.6026-03
.1692-03
.1623-02
.2llj2
.1392
.9991;
.6208
.2785-02
.7253
1.111
1.212
1.120
2.661
1.872
1.130
2.735
3.105
16.55
3U.72
2. 197
1.087
2.501
1.008
.0000
1.509
. .
e e
. .
.
* ป
ป .
%#
#*
5BJ-
-ป
* r
SHfr
ซ * *
*->
...
* Indicates significance at the 95$ confidence interval.
^Indicates significance at the 99$ confidence interval.
-------
TABLE 6. STATE HATCHERY AT SPRTNGVILLE RECEIVING WATER, STATISTICAL ANALYSTS OF VARIANCE
Above (Station 1) Below (Station 1+)
H
Ui
Parameter
M.O. Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Nitrates
Nitrites
Settleable Solids
Sp, Conductance
Turbidity
Ammonia
B.O.D.
M.P.N. Coliform
Suspended Solids
Total Dis. Solids
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Carbon Dioxide
Temperature
Mean
235. U
1+81 0 9
2,839
.1027-01
.1000-01
967.9
1,962
.1819
.5000
292,6
.5000
615.7
6.850
7.062
6.115
57.71
Standard
Deviation
7.606
51.69
1.596
.8229-02
.2U3-05
31.57
1.865
.51+70-01
.0000
226.5
. 0000
69.33
.9105
1.219
1.818
7.096
Mean
235.8
1+93.1
2.578
.3092-01
.3385-01
999.9
1+.151+
.3135
3.365
.11+59+05
2.612
61+1.9
6.1+19
7.112
1.731
58.96
Standard
Deviation
8.567
1+1+.70
.6151
.1+988-01
.9696-01
29.16
6.386
,188)4
1.179
.21+88+05
1,081+
82.70
.5307
1.229
1.1+30
3.060
T Value
-.1712
-.8322
.7773
-2.083
-1.251+
-3.802
-1.680
-3.1+18
-9.881
-2.930
-9.931
-Io239
2.081+
-.11+73
3.052
-.821+8
Significance
.1+321+
.201+6
.7797
. 2119-01
.1078
.1958-03
.1+956-01
.6301+-03
.3725-07
.2550-02
.1+1+70=07
.1105
.9789
o 1+1+17
.9982
.2067
1.269
1.337
6.735
36, 7U
.1615+10
1.172
11.72
11.87
.0000
.1206+05
.0000
1.1+23
2.91+1+
1.017
1.617
5.378
ป *
o
e
-3!-
ป e
-x-x-
-X-K
->B;-
-x-w-
-;:-x-
A * *
-X-
ป ป
-x-&
e
* Indicates significance at the 95$ confidence interval.
K-xIndicates significance at the 99$ confidence interval.
-------
TABLE 7. FEDERAL HATCHERY AT SPRTNGVILLE - //I. IROMTON CANAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Parame i
M.O. Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Nitrates
Nitrites
Settleable Solids
Sp. Conductance
Turbidity
Ammonia
H B.O.D.
^ M.P.N. Coliforw
Suspended Solids
Total Dis. Solids
Dissolved Oxvpen
PH
Carbon Dioxide
Temperature
Above (Station 4)
Mec,n
wu
U8l*.9
2.839
.1027-01
Is .1000-01
967.9
1.962
.1819
.5000
292.6
. .5000
is 615.7
i 6.850
7.062
6.115
57.71
Standard
Deviation
7.606
51.69
1.596
.8229-0?
.24l'3-05
31.57
1.865
.5U70-01
. 0000
226.5
. 0000
69.33
.9105
1.219
1.818
7.096
Below (Station 7)
Mean
262.1
470. "J
2.411
.11(56-01
l(51r "01
982. 2 "
3.667
.U17U
U.196
.3,093+06
u.eu.
64} i.l
6. Ill
7.152
4.1.35
58.80
Standard
Deviation
13?. 9
lOli. 9
.6629
.ITlU
.2694-01
93.21
V p.oi
~J ' O ^ jf ^
.2829
1.4Q4
.1027+06
4.193
101.7
.5693
1. 216
1.570
3.140
T Value
-1.022
.51 Oh
1.284
-1.327
-.9010
-.7441
-2.021
-4.169
-12.87
-3.041
"4.925
-1.184
2.113
-.2701
4.11|2
-.7243
Probability
.1557
.69UO
.8975
.951U-01
.1656
.2301
.2U28-01
.5940-OU
.2980-07
.1860-02
.U701-05
.1209
.9802
.3941
.9999
.2361
F Significance
305.1
U.116
5.799
255.0
.1247+09
8.719
h.356
26.7U
.OOOC
.6507+06
.0000
2.152
2.558
1.005
1.342
5.106
* e
o o
o
*
o a
0 C ป
-x-x-
3J-X-
-X-X-
-X-X-
O
-X-
-X-X-*
-" Indicates signj.ficance at the 95$ confidence interval.
-^-Indicates significance at the 995? confidence interval.
-------
TABLE 8. FEDERAL HATCHERY AT SPRINGVILLE - #2, SPRTMG CREEK STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Above (Station 1|) Below (Station lU)
H
VJl
CO
Parameter
M.O. Alkalinity-
Total Hardness
Nitrates
Nitrites
Settleable Solids
Sp. Conductance
Turbidity
Ammonia
B.O.D.
M.P.N. Coliform
Suspended Solids
Total Dis. Solids
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Carbon Dioxide
Temperature
Mean
235. 1+
181.9
2.839
.1027=01
o 1000= 01
967.9
10962
.1819
.5000
292.6
.5000
615.7
6.850
7.062
6.115
57.71
Standard
Deviation
7.606
51.69
1,596
.8229-02
. 210-3-05
31.57
1.865
.51+70-01
.0000
226.5
.0000
69.33
.9105
1.219
1.818
7.096
Mean
257.7
503. 1+
2.312
.1507
.U308-OL
951.8
L.U62
.5381
5.735
.1514;+ 06
7.569
670.0
6.996
7.369
2.077
58.26
Standard
Deviation
158.0
158.5
.6608
.2093
.5160-01
197.1
3.776
.3013
1.3Ui
.1097+06
6.853
82. W
.1+626
1.291
1.055
5.677
T Value
-.7178
=.6565
1,555
=3.1+17
-3.269
.1+116
-3.027
-5o930
-19.86
=7.160
-5.260
-2.572
-.7297
-0881+0
9.795
-.3086
Significance
.2381
.2573
.9369
.633U-03
.9787=03
.6588
,1950-02
.1863=06
.2235=07
.5960-07
.1550-05
.6562=02
.233+5
.1905
1.0000
.3795
1+31.6
9.398
5.835
61+7.0
.U571++09
38.99
U.099
30,31+
.0000
.231+7+06
.0000
i.hl5
3.871+
1.122
2.968
1.562
* 0 ป
0 0 ซ
ป * *
-;H!-
-x-x-
. . *
-X-i!-
-x-x-
-;;_;;-
-X-X-
-x-::-
~;c-
...
9 . .
-X-tt
ป * e
-x- Indicates significance at the 95$ confidence interval.
-x-#Indicates significance at the 99$ confidence interval.
-------
APPENDIX C
BOTTOM FAUNA DATA
-------
TABLE 9. KAMAS HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION h.
Organism
Annelida
Hirudinea
Oligochaete
Tubifex
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Pelecypoda
H Ephemeroptera
o Ameletus
Baetis
Cinygimila
Epeorus
Ephemerella
Heptagenia
Leptophlebia
Rhithrogena
Plecoptera
Acroneuria
Alloperla
Arcynopteryx
Capnia
Claassenia
Isoperla
Nemoura
Ptqronarcella
U-U-69
98
10
78
12
7
87
0 *
'3h
ft * 0
ซ
176
9 V 0
a 0 *
00*
& O O
0 0
C ซ
ft 0 ป
...
7
e 0 e
15
5-2-69
*
l
...
5
0 0
a ft
aftft
U
ft .
ft 0
23
...
...
28
ft 0 9
ft 0 ft
9*ซ
a a
2
...
...
13
6-16-69
ft ป *
0 a
ft 0 a
ft ft
a
1
ป
3U
21
21
'81
...
...
10
...
...
...
* * *
U
ft ซ *
ft ft *
ft ft
7-25-69
a 0 0
ป 0
...
...
a * ft
* ซ
U
U8
ft a
12
30
ft ft ft
ป *
12
...
1
ft ft *
e 0 e
2
...
ป . .
3
8-21-69
1
...
10
...
ft ft a
a *
6
6
ft 0 ft
ป a 0
20
16
ป
...
. ซ
...
...
...
