FWS/OBS-80/40.18               Air Pollution and Acid Rain
October 1984                  Report No. 18
EFFECTS OF ACIDIC PRECIPITATION
   ON ATLANTIC SALMON RIVERS
          IN NEW ENGLAND
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Fish and Wildlife Service	
U. S. Department of the Interior

-------
                                 REPORTS  ISSUED
FWS/QBS-80/4Q.1

FWS/OBS-80/40.2

FWS/OBS-80/40.3
FWS/OBS-

FWS/OBS-

FWS/OBS'

FWS/OBS'

FWS/OBS'

FWS/OBS

FWS/OBS'

FWS/OBS
•80/40.4

•80/40.5

-80/40.6

-80/40.7

-80/40.8

-80/40.9

-80/40,10

-80/40.11
FWS/OBS-80/40.12


FWS/OBS-80/40.13


FWS/OBS-80/4Q.14


FWS/OBS-80/40.15


FWS/OBS-80/40.16


FWS/OBS-80/40.17

FWS/OBS-80/40.18
Effects of Air Emissions on Wildlife Resources

Potential Impacts of Low pH on Fish and Fish Populations

The Effects of Air Pollution and Acid Rain on Fish,
Wildlife, and Their Habitats:  Introduction

	:  Lakes

	:  Rivers and Streams

	:  Forests

	:  Grasslands

	:  Tundra and Alpine Meadows

	:  Deserts and Steppes

	:  Urban Ecosystems
                               Critical Habitats of
               Threatened and  Endangered Species

               Effects  of Acid Precipitation  on Aquatic  Resources:
               Results  of Modeling  Workshops

               Liming of  Acidified  Waters:  A Review  of  Methods  and
               Effects  on Aquatic Ecosystems

               The Liming of Acidified  Waters:  Issues and Research  -
               A Report of the International  Liming Workshop

               A Regional  Survey of Chemistry of Headwater Lakes and
               Streams  in New  England:   Vulnerability to Acidification

               Comparative Analyses of  Fish Populations  in Naturally
               Acidic and Circumneutral  Lakes in Northern Wisconsin

               Rocky Mountain  Acidification Study

               Effects  of Acidic Precipitation on Atlantic Salmon
               Rivers in  New England

-------
                          UNITED STATES
                DEPARTMENT OF THE  INTERIOR
                     FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

                   EASTERN ENERGY AND LAND USE TEAM
                             Route 3, Box 44
                      Keameysville, West Virginia 25430
Dear Colleague:

The Eastern Energy and Land Use Team (EELUT)  is  pleased to provide you
this report on the effects of acidic precipitation on Atlantic salmon
rivers in New England.  This report is  the  eighteenth in our series
dealing with air pollution and acid rain.   Other reports previously
issued are listed on the inside front cover.

This report describes the results  of a  water  chemistry survey conducted
in eight rivers in Maine (Narraguagus,  Sinclair,  Machias, Kerwin, Holmes,
Old Stream, Bowles, and Harmon) and one in  Vermont (White).  All rivers
contain actual or potential  Atlantic salmon spawning and nursery habitat
and the Maine rivers currently have native  populations.  The White River
is undergoing restoration of its population.   Results of the survey indicate
pH and aluminum concentrations in  second and  third order streams are
within safe limits for Atlantic salmon  but  first order streams can reach
concentrations that may be toxic to sensitive early life stages or during
smoltification.  These first order streams  constitute 20-40% of the
available habitat.

Your comments and suggestions on this report  are welcomed.

Sincerely,
R. Kent Schreiber
Acting Team Leader,  EELUT

-------
FWS/OBS-80/40.18                                 Air Pollution and Acid Rain
October 1984                                     Report 18
               EFFECTS OF ACIDIC PRECIPITATION ON ATLANTIC

                      SALMON RIVERS IN NEW ENGLAND


                                    by

                Terry A. Haines and John J. Akielaszek

                    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
           Columbia National Fisheries Research Laboratory
                       Field Research Station
               Zoology Department, University of Maine
                         Orono, Maine 04469



                           Project Officers

                     R. Kent Schreiber/Paul Rago
                   Eastern Energy and Land Use Team
                    U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                            Route 3, Box 44
                        Kearneysville, WV 25430
                             Performed for:
                    Eastern Energy and Land Use Team
                     Division of Biological Services
                        Research and Development
                        Fish and Wildlife Service
                    U.S. Department of the Interior
                        Washington, D.C. 20240
Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior

-------
                                 DISCLAIMER

     Although the  research described  in  this  report has been funded wholly
or in part by the  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency through Interagency
Agreement'No. EPA-82-D-X0581 to the U.S.  Fish and  Wildlife Service, it  has
not been subjected to the Agency's required peer and policy review and
therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency.  Mention  of
trade names or commercial products does  not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use  by the Federal Govrernment.
This report should be cited as:

Haines, T.A. and J.J. Akielaszek.  1984.   Effects of acidic precipitation
     on Atlantic salmon river in New England.   U.S. Fish and Wildlife
     Service,  Eastern Energy and Land Use Team, FWS/OBS-80/40.18.   108  pp.

-------
                             Executive Summary

    _A water chemistry survey was conducted in nine Atlantic  salmon  rivers
in New England.  Eight rivers are in Maine and contain native Atlantic
salmon populations.  One river^is in Vermont and is undergoing restoration
of the Atlantic salmon population.  The rivers ranged in  size from first
order tributary streams to third order main stem rivers.   All  contained
actual or potential Atlantic salmon spawning and nursery  habitat.

