Need Bio-chemist Help

[DonAndersen]

Hi,

 

I need help sorting through some questions with regard to an analysis of the water quality on Stauffer Creek. I have contacted AGAT labs to do the analysis and they are reluctant to point me in any direction due to conflict of interest. I have attempted to solicit help from an Environmental Consulting firm, U of L Prof, Dept. of En. and on and on. This attempt to get help with the analysis selection has taken about 2 months. Not that I haven't tried but all of them either were busy or declined with regrets. I need to get the samples caught in the next 3>4 days prior to field run-off commencing.

 

Who am I: I'm Don Andersen, co-Habitat Chairman of the Central Alberta Chapter of Trout Unlimited.

 

What is the North Raven River: It is a reasonably large spring creek located north of Caroline Alberta that flows SE towards to the Red Deer River. It has one tributary stream [ Carr Creek] that flows heavily in the spring run-off and barely flows the rest of the year unless there is a lot of rain. The drainage area for Carr Creek is about a township in size and is mostly a mixed farm area. There are no large industrial sites. The land is normally used for cattle grazing or hay production.

 

What is the concern with the creek: The creek provincially important and was the first Buck for Wildlife project in Alberta. The riparian area was protected by exclusion fencing allowing the stream to rebound from it's former shabbiness caused by agree-business abuse. The population of fish is sampled on a 10 year increment and over the past 2 samplings, not only the number but the bio-mass has declined. See population information here:

http://www.ab-conservation.com/Sport_Fish_...h_Raven_River_1

973-2005.pdf

 

What has been done so far:

1] The Dept. of environment sampled the creek @ their normal sampling point @ the Highway # 54 bridge. The samples were mostly of the "domestic" type. I can provide the sampling results from the Dept.

2] A insect sampling was done by myself and 2 others last summer to determine number of aquatics insects. The sampling showed a decrease on both numbers and weight of the insects the downstream of the Carr Creek confluence. I can provide a document describing the testing.

 

What remains to be done:

 

A several water samples should be done looking @ some of the potential causes of the fish and invertebrate decline. The samples would look @ hydrocarbons, BETX and pesticides. The pesticides I'm looking at are: Sevin, 24D, MCPA, & PICLORAM. Can the pesticides be combined into one test called Phenoxy Acid Herbicides? I envision catching a series of samples during the next several months to see if the fish/invertebrate declines are caused by a chemical problem. I have funding for the analysis generously provided by TU Edmonton.

 

Would you consent to help me select which tests I need to do? Please contact me through this site via personal message or email.

 

regards,

 

 

Don Andersen

[cheeler]

I remember a firm called Enviro-Test somewhere in Alberta that were used to do testing, but I don't know what kinds of testing they could do. Many firms may be busy with the new regs on wellsite reclamation, but there should be someone who could do it.

[Tako]

Fixed your link

[BillyGopher]

Don, I think you really need a statistician with an economist mindset to look at the data set and help you determine if your data set has any validity and whether or not those who might be approached to fund such a project should fund it. Your data set borders on having zero validity for your concerns. A low number of samples over an exceptional time duration coupled with life span of your subjects (10 years is a couple - few generations of trout) really leaves little validity to any concerns. If you are concerned about leeching, etc, and wish to seek funding, I would strongly encourage you to not use this data set to substantiate any funding as there are simply too many holes and no relevancy whatsoever.

[DonAndersen]

GopherBoy,

 

Whoa up there cowboy. This is NOT my data set but a data set prepared by your and my fishing license $'s to monitor populations of the stream. While I realize they are limited, they are the best there is for this creek and most importantly, are nearly the best data set available for any stream in Alberta.

Are far as not being valid, I'd suggest you take up that subject with the F&W Division. They set up the timing and do the work. And if you are really interested, how about you getting several million $'s together and do a data set each year for the streams in Alberta or better than that make sure that you vote in a Govt that cares enough to fund a better data set.

And if think this is bad, you outta set the data sets for other streams. Some are 25+ years old. The data sets I DO have control over is my own fishing records. Unfortunately, they about match the data set provided by the ACA for F&W.

 

And I already have funding for the water testing required. Please reread the third last sentence in the original posting.

 

And lastly, through the above posting, a gentleman passed the request to another who provided the expertise required.

 

catch ya'

 

Don

[BillyGopher]

Reply defensive as expected. Have a good one.

[Jeffro]

Reply defensive as expected. Have a good one.

