interesting stream data

[pcray1231]

Fair enough. From a farming site, the image below is of Al in a soil "solution". i.e. a measure of the Al that's been separated from it's oxide or silicate base and thus sitting in the soil for moisture to pick up. You need acids to separate it and make it "available" for water to pick it up. You do not have free Al in basic soils.

More basic water coming in contact with this free Al in the soil will dissolve more of it, though.

So it may be that the "limiting factor" in streams is the availability of free Al rather than the ability of the water to dissolve it.

 

[k-bob]

there are even grisly studies of caged brookies in waters with elevated aluminum:

http://ny.water.usgs.gov/pubs/jrn/baldigo_f96-314.pdf

can't read this stuff, I don't even take fish pictures

does sound like higher flows -> lower pH -> higher aluminum, inducing trout stress.

"Because water pH strongly affects the concentration of Alim, and because Alim appears to govern brook trout mortality in the Catskill tests,pH is critical to brook trout mortality and to the distribution ofnative brook trout populations in Catskill streams that are affected
by acidification."

 

[k-bob]

here is the conclusion to the PA study by carline and others, mentioned post 16.

"Streams experiencing severe acid episodes supported
low densities of brook trout but no other species.
High concentrations of largely inorganic dissolved
aluminium during episodes appeared responsible for
high mortality of brook trout and sculpins in bioassays
and net downstream movement of brook trout.
Chemical refuges allowed some brook trout to survive
toxic episodes, but such refuges may not be adequate
to allow viable populations to persist."

 

[k-bob]

we have been discussing acid rain and dissolved aluminum... interestingly, the state's brook trout plan also mentions released metal impacts on brookies as a consequence of acid mine drainage:

"AMD is the other main source of acidification impacting brook trout streams in Pennsylvania. AMD alters the water quality by increasing acidity which therefore, allows the release of naturally occurring
metals such as iron, aluminum, and manganese which are toxic to aquatic organisms (Susquehanna Basin Commission 2008)."

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_20027100.pdf

may be time for an alum test kit. there is one with good scale, given lethal level for brookes is approx .2 mg/l. would have to make guesses about levels at various flows and conditions from one look of course. but as the carline study points out, some streams get more and less alum with flow increases. might be handy in amd country.

http://www.amazon.com/Aqua-Comparator-Test-Aluminum-0-0-3/dp/B00PR0G426

 

[k-bob]

sounds like most PA AMD has high levels of aluminum...

"Reported analysis of mine discharge samples from 140 abandoned coal mines collected in summer and fall of 1999 in Pennsylvania
showed that over 50% of these discharges had dissolved Al
concentrations higher than 1 mg/L (Cravotta, 2008a, 2008b)."

 

[k-bob]

Abstract (avail online, drop quote in google) of PA study by carline gives the "basic" idea in one sentence.

"Toxic conditions frequently occur during high stream discharge when pH declines rapidly and dissolved aluminum increases."

Dissolved alum is toxic to brookies at +/- .2 mg/l. Figure 13 of PSU Schrader creek report (link below) gives before-and-after dissolved alum for tribs w/ high discharge event. (Schrader area has both AMD and acid precip issues.)

http://www.psie.psu.edu/publications/reports/psiee/PSIE2002-05-Happel-Phillips-Sharpe.pdf

Figure 15 gives brookie density count. The three tribs with relatively high .1 mg/l alum before the heavy discharge (blue bars Fig 13) appear to have lower brookie count. 4/5 tribs with relatively low base rate alum (.5 mg/l or less) look good on brookie count.

Schrader study: "Al concentration and duration of high Al concentration are the most important determinants of fish survival."

Alum might be useful in regions where AMD and acid rain affect brookies. Parts of Schuylkill, Luzerne, etc.

Alum test kits look light and ez to use, from what I can see.

 

[k-bob]

all those edits and I left a typo!

"Figure 15 gives brookie density count. The three tribs with relatively high .1 mg/l alum before the heavy discharge (blue bars Fig 13) appear to have lower brookie count. 4/5 tribs with relatively low base rate alum (.05 mg/l or less) look good on brookie count."