     The chemistry of the Maine rivers was similar to that reported  for
other rivers located in areas where bedrock is low in acid neutralizing
capacity and where precipitation is similarly acidic.  The major  cation was
calcium in all rivers; the major anion was sulfate in all  except  a few high
order streams where bicarbonate concentrations slightly exceeded  sulfate.
The Vermont river had much higher concentrations of all ions  except
aluminum and hydrogen than the Maine rivers, especially calcium,  magnesium,
and bicarbonate, indicating the presence of carbonate mineral  in  the
watershed of this river.

     All rivers exhibited a seasonal pattern of chemical  change,  although
changes were relatively small in the Vermont river.  River pH, alkalinity,
and calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium concentrations  decreased
during periods of high discharge in the spring and fall.   Aluminum
concentrations increased during high discharge, and sulfate and nitrate
concentrations peaked at snowmelt, preceeding peak discharge.   High
discharge periods resulted from snowmelt and increased precipitation in the
spring, and increased precipitation in the fall.  The decrease in  cations
and alkalinity was the result of dilution of base flow by runoff.  The
decrease in pH (increase in hydrogen ion) probably results from dilution of
alkalinity by runoff, and the increase in sulfate and nitrate probably
results from the higher concentrations of these ions in snow  and  runoff
than in base flow.  Increased aluminum concentrations may result  from
increased solubility of aluminum in soil and sediment at  reduced  pH.

     The net discharge of total ions from the watersheds  exceeds  the input
of ions from precipitation.  The discharge of aluminum and part of the base
cations can be accounted for by input of hydrogen ion that is neutralized
by ion exchange and weathering reactions in the watershed. The discharge
of bicarbonate and the remainder of the base cations cannot be thus
accounted for and must therefore reflect internal hydrogen ion generation
in the watersheds, probably by dissociation of carbonic acid.

     The pH and aluminum concentrations in second and third order  streams
were well within safe limits for Atlantic salmon, even during periods of
high discharge.  First order streams, however, reached levels  of  pH  and
aluminum concentration that may be toxic to sensitive early life  stages of
Atlantic salmon, or during smoltification, although conditions were  not as
severe as those reported for Atlantic salmon streams in southern  Norway or
southwestern Nova Scotia, where Atlantic salmon populations have  declined
or disappeared apparently as a result of acidification.

     Comparisons of chemical data from two rivers in this  study with data
for 1969 indicated that conditions were very similar.  Slight  differences
in a few ions could be accounted for by differences in discharge.  However,

                                   iii

-------
aluminum concentrations were much higher in the present study.   More  acidic
deposition could have leached more aluminum from the watershed  into the
streams, or the difference may result from differences in methodology.
         present chemical  conditions in high order streams are not  critical
for Xtlantic salmon survival.   However, first order streams, which
constitute 20-40% of the available habitat, now approach such conditions,?
and continued or increased deposition of acid may further degrade      — J
conditions in these streams.

-------
                             Table of Contents
Executive Summary	   H]
List of Figures	    vi
List of Tables	    i*
Li st of Abbrevi ati ons and Symbols	     x
Acknowledgements	    xl
I nt roduct ion	     1
Methods	     2
     Selection of Sampling Sites	     2
     Sample Collection Procedure	     2
          Open Water Sampl es	     2
          Intragravel Samples	     2
     Analytical Methods	     5
          Field Procedures	     5
          Laboratory Procedures	     5
Resul ts	     7
     Quality Assurance	     '
     Precipitation and Discharge	     7
     Chemical Factors	     7
          pH, Alkalinity, and Conductance	     7
          Color	    24
          Al umi num	    24
          Cati ons	    24
          Ani ons	    36
          Ion  Correlations	    36
          Ion  Discharge	    36
          Intragravel Water	    48
          Comparisons with  Previous Data	    55
 Di scussi on	    64
     Quality Assurance	    64
     Chemical  Factors	    64
          pH,  Alkalinity, and Conductance	    64
          Col or	    65
          Al umi num	    65
          Cati ons	    66
          Ani ons	    66
          Ion  Correlations	    68
          Ion  Discharge	    68
          Intragravel Water	    74
          Comparisons with  Previous Data	    75
     Potential  Effects on Atlantic Salmon	    76
 Conclusions	    77
 References	   78
 Appendi ces	   83
     A.   Water Chemistry Data	,	   83
     B.   Salmon Redd Excavation	   108

-------
                             List of Figures
Number
  1.   Map showing locations  of Maine rivers	   3
  2.   Calculated versus  measured specific  conductance	  10
  3.   Sum of cations versus  sum of  anions	  11
  4.   Discharge of the White and Narraguagus  Rivers	  13
  5.   Variation of pH, alkalinity,  specific conductance,
       color, and aluminum over time for the Narraguagus River.  14
  6.   Variation of pH, alkalinity,  specific conductance,
       color, and aluminum over time for Sinclair Brook	  15
  7.   Variation of pH, alkalinity,  specific conductance,
       color, and aluminum over time for the Machias  River	  16
  8.   Variation of pH, alkalinity,  specific conductance,
       color, and aluminum over time for Kerwin Brook	  17
  9.   Variation of pH, alkalinity, specific conductance,
       color, and aluminum over time for Holmes Brook	   18
  10.   Variation of pH, alkalinity, specific conductance,
       color, and aluminum over time for Old Stream	   19
  11.   Variation  of pH, alkalinity, specific conductance,
       color, and aluminum over time for Bowles Brook	  20
  12.   Variation of pH, alkalinity, specific conductance,
       color, and aluminum over time for Harmon Brook	   21
  13.   Variation  of pH, alkalinity, specific conductance,
       color, and aluminum over time for the White Rive	  22
  14.   Regression of  log  aluminum on pH	  25
  15.   Variation  of total concentrations of base cations
       over time  for  the  Narraguagus River	   27
  16.   Variations of  total concentrations of base
       cations  over time  for Sinclair Brook	   28
  17.   Variations of  total concentrations of base
       cations  over time  for the Machias River	   29
  18.   Variations of  total concentrations of base
       cations  over time  for Kerwin Brook	  30
                                    VI

