DOCSLIB.ORG

Analysis of the Effects of Rotenone on Aquatic Invertebrates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analysis of the Effects of Rotenone on Aquatic Invertebrates APPENDIX D Analysis of the Effects of Rotenone on Aquatic Invertebrates APPENDIX D ERRATA SHEET This technical report was prepared for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. This errata sheet only addresses the technical corrections to the report as a result of the public comments, the agency review process, and conversions with report authors. Technical corrections to the An Analysis of the Effects of Rotenone on Aquatic Invertebrate Assemblages in the Silver King Creek Basin, California, include: Correction of text in Appendix 12, pages 109-191, which incorrectly states that “Abundance data are presented as the estimated number of individuals per square meter”. Corrected text is “Abundance data are presented as the estimated number of individuals per 0.279 square meters”. Please note, to estimate the number of individuals per square meter, multiply abundance figures for taxa by 3.58. AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF ROTENONE ON AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE ASSEMBLAGES IN THE SILVER KING CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA Mark R. Vinson, PhD and Deanna K. Vinson June 2007 Prepared for U.S. Forest Service Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Carson City, NV ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ...................................................................................................................iv List of Figures ..................................................................................................................vi Summary....................................................................................................................... viii Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 2 Laboratory Studies ............................................................................................... 3 Field Studies ......................................................................................................... 5 Lentic Studies ................................................................................................... 6 Short-term Impacts ........................................................................................ 6 Assemblage Recovery................................................................................... 7 Lotic studies ...................................................................................................... 9 Short-term Impacts ........................................................................................ 9 Assemblage Recovery................................................................................. 10 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 13 Rotenone as a disturbance ..................................................................................... 14 Silver King Creek........................................................................................................... 18 Overview ................................................................................................................. 18 Study Area .............................................................................................................. 18 Rotenone Treatments ............................................................................................. 22 Sample Collection Methods .................................................................................... 23 Laboratory Methods ................................................................................................ 25 Data Processing ..................................................................................................... 26 Historic Samples ................................................................................................. 26 Recent Samples ................................................................................................. 28 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 28 Results.................................................................................................................... 29 Historic Samples ................................................................................................. 29 Treated Versus Untreated Sites ...................................................................... 30 iii Annual Variation .............................................................................................. 31 Variation Among Sampling Stations ................................................................ 33 Rarity .............................................................................................................. 35 Recent Samples ................................................................................................. 38 Treated Versus Untreated Sites ...................................................................... 39 Annual Variation .............................................................................................. 40 Variation Among Sampling Stations ................................................................ 42 Rarity .............................................................................................................. 45 Differences Between Historic and Recent Samples ........................................... 48 Overall Assemblage Differences ..................................................................... 49 Differences Between Treated and Untreated Sites ......................................... 54 Differences Between Treated and Untreated Sites in Recent Samples .......... 56 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 59 Future Sampling Considerations ................................................................................... 64 Where to sample ............................................................................................. 64 When to sample .............................................................................................. 