. ซ
1
0 0
3
9-18-69 11-12-69
2
000 ft ft ft
ft ft ft 0 a 0
ft ft ft ซ *
1
2
5
a a a a
ft a 0 a *
0 a o 000
13
* ซ
10
ป ซ * ซ
* *
ft 0 ft ft 9
ft ft ft ft ft ft
0 0 # ft * a
2 3
9
1
a ป 0 a ซ 0
1_19_70
5
1
3
...
a * ซ
1
8
3
ป
282
e *
12
59
2
ft ซ ft
ft * ft
10
3
U
it
21
3-27-
1
a
2
a
1
ft * ft
3k
2
a 0
0 ft ft
69
20
22
U5
e ft
* ft *
1
2
17
1
0 O ป
21
-------
TABLE 9. KAMAS HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION U. (Cont'd.)
Organism
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae
Elmldae
Hallpidae
Dlptera
Antocha
Athrix
Chironomidae
Hexatoma
LImnophora
Muscidae
H Raphidolabls
H Simulldae
Stratiomyldae
TIpulidae
Trichoptera
Arctopsyche
Bra chyeentms
Glossosoma
Hydropsyche
Leptocella
LImnephilus
Rhyacophila
Total Org./sq. ft.
Kinds of Organisms
L-U-69
e
5
i
il;
13
*
2
* *
e
2
ป *
i
55
23
o ป
19U
72
li
2
139.5
2U
5-2-69
*
ซ .
# *
* *
17
*
ซ
0
ซ *
* *
1
1
* *
e ซ
1
*
1
iU
* * o
11.1
"i '.)
-1-..'
6-16-69
1
...
ป *
* 0
12
2
o ป
0 *
0 ป
1
...
1
* *
1
* * e
10
15
3li
...
2U.9
16
7-25-69
11
37
e
0
6
2
1;
...
e . ป
3
* ป
o
2
2
li
o *
ซ ป ซ
11
11
...
20.9
19
8-21-69
1
18
o
13
12
1
* *
* *
1
* ซ
ซ
e ป
u
u
*
2
6
5
...
32.0
19
9=18-69 11-12-69 1-19-70
ซ o e -I-
21; 80
* c
ซป ซ
i 15
1 3
u
1 1
l
0 * *
1
38
3
* 6 O
3
ป O ป * * C>
2 65
1U5 728
1; 1
1
1.8 UU.U 271, Ij.
6 lli 29
3-27-
...
197
...
*
12
5
6
...
2
*
*
62
* *
2
1
*68
396
9
1
199. t
26
-------
TABLE 10. KAMS HATCHERY BOTTOM FATOA ANALYSIS, STATION 5.
Organism
Annelida
Hirudinea
Oligochaete
Tubifex
Crustacea
Isopoda
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Pelecypoda
Ephemeroptera
Ameletus
Baetis
Ginygimla
Epeorus
Ephemerella
Heptagenia
Leptophlebia
Hhithrogena
Plecoptera
Acroneuria
Alloperla
Claassenia
Tsogenus
Isoperla
Paraleuctra
Nemoura
PteronarceT 1 a
li-li-69
3
1
*-* *
* * *
*
* * *
*
* ,
6
...
16
*
* w *
ป * *
a
* ป
6
.
.. .
...
...
6
5-2-69
185
...
80
...
2
32
* *
2
...
. ป ป
1>
*
* ป
ป *
1
* *
ซ *
-
* *
' *
8
6-16-69
lUO
1
130
*
19
9
3
113
15
2
80
* *
*
11
ป
9
* ป ป
*
1
1
* ป
* *
7-25-65
57
...
35
ป
1;
...
*
201
*
9
66
ซ * *
*
3
1
1
* *
* a
* *
*-ป #
ป
12
8-21-69
179
* * *
2
* *
16
...
...
"h2
. ...
...
29
1
* *
...
...
0
...
...
1
...
*
10
9-Io-69
182
*
20
1
13
*
*
2U
* *
* *
hi
* *
* *
* * *
ป
1
ซ *
ป *
h
...
1
11
11-12-69
100
...
119
1
33
U
* ป
32
*
*
121
...
6
1
*
* *
2
1
15
ft * ซ
ป
9
i-ly-70
515
* ซ ป
27
...
23
5
*
. 286
*
* o
*
1
3
1
* * *
2
* *
"2.8
...
*83
3-27-70
19U
.%.
80
...
2
* *
1
109
* * *
U
U82
* ป *
* * *
* *
* *
1
5
* # *
26
* * *
' #
26
-------
TABLE 10. KAMAS HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION 5. (Cont'd.)
Organism
Goleoptera
Dryopidae
Dytiscidae
ELmidae
Gyrinnidae
Halipidae
Hydrophilidae
Diptera
Antocha
Athrix
Blepharoceridae
H Ghironomidae
S) Hexatoma
Limnophora
Muscidae
"Raphidolabis
Siimilidae
Stratiomyidae
Tipulidae
Trichoptera
Arctopsyche
Bra chycentrus
Glossosoma
Hydropsyche
Leptocella
Limnephilus
Rhyacophila
Total Org./sq. ft.
Kinds of Organisms
U-li-69
* e
1
k
ป 0
...
.
...
li
...
.
2
...
...
--
ป ป-
ป
...
3
7
*
* . e
2
I
. *
7.3
Ui
5-2-69
ซ v
* ซ 0
e O
. *
a
* *
*
'18
*
* ...
. . ป
ป e
.
o ป
ป *
* .
l
l
. ..
.
13
1
3
* ป
36.0
1U
6-16-69
1
1
* * *
0
*
...
1
6
. ..
71
1
...
...
1
2
...
...
2
...
...
13
22
35
...
68.1
25
7-25-69
...
2
U
* c
6
1
1
6
ซ e
82
1
...
...
1
10
*
*
3
73
...
U
20
"111
a *
61.9
25
8-21-69
0 * *
2
8
. e
e
...
o *
1
ป * ซ
7
1
...
...
ป ป
17
.. .
...
1;
11
04*
3
15
'19
* ป
36.8
19
9-18=69
9 ป
O
2
...
...
...
1
8
...
5
l
2
...
...
1
*
1
19
9
ซซ0
37
20
e o
1
82.2
23
11-12-69
e ซ
106
i
. * .
...
37
U
...
3UO
ป *-
7
* *
ป *
1
31
...
8
8
...
100
1302
13
2
U80.8
27
1-19-70
...
U
255
ซ 9
...
...
76
11
...
2307
2
13
3
* .
183
111;
2
29
U6
1
U95
1272
25
8
1238.0
30
3-27-
* .
*
170
. .
...
...
99
13
1
18U6
1
...
*
2
18
11
59
22
2
883
1138
28
3
iol;5.]
27
-------
TABLE 11. KAMAS HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSTS, STATION 6.
Organism
Annelida
Himdinea
Oligochaete
Tubifex
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Ase] la?
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Pelecypoda
H
^ Ephemeroptera
Baetis
Ginygmla
Epeorus
Ephemerella
Heptagenia
Leptophlebia
Bhithrogena
Plecoptera
Acroneuria
Alloperla
Arcynopteryx
Capnla
Claassenia
Isogenus
Isoperla
Paraleuctra
Nemoura
Pteronarcella
U-V69
28
ซ o
6
ซ o 0
ซ a
h
a *
12
ซ a
o a a
1419
o ซ a
a ป
O a
2
1
a A
a a e
2
a a
25
a ซ a
c ป
11U
5-2-69
2U
O o e
6
* o
ซ ป V
3
1
1
o *
e a a
11
..
9 ซ
8
a * e
*
a c
a e ป
e a *
a e ซ
* o
O e a
o a a
6
6-16-69
7
1
ป
o a
* e
2
a a
213
U9
73
282
a * *
9 *
31
1
. 0 .
1
ป 9 e
10
* * ป
6
6
* a
o a e
7=25-69
16
a ซ o
$
a o a
* a
3
* * a
120
.
8
256
a a a
a a
10
7
. .
ซ ป 0
ซ v a
9
a a
2
a e
3
19
8=21-69
11
e a
8
a * *
* a
3
...
253
ซ ป
...
9li
U
ซ a
C 9
ซ A O
2
a 9 o
a a a
3
3
o a
L|.
U3
9-18-69
7
a o a
1
8
1
1
a o a
9
a ป a
a * a
7U
a ป a
a
a o *
2
a a a
e * e
ซ *
0*9
2
a
a a ซ
26
11-12-69
53
a o a
102
0*0
2
22
3U
2
.
3J47
ซ # a
U
3
a * a
2
ซ a
11
ป ซ
...
8
* a
o a a>
30
1-19-70
UO
a a
28
* *
a a
* a
ป e *
108
a *
* a a
1012
a a a
a a a
ป *
li
a o a
a a a
8
20
4 a
160
Uo
O 9
32
3-27-70
90
a
200
a ป ป
* a
a
10
ioUo
30
a *
10
...
