Stream acidification

[Fishmyster]

Ocean acidification has been recognized as a threat to ocean ecology and productivity. It has recently been researched and publicized. Something many are not aware of because it has not recently been publicized is Stream acidification.
Google ACID_RAIN_104165 this is a report on the subject from back in the late 1980's. The file was to large for me to upload in this post. In the report are water chemistry samples indication high levels of heavy metals and alkalinity indication of acidification in some streams. Attached is a rain chemistry report from 1989.

So acid rain was known to be effecting coastal streams in the late 1980's and here are the rain chemistry samples to prove it. The subject got long forgotten since then but the acidity of the rain actually got worse!!!
Also attached is a rain chemistry report from 1995.

I have followed rain ph from the sky down onto the hills and into salmon bearing streams sampling in different locations to investigate the buffering abilities of certain waterways. Observations done during high rainfall events indicate little to no buffering for some periods of time in most streams. Facts are that low ph water dissolves elements like heavy metals and relocates them ultimately into the ocean where it would effect life there too.


I have been looking for solid scientists who have researched how the low ph rain has been effecting ecology in coastal streams within the last 25 years. It seems I may be the only one. If anyone knows such people please introduce us.

 

[Fishmyster]

Some more rain chemistry reports.

 

[Fishmyster]

In my 40+ years of stream observations there have been many drastic ecological changes in the coastal stream environment. Vast depopulation of invertebrates: Although not documented or publicized It is something that has happened. I expressed concern to moe many years ago but it fell on deft ears: Algae changes. This is documented with didymo reports but it was all shrugged off: Changes in decomposition: I can not find any documentation of nitrifying bacteria in coastal stream water or studies of the bacterial composition. Efficiency of decomposition is crucial for food web structure. Well documented in aquatic ecology literature but not tested for here in our streams. I may be the only person who has noticed this phenomena. Lack of healthy juvenile fish: This is well documented in some streams. The reports out there show there are drastic changes in stream adult-smolt survival rates. Reports indicate freshwater variable in productivity exceeds the ocean return variable even though freshwater effects are still possible below the enumeration sites. When all the laws of chemistry and ecology come crashing down on a stream it could be referred as "Death by a thousand cuts".
All these changes have happened in our waters and the best fit scientific explanation is the continuously changing rain chemistry. It's too bad that nobody but me cares research it!

 

[OnTick]

If you sell it in a way that down the road, a tax on a human activity will solve the problem, I'm sure you will have no end of interest.

If not, your bang out of luck.

 

[Fishmyster]

Perhaps some of the people on here can help me solve the mystery of how the high amounts of toxic rain in 1994 got thru our streams and did not effect the ecology in them? I am looking for invertebrate sampling done or water chemistry done on streams anywhere from the 1970's -2000. GLG. I believe you have mentioned to be involved in enhancement projects for many years. There must be some kind of analysis in water quality and available food in the streams you have been enhancing for the years? I am looking for solid proof that that in the mid 1990's our streams were able to maintain healthy ecology as the extreme low ph water showered the coast. Any help to either prove or disprove my assumptions this would be appreciated.

 

[Samnjoe]

FM I applaud your interest and dedication to this issue.
I can imagine it is discouraging to get no engagement from government on your concerns.
Have you tried putting your ideas forward to local universities UVIC UBC SFU?
I would think that there would be someone there with an interest in the subject.

 

[Fishmyster]

Have tried the Rivers Institute and sent an email to someone at UVIC but no response. I am waiting on PSF for discussion but that is where it stands for now.
I am not going to let this go till someone can prove it all hasn't been happening. I gave it up twenty years ago when I complained of the disappearing invertebrates to a MOE biologist. He told me the hatch I no longer seen was just over for the season, end of subject. Well the hatch was over for the last 20+ years and so went the great Stamp river steelhead and chinook fishery!

 

[Samnjoe]

I know that the Stamp is your home river.
I agree it is in a sad state.
You guided me on the stamp when you were a young lad.

 

[GLG]

I am looking for invertebrate sampling done or water chemistry done on streams anywhere from the 1970's -2000. GLG. I believe you have mentioned to be involved in enhancement projects for many years. There must be some kind of analysis in water quality and available food in the streams you have been enhancing for the years? I am looking for solid proof that that in the mid 1990's our streams were able to maintain healthy ecology as the extreme low ph water showered the coast. Any help to either prove or disprove my assumptions this would be appreciated.