I wouldn't call Don's post defensive (not that I need to make that apparent), but he is simply re-iterating his post. His data set may not be the statistician's dream, but in the real world you have to accept the limitations of funding, environmental conditions, manpower (or womanpower for the ladies), etc....

 

Good to hear you found a lab willing to do the full analysis Don. With all the pipelines and other construction going in the province (aside from well testing) the labs are pretty full with samples to test making it difficult to get your results in a timely manner( albeit yes there are outher factors contributing)

[DonAndersen]

GopherBoy,

 

Thanx for contributing your normal fluff and not much else.

 

 

 

Don

[Tako]

Reply defensive as expected. Have a good one.

 

Why are you such a dick?

[dryfly]

Don:

 

Not read all of the posts here.

 

First off you wrote, "The pesticides I'm looking at are: Sevin, 24D, MCPA, & PICLORAM. Can the pesticides be combined into one test called Phenoxy Acid Herbicides?" .. Sevin is an insecticide, 24D is a phenoxy compound as is MCPA. Picloram is not a phenoxy acid herbicide.

 

The Oldman Watershed Council and AB Env do intensive monitoring of the entire OM drainage. Clearly they are conducting objective and uniform tests. I could make an inquiry if you wish. There are test labs that can do a single test for a wide range of chemicals. There are greenhouse producers in Central AB that produce without pesticides and claim to "pesticide free" ... they do these tests to verify their claims. (I just completed a major study about organic and pesticide free greenhouse production.)

 

Given the location of the creek in pastureland and some cropland it is indeed possible that there are minor amounts of chemicals getting into the creek. As to any possible effects on aquatic species compared to the complex of other variables is extremely difficult. (It is doubtful that a few parts per billion of any of these has any effect at all.) Other variables in the stream include: pH, temperatures, flows, angling pressures, and nutrient loading--or lack of. (It is possible given the low grain prices of past decades and general economic difficulties in the past decade that local farmers are using less nitrogen and phosphorus on the surrounding pasturelands. This could be affecting the aquatic productivity--highly speculative, but shows how complex this is. The effects of anything are impossible to assess without baseline figures--which you want.)

 

Chemicals would have to be monitored for years to assess changes in relative levels. However, inferring anything could be spurious since the effects of other variables could also play a role. A change in one variable does not necessarily mean it has any resulting effect compared to other variables.

 

Cheers!

 

Clive

[DonAndersen]

Clive,

 

The pesticides are going to be combined into one test. Awaiting quote of the cost of doing the Sevin. It's unlikely to be there but has been used for grasshoppers + it seems persistent in the environment.

 

Tried to involve Dept. of En. They tested the water downstream of the possible effected area about 10 miles [ BETX would have disappeared by then]. The tests they ran are mostly "domestic" in nature. They pointed out that doing BETX, VOC's + other tests were way too costly, we shouldn't point fingers @ any one industry and the decrease in fish #'s was related to decrease in habitat.

 

So like Streamwatch - if the GOVT won't do their job, guess that leaves .....................................?

 

 

 

catch ya'

 

 

Don

[DonAndersen]

For those that are interested in the tests.

 

I originally planned to take a background series before snow melt and run-off and then realized I really didn't care. I only cared if any of the suspect chemicals were in evidence. I was going to take 3 samples starting in the pre-runoff period and @ 3 locations. The test were going to be done over a 5 month period. The fish/population population data suggest that if there is a problem, it is likely downstream of Carr Creek so three locations seemed a tad much. So I'll be taking the tests several hundred yards below the confluence of Carr and Stauffer after mixing is complete. So the testing regime is now planned for a series of 6>9 tests @ one location over the open water season starting next week.

The chemicals selected for testings are agri-business and oil company related as both are in the area. This is not to say that either of them is @ fault but they could be the source.

What must be born in mind is that the decrease in fish/invertebrate populations, as Clive rightly pointed out, could be anything including natural variance in populations. Do recall the Leopard Frog. Nobody that I'm aware off has ever figure out where they went and why.

 

catch ya'

 

 

Don

[Tako]

Don, I think you should stick to three sites. At least perform tests above Carr, or your data will be rendered useless for any kind of statistical testing. Cover your arse and do some testing upstream of Carr. I would be interested in knowing your results.

[DonAndersen]

Tako,

 

I realize that not taking a background test may not be the best method but I finally looked as the thing like a pregnancy test. I only cared if she was pregnant. The who did it and where it was done will have to be answered by Govt. We do have a finite budget for the tests and they are costly.