20
* a 0
9*9
20
20
* o
70
I * '
a 0
20
5o
-------
TABLE 11. KAMS HATCHER! BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION 6. (Cont'd.)
Organism
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Elmidae
Halipidae
Diptera
Antocha
Athrix
Chironomidae
Hexatorna
Limnophora
Muscidae
' Raphidolabis
T* Simulidae
Stratiomyidae
Tipulidae
Trichoptera
Arctopsyche
Bra chycentrus
G-lossosoma
Helicopsyche
Hydropsyche
Leptocella
Limnephil-qs
Rhyacophila
Total Org./sq. ft.
Kinds of Organisms
2
1
7
5
20
U
25
113
161
58U
101
212
25
187. U
2U
-2-69
*
* * *
0 ป
1
5
1
* ซ
* *
*
0
1
1
...
0
...
. ซ
lU
1
15
i
10.0
17
6-16-69
1
* ป
* *
#
6
22
1
...
...
1
59
*
2
1
. . ซ
...
...
59
1
27
13
88.0
25
7=25-69
* *
2lj.
* *
3
8
h8
3
ซ
* *
1
'U3
*
* *
38
25
9
ป
28
1U
78
10
80.5
25
8-21-69
* *
36
* *
3
8
52
1
o *
*
ป ป
*
. .
3
91
15
ป *
*
27
15
58
3
7U.O
23
9-18-69
*
1
*
9
19
3
1
* o *
* *
2
ป *
2
36
'10
*
O 4 *
26
22
5
2
53.8
23
11-12 -<
* ป
187
3
62
U
138
...
...
12
U
1
1U
1
33
77
ป.
1
99
1711
U2
7
603.2
30
ซ
568
92
20
572
12
liU
U
68
152
36
832
32h
92
56
86U.E
2U
870
120
ho
10
10
e
Uo
60
10
130
5o
210
*
U70
590
390
110
29
-------
TABLE 12. MTTMAY HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION h.
Organism 8-5-68
Annelida
Hirudinea U
Oligochaete . . .
Tubif ex
Crustacea
Amphipoda 2
Asellus 20
Mollusca
Gastropoda ...
Pelecypoda ...
ON Ephemeroptera
Baetis ...
Epeorus ...
Ephemerella ...
Heptagenia 2
Plecoptera
Isoperla . .
Coleoptera
Dryopidae . . .
Elraidae ...
Dipt era
Antocha ...
Chironomidae ,..
Limnophora ...
Ra phi do la bis ...
Simulidae ...
Tipulidae ,,,
U-U=69
22
7
31
7
U7
9
0 *
127
* r 0
f 0
...
00
0
3
0*0
ฃ
* 0 0"
1
*
...
5-2=69
11
000
28
20
32
6
...
'35
...
37
...
e ป .
...
*
0 *
6
060
e 0 ซ
...
e w ป
6=16=69
9
2
52
1
27
6
...
117
1
llli
...
000
1
2
0 C 0
1
* *
00 *
0 * ซ
0*0
7=25-69
5
00*
2U
5
90
3
...
'79
* 0
5o
0*0
0 ป 0
0 *
7
...
"17
0
*
3
...
8=21-69
2
e ป
7
8
180
13
00}*
10
0 *
7
ซ * *
1
000
^
* * 0
2
0 ป ซ
A ป *
2
* ซ 0
9-18-69
2
1
u
5
15
0 0
0*0
2
ซ ป ซ
0 e ป
...
0 0
000
5
*
1
0 ป 0
0*9
0 o e
ป a ป
11-12-69
13
1
38
ii
107
9
3
9
0*0
17
000
ป 0 0
000
95
0*0
37
ซ *
* 0 0
21
*
1-19=70
28
U
121
18
U07
19
2
77
* ซ
60
000
0 0
00
112
0 0 9
75
2
4*0
59
l
3-18-70
19
ป 0 ป
113
8
62
3
2
271
0*0
221
* 0 A
0 *
* 0
138
1
162
0 0 *
* t e
5
ซ *
-------
TAJLEJL2. MIDWAY HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA. ANALYSISs STATION 1;. (Cont'd.)
Organism/" 8-5-68 k-k-69 5-2-69 6=16-69 T-gg-iSg 8-21-69 9-18=69 11-12-69 1-19-70 3-18-70
Trichoptera
Brachycentrus
Hydropsyche . . .
Leptocella
Limnephilus 12
Rhyacophila ...
Total Org. /sq.ft. L.O
Kinds of Organisms 5
U ... ..,
o e ซ ป*
* a * e ป * o ซ
3 ... 19
ปป A ป
26.6 18.0 35.2
12 9 13
4 * * ป** * O
* * * ซซ ป
ป * ป* ป -^ I
3 3 ... 16
o e * ซ* *
28.6- U8.0 7.0 78.6
11 12 8 15
2
3
e
1|O
1
207. ir-
18
*
2
...
6
.
202.6
111
CT\
-------
TABLE 13. MIDWAY HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION 5.
c^
CD
Organism 8
Annelida
Hirudinea
Oligochaete
Tubifex
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Asellus
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Pelecypoda
Ephemeroptera
Baetis
Ephemerella
Hhithrogena
Tricorythode_s
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae
ELmidae
Hydraenidae
Diptera
Ghironomidae
Limnophora
Simulidae
Stratiomyidae
Trichoptera
Bra chvcentrus
Hydropsyche
LeptoceHa
LimnenhilTis
-5-68
6
ซ ซ e
2
58
55
3
0 e
2
990
9*9
...
...
...
1
1
99
3
00
9 ซ 9-
ซ 0 0
9 0
1
Total Org./sq.ft. 13.2
Kinds of Organisms
10
h-h-69
92
3
91
27
148
10
* * *
172
ซ9
0 0
9 0
000
909
990
151
I
000
...
...
e 0 o
0 A 9
59.8
9
5-2-69
87
90
21U
2
29
18
9
21
6
0 9 O
...
9 ซ
909
O 0 0
21>U
ft v 0
9 ซ
0O*
.**
o 9
e c 9
e o 0
63.0
9
6-16-69
30
...
31
25
13U
11
9*0
25U
117
1
...
* 9
8
99
117
ป 0
13
1
909
900
e c *
8
75.0
13
7-25-69
17
99-0
20
21
258
3
...
19
26
...
...
...
...
...
' 3
...
7
009
9 O
* 9 0
099
3
37.7
10
8-21-69
Ii3
* 9 9
383
51
715
36
...
25
1
. ..
2
1
2
e 9 ป
12
...
3
ซ ซ
090
000
000
900
2pl|e 8
12
9-18-69
6
009
2
19
U7
2
909
ซ9
990-
990
O 9
000
99
999
9ซซ
09*
9 9 *
* 9 9
O 9
0 9 O
0 o e
090
15.2
5
11-12-69
63
1
296
1265
2281
530
6
37
U9
0 * *
0 9
000
39
09*
530
6
190
. . ซ
.ซ.
1
1
2U
1063.8
16
1-19-70
100
1
2117
217
1*99
52
k
20
12
...
...
* 9 9
35
fi 0 9
332
1
17
0 0 ซ
9
0 9 0
O ซ 0
O 9 0
683.2
111
3-18-70
U3
953
...
15
5o
5
5
26
12
9 9
* O 9
999
6
* 9
151
000
3
9 9 *
99*
999
9*9
253.8
11
-------
TABLE 1U. MIDWAY HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSTS, STATION 6.
H
Organism
Annelida
Hirudinea
Oligochaete
Tubifex
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Asellus
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Pelecypoda
Ephemeroptera
Baetis
EDhemerella
Heptagenia
Tricorythodes
Hemiptera
Corixidae
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Dytiscidae
Elmidae
Halipidae
Diptera
Anthomyiidae
Chironomidae
Lironophora
Simulidae
8-5-68
36
#
1
20
162
*
* *
8
ป
36
...
* *
1
3
. ..
e *
ซ 9 0
5
. . .
21*
ii-li-69
11 k
0 0 ft
6k
5
39
13
*
303
* ซ *
ซ 0
...
* *
ป ซ e
0 e *
3
ป *
1
209
0 e
12
5-2-69
93
e
61*
5
11;
5
.
5i
7
* 0
ft *
ft * ft
a a o
* ป 0
e c *
...
ซ a e
38
o 0 ซ
.0.
6-16-69
65
0 ซ ft
32
* *
1|7
ft ft 0
* ft
156
16
0 ft
...
ป e ป
0 * #
ป * ป
0ft
ซ ซ O
* ft *
190
* 0
1*6
7-25-69
31
ft 0 0
68
5
156
3
...
66
30
1
60
- 0- 0
ป 0 e
ซ ป
7
0*0
a ซ o
5
ซ a a
8
8-21-69
7
...