-------
19.   Variations of total  concentrations of base
      cations over time for  Holmes  Brook ......................  31

20.   Variations of total  concentrations of base
      cations over time for  Old Stream ........................  32

21.   Variations of total  concentrations of base
      cations over time for  Bowles  Brook ......................  33

22.   Variations of total  concentrations of base
      cations over time for  Harmon  Brook ......................  34

23.   Variations of total  concentrations of base
      cations over time for the White River ...................  35

24.   Variations of total  concentrations of major
      anions  over time for the Narraguagus River ..............  3/

25.   Variations  of total concentrations of major
      anions  over  time  for Sinclair Brook .....................  38

26.   Variations  of total concentrations of major
      anions  over time  for the Machias River ..................  39
 27.   Variations of total  concentrations of major
       anions  over time for Kerwin Brook .......................  40

 28.   Variations of total  concentrations of major
       anions  over time for Holmes Brook .......................  41

 29.   Variations of total  concentrations of major
       anions  over time for Old Stream .........................  4Z

 30.   Variations of total  concentrations of major
       anions  over time for Bowles Brook .......................  43

 31.   Variations of total  concentrations of major
       anions over time for Harmon Brook .......................  44

 32.   Variations of total  concentrations of major
       anions over time for the White River ....................  45

 33.   Comparison of pH of ambient  and intragravel  stream
       water over time for Bowles Brook and Old Stream .........  W
  34.   Comparison of alkalinity of ambient and intragravel
       stream water over time for Bowles Brook and
       01 d Stream
  35.   Comparison of specific conductance of ambient and
       intragravel stream water over time for Bowles Brook
       and  Old Stream ............................. • ............  51

-------
36.   Comparison of calcium concentration of ambient  and
      intragravel stream water over time for Bowles Brook
      and Old Stream	   52

37.   Comparison of aluminum concentration of ambient and
      intragravel stream water over time for Bowles Brook
      and Old Stream	   53

38.   Comparison of sulfate concentration of ambient  and
      intragravel stream water over time for Bowles Brook
      and Old Stream	   54

39.   Comparison of recent and previous pH for the
      Narraguagus Ri ver	   56

40.   Comparison of recent and previous pH for the
      Machias River	   57

41.   Comparison of recent and previous alkalinity for the
      Narraguagus Ri ver	   58

42.   Comparison of recent and previous alkalinity for
      the Machias River	   59

43.   Comparison of recent and previous specific
      conductance for the Narraguagus River	   60

44.   Comparison of recent and previous specific
      conductance for the Machias River	   61

45.   Comparison of recent and previous aluminum
      concentration for the Narraguagus River	   62

46.   Comparison of recent and previous aluminum
      concentration for the Machias River	   63
                                  vm

-------
                               List  of  Tables

Number

  1.   Physical  characteristics of the  streams  selected
       for study
  2.   Results of analysis of EPA Water Pollution  Quality
       Control Samples for Minerals
  3.   Results of analysis of EPA Water Pollution Quality
       Control Samples for Trace Metals
  4.   Mean monthly precipitation and snow depth during
       the study period ........................................    12

  5.   Pearson product moment correlations of physical and
       chemical factors with discharge .........................    23

  6.   Mean chemical concentrations for the period of
       measurement for all streams .............................    26

  7.   Number  and direction of significant correlation
       coefficients among the ions measured ....................    46

  8.   Precipitation input, discharge output, and net retention
       of  ions for the Narraguagus and White rivers ............    47

  9.   Mean concentrations of major  ions  in streams located
       in  areas where bedrock is  resistant to weathering
       and precipitation  is acidic .............................    67

  10.   Precipitation input, discharge output and net  retention
       of  ions for watersheds located in  glaciated areas of
       North America and  Europe ................................    70
  11.    Comparison  of  various parameters assumed to reflect
        acid  deposition  or  cation discharge .....................   72

  12.    Cation  denudation rate  and hydrogen ion deposition
        rate  for  various watersheds .............................   73
                                    IX

-------
                     List of Abbreviations  and  Symbols
Abbreviations

    AAS
    ANC
    CDR
    FEP
    1C
    IP
    mg/1
    ueq/1
    wg/1
    z anions
    i cations

Symbol s

    AT
    Ca
    Cl
    F
    H
    HCOo
    K  6
    Mg
    Na
    NOo
    so43
Atomic absorption spectrophotometry
Acid neutralizing capacity
Cation denudation rate
Fixed end point
Ion chromatography
Inflection point
Milligrams per liter
Microequivalents per liter
Micrograms per liter
Sum of anions
Sum of cations
Aluminum
Calcium
Chlorine
Fluorine
Hydrogen
Bicarbonate
Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
Nitrate
Sulfate

-------
                              Acknowledgements

     Collection of water samples  and  measurement  of temperature, pH,
alkalinity, and specific conductance  for  the White River, Vermont, was
performed by T. King,  White River National  Fish Hatchery, Bethel, Vermont.
M. Morrison and G. Blake conducted the  cation and anion  analyses.  C.H.
Jagoe assisted with some chemical  analyses.  K.F. Beland, Maine Atlantic
Sea-Run Salmon Commission,  assisted with  site selection, collection of
intragravel water samples,  and excavation of Atlantic  salmon  redds.
Precipitation chemistry data were supplied by T.  Potter, Maine Dept. of
Environmental Protection, and J.  Hornbeck,  U.S. Forest Service.  Discharge
data for the Narraguagus River were supplied by R. Haskell, U.S. Geological
Survey, Augusta, Maine.
                                   XI

-------
                                Introduction

     Atlantic salmon constitute an anadromous  fishery resource  of high
value.  In the United States,  Atlantic salmon  formerly inhabited major
coastal rivers from Maine to Connecticut (Elson  and Hord undated).  They
entered at least 28 rivers and are estimated to  have numbered around
300,000 fish (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983).  A combination  of
low-head dams without fish passage facilities, municipal and industrial
pollution of spawning rivers,  and overharvest  resulted in the extirpation
of the species from most of its range by the  late 1800s.