 

catch ya'

 

 

Don

[Ricinus]

Hi Don

 

Not sure what to hope for- find nothing ,back to square one- find something, what the hell can be done about it. In any event, Thanks for taking the initiative.

 

Do you know if SRD has ever taken a fish and had it analyzed? Being at the top of the food chain, I would think that some of this stuff would be accumulated in the trout? Maybe something to look at down the road.

 

Regards Mike

[jonny5]

Hi Don

 

Not sure what to hope for- find nothing ,back to square one- find something, what the hell can be done about it. In any event, Thanks for taking the initiative.

 

Do you know if SRD has ever taken a fish and had it analyzed? Being at the top of the food chain, I would think that some of this stuff would be accumulated in the trout? Maybe something to look at down the road.

 

Regards Mike

 

Thats a very good suggestion. If there is a chemical affecting the fish, look directly at the fish. There are many examples where toxins are "amplified" or concentrated as they make their way up the foodchain as they are often fat soluble and get stuck in the fat stores of the animal.

[DonAndersen]

Guys,

 

Suggested to F&W the idea of doing a liver check. The idea skidded along and flopped down dead.

But that begs a great question. I can kill fish. I have a license. Does anyone know someone that could do a test. I could possibly get a Fishery Research License from F&W to kill a fish for sampling. The season doesn't open till July for killing legally.

 

And ricinus, I hope I find nothing. But that doesn't prove anything. Still might be there and takes unusual circumstances to liberate the chemicals.

 

regards,

 

 

Don

[jonny5]

Guys,

 

Suggested to F&W the idea of doing a liver check. The idea skidded along and flopped down dead.

But that begs a great question. I can kill fish. I have a license. Does anyone know someone that could do a test. I could possibly get a Fishery Research License from F&W to kill a fish for sampling. The season doesn't open till July for killing legally.

 

And ricinus, I hope I find nothing. But that doesn't prove anything. Still might be there and takes unusual circumstances to liberate the chemicals.

 

regards,

Don

Here are my thoughts on the paper you posted.

 

1. I couldn't find info on the stats, but it looks like median values with +/- standard error. Is this true?

 

2. There appears to be no decrease in abundance or biomass of brook trout when comparing 1985 and 2005.

 

3. Brown trout are also pretty consistent between 1985 and 2005 for biomass but not total numbers (except for section 4) which would suggest that the fish are relatively stunted as opposed to decreasing.

 

4. Section 4 seems to have decreased numbers and biomass which means there really are fewer fish. I known nothing about what section 4 looks like, but perhaps you could elaborate. Is it the poorest habitat, or approximately the same. Is there good cover? Do cows get into the water there? Is there a factory farm near by? etc... Given that section 4 is the furthest downstream then you may have a point that fish are being killed off, but they may simply be moving out of poor habitat. Either way a potentially interesting observation.

 

As for livers... The question is what would you test for. I know nothing about livers, but I have a friend who might be interested.. but how to get a fish as the stauffer is one mean ass river... I will get in touch with this guy as I know he will be here mid july and I promised him some fishing...

[Tako]

Don, you might find out if she's pregnant, but knowing the father is more important.

[DonAndersen]

Here are my thoughts on the paper you posted.

 

1. I couldn't find info on the stats, but it looks like median values with +/- standard error. Is this true?

 

2. There appears to be no decrease in abundance or biomass of brook trout when comparing 1985 and 2005.

 

3. Brown trout are also pretty consistent between 1985 and 2005 for biomass but not total numbers (except for section 4) which would suggest that the fish are relatively stunted as opposed to decreasing.

 

4. Section 4 seems to have decreased numbers and biomass which means there really are fewer fish. I known nothing about what section 4 looks like, but perhaps you could elaborate. Is it the poorest habitat, or approximately the same. Is there good cover? Do cows get into the water there? Is there a factory farm near by? etc... Given that section 4 is the furthest downstream then you may have a point that fish are being killed off, but they may simply be moving out of poor habitat. Either way a potentially interesting observation.

 

As for livers... The question is what would you test for. I know nothing about livers, but I have a friend who might be interested.. but how to get a fish as the stauffer is one mean ass river... I will get in touch with this guy as I know he will be here mid july and I promised him some fishing...

 

 

Jonny5,

 

I'll attempt to answer your questions.

 

1] I don't have the raw data. I could contact the writer and see if he'll release them. Let me know on this one.