6U2
1
163
3
1
e *
2
0*0
5
1
ป0ป
2
1
00
ปป
5
000
5
9-18-69 11-12-69
... 25it
1
3 112i|
It 278
10 14*90
3 783
137
5
30
ft * ft 000
0 ft ft 0 ft
89
ป ซ * 0
* ป * O * A
71
1
ป 0 0 O 0
137
0 ft 0 J-
5
1-19-70
319
e 0
9^9
55
139
18
10
67
15
o
*
...
00*
o
ll
* 0
0 0
93
0 ft- O
107
3 -as.
1*79
1
553
2k
30
1
1*
U59
36
00
*
...
O ft 0
1
16
ป *
ft 0 0-
399
"l*6
-------
TABLE llu MEDMAY HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS. STATION 6. (Cont'd. ).
Organism 8-5-68
Trichoptera
Brachycentrus 1
Hydropsyche ...
Limnephilus ...
Total Org./sq.ft. 29.7
Kinds of Organisms 11
U-U-69 5-2-69 6-16-69
i-
ป ซ * ป
76. U 27.7 55.3
11 8 8
7_25_69 8-21-69
*.!! "u
l;lt.O 168. It
12 lli
9-18-69
*
...
5.2
6
11-12-69
*
* ป
77
Iii96.li
15
1-19-70
* *
*
5
356.2
12
3-18-7
*
1
2
liio.U
15
o
-------
TABLE 15. LOA HATCHERY BOTTOM: FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION 1.
Organism
Annelida
HIrudinea
Tubifex
Crustacea
Amphlpoda
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Pelecypoda
Ephemeroptera
Baetis
Ephemerella
H :
s
H Plecoptera
Acroneuria
Odonata
Argia
Hemiptera
Ambry sus
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae
Elmidae
Diptera
Chironomidae
Muscidae
Eaphidolabis
Simulidae
5-9-69
9
*
717
1
*
* e
1
1
1
**7
* *
* *
ซ 0
6-U-69
3
662
322
7
* * ป
* * *
# *
12
17
* * *
7
* * *
* * *
ป ป *
*
7-16-69
9
2
13U
7
* *
1
*
* *
3
2
* *
1
A *
* * *
* *
* * *
8=21-69 9=18-69
3 5
2 6
ho 21U
15 "75
* <*
1 6
ป ป *
10 1
* #
ป *
ป * ป
3
1
ป ป * *
* ป ป ป
* ป *
11-21-69
18
19
350
*
1
* *
3U
7
* *
* *
91
2
2
2
1-13-70
87
19
2646
178
ป * *
*
1
21
87
* #
63
151
* *
* * *
3-11-70
9
5
319
68
7
2
*
133
1
* ป
*
1
-------
TABLE 15. LOA HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION 1. (Cont'd. )
Organism
Trichoptera
Glossosoma
Helicopsyche
Hvdropsyche
Leptocella
Limnephilus
Total Org, /sq.ft.
Kinds of Organisms
3-9-69 6-li-69
a ป * a * *
116
1
1
1 It
393.0 385.6
9 12
7-16-69
0
12
* * ป
* *
* ป
57.0
9
8-21-69
j e ซ
3
9
11
29.6
10
9-18-69
*
33
4 9 0
2
lll.O
8
11-21-69
7
1U
3
128
2U
250.0
16
1-13-70
ป ป
a *
lit
...
195
H55.2
12
3-11-70
2
1
2
13
...
187.7
13
ro
-------
TABLE 16. LOA HATCHEKT BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSTS. STATION 3.
Organism
Annelida
Hirudinea
Oligochaete
Tubifex
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Mollusca
Ga stropoda
Pelecypoda
Epherneroptera
Baetis
Ephemerella
Plecoptera
Acronenria
Isogenus
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae
Elmidae
Dipt era
Athrix
Chironomidae
Limnophora
Haphidolabis
Similidae
Tipulidae
5-9-69
12
1
152
356
15
2
* *
# *
*
u
1
* *
* *
71
*
* *
1
* * *
6-U-69
18
* *
135
370
13
* * *
28
* *
*
1;
*
ป
ป
36
1
* ป ป
* * *
ป
7-16-69
5
* ป
265
61|2
167
*
28
# *
*
* *
1
* *
* *
3
*
* ป
31
*
8-21-69
17
ซ
ill
1031
"39
* ป
22
* * *
* *
ซ *
* *
1
16
3
* *
' 66
: ป # *
9-18-69
9
2
2U
1021
7
* ป
77
...
ป ป
* ป ป
*
* *
ป *
2
2
ป
U6
* * *
11-21-69
27
*
2U
175
1
ป ป *
' 8
ป ซ *
*
* ป#
3
1
13
*
*
U
* * *
1-13-70
59
ป ป
1357
18UU
Hi
3
17
1
1
* * *
* *
#
* *
70
ซ *
*
77
3
3-11-
9
# * ป
101
92U
ป ป
3
18
ป #
2
* *
* * *
10
13U
* * #
1
U
* *
-------
TABLE 16. LOA HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION 3. (Cont'd.)
Organism 5-9-69 6-L-69 7-16-69 8-21-69 9-18-69 11-21-69 1-13-70 3-11-70
Trichoptera
Helicopsyche ... ... 2 3 12
Hydropsyche 1 1 ... ... ... ... 13 k
Leptocella ... ... ... 1 1 1 1
Limnephilus ... 5 ... 2k 30 2 2
Total Org./sq.ft. 30.5.3 203.6 381.3 L22.3 JO1.0 186.3 1155.2 103.3
Kinds of Organisms 11 10 9 12 12 11 llj. 11
-------
TABLE 17. LOA HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION h.
]
vn
Organism
Annelida
Hirudinea
Tubifex
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Pelecypoda
Ephemeroptera
Baetis
Caenis
Plecoptera
Acroneuria
Isogenus
Isoperla
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae
Elmidae
DIptera
Athrix
Chironoraidae
Limnophora
Muscidae
Simulida e
TIpulidae
5-9-69
2
31
9U3
2
* ซ ซ
1
1
ป ป '
'11
9 * *
1
* * ป
# *
17
ซ e ซ
ป
ซ *
1
6-li-69
Ik
77
16^0
'Ii6
ป * *>
101
* ป *
4 ซ
39
* *
3
ซ * 0
* ป 0
2?i
ป *
0 * 9
1
1
7-16-69
53
30
1805
272
* *
'31;
* ซ
# * *
ซ 4
3
2
ซ ป ซ
ซ e
1
A * *
A e ซ
22
*
6-21-69
53
214;
1531
-H5
# *
5o
*
ป
* ป *
* * *
* * *
i
* ซ
7
* * 9
* *
63
ป * ป
9-18-69
56
19
1263
189
ซ * ซ
'33
* *
ซ ป ป
* ซ
ป
* ป *
1
1
1
ซ * ซ
* ซ ซ
23
4 * *
11-21-69
-4!
19
1U63
7
3
'31
* *
* * *
* A
ป *
ซ
ป ป a
ป * *
33
* * #
1
Ui
* ป
1-13-70
51
16
6617
ป *
* * *
'15
ซ * ป
* ป
* * *
* * ซ
* s ป
* * *
# *
139
1
* *
171;
1
3-11-
33
35
2i|60
1
* ซ
29
ป fit
u
* #
ป *
* ป
* * a
116
# 0 ป
* * *
56
e ป *
-------
TABLEJ.7. LOA HATCHERY BOTTOM 7AUHA ANALYSIS, STATION U. (Cont'd.)
Organism 5-9-6.; 6-L-69 7-16-69 8-21-69 9-18-69 11-21-69 1-13-70 3-11-70
irichoptera
He lie opsyche
HydropsYche
Leptocella
Limnephilus
ซ * a
* * ซ
1
ii
99*
h
* e ซ
28
1
2
ซ *
16
ป ป *
ซ P #
* #
5
ซ 0 ป * e ซ
5
1
2 U
1
6
ป ป *
Uo
ซ *
ป* e
2
* 0 ป
Total Org./sq.ft. 338.3 672.8 7^7.0 666.3 529.6 550.3 2363.2 912.0
Kinds of Organisms 12 12 12 9 11 11 11 9
-------
TABLE 18. WHITE HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION 5.
Organism 10-23-68
Annelida
Hirudinea 15
Oligochaete ...
Tubif ex
Crustacea
Amphipoda 22
Decapoda 2
Molliisca
Gastropoda 26
Pelecypoda ...
Ephemeroptera
Baetis
Epeorus . . ,
Ephemerella ซ, ,
Heptagenia ...
,-ปTI,,j-.._.,-..--,Vta_. -. .-n *
Leptophlebia . ..
R^ithrogena ซ . .
Tricorrthodes ...
Fie copters
Acroneuria ป . .
A rcyno p t e rvx . .