 

[k-bob]

In the schrader creek report, a dissolved alum level of .1 mg/l before the heavy discharge (Fig 13), seen only in tribs 11, 15, and 24, seems connected to the low brookie count for those tribs (Fig 15).

http://www.psie.psu.edu/publications/reports/psiee/PSIE2002-05-Happel-Phillips-Sharpe.pdf

The lethal Al dose is .2-.25 mg/l for 2 days (abstract of article linked post 22). Only those three tribs with .1 Al before the heavy rain had this Al level 48 hours later (see Fig 13).*

Maybe I'll look for .1 Alum at base-rateish flows as a negative sign in areas where AMD and acid precip may both impact brookies. (And dissolved Al less than or equal to .05 as a plus.)

Of course this is all just water chem, and habitat, water temps, etc., matter as well.

(*note: In using Fig 13 and & 15 data, I exclude site #18, a main-stem schrader site, not a trib site like all others... the main schrader creek has diff issues (thermal) affecting trout and probably different chemistry, too).

 

[k-bob]

just to be clear:

"The lethal Al dose is .2-.25 mg/l for 2 days (abstract of article linked post 22). Only those three tribs with .1 Al before the heavy rain had this lethal .2-.25 Al level 48 hours later (see Fig 13).*"

looks like aluminum canned the trout...

 

[salvelinus]

k-bob, thank you for the effort you put into this. As a retired chemist, it is appreciated.

 

[k-bob]

thanks salvelinus. has been fun reading this stuff. I have been fishing with a Hach color-wheel pH test kit, but had not thought through the idea that aluminum was so important in brook trout loss in acidic waters (acid rain or amd).

just found online version of good discussion by carline et al on these issues:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54835b39e4b0b09de1fbfa9c/t/5489dd69e4b0eef10a66856c/1418321257859/Carline_EtAl_1999_AcidicRunoff_PAfishes.pdf

If alum is so important in trout loss, and two streams at the same pH can have different aluminium (see Big Run & Quinn Run data in post 18, Carline quote in post 16), I thought I'd try an alum test kit.

But I am out fishing on average days, and the worst alum toxicity probably happens at unusually high flows. So are alum levels at base rate flows associated w/ the likelihood of toxic events Al in heavy discharge? From Carline paper linked above, they may be:

"Baker et al. ( 1996) showed that both density and biomass of brook trout in ERP streams in Pennsylvania and New York were highly correlated with median weekly pH and AI (Fig. 4) and with median pH and AI during high streamflows."

The right-hand panel of Figure 4 on page 15 of Carline paper linked in this post shows brookie biomass in relation to weekly median Al. Al of 100 ug/l (=.1 mg/l) at base-rateish flows would not be a good sign, for ex.

Some streams with marginal pH (for ex +/- 6 at normal-ish flows) and possible AMD in Schuylkill can be tough to figure. They might not have obvious orange or white rock coatings. Schuylkill can have low buffering bedrock (pottsville) and better buffering bedrock (mauch chunk) areas right next to each other. In some cases, higher Alum might suggest AMD and no trout. Similar places round Scranton....

 

[k-bob]

nice clarification in carline article linked in previous post:

"Van Sickle et al. (1996) showed that the median concentration of Al was the best single predictor (r2=0.59) of brook trout mortality in bioassays among all ERP streams (Fig. 2) . Multiple regressions that also included median Ca concentrations and minimum pH further improved the correlation coefficient (R2=0.72)."

may be time to test the mettle, uh metal, of some ST streams

 

[troutbert]

Interesting stuff.

Is there any way to tell with certainty from just the water quality data, whether a stream is affected by mining (or similar earth disturbances), or whether the water quality is just the result of the geology + acid precipitation?

 

[k-bob]

"Is there any way to tell with certainty from just the water quality data, whether a stream is affected by mining (or similar earth disturbances), or whether the water quality is just the result of the geology + acid precipitation?"

There is probably a better way, but maybe with multiple pH readings. The pH of an acid rain only stream might increase slowly from the headwaters down stream, while an AMD stream could have a sharper pH decrease at a seep? (see "conductivity walks" of schrader creek study linked above)

For fishing, I am thinking of AMD & acid rain both affecting trout through aluminum (post 25).