Don't know much about bugs but this might help for long term study.

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/P/P076.pdf

another link with more info.
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/ffip/CarnationCrk.htm

 

[GLG]

The standard way to solve a mystery.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science...y/science-of-biology/a/the-science-of-biology
The scientific method
How the scientific method is used to test a hypothesis.

Introduction
A biology investigation usually starts with an observation—that is, something that catches the biologist’s attention. For instance, a cancer biologist might notice that a certain kind of cancer can't be treated with chemotherapy and wonder why this is the case. A marine ecologist, seeing that the coral reefs of her field sites are bleaching—turning white—might set out to understand why.
How do biologists follow up on these observations? How can you follow up on your own observations of the natural world? In this article, we’ll walk through the scientific method, a logical problem-solving approach used by biologists and many other scientists.
The scientific method
At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions

The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.
Scientific method example: Failure to toast
Let's build some intuition for the scientific method by applying its steps to a practical problem from everyday life.
1. Make an observation.
Let's suppose that you get two slices of bread, put them into the toaster, and press the button. However, your bread does not toast.

1. Observation: the toaster won't toast.

2. Ask a question.
Why didn't my bread get toasted?

1. Question: Why won't my toaster toast?

3. Propose a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is a potential answer to the question, one that can somehow be tested. For example, our hypothesis in this case could be that the toast didn't toast because the electrical outlet is broken.

1. Hypothesis: Maybe the outlet is broken.

This hypothesis is not necessarily the right explanation. Instead, it's a possible explanation that we can test to see if it is likely correct, or if we need to make a new hypothesis.
6. Iterate.[/paste:font]
The last step of the scientific method is to reflect on our results and use them to guide our next steps.

And the result is:
Left panel: My bread toasts! Hypothesis is supported. Right panel: My bread still won't toast. Hypothesis is not supported.

1. Iteration time!

Left panel (in case of hypothesis being supported): But what is actually wrong with the outlet? Right panel (in case of hypothesis not being supported): Hmm...maybe there is a broken wire in the toaster.

• If the hypothesis was supported, we might do additional tests to confirm it, or revise it to be more specific. For instance, we might investigate why the outlet is broken.
• If the hypothesis was not supported, we would come up with a new hypothesis. For instance, the next hypothesis might be that there's a broken wire in the toaster.

In most cases, the scientific method is an iterative process. In other words, it's a cycle rather than a straight line. The result of one go-round becomes feedback that improves the next round of question asking.
How is the scientific method used by biologists?
This article uses a practical example to show how the scientific method works. However, you may be curious about how the scientific method is used in actual biology research. If so, check out the next article!
Controlled experiments: Learn how controlled experiments are used for hypothesis testing and what the alternatives are if an experiment isn't possible. See an example on coral bleaching!
[Attribution and references]

 

[Fishmyster]

Well thanks GLG. The Carnation creek study was directed to assess the effects of logging on a coastal stream. It does not discuss the rain chemistry, invertebrate composition trends or much of stream alkalinity. It also ceased before the 1990's when most stocks crash and the acid rain kicked in. So it is kind of useless for proving acid rain didn't cause the coast wide salmon crash in the late 1990's.

Whats with the comics?

Hey, do I know you from somewhere?

 

[GLG]

Well thanks GLG. The Carnation creek study was directed to assess the effects of logging on a coastal stream. It does not discuss the rain chemistry, invertebrate composition trends or much of stream alkalinity. It also ceased before the 1990's when most stocks crash and the acid rain kicked in. So it is kind of useless for proving acid rain didn't cause the coast wide salmon crash in the late 1990's.

Whats with the comics?

Hey, do I know you from somewhere?

You said "I am looking for invertebrate sampling done or water chemistry done on streams anywhere from the 1970's -2000." and I gave you a link that covers that time period. I'm not sure why you said that it "ceased before the 1990's" as clearly it did not. From that link you can also find people and published papers that may be of assistance to your research.

I also posted the basic "How the scientific method is used to test a hypothesis" for the benefit of anyone reading this thread so that we could have some ground rules on this topic. I was not meant to be a cartoon to be taken lightly.

I don't think I know you.....

 

[GLG]

Here is one reason why I think this is relevant today as Acid Rain is mistake from the past that still affects us today and we need to consider lessons learned so that we can mitigate or decide how to proceed.