65 How to sample ................................................................................................ 66 Sample processing ......................................................................................... 67 How to determine sampling adequacy ............................................................ 68 Literature cited .............................................................................................................. 71 List of Appendices ......................................................................................................... 80 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Field studies on the effects of rotenone on lentic invertebrates ........................ 8 Table 2. Field studies on the effects of rotenone on lentic invertebrates ...................... 12 Table 3. Rotenone formula, concentration, and duration for treatments conducted in the Silver King Creek Basin between 1964 and 1993 ......................................................... 23 Table 4. Aquatic invertebrate sampling locations .......................................................... 24 Table 5. Aquatic invertebrate sample availability ......................................................... 25 Table 6. Mean + SD and results of ANOVA to evaluate differences in aquatic invertebrate assemblage measures among rotenone treated and control stations for historic samples collected between 1984 and 1996 ...................................................... 31 Table 7. Mean + SD of aquatic invertebrate assemblage measures among years for historic samples collected between 1984 and 1996 ...................................................... 32 Table 8. Results of ANOVA to evaluate differences in aquatic invertebrate assemblage measures among years ................................................................................................. 33 Table 9. Mean + SD of aquatic invertebrate assemblage measures among sites located on Silver King Creek...................................................................................................... 34 Table 10. Results of ANOVA to evaluate differences in aquatic invertebrate assemblage measures among sampling locations ........................................................ 35 Table 11. Results of ANOVA to evaluate differences in aquatic invertebrate assemblage measures among rotenone treated and control stations for historic sample collected between 2003 and 2006 ................................................................................. 40 Table 12. Mean + SD of aquatic invertebrate assemblage measures among years for samples collected between 2003 and 2006. ................................................................. 41 Table 13. Results of ANOVA to evaluate differences in aquatic invertebrate assemblage measures among years for samples collected between 2003 and 2006.. 42 Table 14. Mean + SD of aquatic invertebrate assemblage measures among sites located on tributary streams .......................................................................................... 43 Table 15. Mean + SD of aquatic invertebrate assemblage measures among sites located on Silver King Creek ......................................................................................... 44 v Table 16. Results of ANOVA to evaluate differences
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks Bioblitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks BioBlitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event Natural Resource Report NPS/GOGA/NRR—2016/1147 ON THIS PAGE Photograph of BioBlitz participants conducting data entry into iNaturalist. Photograph courtesy of the National Park Service. ON THE COVER Photograph of BioBlitz participants collecting aquatic species data in the Presidio of San Francisco. Photograph courtesy of National Park Service. The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks BioBlitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event Natural Resource Report NPS/GOGA/NRR—2016/1147 Elizabeth Edson1, Michelle O’Herron1, Alison Forrestel2, Daniel George3 1Golden Gate Parks Conservancy Building 201 Fort Mason San Francisco, CA 94129 2National Park Service. Golden Gate National Recreation Area Fort Cronkhite, Bldg. 1061 Sausalito, CA 94965 3National Park Service. San Francisco Bay Area Network Inventory & Monitoring Program Manager Fort Cronkhite, Bldg. 1063 Sausalito, CA 94965 March 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 PBRIA a Newsletter for Plecopterologists
    No. 10 1990/1991 Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 PBRIA A Newsletter for Plecopterologists EDITORS: Richard W, Baumann Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 Peter Zwick Limnologische Flußstation Max-Planck-Institut für Limnologie, Postfach 260, D-6407, Schlitz, West Germany EDITORIAL ASSISTANT: Bonnie Snow REPORT 3rd N orth A merican Stonefly S ymposium Boris Kondratieff hosted an enthusiastic group of plecopterologists in Fort Collins, Colorado during May 17-19, 1991. More than 30 papers and posters were presented and much fruitful discussion occurred. An enjoyable field trip to the Colorado Rockies took place on Sunday, May 19th, and the weather was excellent. Boris was such a good host that it was difficult to leave, but many participants traveled to Santa Fe, New Mexico to attend the annual meetings of the North American Benthological Society. Bill Stark gave us a way to remember this meeting by producing a T-shirt with a unique “Spirit Fly” design. ANNOUNCEMENT 11th International Stonefly Symposium Stan Szczytko has planned and organized an excellent symposium that will be held at the Tree Haven Biological Station, University of Wisconsin in Tomahawk, Wisconsin, USA. The registration cost of $300 includes lodging, meals, field trip and a T- Shirt. This is a real bargain so hopefully many colleagues and friends will come and participate in the symposium August 17-20, 1992. Stan has promised good weather and good friends even though he will not guarantee that stonefly adults will be collected during the field trip. Printed August 1992 1 OBITUARIES RODNEY L.