     Presently, self-sustaining Atlantic salmon  populations  exist  in the
Dennys, East Machias, Machias, Narraguagus, Pleasant, and Sheepscot rivers
in Maine, and number around 2,000 fish (U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service
1983).  Small, self-sustaining populations also  exist in a number  of small
coastal drainage systems (e.g., Ducktrap, Passagassawaukeag,  Tunk,  and
Hobart Stream drainages), and intermittent spawning occurs in additional
streams (Beland 1983).  Hatchery assisted populations are being developed
in the Penobscot, St. Croix, and Union Rivers  in Maine,  the  Merrimack River
in New Hampshire, the Connecticut River in Connecticut,  Massachusetts,
Vermont, and New Hampshire, and the Pawcatuck  River in Rhode Island.  The
hatchery assisted populations number around 4,000 fish (U.S.  Fish and
Wildlife Service 1983).

     The present and historical range of the Atlantic salmon in the United
States receives precipitation that is highly  acidic, with a  mean annual
volume weighted pH of 4.2-4.4 (National Atmospheric Deposition  Program
1983.)  This area is also characterized by low alkalinity surface waters
that are vulnerable to acidification (Omernik  and Powers 1982). Acidic
precipitation has caused acidification of Atlantic salmon spawning  rivers
and resulted in reduction or elimination of fish populations in southern
Norway (Overrein et^ a^L 1980), and southwestern  Nova Scotia  (Watt et al.
1983).  A survey of chemistry of headwater lakes and streams in New England
identified a number of Atlantic salmon spawning  and nursery  streams that
were very low in alkalinity (Haines and Akielaszek 1983). Inasmuch as
these streams were sampled at summer base flow the pH minima could  not  be
determined.

     This study was conducted to determine whether some of .the  Atlantic
salmon resources in New England are at risk from acidification  as  a
consequence of acidic precipitation.  We selected nine Atlantic salmon
streams for an intensive water chemistry survey.  Eight  of these were in
Maine and presently support major naturally reproducing populations of
Atlantic salmon; one was in Vermont and is receiving hatchery
introductions.  An effort was made to locate previous water  chemistry data
that could be compared to the present data.

-------
                                  Methods

 Selection of Sampling Sites

      The eight streams in Maine (Figure 1) were selected to be
 representative of first, second, and third order Atlantic salmon spawning
 and  nursery streams in the state.  Additional criteria for selection
 included^relatively low color (dissolved organic carbon), low ionic
 strength," lack of direct human disturbance (roads, logging, etc.),
 availability of previous chemistry data, and winter access.  The White
 River,  Vermont, was also selected for study.  The primary criterion was
 availablity of personnel at the White River National  Fish Hatchery to
 collect, analyze, and ship samples.  A secondary consideration was the
 importance of this river in the restoration plans for the Connecticut River
 system. The sampling station was located at the White River National Fish
 Hatchery, Bethel, Vermont.  Physical characteristics  of the sampling sites
 are  given in Table 1.

 Sample  Collection Procedure

 Open Water Samples

      Open water samples were collected by dipping water directly into
 sample  containers at approximately mid-channel.  Sample containers were
 linear  polyethylene bottles with polyseal caps.  The  bottles were
 acid-washed, distilled water rinsed, and stored filled with deionized,
 distilled water (specific conductance <2 uS/cm).  The bottles were rinsed
 with sample water three times before being filled.  Each set of samples
 consisted of three bottles — one 500 ml for pH, alkalinity, specific
 conductance, and color; one 250 ml for anions; and one 125 ml for cations.
 The  cation sample was preserved with 6.25 ml of 4 N ultrapure nitric acid;
 the  remaining samples were placed on ice until analyzed.  During winter
 months  if the stream was completely ice covered a hole was cut through the
 ice  with a 20 cm diameter auger.  Ice chips were removed and the sample was
 then dipped from the hole.

      Samples were collected from most streams from about November 1, 1981,
 to June 1, 1982.  The White River was sampled once weekly.  The Maine
 rivers  were sampled at various intervals ranging from twice weekly to once
 every three weeks.  Generally, samples were collected more frequently
 during  spring and fall, when chemical conditions were changing rapidly.

 Intragravel  Samples

      Intragravel  water samples were collected from two sites, Bowles Brook
 and  Old Stream, in the vicinity of naturally spawned  redds.  A standpipe
was  constructed generally similar to the Mark VI groundwater standpipe
 described by Terhune (1958), except that the pipe used was plastic, annular
 grooves were omitted,  and an oak driving point was cemented into the bottom
end.  The standpipe was driven into the gravel so that the inlet holes were
25 cm below the gravel  surface.  A water sampling apparatus was constructed
as described in Koo (1964), and was used to pump water from the standpipe
 into the sample bottles.  Samples were then handled as described for open
water samples.

-------
Kerwin Bk
                                       MACHJAS RIVER
                                                      N
                    ATLANTIC  OCEAN
           Figure 1.  Map showing locations of Maine rivers.