Abstract:
Northwest British Columbia, Canada, a sparsely populated and largely pristine region, is targeted for rapid industrial growth owing to the modernization of an aluminum smelter and multiple proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. Consequently, air quality in this region is expected to undergo considerable changes within the next decade. In concert, the increase in LNG capacity driven by gas production from shale resources across North America has prompted environmental concerns and highlighted the need for science-based management decisions regarding the permitting of air emissions. In this study, an effects-based approach widely-used to support transboundary emissions policy negotiations was used to assess industrial air emissions in the Kitimat and Prince Rupert airsheds under permitted and future potential industrial emissions. Critical levels for vegetation of SO2 and NO2 and critical loads of acidity and nutrient nitrogen for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems were estimated for both regions and compared with modelled concentration and deposition estimates to identify the potential extent and magnitude of ecosystem impacts. The critical level for SO2 was predicted to be exceeded in an area ranging from 81 to 251 km2 in the Kitimat airshed owing to emissions from an existing smelter, compared with <1 km2 in Prince Rupert under the lowest to highest emissions scenarios. In contrast, the NO2 critical level was not exceeded in Kitimat, and ranged from 4.5 to 6 km2 in Prince Rupert owing to proposed LNG related emissions. Predicted areal exceedance of the critical load of acidity for soil ranged from 1 to 28 km2in Kitimat and 4–10 km2 in Prince Rupert, while the areal exceedance of empirical critical load for nutrient N was predicted to be greater in the Prince Rupert airshed (20–94 km2) than in the Kitimat airshed (1–31 km2). The number of lakes that exceeded the critical load of acidity did not vary greatly across emissions scenarios in the Kitimat (21–23 out of 80 sampled lakes) and Prince Rupert (0 out of 35 sampled lakes) airsheds. While critical loads have been widely used to underpin international emissions reductions of transboundary pollutants, it is clear that they can also play an important role in managing regional air emissions. In the current study, exceedance of critical levels and loads suggests that industrial emissions from the nascent LNG export sector may require careful regulation to avoid environmental impacts. Emissions management from LNG export facilities in other regions should consider critical levels and loads analyses to ensure industrial development is synergistic with ecosystem protection. While recognizing uncertainties in dispersion modelling, critical load estimates, and subsequent effects, the critical levels and loads approach is being used to inform regulatory decisions in British Columbia to prevent impacts that have been well documented in other regions.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...69ab9ed1645ea3f1ed2704fa20b07d170690b9cb6090a

 

[OnTick]

The comic comes from an underlying tone of condescendance commonly found in people of GLG's mindset.

Or.......that's how it was explained to him.

 

[agentaqua]

I think in this discussion/debate about freshwater pH changes and hypothesis of what potential effects might occur to salmon - should be a companion discussion over what species might be affected - due to life histories. Pinks and chums have minimal FW residence - other than incubation - and lakes have their own limnology and seasonal WQ effects as compared to streams - so that potential pH effects to sockeye would be more lake-dependent - rather than stream-related. So, comparing escapement stock trajectories for these species - might not be so sensitive to pH flushing events.

 

[Fishmyster]

I totally put my foot in my mouth with the comment last night. The Carnation creek study did extend thru the 1990's. I was brain tiered and could not read the small print on the material you posted. That's what I get for posting before thinking. I eat crow on this one. Sorry. Funny thing is I have a two inch thick paper back journal from the Carnation creek study project. I flipped thru it a few times but could not find much for invertebrate assessment of rain ph study. It was mostly targeted at hydrology, temperatures and turbidity. I must admit the population trends that Carnation creek watershed may buffer the rain water better than many other streams. Other examples of water buffering and productivity variables in near geographic areas are streams draining the flat land behind Long Beach. Kootowis, Staghorn and Muriel creeks seem to show more consistent productivity for the available habitat than streams like Kennedy, Bedwell or Megin rivers which drain steep hills of thin-no soil.

Thank you AA for opening up in discussion of this. I believe it is steelhead that are most effected by ph shock to their environment. Because steelhead would most commonly rear two-three years in streams it is large stream invertebrates that are necessary to promote high productivity. The loss of key species like caddis and stone flies in streams would effect steelhead but may not effect sockeye fry in lakes that feed on other smaller species of aquatic life. Pink and chum that hatch and head to the ocean would not utilize caddis, stone or mayfly but would probably eat whatever suitable planktonic critter that fits their mouth correctly whenever they get the chance. So damaging ph events every three years or so on a stream could drastically reduce a steelhead population but not necessarily show so consistently depressed runs in the pink, chum or sockeye abundance unless it happened during incubation time.