 

2] I think your are looking @ sections 1>2 regarding brook numbers/biomass. What the data doesn't show is the $80.000 and 3 years of work that was spent through Barry Mitchell and my efforts stabilizing 6,000 tonnes of silt, rehabing about 3/4 mile of stream length in these section. If this work was not done, I'd think that the brook trout would have nearly disappeared. Prior to the work in section # 1, there were few trout, now there @ some at least.

 

3] The brown trout #'s in section 2 - 1985 @ 1300>2005 @ 400, section 3 - 1985 @ 500>2005 @ 200, section #4 1985 @ 900> 2005 @ 300 - overall the decrease is about 300%. During the same period of time, the fencing for nearly all upstream sections was completed and the habitat enhanced.

 

4] Section 4 is the one that fared the best in terms of habitat replacement/repair and has had exclusion fencing for many years. I used to fish that area a lot- hardly worth the effort now. Few bugs. The land and area by in large has not changed in many years. It's a mostly a cattle raising area.

 

 

Sent you email via site regarding further testing & livers.

 

 

PS: A couple of things must born in mind is the work the has gone into the creek since the early 70's and was virtually completed by 2000. The big bounce in fish numbers occurred fro 1970>1985 when the exclusion fencing was done in all sections except for the top section in #1. Then they tapered off or fell. This seems counterintuitive. One would think that the numbers, as each part of the creek was rehabed would stay high or get higher. Didn't happen. Most curious. Further, unlike most streams, Stauffer rarely suffers any type of high water and flooding with the major source waters as springs. Sure, it's been high, but raging floods haven't happened. It's truly a benign environment as compared to other streams in Alberta.

 

 

regards,

 

 

Don

[BillyGopher]

Don,

My concern is that there are 4 (or is it 5?) established data points. Then you have annecdotal evidence that could be right or wrong from 1 or 2 anglers. Where, in the science world, does this support any notion that the population's biomass is shrinking? It could, in fact, be showing that the biomass is actually expanding just as easily as contracting as we don't know where the #'s were the 5 years previous. I think that if you ask any biologist, having data entry points 10 years apart is almost useless information as it only shows a snapshot of one point in time. To give true trends in numbers, biomass, etc, annual studies should be given for a period of 5 - 10 years. Then we'd have a better appreciation of what is really currently happening. Your referenced #s are scientifically useless for any kind of management activities, and while you might be right or wrong, you're putting the cart on a different highway than the horse.

The first step here should be to get funding for annual pop/biomass studies to see current trends of all fish species in the system. Sure, if you want to study contaminants, please do, but not under the guise of the sky is falling in biomass and #s of fish (trout or otherwise). There is no data to substantiate your correct/incorrect interpretation of a scientifically useless data set. That is the point of my post.

No biologist should take on a study to determine why the pop/biomass is "crashing" based on that data set. Establish trends, see what is truly happening, then see what is causing the trend, and make management plans and actions accordingly, based on the guiding principles of our fisheries mgt. Again, the trend could very easily be going up as it could be going down based on those graphs - we have no idea what has happened in the 10 year intervals - given the 2 drought years followed so closely by floods. Re: flooding - those fields sure go under water and fish are lost. Did anyone monitor this? In the drought years, did anyone do in stream water temp monitoring? My point is, again, that there is one annecdotal set of observation and no science to back this stuff up. This isn't personal, the point is that if $, time, effort, etc are going to be spent here, it needs to be put through the proper procedure and channels.

My last point is concern of funding for your study. Should groups like TU/ACA/AFGA fund a project that is based on no data to substantiate the purpose of the study? Again, why would any biologist approve that when there isn't a good data set?

 

This isn't fluff, this is the core of fisheries. There is a channel and procedure steps for this kind of stuff and it's critical to follow it. In your mind, I may be making a semantical posture of separating concern over contaminants from the biomass "issue/non-issue", but it is imperative that the two remain separate. You want to connect them using the referenced data set, but you can't do this in science. You have to first see what is really happening before you can play Connect-4.

 

Again, this ain't personal. We all know your passion and dedication. It's always recognized and commended. I just want to make sure that you're not getting an idea in your head and running with it before due time and procedure are followed.

 

Johnny 5 - at first blush the lower sections reveal less trout/biomass. What about FISH data. You typed fish, but fish as in brown trout. What of the other spp?

[DonAndersen]

GB...