                             3

-------
 Table 1.   Physical  characteristics of the streams selected for study.
Drainage Order
River Basin
Narraguagus Narraguagus 3
Sinclair Narraguagus 2
Machias Machias 3
Kerwin Machias 1
Holmes Machias 1
Old Stream Machias 3
Bowles Machias 2
Harmon E. Machias 1
White Connecticut 3
Drainage Bedrock
Area Class
(km ) (percent)
581 1 (80%)
2 (10%)
3 (10%)
11 3 (100%)
1,173 1 (30%)
2 (40%)
3 (30%)
11 1 (100%)
31 1 (75%)
2 (15%)
3 (10%)
274 1 (50%)
3 (50%)
14 1 (100%)
10 2 (10%)
3 (90%)
1,823 2 (60%)
3 (40%)
Soil Mean
Class Color
(percent) (Pt/Co unit
SSI (70%)
SS2 (30%)
SSI (60%)
SS2 (40%)
SSI (25%)
SS2 (75%)
SSI (40%)
SS2 (60%)
SSI (60%)
SS2 (40%)
SSI (30%)
SS2 (70%)
SSI (50%)
SS2 (50%)
SS2 (100%)
NS (100%)
65
42
75
94
92
81
90
54
0
 Drainage area at the mouth of the river, except for the Narraguagus River at Cherryfie
Maine, and the Machias River at Whitneyville, Maine.

 1 = low to no buffering capacity (granite, gneiss, quartz, sandstone), 2 = medium/low
buffering capacity (sandstones, shale, metamorphic felsic to intermediate volcanic rock:
3 = medium/high buffering capacity (slightly calcareous, low grade intermediate to mafi
volcanic rocks).  After Hendrey et^ a/[. (1980).

 NS = mostly non-sensitive soils, soils are calcareous or subject to frequent flooding,
cation exchange capacity (CEC) >15.4 meq/lOOg; SSI  = slightly sensitive soils dominate,
CEC - 6.2 to 15.4 meq/lOOg; SS2 = slightly sensitive soils significant but cover less t
50% of the area.  After McFee (1980).

-------
Analytical Methods

Field Procedures

     Analyses of pH, alkalinity, specific conductance, and color were
performed at field locations.  Within 8 hours after sampling, and as soon
as possible, the 500 ml bottle was removed from ice and warmed to room
temperature.  Two 100 ml aliquots were removed for determination of pH and
alkalinity.  The pH was measured with a portable meter (Fisher model 107 or
Cole Parmer DigiSense) equipped with a plastic-body, gel filled,
combination electrode.  The meter was standardized with pH 7.00 and 4.01
NBS certified buffers, and electrode response was verified by measuring the
pH of dilute sulfuric acid solutions of theoretical pH 4.00.  If measured
values deviated from expected values by more than 0.1 pH units the
electrode was discarded.  The electrode was rinsed thoroughly with
distilled water, blotted dry, and soaked in the sample for 15 minutes or
longer -- until three successive readings at 1 minute intervals were
identical — and pH was recorded.

     Alkalinity was determined by titrating each of the 100 ml sample
aliquots  with 0.0200 N  sulfuric acid to pH <4.  Acid was added in 0.10 ml
portions  using a micro  syringe until pH 5 was reached, then in 0.05 ml
portions  to  pH <4.  The pH was recorded after equilibration following each
addition  of  acid.  Alkalinity was calculated by two methods.  Inflection
point alkalinity was determined by the method of Gran (Stumm and Morgan
1981), and fixed endpoint  (pH 4.5) alkalinity was determined as described
in American  Public Health Association e_t aj_. (1975).  Inflection point
results were used for  all analyses and comparisons except for those using
previous  data, where fixed endpoint data were used.

     Two  50  ml aliquots of sample were measured and used for determination
of specific  conductance and  color.  Specific conductance was measured with
a calibrated meter  (Markson  Scientific Company model 10), and apparent
color was determined by comparison of unfiltered samples with platinum
cobalt standard solution  (LaMotte Chemical Company, Chestertown, Maryland).
Stream discharge data  for the Narraguagus and White rivers were obtained
from the  U.S. Geological Survey.  Precipitation chemistry data for the
Acadia National Park,  Maine, and Hubbard Brook, New Hampshire, sites were
obtained  from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program.  Data for amount
of precipitation in the study areas were obtained from  various U.S. Weather
Bureau sites.

Laboratory Procedures

     The  remaining water samples were kept on ice, returned to the
laboratory,  and kept refrigerated until analyzed.  The acidified sample was
analyzed  for cations.  Sodium and potassium were determined by
air-acetylene flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry  (AAS; Perkin Elmer
model 703),  calcium and magnesium were determined by nitrous
oxide-acetylene flame AAS, and aluminum by graphite furnace AAS.  Samples
were not  filtered.  The unacidified samples were filtered through Whatman
42 ashless filters and analyzed for chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and
fluoride  by  ion chromatography  (Dionex model 16) following the
manufacturer's recommended procedures.  Organic anions were estimated by

-------
first estimating dissolved organic carbon (DOC) from color measurements
using a linear regression equation derived previously (Haines and
Akielaszek 1983), then multiplying DOC by the factor 0.6 to obtain Peq/1  of
organic anions (A. Henriksen, Norwegian Institute of Water Research,
personal communication).  Where necessary, ions were corrected for marine
aerosol input by assuming that all chloride resulted from marine aerosols
and that the ratio of other ions to chloride was the same in marine
aerosols as in sea water.  Non-marine ion concentrations were obtained by
subtracting estimated marine contributions from total ion concentrations.
Because all sampling sites were upstream from roads, and all except the
White River were remote from any road, the influence of deicing salt on
chloride concentrations was expected to be minimal.