Brachjrc tera
Cajgnoa ,f.
Claassenia ...
Isogenus 3
Isgjgerla . .,
Tjjs njoura , , ,
f-.-k$ti*-^ii^J---^'>kฃ.---.^ -^ * * s
1-7-69 5-27-69
12
000 O 0
52 U
39
009
25
$ 0 ซ e ป
1 19
2
1 37
ซซ0 e a 0
0 090
6
ป * 0
-------
TABLE 18. WHITE HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION 5. (Confd.)
-q
CD
Organism 10-23-68
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Dytiscidae
Elm da e
Diptera
A_ntocha
G hir onomida e
Hexatoma
Limnophora
Raphidolabis
Siimilidae
S tra tiorr^rida e
Tipulidae
Trichoptera
Arctopsyche
Bra chyeentrus
Hydroptila
Hydropsyche
Leptocella
Rhyacophila
Total Org./sq.ft.
Kinds of Organisms
u
* *
1
o * ซ
li.
3
ป
* ป *
e ป
*
26
2
5
...
. ..
* *
31.3
13
1-7-69
1
3
12
...
163
e
* 0 ป
. ป
* * *
e 9
28
...
* .
.ป.
U
*
3U.1
11
5-27-69
*
* s
e
ซ * 0
s * *
ป * ซ
*
ป *
* ป
ป * 9
2
0
2
* ป *
30
1
1
12.5
12
6-2U-69 7-22-69
* e
6
26
1
167 132
1
9 0
1 2
1 1
*
1
* ป B ป
* * * * * *
ป * *
3
* e * *
...
50.3 173.7
10 20
8-19-69
* t *
2
'te/
e
16
8
3
1
21;
ซ
27
...
1
1
8
...
3
5i.o
22
9-19-69
;
* a.
ซ * *
* *
ป ป
17
e *
1
9
* ป
*
2
*
ป
* * ซ
* #
ป O 0
6.0
7
11-1U-69
*
*
50
e * ป
1001;
...
3
* * *
5
5
30
*
* e
...
ซ ป
...
337.8
16
1-16-70
...
...
300
e ป *
2220
30
* *
o *
20
5o
e
10
10
10
956.0
17
3-20-70
* 0 *
* *
1060
10
3U5o
.
5o
10
...
30
27
ป
90
20
* *
2977.1;
21
-------
TABLE 19. -WHITE HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION 8.
Organism 10-23-68
Annelida
Hirudinea 6
Oligochaete ...
Tubifex
Crustacea
Amphipoda 12
Mollusca
Ga stropoda ...
Ephemeroptera
Baetis ...
Epeorus ...
Ephemerella ...
Rhithrogena ...
Plecoptera
Arcynopteryx ...
Isoperla ...
Pteronarcella . ซ .
Pteronarcys ...
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae .,,
Elmidae . .
Diptera
Chironomidae 1
Hexatoma ...
Simulidae ...
Stratiomyidae ...
Tipulidae
1-7-69
1+6
* ซ
1
13
#
1
* *
ป *
* *
.*.
1
ป *
*
f *
ซ * ป
197
* ซ ป
*
ซ 9
*
5-27-69
* * O
* ป
171+
* *
*
81
1+
12U
1+
1
17
ซ *
*
ป
* ป
9 * e
o e
3
...
ป-ซ
6-2U-69
1
83
*
12
0
39
31
1
...
2
* *
* *
ซ * *
...
82
fi 9 ซ
ซ e
o ซ e
1
7-22-69
1
#
2U
8
...
" 3
0 *
1
1
* *
* *
* *
1
*
1
37
...
151
* * a
a
8-19-69
6
0 .
8
11+
...
1
*
*
* *
* * *
* *
1
* * *
* *
1
U5
1
653
0 ซ
*
9-19-69
11+
1
*
9
1
...
. t> .
...
. .
ปซ
. # .
. .
...
* *
* *
* ซ
v 9
29
* # *
ป * a
n-iU-69
15
i
68,833
U9
3
1
*
...
...
. ป
1
* ป
0
5
617
* ซ
11D
ซ
*
1-16=70
60
20
36,1+30
190
10
160
0 ซ *
10
*
* * ป
*
* *
*
30
1+91+0
* ป
720
10
10
3-20-
11+0
*
810
80
...
220
# *
50
* .
10
*
10
l+o
2990
e w *
* *
*
10
-------
TABLEJL9. WTIETE FJITCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS., STATION 8. (Cont'd. )
Organism 1(3-23-^ 1^7-6j? 5^27-69 6^2)4-69 7^22-69 8-19^69 9-19-69 ll-ll^ 1-16-70 3-20-70
Trlchoptera
Hydropsyche i., U 2U 11 1 1 ,,ซ, 1 .., 20
J-jirnnsPiuuns j> ซปซ ป ซปซ ซซซ ซป* aซซ ซ ปซ * aซ
Total Orgป/sq.ft. 2.2 26.3 !j3.2 26.3 22,9 Ili6.2 10,8 13,927ซ2 8I;98.0 876.0
Kinds of Organisms U 7 9 10 11 10 5 11 12 11
-------
TABLE 20. WHITE HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION 9.
Organism
10-23-
1_7_69 5-27-69 6-2U-69 7-22-69 8-19-69 9-19-69 11-1U-69 1-16-70 3-20-70
CD
H
Annelida
Hirudinea k
Oligochaete ...
Tubifex ...
Crustacea
Amphipoda . . .
Asellus ...
Mollusca
Gastropoda ...
Ephemeroptera
Baetis ...
Epeorus ...
Ephemerella ...
Heptagenia ...
Leptophlebia ...
Rhlthrogena ...
Tricorythodes ...
Plecoptera
Acroneurla . , .
Arcynopteryx ...
Brachyptera ...
Isogenus ,.
Isoperla .
Pteronarcella 2
Pteronarcys ...
Coleoptera
Elmidae 4e,
1
2
68
3
...
3
ซ ซ e
1
2
ซ a
0 # *
e ซ
...
0 9 ซ
3
ซ * *
9 0 ซ
1
ป * *
ป e ป
# ป *
2
0 0 *
21
*
...
78
1
108
...
0 *
11
e * *
ซ *
ป*ป
* 0 e
e a e
33
e a*
a 0 ป
ซ> * 9
e
ซ 0
1
...
ป
ซ .
195
10
21$
e ป
* ป e
* a *
0 s a
* a e
e e ซ
. a.a
a * a
* ป e
ซ a ป
* a e
a * ซ
0 *
* 9
29
2
* ซ
a a *
85
a ป
l
2
# ป
ป a
8
ซ e 0
a a ซ
a e
,o a a
aaa
U
1
2
1;
.
126
3
a *
9
26
a ซ ป
0 a
00
a o ป
a a w
a o ซ
a e a
e ซ ป
e * *
a a *
3
1
...
ft * 0
5
3
1
2
a a ป
23
2
0 0- ป
* a
e a e
000
a 0 0
e ft a
**i
0 ป e
ป 0 4
ป ซ 0
' 1
ซ ป 9
ft ฎ e
Uo
Uo
95,55o
130
20
170
130
a *
160
aaซ
$ *
e ป
...
099
ป a a
10
20
e * *
o 0 e-
590
12
12
26k
178
a a *
75
307
aaa
82
* * 0
a 0 *
a * ป
a * a
"5
2
*28
12
0 * a
109
5o
aaa
1330
30
aaa
a a *
1670
aaa
250
a 9 0
10
Uo
aaa
I(.0
10
160
0 a 0
2C
* * a
210
-------
TABLE 20, WHITE HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION 9. (Cont'd. )
Organism
10-23=68 1-7-69 ฃ-27=69 6-2U-69 7-22-69 8-19-69 9-19-69 11-1U-69 1-16-70 3-20-70
TJiptera
Chironomidae
Hexatona
Limnophora
Haphidolabis
Sciornyzidae
Siurulidae
Stra tioiryida e
Tipulidae
Trichoptera
Rrachycentrus
Hydropsyche
Leptocella
Limnephilus
Rhya cophila
Total Org. /sq.ft.
Kinds of Organisms
2
0 ป 0
ซ *
-------
TABLE 21. SPRINGVILLE STATE HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS., STATION 1,
Organism U-10-69 5^2-69 6-16-69 7-23-69 8-.2U69 9-18-69 rui2-69 1^19-70 3-18-70
Annelida
Hirudinea 11
Oligochaete 1
Tubif ex
Crustacea
Amphipoda 63
Mollusca
Ga stropoda It
T |
co Ephemeroptera
Ameletus ...
Baetis 28U
Ephemerella 1
Tricorrthodes ...
Plecoptera~
Acroneuria ...
Isoperla ...
Odonata
Argia
Ischnnra
Hemiptera
Corixdae ...