Something to consider is how low ph stream water moves contaminants like aluminum and where it eventually mixes with the high ph sea water. The contaminants should precipitate as the water mixes and ph rises. There could be thousands of years in precipitated elements built up in estuaries that get dissolved and suspended during high input of low ph rain water. Study of this may answer questions of reduced forage fish in the Salish sea.

What I have been noticing is that the dydimo algae has retreated with green and slippery brown algae returning since 2015. There is abundant small caddis returning to many streams that there have been none for a long time. The decomposition of carcasses in many streams has accelerated. The main environmental change that I can find is rain ph and stream alkalinity which are consistently higher than most records I can find. It is all really exciting.

I once read a study where salmon fry were checked for stomach content. the findings were that salmon flesh was the dominant substance in the bellies during that study. The study concluded that salmon carcass was an important food source for salmon fry. Something that make me go hmmm.. is that now in local streams here fish decompose so quickly that there would not be any flesh available during fry emergence where as a few years ago there would have been. I think possibly the same study conducted as the present day alkalinity and decomposition trend persists would yield results of different mater in side the bellies of the emerging fry. I am assuming macro invertebrates make more nutritional diet than decomposing salmon flesh.

I am having trouble loading the water chemistry data excel reports. I will work on it and try to post some up where there are toxic levels of either aluminum or ammonia recorded from casual samples in streams. It is amazing how much the levels vary over time.

 

[Fishmyster]

For some reason I can view environmental monitoring system files in my documents but when trying to upload the file thru the "upload a file" window the folder says no matches found. Stupid computer!

 

[agentaqua]

You are both welcome and correct, Fishmyster. Steelhead, coho, river-type Chinook, and resident salmonids would be expected to be the most affected by pH drops/pulses - or so I would assume - as well as non-salmonid residents (sticklebacks, sculpins, etc.).

Lots and lots of info on salmon diets and feeding areas from tribs and lakes to mainstems and down to estuaries and out to sea. I also believe that one of the more WQ-sensitive and also nutritious food items are stoneflies - wrt instream inverts - although terrestrial ones also provide quite a bit of food to instream salmonids. Generally sockeye fry go after cladocerans (lakes), pinks after calanus copepods (ocean), and chum after harpactacoid copepods (estuaries) - the production of which might not be largely affected by carcass decomposition. Coho - and especially Chinook are more piscivorous - after they get bigger. Lots of exceptions and additions to these generalities, as well - and it is a continuum - as the diet shifts on the way out to the ocean.

Also been lots of work done on IBIs - looking at pollution-sensitive taxa.

There has been quite a bit of recent conservation-related articles looking at what is termed "marine subsidies" - but whether that translate into actual increases in actual fish numbers - has been under considerable debate - as the conservation lobby rarely takes into account density-dependent mechanisms and stream functioning into account.

I think the effects of low pH has on toxic metal mobility (as you mentioned) could be important in impacted rivers/estuaries - like those with mine tailings - or contaminated sediments. Glad to hear you are noticing an improvement. Not sure what to suggest from here - but to reiterate the importance of your quest for the truth.

 

[Dave]

Good post aa

 

[Fishmyster]

It would be very interesting to know of the composition status and trends of the planktonic invertebrate or cladoceran? densities in the Fraser river sockeye rearing lakes? As lack of large stream inverts does kinda match the crash in steelhead numbers I would be interested to look at records of lake plankton to see if there is any drastic variance in food sources for the sockeye during high or low productive rearing years? Any idea if such material is out there? I know dydimo algae was in the Adams river 2013.

Another curiosity of mine is if someone could test for nitrifying bacteria. In my observations of water sample probing there is more matches of high ammonia levels in streams during fish population reduction trends. Cowichan river during the 1970's thru 1980's averages about 0.01 ppm of ammonia. In the 1990's the average goes up to an average of 0.1ppm with some records above 0.2ppm which is the level noted to start becoming lethal to rainbow trout. If low ph rain in the 1990's shocked the nitrifying bacteria in the Cowichan river in just like ph shock will do to a healthy aquarium this might explain the ammonia levels to rise ten fold like the water records indicate happened. There are records with lethal levels of ammonia in the Gold river like 0.885ppm on august 22/1990 and 1.73ppm on august 20/2002. wonder what that was doing to the invertebrate populations then? Not much of a steelhead population left in there anymore.