     Quality assurance of analytical procedures was performed as specified
in a quality assurance project plan filed with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.  Analytical instruments were maintained and serviced
regularly, and precision was determined by analysis of U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Water Pollution Quality Control Samples for Trace Metals,
and Minerals  (EPA Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio).  Ionic balance and calculated (theoretical) versus
measured specific conductance also were used as a check on analytical
accuracy and data coding errors.  Theoretical specific conductance was
calculated by multiplying ion concentrations by equivalent conductance
values  (Weast 1978).

     Most previous water chemistry data located for the rivers studied
consisted largely of single  grab  samples, or samples collected at i
infrequent intervals.  The most useful data were very complete chemical
analysis of monthly water samples from the Narraguagus and Machias Rivers,
collected in 1969.  These data were located in an unpublished report
(intended as a Master of Science  thesis but never defended)  in the files of
the Maine Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, University of Maine.

-------
                                  Results

Quality Assurance

     The laboratory analyses  of  EPA  Water  Pollution  Quality Control Samples
for Minerals (Table 2),  and Trace  Metals  (Table  3) gave  acceptable
precision.  The precision we  obtained  equalled or exceeded that of the
laboratories reported by EPA  in  all  cases.   The  bias for mineral analyses
was less than 10%,  but bias for  aluminum and manganese frequently exceeded
10%.  Bias was generally lowest  for  the highest  concentrations.  No
correction for bias was  applied  to the results presented later.

     A further check on  data  quality was made by comparing measured and
calculated specific conductance  (Figure 2).   The intercept of the
regression is slightly less than zero  and  the slope  is somewhat greater
than one.  This indicates that the calculated values exceed measured  values
at high concentrations.   Additionally, cations and anions were summed
separately for each sample, and  total  cations were plotted against total
anions (Figure 3),  which gave very similar results.

Precipitation and Discharge

     The mean monthly precipitation  received, and mean monthly depth  of
snow on the ground at the nearest  weather  bureau station for the Maine
rivers and the White River are shown in Table 4. Precipitation is
considerably higher in Maine  than  in Vermont. Precipitation is higher in
s||rin§ and fall than in summer and winter  in both areas, but the timing  of
the precipitation maxima shifts  from year  to year.   Both areas generally
have snow on the ground from November  to April,  but  snow depth is greater
in Vermont.

/   Two of the rivers, Narraguagus  and  White, contain hydrologic gauges
operated by the U.S. Geological  Survey.   Daily discharge for each sample
date for these rivers (Figure 4) is  highly variable  but  tends to be highest
in spring and fall, and lowest in  summer  and winter.  Intense precipitation
events can increase discharge at any time  of year.   The  1981 water year  was
characterized by multiple discharge  peaks.

Chemical Factors

pH, Alkalinity, and Conductance

     The pH, alkalinity, and  conductance  values  followed similar temporal
patterns in all rivers (Figures  5-13)  and  were negatively correlated  with
discharge (except for pH in  the  White  River; Table 5).   The  general pattern
was relatively high values during  winter,  a sharp decline at spring peak
discharge, increasing values  during  summer, a decline in autumn, and  an
increase in winter.  This pattern  was  clear for  1980 and 1982 in the
Narraguagus, Machias, and Kerwin streams,  but was obscured during 1981.   In
the remaining streams pH, alkalinity,  and  conductance increased from  autumn
to winter, were relatively high  and  stable during winter, declined at
spring peak discharge, and increased during summer.   Higher  order streams
had higher pH, alkalinity, and conductance values at all times of the year
than did lower order streams.

-------
Table 2.  Results of Analysis of EPA Water Pollution Quality Control
Sample for Minerals.  Mean Values of pH were Computed from Hydrogen Ion
Concentrations.
EPA Sample
Number Factor
3 pH
(units)
Calcium
(mg/1)
Magnesium
(mg/1)
Potassium
(mg/1)
Sodium
(mg/1)
Sulfate
(mg/1)
Chloride
(mg/1)
4 pH
(units)
Calcium
(mg/1)
Magnesium
(mg/1)
Potassium
(mg/1)
Sodium
(mg/1)
True
Value
7.4
6.7
2.4
1.7
7.0
12.0
20.5
8.6
32.0
7.1
7.2
40.0

X
(H-3)
7.54
6.8
2.4
1.6
7.2
12.0
20.3
8.56
34.8
7.1
7.5
40.1
Laboratory
S.D.
0.01
0.2
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.08
0
0.02
0.2
0.1
0.06
0.1
Results
Precision
+0.3%
±5.9%
±4.2%
±7.5%
±1.7%
±1.3%
IP
±0.5%
±1.2%
±2.8%
±1.6%
+0.5%

Bias
+1.9%
+1.5%
0
-5.9%
+2.8%
0
-1.0%
-0.5%
+8.8%
0
+4.2%
+0.3%
                                 8

-------
Table 3.  Results of Analysis  of  EPA Water Quality Control Samples for Trace Metals.   All  units  are  ug/1
EPA Sample Trace
Number Metal
1 Al
Mn
2 Al
Mn
3 Al
Mn
True
Value
350
55
50
11
700
350
Laboratory
X
(N=3)
424.3
62.3
68.3
13.7
726.7
387.5
S.D.
29.9
2.6
5.5
0.6
46.2
6.5
Results
Precision
±14.1%
± 8.3%
+16.1%
+ 8.8%
±12.7%
± 3.4%

Bias
+21.2%
+13.3%
+36.6%
+24.5%
+ 3.8%
+10.7%

X
369
54.8
74.9
11.0
712
348
EPA
S.D.
41.7
5.7
24.3
3.8
62.1
18.6
Recovery
F'recision
±22.6%
±20.8%
±64.9%
±69.1%
±17.4%
±10.7%