Coleoptera
Elmidae 1
21;
*
25
192
20
155
2
278
3
1
1
v *
* #
59
* *
96
300
5
* ซ
15
13
*
ป *
ป
ป
* *
19 38
# * *
ป ป
62h 131U
99
1
6 ...
3
*.. 1|.6
* *
* ซ * *
* * * * *
2
1 1
ป ซ
10 U9
r ป
133
37 2953
96
*
58
* ซ * *
1
* 0
ป *
* ป *
1
* ป * *ป
* 9 *
U7
ป
285
1U23
1786
*
U2
32
#
'
* ป
* * *
3
ป
32
20
ป #
220
3170
330
*
ioUo
10
570
*
* *
* ป
ป
10
-------
TABLE 21. SPRINGVILLE STATE HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION 1. (Cont'd.)
Organism U-10-69
Diptera
Chironomldae 18
LimnoDhora
Simula da e ...
Trichoptera
. Hydro-psyche ...
Total Org. /sq.ft. lj.0.5
Kinds of Organisms 8
5-2-69
6
*
1
* *
70.8
12
6-16-69 7-23-69 8-21-69
U5U 8 6
* ป * * J-
* * * * *
9U.2 132.2 301.6
769
9-18-69 11-12-69
5 U3
1
13
1
10.6 669.6
U 10
1-19-70
172
* *
10
2
766.8
11
3-18-70
730
*
ซ *
1220.0
9
-------
TABLE 22. SPRING VH.LE STATE HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION U.
Organism
Annelida
Hirudinea
Tubifex
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Aselliis
Mollusca
Ga stropoda
Pelecypoda
Ephemeroptera
Baetis
Ephemerella
Tricorythodes
Odonata
Ischmira
Coleoptera
Elmidae
Diptera
Chironomidae
Limnophora
Simulidae
Trichoptera
Hydropsyche
U-10-69
35
603
75
* * ป
1*
* * *
1*7
* e
2
...
* # *
58
ป ff
# ป-
12
5-2-69
21
2789
892
1
11
3
11
* * *
68
..,
1
1U9
* *
* *
7
6-16-69
65
6350
3933
...
Ill
13
256
'31*
9
ซ ป *
1
251;
ป *
3
5
7-23-69
1
1901
25
*
* * ป
1*
*
*
e e
*
a # *
26IjO
*
ป e ป
* ป ป
8-21-69
209
1*
2922
* *
29
*
322
* e ป
2
ซ *
...
'22
ป ป
57
18
9-18-69 11-12-69
1 90
22 1U21
7370
...
2 6
... 8
111
# * * *
ซ ป *
* * * * ป
3
3 12*
2
76
97
1_19_70
115
1079
5371
* #
205
0 ป
281
5
*
1
53
HOI*
5
66
3-18-70
120
1310
6710
* *
110
...
2730
10
250
* * *
90
8030
*20
10
Total Org./sq.ft. 83.6 393.5 1092.8 18,28U.O 717.U 5.6 1839.6 17li5.2 3878.0
Kinds of Organisms 8 11 11 5 9 1; 11 12 11
-------
TABLE 23. SraiMTTILLE FEDERAL HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION 7ซ
Organism
Annelida
Hirudinea
Tubifex
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Mollusca
Ga stropoda
Ephsneroptera
Baetis
oo Epheme rella
ฐ^ Tricorythcibes
Coleoptera
Elraidae
Diptera
Chironomidae
Sinnilidae
Trichoptera
Hydropsyche
Hydroptila
LeptocelTLa
Limnephilus
U-10-69
156
17U
2620
62
3
ป * *
1
*-*
155
...
12
ซ ซ .
.ป.
6
5-2-69
22
526
toll
29
1U9
* *
271
* ซ *
86
1
5
* ป *
ป
* *
6-16-69
122
1016
1611
6
20
82
...
ป **
6
...
* * *
* * *
1
7-23-69
3k
11\
Ito
5
* *
* ป *
...
* * *
335
5
*
* *
* *
1
8-21-69
19
508
397
39
11
* * *
...
ป
2
1
3
1
* #
* ป *
9-18-69
21
li
u
* * ป
* *
* ป *
* ป
...
* ป ป
* *
3
* *
* ป
*
11-12-69
Ij.
26U
166
*
1
* * *
* *
* *
2
2
5
* i
1-19-70
7
273
too
8
112
5
...
3
19
106
32
*
9
3-18-70
90
1*590
5too
80
520
120
*
10
860
10
130
*-
*
Uo
Total Org./sq.ft.3l8.9 153.3 286.7 1730.6 196.2 6.V 890 2028 ?^7fi n
Kinds of Organisms 9 9 8 7 9 i 8 n 11
-------
TABLE 2h. SFRINGVILLE FEDERAL HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION lU.
Organism
Annelida
Hirudinea
Tubifex
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Mollusca
Gastropoda
g, Ephemeroptera
-^ Baetis
Ephemerella
Heptagenia
Trie orythode s
Odonata
Argia
Hemiptera
Corixidae
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae
Elmidae
Diptera
.Athrix
Chir onomida e
5inmlidae
Ii-10-69
20
322
285
2
ia
12
* #ป
ป *
1
...
1
18
* ป
255
2
5-2-69
26
128
209
It
It
*
ป *
l
*
...
*
3
13
It
6-16-69
91
762
1563
lit
12U
3
#
* *
2
1
*
2
...
18
23
7-23-69 8-21-69
103 66
U92 2t3
200 17li
5 1
6 15
1
2
2
1
ป * * *
* * # * *
5
1
1 1
l
9_l8-69 11-12-69 1-19-70
32t Ilt2 280
11 551 2370
31 273 1850
*ซr * * ***
1 12 Ij30
6 30
* ป ป * *
ป ซ * ป ซ *
* * u *ป *
ป **v ***
* ***
180 510
* * * *
238 1050
7 50
3-18-70
390
3620
1|090
20
300
70
...
20
...
...
250
710
...
-------
TABLE 2k. SFRBJGVILLE FEDERAL HATCHERY BOTTOM FAUNA ANALYSIS, STATION Ik. (Cont'd.)
Organism
k-10-69 5-2-69 6-16-69 7-23-69 8-21-69 9-18-69 11-12-69 1-19-70 3-18-70
Trichoptera
Arctopsyche
Brachycentms
Hydropsyche
Limnephilus
Total Org, /sq.ft.
e 9 *
ฉ ซ ซ
78
6
10k. k
Kinds of Organisms 13
H
CO
CO
1
ป ป tta* -I- ซ ป ป
5 971 276 82
1 97 7 2
39.8 367.7 219.8 78.2
11 13 15 10
* ซ ซ ซ e *
ซ ป ป * * *
1 1895
1
15.8 661.6
6 10
ป a ป
* ป
590
50
Ikk2.0
10
0 ซ
* * *
820
ko
2066.0
11
-------
2 000
1,000
900
Boo
TOO
/Cnn
ฐ 500
o P
"-1 k-00
ฃ 300
2 200
~ 100
\ 90
i 80
"J 70
ฃ 60
t7> SO
O Uo
!? 30
*; po
> 10
p> j-u
i- Q
1 8
' <7
ฐ 6
4
3
P
1
n
n
1.
r
0 7
1 8
kn
g 40
^2 50
ง 6ฐ
E1 TO
BO
<3 90
ซ iฐฐ
^ 200
T3 300
S 4oo
5 500
O 600
^ 700
800
900
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
20,000
30 , ooo
Station
\
\
[ \
\\
V
\
\
\\
\ >
X
/ \
~*~* "^
s
f*
/
/
' /
X
4 I 1 1
/
1
1
1 ,
1 /
l/^-
v^r-
SI
1
1
k _
~- ,
M-v-^
"1 t^_
^.
\
X
\
.
\
~\ \ ^\--
N
k
v
\
\
\
\
\
\-
\
\
^
V.
^,
/
^
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
/
4
i
{.
/ ,
/'"
'+
/
f-
^
\
f
1 !
//
//
//
//
'1
'I
'/
I
J
r
f
/
/
/
/
/
/
f*
"+~i~*
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
k \
\ \
\
\
\
\
s* /
^' /
y
s
X
_/
/
/
/.
/
-/
^'J.
^ss.
^
V
x
\
\
'^
\
\
\
/
/
s
^~^~^H
_i IT*
V
\
^ ^--'
r~^^\
^
\
76
Month of Pickup
Figure 193- Kamas Hatchery, Total Numbers of Aquatic Invertebrates Found at Selected Stations.