    [Show full text]
  • Download .PDF(1340
    Stark, Bill P. and Stephen Green. 2011. Eggs of western Nearctic Acroneuriinae (Plecoptera: Perlidae). Illiesia, 7(17):157-166. Available online: http://www2.pms-lj.si/illiesia/Illiesia07-17.pdf EGGS OF WESTERN NEARCTIC ACRONEURIINAE (PLECOPTERA: PERLIDAE) Bill P. Stark1 and Stephen Green2 1,2 Box 4045, Department of Biology, Mississippi College, Clinton, Mississippi, U.S.A. 39058 1 E-mail: [email protected] 2 E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Eggs for western Nearctic acroneuriine species of Calineuria Ricker, Doroneuria Needham & Claassen and Hesperoperla Banks are examined and redescribed based on scanning electron microscopy images taken from specimens collected from a substantial portion of each species range. Within genera, species differences in egg morphology are small and not always useful for species recognition, however eggs from one population of Calineuria are significantly different from those found in other populations and this population is given informal recognition as a possible new species. Keywords: Plecoptera, Calineuria, Doroneuria, Hesperoperla, Egg morphology, Western Nearctic INTRODUCTION occur in the region (Baumann & Olson 1984; Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) is often used Kondratieff & Baumann 2002; Stark 1989; Stark & to elucidate chorionic features for stoneflies (e.g. Gaufin 1976; Stark & Kondratieff 2004; Zuellig et al. Baumann 1973; Grubbs 2005; Isobe 1988; Kondratieff 2006). SEM images for eggs of the primary western 2004; Kondratieff & Kirchner 1996; Nelson 2000; acroneuriine genera, Calineuria Ricker, Doroneuria Sivec & Stark 2002; 2008; Stark & Nelson 1994; Stark Needham & Claassen and Hesperoperla Banks include & Szczytko 1982; 1988; Szczytko & Stewart 1979) and single images for each of these genera in Stark & Nearctic Perlidae were among the earliest stoneflies Gaufin (1976), three images of Hesperoperla hoguei to be studied with this technique (Stark & Gaufin Baumann & Stark (1980) and three images of H.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • &WILDLIFE Tlmber/FISH/WILDLIFE ECOREGION BIOASSESSMENT
    53 TFW-WQl l-92-001 &WILDLIFE TlMBER/FISH/WILDLIFE ECOREGION BIOASSESSMENT PILOT PROJECT July 1992 Ecology Publica.tion No. 92-63 prinred on recycled paper The Department of Ecology is an Equal Opportunity and Ajinnative Action employer and shall not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, religion, or disability as defined by applicable state and/orfederal regulations or statutes. If you have special accommodation needs, please contact the Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services Program, Wutershed Assessments Section, Barbara Tovrea at (206) 407-6696 (voice). Ecology’s telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) number at Ecology Headquarters is (206) 407-6006. For additional copies of this publication, please contact: Department of Ecology Publications Disttibutions Ofice at P. 0. Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 (206) 407-7472 Refer to Publication Number 92-6.3 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY &WILDLIFE TIMBER/FISH/WILDLIFE ECOREGION BIOASSESSMENT PILOT PROJECT by Robert W. Plotnikoff Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services Program Watershed Assessments Section Olympia, Washington 98504-7710 July 1.992 TABLE OF C:ONTENTS LISTOFTABLES . ..iii LIST OF FIGURES . ” . I ,, I . iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................... vi ABSTRACT ........................................... .v ii INTRODUCTION Biological Assessment ................................... 1 Integration of Monitoring
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Conservation Plan Benton Lake National Wildlife
    Glossary accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas breeding habitat—Environment used by migratory and activities for people of different abilities, es- birds or other animals during the breeding sea- pecially those with physical impairments. son. A.D.—Anno Domini, “in the year of the Lord.” canopy—Layer of foliage, generally the uppermost adaptive resource management (ARM)—The rigorous layer, in a vegetative stand; mid-level or under- application of management, research, and moni- story vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy toring to gain information and experience neces- closure (also canopy cover) is an estimate of the sary to assess and change management activities. amount of overhead vegetative cover. It is a process that uses feedback from research, CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. monitoring, and evaluation of management ac- CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. tions to support or change objectives and strate- CO2—Carbon dioxide. gies at all planning levels. It is also a process in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—Codification of which the Service carries out policy decisions the general and permanent rules published in the within a framework of scientifically driven ex- Federal Register by the Executive departments periments to test predictions and assumptions and agencies of the Federal Government. Each inherent in management plans. Analysis of re- volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar sults helps managers decide whether current year. management should continue as is or whether it compact—Montana House bill 717–Bill to Ratify should be modified to achieve desired conditions. Water Rights Compact. alternative—Reasonable way to solve an identi- compatibility determination—See compatible use.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents 2