Bias
+ 5.4%
- 0.4%
+49.8%
0
+ 1.7%
- 0.6%

-------
   80-1
   70-
   60-1

C
fl  50-
L
C
U  40-
L
fl
T  30-
E
D
   20-
   10-
    0-
 T
10     20     30    40    50    60    70

                MEflSURED
                                                             80
  Figure 2.  Calculated versus measured specific conductance.  Regression
  equation:  Calculated = -5 + 1.11  Measured (r_2 = 0.99, £ = 0.0001, N :
                            10

-------
S 700-
U
M
  600J
0
F
  500
C
fl
T 400-
I
0
N 300
U 200
E
Q
/ 100
L

     0-
             100   200    300    1400    500    600    700

                         SUM OF  ONIONS UEQ/L
800
      Figure 3.  Sum of cations versus sum of anions.   Regression
               equation:  cations  = -16 + 1.04 anions (r2- = 0.97,
               £ <0.0001, N = 173).
                                1]

-------
      Table 4.  Mean monthly precipitation, 30 year average precipitation (1931-1960), and mean monthly snow
      depth, in mm, for Oonesboro, Maine, and Montpelier, Vermont, during the study period.
ro
Precipitation
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
1980
39
56
157
130
23
91
89
36
110
159
175
84
1,149
1981
47
70
59
174
109
126
183
91
126
121
113
217
1,436
1982
158
91
86
121
20
122
93
108
67
49
115
58
1,087
Jonesboro
Depth of Snow
30 yr
Avg 1980 1981 1982
123 22 373 325
107 126 52 469
107 86 87 293
104 2 31
90
95
86
79
113
104
134 34 2
114 180 55 47
1,255
Montpelier
Precipitation Depth of Snow
1981
5
159
16
66
143
92
91
83
146
79
39
59
979
1982
75
46
70
47
42
170
27
58
52
41
77
38
719
30 yr
Avg 1981
91 127
77 53
98 109
99
101
102
105
89
100
86
104 8
89 437
1,142
1982
630
663
434
41






3
16

-------
                  NARRAGUAGUS
   120-1
                    OCT
              1980
                MAR   AUG

                    1981
JAN    OUN

   1982
                        WHITE
    150-
  0 125-
  I
  S
  C
  H 100-
  H
  n
  G
  E  75-

  H
  3
  /  50-
  S
     25-
      0-
i. m». 1.1. IH..,.....MI.I....I.|III.'.."|."'" ni|iiiiiii»i	M

 OCT      DEC      FEB      APR

     1981                    1982
                                              JUN
Figure 4.  Discharge of the White and  Narraguagus  rivers,
                           13

-------
p
H

U
N
I
T
S
  7.5-

  7.0-

  6.5-

  6.0-

  5.5-

  250-

  200-

U 150-
E
Q 100^
/
L  50H
      0-

     50-1
   U «iC
   S

   C 30-
   M

     20^
  C
  0  125-j
  L
  0
  R
     75^
  U
  N
  I
  T
  S

    300-

    250-

  U  200-
  G
  /  150H
  L
    100-

     50-
                          111111111111111111111
                        10
                               15
20
Figure 5.  Variation of pH (a), alkalinity (b),  specific conductance
          (c), color (d), and aluminum (e)  over time for the
          Narraguagus River.

                               14

-------
    p
    H

    U
    N
    I
    T
    S
6.5-

6.0-

5.5-

5.0-

U.5-

 50-
     U
     E
     Q
     /
     L
        -10-

         30-


       U 25-
       S
       /
       C 2
       M

         15-

        100-

         80
      c
      0
      L
      0
      R
         20-
        UOO-

        300-
     U
     G  200^

     L  100^

          0-

1 1
OCT
" 	 - 	

l l
DEC


1
FEE
_— -• 	 '

1 1 1
APR

JUN
                 1981
                                        1982
Figure  6.  Variation of pH (a),  alkalinity  (b), specific conductance
          (c), color (d), and aluminum  (e) over time for Sinclair
          Brook.

                                15

-------
   7.0-
P
H  6.5-

U  6.0-
N
I  5.5J
T
S  5.0-
  125-

  100-

U  75-
E
Q  50H

L  25-

     0-
 U  30-
 S
 /
 C  2
 M
  200-

  160-
C
0

0   80-
R
  «iOO-

  300-
U
G 20CH

L 100

     0^
        P"1
        DEC
            M ' ' ' ' ' I
                                  |iini|i in i|in |'I
                i i i i i i i i I i i i i i
            MAR   JUN

                 1980
                       SEP   DEC   MAR
                                                               a
                                                        I ' " " I
                                       ' I' " " I	I	i i • i i | r
                                       JUN    SEP    DEC   MAR    JUN
                                        1981
1982
Figure 7.  Variation of pH  (a), alkalinity  (b), specific conductance
           (c), color (d),  and aluminum  (e) over time for the
           Machias River.