 

 

Certainly I would like to have a yearly data set. Certainly I realize that it is only a snap shot in time. But - we got what we got! F&W DO NOT have the money to run the data sets every year. I thought there was trouble brewing about 8 years ago from the lack of bugs in Section #4. Seems like the data that we do have bears this out. I waited for the next population run & then 2 more years before the report was available. Confirms what I saw.

Now, I could follow your suggestion, wait for somebody or me to fund 10 years of population data. Sure could!! And wait another 2>5 years after that for somebody to do something. Sure could!! And them that makes that 23 years from the time I first thought there might be a problem. And I thought the glaciers moved slowly.

 

F&W manage within the resources available to them. Most of the time, it is by their seat of their pants or best guess or the moon is in the right phase. Most of the time they get it right. They don't have the resources and never will. If private citizens wish to undertake responsibility for what is essentially theirs, why O why would anyone get in their way. In the meeting last fall with F&W, they wished to remain as the studiers of Stauffer but didn't have the resources to do it. The yea old Catch 22. They wanted to have Dept of En. take water tests. Well, that was a bust.

 

Stauffer is the inverse of "build it and they will come". Used to be lots of anglers there. Seen upwards of 12 vehicles @ access points. Not any longer. Wonder why? I guess the anglers are voting with their feet. As far as angler data sets, I've looked for them. Most anglers don't keep logs.

 

And please read the comments below that I posted previously. No flood, drought or high temps - it's a spring creek - get it.

 

"PS: A couple of things must born in mind is the work the has gone into the creek since the early 70's and was virtually completed by 2000. The big bounce in fish numbers occurred fro 1970>1985 when the exclusion fencing was done in all sections except for the top section in #1. Then they tapered off or fell. This seems counterintuitive. One would think that the numbers, as each part of the creek was rehabed would stay high or get higher. Didn't happen. Most curious. Further, unlike most streams, Stauffer rarely suffers any type of high water and flooding with the major source waters as springs. Sure, it's been high, but raging floods haven't happened. It's truly a benign environment as compared to other streams in Alberta. "

 

Curiously, unlike most years, I haven't seen any early black stones yet or boatman in the quiet water. Still watching.

 

To give you an idea how bad things are within F&W. A K Factor test was done in Struble Lake in 1968. A group of anglers did another in 2007. That's about 39 years between data sets and there would not have been one done in 2007 w/o anglers pushing for it. Ever wondered if a farmer did it that way. Tossed his cows in a field and 39 years later the neighbor finally looked @ the cows and gave the owner a report.

 

Think I've about beat this to death. Give me a call when you have raised enough money for the data sets and I'll sit and watch and certainly make comment. Oh crap, I just realized. I'm 62 -by the time your data sets are done, decisions made and action plan developed, resources secured and anything accomplished - I'll be dead.

 

regards,

 

 

Don

[Mudflap]

Hello Don;

I worked for a company for many years (EBA Engineering) as a enivro. tech and did many, many water samples. Here are a couple watch out fors you may not have considered.

1. You can get the sample bottles sent to you via Grayhound with all the proper preserveatives and ice packs.

2. As suggested earlier in thread contact Enviro Test or AGET they do not need to know were you are sampling

3. You may want to consider having a company do the sampling for you this way your sampling procedure and "chain of custody" will not be open to so much question.

4. You do not need to do a full herbacide analysis suite, by the sounds of it you have picked your target items and the lab will be able to select the analysis you need, just tell them what target herbacides you want.

5. Again Enviro Test or AGAT do not need to know why or where you are sampling

Hope this helps

[Ricinus]

If Don's testing comes up positive, I think this changes from a F&W problem to an environmental and health concern. You would now have a bunch of Govt Depts involved that do have the funding to take on further testing.

 

Scientific studies do not sway politicians as much as public opinion, and if it is found that toxins are leaching into the water system, more than fisherman are going to be raising an uproar.

 

I think the trick here is to take the onus off of Don to prove something is wrong and put it on the Govt to prove there isn't.

 

Regards Mike

[DonAndersen]

Mudflap,

 

Thanks for your note. I've caught several thousands of samples over the years of working in gas production. AGAT sent me "kits" with the required sample bottles, custody transfer documents and instructions. Where I was really screwed up was the required herbicides + pesticide tests. The County Ag guys were a real help here + a number of folks that responded off forum. The HC's are fairly clear. AGAT couriers pickup their customer's samples @ 2:00 pm @ National Oilwell in town. The BETX is the only concern and I've got my water filled frozen pop bottles all ready to go.

If you see anywhere something that I missed, please give me a shout.

 

regards,

 

 

Don