189
-------
Station
Figure 194. Kamas Hatchery, Average Concentration of Aquatic Invertebrates,
190
-------
6
(0
o
w
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
IT
16
i R
i
j
/
/
/
f
j
^s^
i-*"
-
Station
Figure 195. Kamas Hatchery, Average Number of Kinds at Selected Stations
% Change in Numbers
120
110
100
90
80
TO
20
10
0
1
'
I
tr '
Ztj /
"??l /L
jQ^ . / ffy
JZtf
//
r
)
L. /
y~~ <
/
/
i
i
4 5 6
Station
Figure 196. Kamas Hatchery, Per Cent Change in Aquatic Invertebrate
Concentration.
191
-------
7ฐ
jf
T'l
fQ
ff
f\\
f=o
^n
rQ
=f-
l[ฐ
llf
1,1,
llฐ
-.f
1
Food^
ti?-'
L 1ฃ
ป ป*
J
X
X
L
X
/
5
^
^^
r'
3
i
^-
~^-*,
3
k
x
\
"S,
v^
\
V
7
\
>
3
-^
X ^
v
? 1
3
195
190
ifls
180
175
170
-\fc
ifin
155
150
1'lS
lUo
125
110
105
85
80
(CC
60
l,c
l^Q
Month of Pickup
Figure 197. Kamas Hatchery, Feed and Fish Fed During the Sampling Period.
192
-------
p nno
800
700
600
o cnn
0 ?uu
ฃ 300
ง 200
ฐ* 100
\ QO
w -^
c 80
W 7Q
DI SO
O lj-0
>- on
"E 20
sป 10
i- Q
fO Q
7l 7
0 f
[[.
3
2
]_
i.
5
ฃ
S s
QJ n
ฃ 9
g 10
w 20
m p
50
ro 60
H1 TO
<5 90
ro 100
^ 200
-0 300
2 400
3 500
o 600
TOO
800
900
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
T,ooo
8,000
9,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
Station
Station
j
//
/ J
/ 7
< /
J
j
^
f
\
\
\
\
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ '
K^ \
^x \
>(
dill
illl
6
\\
\ ซ
\
^
^^
s '
^^^
^^
I
\s*/ ; '
/
/
//
r /
/
/
' - ^
V
/
/
\
^Vj
^\^
\
N
-44
' ~~i
:
- "^
V -^
\ ^}ffsfr
" \x
N *
\
\
>
v
* V
V X
\\
\\
V
v.
\^
\
\
\
. \
\ \
\ \
s \,, \
s^ x
S (
^
1
/
/
/
u
/'
lf-1
7- i i
/ ' /
^ ' /
' /
' /
'/
'/
'/
/
/,
/'
/'
/'
1 1
1
i
li
I1 /
// ^
//-/
/'
1:1
li/
1 if
/
'
),
A
\ v
\, \
\l ''
\\
\
\
V,
v
\
^
u
A
\
i
\
\
\ \
\ \
\ \;
/ \
s* N
\^
V
\
\
v
\
i
'
'
f--
/
J_
y* '
<~ /
[ /
\
( \
\
\
N
x>
.X
y-**
f ^
A
"~ /
/
/
4 5 6 1 8 9 11
Month of Pickup
Figure 198. Midway Hatchery, Total Numbers of Aquatic Invertebrates Found at Selected Stations.
193
-------
MH
1
6
H
c
ro
tn
u
o
3
O
ป i
=>
^gv^
----
"-^
1
Station
Figure 199. Midway Hatchery, Average Concentration of Aquatic Invertebrates
-------
0)
6
(A
T3
12.2
12.0
11.8
11.6
11. U
11.2
11.0
10.8
10.6
10.lt.
10.2
in.n
i
k.
\
X
\
T
^+ ""
r-^
Station
Figure 200. Midway Hatchery, Average Number of Kinds at Selected
Stations.
(0
C
rd
6
ion
i T n
J.J.U
DA
90
An
OU
TA
[0
50
40
20
10
1
1
/
/
JZ>/
-------
7ฐ
yf
T'l
7ฐ
fCQ
ff
f1\
f^
frt
CO
cf
'iq
'if
Mi
l|0
||Q
i|.
If
Q
ฃ
1
/,
^^
y
L 1
-sV
V
' ^
x^
3
.
/
/
/
?>/
oV
V
/
L
y
/
/
/
' /
' /
/
/
/
D
, x
X
s
N-
3
/
'
(
/
/
/
/
f
t
^
\
^
v
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
5
^
\
11
^
.
\
\
\
6
v
V
\
\
\
T
(
.
*
B
X
X
9 l
0
195
190
iRs
iRn
175
170
ifis
ifin
155
150
I'lS
1^0
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
85
80
6S
60
I.C.
ho
Month of Pickup
Figure 202. Midway Hatchery, Feed and Fish Fed During the Sampling Period.
196
-------
3 ODD
2,000
1 000
QOO
800
700
600
B500
;w
ซ 400
ฃ 300
5 200
a 100
X. go
? Rn
J2 70
S 60
O> 50
O i{-0
ti PO
t> in
c 9
m 8
0 J
0
p
-]
1.
5
2 o
c 9
S1 20
> 3ฐ
ฃ 40
50
ro 60
ฃ> 70
oO
S 90
ro 1ฐฐ
^ 200
T3 300
ฎ Uoo
3 500
o 600
700
800
900
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
30,000
1
Station
Station
s *
* '
ฃ*""""f-- ^_
k *
"~ -- ~t
\ \
\ N
.f^
/ \
\
L -+-H-
T
.
V ^^
\
\
\
V
V
V
\
1
i
^
/.
J
_/
/
/
- 7
K\
^ \s.
t ^\v
N
^^
tr^~
-*-H
1 ^
rf- j
^^^^1
/
/
/
/
/
/
*_
>- ^_
~- -,
y
/
r
_/
/
/
^
\
'V
^\
^
- -
^-^^
^x^>
r
S
*
-
-f t t (
/
/
y
y
f
'1
//
' y
// J
/ /
/ /
I/
*t
v-1'
\\ \
\v
\ ^.
\ ^
\
\
\
\
x
V v^
\ ^
\.
^ \
\\
NS
V1
X
,
/
/
7"
r ^ J
-T
/
/
/
/
/
7 8
Month of Pickup
11
Figure 203. Loa Hatchery, Total Numbers of Aquatic Invertebrates Found at Selected Stations
197
-------
2
ro
to
ro
U
o
<4-l
O
!-,
0)
"E
CJ>
ro
u
CD
Station
Figure 204. Loa Hatchery, Average Concentration of Aquatic Invertebrates,
198
-------
in
H
w
-|H
(0
o
M-l
O
w
12.2
12.0
11.8
11.6
ll.l*
11.2
11.0
10.8
10.6
10.4
10.2
i n.n
i
^- '
,
s^
^v^
^>
1
Station
Figure 205. Loa Hatchery, Average Number of Kinds at Selected Stations,
Q)
Cn
C
(0
,c
U
12 no
.8 100
I 90
!Z 80
50
30
10
0
k
Station
Figure 206. Loa Hatchery, Per Cent Change in Aquatic Invertebrate
Concentration.
199
-------
7ฐ
7^
71'
^Q
f^
Pi
(Co
ฃn
CP
^
c).
IIQ
||f
|,1|
l|n
I|O
^0
nf
oO
ฐr
IQ
i f
i'i
Q
(
1
^
X
L 1
nฐV
^/
^ ^ J
XV"/
V
D
^s^'
-" ^
/
/
L
,
"T1^
5
^
-x
3
: -
^ ^
+
"-~-^_
s ^
5
\
\
N \
\ \
\
N
6
"\
X,
s
\
7
\
\
"
3
"-^^^
9 1
0
195
190
^^
180
175
170
165
l^n
155
150
ll|S
1^0
135
130
8s
80
ฃc
60
Month of Pickup
Figure 207 . Loa Hatchery, Feed and Fish Fed During the Sampling Period.
o
ซ
a
200
-------
3 ooo
2,000
1,000
900
8oo
TOO
600
ฐ soo
ฃ 300
3 200
131 100
\ 90
50
O ij-0
Q) 30
"ฃ PO
^ 10
r- Q
(0 Q
7l 7
O '
0
o
o
1
i.
5
ฃ
-^ D
O 7
2 a
_ '
y
,/
//
('/
1-1 ^ 4 M
\ /
\ /
V
A
/ v
/ -1
7
r-.
k
\\ /
\ ^^
\ ^ \
A '
r \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
V
\ \
A \
^ \
\r \
\
\^
\ S
\
\
\
)
/ ,
J^
JS*/
r- /
/
/
}
1
1
1
1
1
'
/I
Jl
1 -/
/
/
t
i
\
\
^
\
\
1 V
1 \ V
1 \ \
\\
\ \
\ \
\ \ \
. { \,
1 \
\\ \
1
M
',
M
'.
I
'1
fc-~_
"" ]
y
^
/
/
f
I
{
^
\
\
\
\l
!