    Southwest Association of Freshwater Invertebrate Taxonomists (SAFIT) List of Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Taxa from California and Adjacent States including Standard Taxonomic Effort Levels 1 March 2011 Austin Brady Richards and D. Christopher Rogers Table of Contents 2 1.0 Introduction 4 1.1 Acknowledgments 5 2.0 Standard Taxonomic Effort 5 2.1 Rules for Developing a Standard Taxonomic Effort Document 5 2.2 Changes from the Previous Version 6 2.3 The SAFIT Standard Taxonomic List 6 3.0 Methods and Materials 7 3.1 Habitat information 7 3.2 Geographic Scope 7 3.3 Abbreviations used in the STE List 8 3.4 Life Stage Terminology 8 4.0 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species 8 5.0 Literature Cited 9 Appendix I. The SAFIT Standard Taxonomic Effort List 10 Phylum Silicea 11 Phylum Cnidaria 12 Phylum Platyhelminthes 14 Phylum Nemertea 15 Phylum Nemata 16 Phylum Nematomorpha 17 Phylum Entoprocta 18 Phylum Ectoprocta 19 Phylum Mollusca 20 Phylum Annelida 32 Class Hirudinea Class Branchiobdella Class Polychaeta Class Oligochaeta Phylum Arthropoda Subphylum Chelicerata, Subclass Acari 35 Subphylum Crustacea 47 Subphylum Hexapoda Class Collembola 69 Class Insecta Order Ephemeroptera 71 Order Odonata 95 Order Plecoptera 112 Order Hemiptera 126 Order Megaloptera 139 Order Neuroptera 141 Order Trichoptera 143 Order Lepidoptera 165 2 Order Coleoptera 167 Order Diptera 219 3 1.0 Introduction The Southwest Association of Freshwater Invertebrate Taxonomists (SAFIT) is charged through its charter to develop standardized levels for the taxonomic identification of aquatic macroinvertebrates in support of bioassessment. This document defines the standard levels of taxonomic effort (STE) for bioassessment data compatible with the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioassessment protocols (Ode, 2007) or similar procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • (Trichoptera: Limnephilidae) in Western North America By
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Robert W. Wisseman for the degree of Master ofScience in Entomology presented on August 6, 1987 Title: Biology and Distribution of the Dicosmoecinae (Trichoptera: Limnsphilidae) in Western North America Redacted for privacy Abstract approved: N. H. Anderson Literature and museum records have been reviewed to provide a summary on the distribution, habitat associations and biology of six western North American Dicosmoecinae genera and the single eastern North American genus, Ironoquia. Results of this survey are presented and discussed for Allocosmoecus,Amphicosmoecus and Ecclisomvia. Field studies were conducted in western Oregon on the life-histories of four species, Dicosmoecusatripes, D. failvipes, Onocosmoecus unicolor andEcclisocosmoecus scvlla. Although there are similarities between generain the general habitat requirements, the differences or variability is such that we cannot generalize to a "typical" dicosmoecine life-history strategy. A common thread for the subfamily is the association with cool, montane streams. However, within this stream category habitat associations range from semi-aquatic, through first-order specialists, to river inhabitants. In feeding habits most species are omnivorous, but they range from being primarilydetritivorous to algal grazers. The seasonal occurrence of the various life stages and voltinism patterns are also variable. Larvae show inter- and intraspecificsegregation in the utilization of food resources and microhabitatsin streams. Larval life-history patterns appear to be closely linked to seasonal regimes in stream discharge. A functional role for the various types of case architecture seen between and within species is examined. Manipulation of case architecture appears to enable efficient utilization of a changing seasonal pattern of microhabitats and food resources.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Clearcut Logging on Stream
    The Effects of Clearcut Logging on the Stream Biology of the North Fork of Caspar Creek, Jackson Demonstration State Forest, Fort Bragg, CA -- 1986 to 1994 -- Final Report by Richard L. Bottorff and Allen W. Knight University of California, Davis Prepared for California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Contract No. 8CA63802 May, 1996 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ________________________________________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION A. Literature Review ................................................................ 2 1. Fine Inorganic Sediments ....................................... 2 2. Solar Radiation: Algae ........................................... 4 3. Solar Radiation: Water Temperatures .................. 5 4. Particulate Organic Matter ..................................... 6 5. Nutrient Flow ........................................................... 7 6. Water Discharge ..................................................... 8 7. Riparian Habitat ...................................................... 8 B. Study Objectives ................................................................ 10 II. NORTH CASPAR CREEK BASIN A. Basin Characteristics ....................................................... 11 B. Watershed Treatments ..................................................... 13 C. Sampling Sites .................................................................. 14 D. Observed Stream Disturbances ...................................... 17 Tables 1 - 4 ..............................................................…………