Images below are a few quick alum tests of a known AMD stream, and a nearby stream with moderately-high buffering bedrock and no mining impact I know of. Today PM, slightly high flows & some snowmelt. Gauge is 0-.5 mg/l alum range model I found locally.

The gauge is nice, but it may not have the best range for my purpose because small alum amounts seem to matter to brook trout. I ordered a gauge w/ 0-.3 mg/l scale and hope to be able to separate between streams w/ for ex. 0-.05 alum and .1+ alum at normalish flows later on...

 

[k-bob]

also regarding TB's question: I think AMD can have different chemical properties, so maybe conductivity readings at various points could identify AMD inputs (as in schrader study), or metals readings, depending on chem properties of the AMD. ?

 

[k-bob]

and of course more concerned about amd in some locations:

http://www.srbc.net/atlas/downloads/BasinwideAtlas/PDF/1094_AMLAMDImpairedStrm.PDF

 

[k-bob]

Cravotta study of Swatara: "AMD commonly has acidic pH (/4.5) and elevated concentrations of sulfate (SO4 2-), iron (Fe2), Fe3), aluminum (Al3), manganese (Mn2), zinc (Zn2), nickel (Ni2),
copper (Cu2), lead (Pb2), and other solutes that result
from the oxidation of pyrite (FeS2) and the subsequent
dissolution of aluminosilicate, oxide, and carbonate minerals
by acidic water" ... "Low pH and elevated concentrations of
dissolved metals in the water column and pore water of
stream sediment can be stressful or toxic to fish and aquatic
macroinvertebrates."

AMD chemistry can differ, but seeing levels of aluminum toxic to brookies (image post 34) in a known amd stream was enough for me to move on...

 

[pcray1231]

I think AMD can have different chemical properties.

I don't really think so. Well, maybe acid rain. But natural geologic acid (from rock) and AMD should be similar chemically, just perhaps more severe and/or concentrated in source from AMD. i.e. AMD is not "put" there by mining. They're not dumping something acidic. They are disturbing rocks that were already present, and thus allowing water to contact those rocks in greater degrees than is natural, and possibly channeling the output directly into the stream without passing through any buffering rocks. So the chemical formation of the acid is the same.

Both can also be point discharges. i.e. naturally the stream can originate in the acid forming rock formation, but it also could originate somewhere else and pass through such a formation. The springs in that area are the source of the acid.

If it's severely acidic and bright orange, you can probably assume such severe a situation could only come from AMD. But if it's less severe, you'd have to locate the source, and observe whether it's been disturbed or not. If it's flowing out of an underground mine, well.....

Acid rain should be easier. Yes, typically you should have a non-point discharge, and the pH of the stream only gradually changes with changes in the bedrock. And there may be chemical indicators which are lacking for acid rain but are present when it comes from rocks/AMD.

 

[Gone4Day]

k-bob wrote:
also regarding TB's question: I think AMD can have different chemical properties, so maybe conductivity readings at various points could identify AMD inputs (as in schrader study), or metals readings, depending on chem properties of the AMD. ?

Spot on. That’s why some prefer to use Abandoned mine drainage for AMD. There is just too much variation in chemical composition from one mine to the next. Assuming the only problem is acid formation is far to simplistic.

The type of host rock has an enormous impact on the chemical makeup of the effluent. Even within the same mining district lateral variations can be significant. In some cases a high sulfur content may be more then offset by high buffering capacity. Although the net affect may be near neutral pH, the result is essentially a saturated salt solution. That’s why AMD abatement is so difficult, every situation is kind of unique.

 

[k-bob]

from a fishing perspective, acid deposition does seem more straightforward: higher flows, then lower pH, then maybe elevated aluminum, as moderated by geology. and measuring aluminum seems doable.

some abandoned mine drainage would also lower pH and elevate aluminum, as in my test a few posts back ( high alum reading is Mill creek, Schuylkill cty, above St Clair). an aluminum guage might catch that.

other abandoned mine drainage can be different, alkaline, and possibly even large inputs that lower water temps. tricky.