1
,
1
1
1
1^
:
/
7~s
y-s
f
r7
fV
V
^
^ ^
^ /
7^
/
/
1
1
1
1
10
11
Month of Pickup
Figure 208. White's Hatchery, Total Numbers of Aquatic Invertebrates Found at Selected Stations
201
-------
oฃr\n
olion
jM-UU
OOAA
jฃ-UU
.3000
2000
S
IM 2bOO
u
ro 2400
3
0*
x^ 2200
CO
w 2000
r-l
C
fd n Qnn
tn IcSOO
m loOO
O
!_i
^ 1400
g
^ 1200
000
<
bOO
400
200
r*
(
4
(
f
/
1
1
1
1
1
-o/
(71
*>/
-5/
"Oi
^'
/
;
/
/
t
-ฃ^Q^
kx
X
N
r- ^
I
1
Station
Figure 209. White's Hatchery, Average Concentration of Aquatic
Invertebrates .
202
-------
w
S
CO
1-1
C
(0
w
-a
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
q
1
V
\
\
\
\
\
\
y
/
/
/
(
5 8 9
Station
Figure 210. White's Hatchery, Average Number of Kinds at Selected
Stations.
w
t-4
(D
U
T on
1 r\J
nr\
90
An
ou
I
cn
5u
OA
30
20
10
i
i
!
0,
a>l
I n
\ **ป^
V
/ V^)
Y5'
r >
? i
Statior
i^^^
)
/
/
/
/
{
3 5
i
i
ft
J
Figure 211. White's Hatchery, Per Cent Change in Aquatic Invertebrate
Concentration.
203
-------
78
76
71*
72
70
68
66
61*
62
60
58
56
5"*
52
50
1*8
1*6
1*1*
1*2
1*0
38
36
31*
32
30
28
26
2l*
22
20
18
16
lit
12
10
8
6
It
2
0
^
>
S4.
S*f
\
^
/
^
^--*,
^ -
-_
X
1>s~
1
1
I
/
/
/
/
/
1
f
/
/
/
k^
X
)
/
/
/
/
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
11121231*5678910
Month of Pickup
Figure 212. White's Hatchery, Wet and Dry Feed Fed During the Sampling Period.
20k
-------
q OOO
P OOO
1 000
800
TOO
600
งCAA
puu
ฃ 300
ง 200
VI
X. QO
w -*
en TO
S 60
10 ou
O 40
a) 30
t! PO
^ 10
c 9
5 8
$ 7
h
0
Q
I,
O T
ฐ 8
w 9
m 20
ซ 3ฐ
" 50
!S 60
B1 TO
(a 90
10 100
^. 200
o 3oo
% 400
2 500
o 600
700
800
900
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
29,000
30,000
Station
Station
H
v^ /
/
/
\ /
I- V"* i
\/
A
/ \
/ \
/ \
'
^
T^
<^
/
'
^J
'\
* J
*>s
^^ \
'>
1 \ 1 1
3 H 1 h
7
J
/^
+)
y}
7\
h '
/r /
/T ;
^r /
iNt
4 ( ^
/ ;
/ 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
t\/
s X
\
x
V
N
"^
J
/
/
/
k- /
/.. ^A
** - \
*
f.
/
/
/
v
;
/.
/.
^.
^
7
/
7
ji
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
V
V
A
V
\_
i.
y
1
X
\ J
\ v
A
/,-V
^ \
\
s
\
\
\
\
A
'
'
'
t ^
/ /
/ 7
/ /
/ /
-/
7
/T
/ -L
/ r
j
/
-t
/
r
/
r
i
/
t
^
.
\,
y
V
\ V
\ \
\ A
A -A
A \
\\\
\r\
\\\
VA
1 V
V
^
\
i
/
/
/ ;
//
^/
X J
y v/'
J'-fl
1 1
f I
* 1
1 /
/.
/
/
/
i
4
J
j-
ii
iji
w
f
ซ
J
~j'
~H
K
Iff
fr
fr /
r ' /
/T /
f-+ /
' / '
' T/
+/
If
I
L
V
\
v\
'xv
\v
NV
',^\
\ A
V; \
\ \
n ^
^ ^
V
\
i
1
.ป 1 _J , L
^y *"
r X.
\,
^
j
/
/
/
/
/
/
1
'*ซ(
\
V
\
\ ^
^ \
\/^,''
\
s
,. ^_ v -v ]
x ^f1
X ' /A
/
f-
f
f
ff
\
\
\
\,J
^\
* \
\ \
^.'N \
V ^
Month of Pickup
Figure 213. Springville Hatcheries, Total Number of Aquatic Invertebrates Found at Selected Stations
205
-------
2
(0
g.
w
o
M-l
O
CD
E
I
0)
en
ra
l-l
0)
36oo
3Uoo
3200
3000
2800
2600
2^00
2200
2000
1800
1600
lUOO
1200
1000
800
600
Uoo
200
r\
1
1
|
k.
'
1
/
1
1
1
I
1
s/
?f
1 1
c?'
ฃL/
/
f
/
1
/
1
,'r,^
K
I
ซ
4
ซ
ซ
ซ
\t
ซ
\ป
\\
11
\\
\\
\\
\\
\l
\\
v ;
^
*
137
Station
Figure 214. Springville Hatcheries, Average Concentration of Aquatic
Invertebrates .
206
-------
16
6 1
I- 13
ง 12
S? 11
P 10
9
8
7
6
5
o
co
7
Ik
Station
Figure 215. Springville Hatcheries, Average Number of Kinds at Selected
Stations.
W
U.
-------
TQ
Tf
7'i
rY
n
T'l
("n
rQ
rf
r).
-.0
nQ
P
1]
^^
1ฃ
sj.
_
_ ^J
i-"-""
L
/
/ _ ,
/
3
f^V^
<ฃ>/
/
3 '
s
s
\
",
^
t
/
^/
^ ,
5
\
\
\
S
~~
\
_. N^
"S
r
^.^
^-^
3
^*^,
3 1
3
195
190
185
180
170
160
155
150
11*5
135 ^
no m
120
115
105 *S
95 1
60 3
re 0
qn f5
kc
Month of Pickup
Figure 217 . Sprlngville Hatchery (State), Feed and Fish Fed During the Sampling Period.
208
-------
7*
7^
T'I
72
70
fiR
66
fi'i
'62
60
58
56
5^
U8
U6
14.14.
if.
28
26
1
1
1 l
^s^
^
p
/
S s
, '
1
, x^
/ X
-^ x
X
9
--^^
^
3
r--^,
^
+
~~ ^,
5
^~~-^
^ ^
6
\
"^
X
7
S
\
8 .
^
^^
9 1
0
190
185
180
165
160
155
150
1^5
1^0
135
130
125
120
115
110
10*i
Rc
Ro
T5
70
fiS
ft-i
45
IfO
35
30
25
20
15
o
8
m
-O
CU
8
01
-a
Month of Pickup
Figure 218. Springville Hatchery (Federal), Feed and Fish Fed During the Sampling Period.
209
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
ession No.
w
4. Title
"Pollution as a Result of Fish Cultural Activities"
Russell N. Hinshaw
9. Organization
Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources
1596 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah
10. Project No.
18050 EDH
77. Contract/Grant No.
Environmental Protection Agency report
number, EPA-R3-73-009, February 1973.
16. Abstraci Fish hatchery activities have "been suspected as a source of pollution.
This study was undertaken to evaluate this in hatchery discharges in
relationship to possible pollution.
A program of semi-monthly physical-chemical analysis was conducted for a
year at six trout hatcheries. These determinations were taken at the hatchery
inflow and outfall, the receiving water above and below the hatchery outfall.
Bottom fauna was sampled once a month during the summer and bi-monthly
through the winter on selected stations in the receiving waters.
Flow data was recorded for the influent, effluent, and receiving waters.
There was no correlation between the pounds of food fed in the hatcheries
and:
l) changes of chemical quality in the receiving waters;
2) changes in kinds and numbers of bottom fauna organisms in the
receiving waters.
The analysis of samples revealed degradation of the water quality through
every hatchery and in the receiving water. This degradation was beneficial from
a fisheries standpoint but water quality and public health considerations may
require cleanup before acceptable levels could be achieved.
a. Descriptors Water pollution, Fish hatchery, Fish culturing; Fish Hatchery Discharges,
Water Quality, Public Health, Fish management
I7b. identifiers Trout hatchery, Pollution evaluation, Receiving waters, Fish Cultural
Activities, Water Quality Criteria
77c. CO WKR Field & Group 05, 5C
IS. A',nii<.hifiiy , 19.
U
'20.
1
ฃ&uitty.C$toitb.f '
\ *ป*/''"* &X
Se&utity Class.
(Page)
Pages i
22. Price { '
i
Send To :
WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 2O24O
Russell N. Hinshaw
tuijon Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1973 514-155/301 1-3
------- |