    [Show full text]
  • Optioservus Riffle Beetle
    Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 2 II. SPECIES ACCOUNT......................................................................................................................... 2 A. TAXONOMY DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 2 1. Original Description ................................................................................................................... 2 2. Taxonomic Description ............................................................................................................... 4 B. HISTORICAL AND CURRENT DISTRIBUTION ................................................................................... 5 1. Description of habitats and locations of occurrence................................................................... 5 C. POPULATION SIZES AND ABUNDANCE ............................................................................................. 8 D. REPRODUCTIVE HABITS, HABITATS, REQUIREMENTS, AND STRATEGIES..................................... 11 E. FOOD AND FEEDING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................ 12 F. OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION AND SUMMARY ...................................................................... 12 III. OWNERSHIP OF SPECIES HABITAT BY COUNTY........................................................... 13 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Insecta, Ephemeroptera, Ephemerellidae, Attenella Margarita (Needham, 1927): Southeastern Range Istributio
    ISSN 1809-127X (online edition) © 2010 Check List and Authors Chec List Open Access | Freely available at www.checklist.org.br Journal of species lists and distribution N Insecta, Ephemeroptera, Ephemerellidae, Attenella margarita (Needham, 1927): Southeastern range ISTRIBUTIO D extension to North Carolina, USA 1* 2 RAPHIC Luke M. Jacobus and Eric D. Fleek G EO G N 1 Indiana University, Department of Biology, 1001 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA. O 2 Environmental Sciences Section, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 4401 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, NC, 27606, USA. * Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] OTES N Abstract: New data from the Great Smoky Mountains, in Swain County, North Carolina, USA, extend the geographic range of Attenella margarita (Needham, 1927) (Insecta, Ephemeroptera, Ephemerellidae) southeast by approximately 1,300 A. margarita Head, thoracic and abdominal characters for distinguishing larvae of A. margarita from the sympatric species, A. attenuata (McDunnough,km. We confirm 1925), that are illustrated has and a disjunctdiscussed. east-west distribution in North America, which is rare among mayflies. Needham (1927) described Ephemerella margarita Figure 4), so its diagnostic utility is limited. Adults were Needham, 1927, (Ephemeroptera: Ephemerellidae) based associated with Needham’s (1927) larvae tentatively by on larvae from Utah, USA (Traver 1935). Allen (1980) McDunnough (1931) and Allen and Edmunds (1961). established the present binomial combination, Attenella Jacobus and McCafferty (2008) recently reviewed margarita, by elevating subgenera of Ephemerella Walsh the systematics of Attenella. The genus is restricted to to genus status. Attenella margarita larvae (Figure 1) are North America and solely comprises the tribe Attenellini distinguishable from other Attenella Edmunds species McCafferty of the subfamily Timpanoginae Allen.
    [Show full text]
  • 2002 Benthic Sites with Data Types Available for Each Site
    APPENDIX A 2002 Benthic Sites with Data Types Available for Each Site 04-1422-022.1 King County 2002 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Analyses FINAL August 2004 A-1 APPENDIX A - 2002 Benthic Sites with Data Types Available for Each Site Land WQ Hydrology Benthic Use Habitat Station WQ Station Hydrology Watershed Site Code Site Name Data Data Data Code Data Code Data Green-Duwamish 09BLA0675 Black 0675 x x x Green-Duwamish 09BLA0716 Black 0716 x x x Green-Duwamish 09BLA0722 Black 0722 x x x A326 x Green-Duwamish 09BLA0756 Black 0756 x x x Green-Duwamish 09BLA0768 Black 0768 x x x 03B x Green-Duwamish 09BLA0768 Black 0768 Replicate x x x 03B x Green-Duwamish 09BLA0771 Black 0771 x x x Green-Duwamish 09BLA0772 Black 0772 x x x Green-Duwamish 09BLA0813 Black 0813 x x x Green-Duwamish 09BLA0817 Black 0817 x x x Green-Duwamish 09BLA0817 Black 0817 Replicate x x x Green-Duwamish 09COV1165 Covington Basin 1165 x x x Green-Duwamish 09COV1418 Covington Basin 1418 x x x C320 x Green-Duwamish 09COV1753 Covington Basin 1753 x x x Green-Duwamish 09COV1798 Covington Basin 1798 x x x Green-Duwamish 09COV1862 Covington Basin 1862 x x x Green-Duwamish 09COV1864 Covington Basin 1864 x x x Green-Duwamish Covington Basin Soos 03 x x Green-Duwamish 09DEE2163 Deep/Coal Basin 2163 x x x Green-Duwamish 09DEE2208 Deep/Coal Basin 2208 x x x Green-Duwamish 09DEE2211 Deep/Coal Basin 2211 x x x Green-Duwamish 09DEE2266 Deep/Coal Basin 2266 x x x Green-Duwamish 09DEE2294 Deep/Coal Basin 2294 x x x Green-Duwamish 09DEE2294 Deep/Coal Basin 2294 Replicate x x x Green-Duwamish
    [Show full text]