                                16

-------
 p
 H

 U
 N
 I
 T
 S
  6.5-

  6.0-

  5.5-

  5.0-

  11.5-

    75-

    50-

    25-

     0-

  -25-

    35-

    30-
 U
 S  25-

 C  20-
 M
     300-j
  C
  0  250-^
  L
  0  200H
  R
  U
  N
  I
  T
  S
   50-

  U50-

  350-
U
G 250-^

L 150-

   50-
      DEC
                                                                 a
           MAR
JUN
1980
                      SEP
                            DEC
                                 MAR
JUN
1981
                                            SEP
                                                 DEC
                                                        1 1 1 ..... 1 1
                                                         MAR    JUN
Figure 8.   Variation  of pH (a),  alkalinity (b),  specific conductance
           (c),  color (d), and aluminum (e)  over time for Kerwin Brook

                                17

-------
       6.5H
   H   6.0-

   U
   N   5.5-
   I
   T
   S   5.0-
        75'-


      U 50-
      E
      Q
      / '
-------
        7. OH

    p
    H   6.5-1

    U
    N   6.0-
    I
    T
    S   5.5-

        150H
      U 100-
      E
      Q
      /  50H
      L

          0-

         35-

         30-
       U
       S 25-

       C 20-
       M
         15-

        125H
[III II II ll|lll II Illl |l
      C  100-
      0
      L
      0   7
      R

         50-

        200-1
        150-
     U
     G
     /  100-1
     L
OCT         DEC

     1981
                                   FEB
                                              APR
                                             JUN
                                          1982
Figure 10.   Variation of pH (a), alkalinity  (b),  specific conductance
            (c), color (d), and aluminum  (e)  over  time for Old Stream.

                                19

-------
       p
       H

       U
       N
       I
       T
       S
6.5-

6.0--

5.5-

5.0-

>4.5-

100-

 75-

 50-

 25-



-25-

 30-
         U
         S
         /
         C
         H
            15H
           150-
        C
        a
        L
        0
        R
        U
        N
        I
        T  50-1
        U
        G
          «IOO-
          300H
          200-\
          100-
              OCT
              —T~
              DEC
                                                                 a
                                                         iiu n| 11
—I"
 FEB
                                               APR
                                                           JUN
                   1981
                                           1982
Figure 11.   Variation of pH (a), alkalinity (b),  specific conductance
            (c),  color (d), and aluminum (e)  over time for Bowles Brook,

                                 20

-------
     p
     H

     U
     N
     I
     T
     S
7.0-


6.5—


6.0-j


5.5-

125-

100-

 75-

 50-

 25-

  0-

 30H
        U 25H
        S
        /
        C 20-]
        H

          15-
                                                                 a
       c
       0
       L
       0
       R  50^
       U
       N
       I
       T
       S
   0-
                  Ill|lllllllll[
           l|lllll Illl[i
         300H
       U
       G
       /
       L
           0-
                                                         e
             OCT
                 I
                DEC
 I
FEB
                                                APR
                                                            JUN
                   1981
                                   1982
Figure 12.  Variation of pH  (a),  alkalinity (b), specific  conductance
            (c), color  (d),  and aluminum (e) over time  for Harmon Brook.

                                 21

-------
   7.5H

P
H  7.OH

U
N  6.5-
I
T
S  6.0-
                                                                 a
       u  300-
       E
       Q
       /  200^
       L

          100-

           80-1
         U
         3
         /
         C
         H
           40-
                II Mil II [III llll II|MIII I III [111 II II ll|l II I I 1111)11111 II 11)11111 II !.[....	|.
      5-
   C
   0
   L
   0
   R  0-

    250-

    200-

 U 150-
 G
 / 100-
 L


      0-J
T—
OCT
                   —r~

                   1981
                   —T~
                   DEC
                               FEB
APR
            JUN
                                                                 e
                                     1982
Figure 13.  Variation of pH (a), alkalinity (b), specific conductance
            (c), color (d), and aluminum (e) over time for the White River,

                                22

-------
Table 5.  Pearson product moment correlations of physical
and chemical factors with discharge for the two gauged
streams.
Factor
pH

Alkalinity

Specific Conductance

Color

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium
Potassium

Aluminum
a
Sum of cations

Sulfate
Nitrate
Chloride
Fluoride

Sum of anions
White R.
-0.15
**
-0.82
**
-0.82
*
0.47
**
-0.85
**
-0.55
*
-0.47
-0.51*
**
0.83
**
-0.77
**
-0.80
0.35
-0.31
-0.17
**
-0.81
Narraguagus R.
-0.62

-0.67

-0.48

0.04

-0.62

-0.51
**
-0.37
0.02

0.45

-0.61

-0.16
-0.02
-0.24
-0.50

-0.80
^Excluding aluminum.
^Significant at £  £0.05.
  Significant at £  <0.01.
                               23

-------
Color

     The White River was virtually colorless;  the Maine rivers were
moderately colored, ranging from 20 to nearly  300 units and  averaging  30-40
units (Figures 5-13).  Color changed seasonally,  being lowest from late
winter to early summer and highest from late summer to early fall.
However, color was not correlated with discharge  (Table 5).  Color appeared
to decline in winter, when discharge was low,  and did not  increase until
summer, when discharge was also low.

Aluminum

     Aluminum concentration exhibits a seasonal cycle that is the inverse
of that for pH and alkalinity (Figures 5-13).  Concentrations are highest
when pH is lowest and alkalinity is lowest.  Aluminum is significantly
positively correlated with discharge in the  two gauged rivers  (Table 5),
and with pH in all rivers combined (Figure 14).   Aluminum concentrations
are generally higher in lower order streams, which are also  lower in pH
than higher order streams.  A linear regression of aluminum  with color
yielded significant regressions in three of  eight rivers.  Regression  was
not performed for the White River as color was zero for all  but one sample
date.  The significanto(p_ <0.0001) regressions were for Bowles Brook(jr =
0.73), Holmes Brook (_r  = 0.73), and Harmon  Brook (r_  = 0.77).  Aluminum
may have been bound to dissolved to organic  compounds in these streams.   We
measured only total aluminum in this study.

Cations

     Mean cation concentrations for the period of measurement are given in
Table 6, and temporal trends are shown in Figures 15-23.  Cation
concentrations were generally higher in the  higher order streams.  Calcium
was the most abundant cation in all third order streams.  Sodium exceeded
calcium in all first and second order streams  except Harmon  Brook, where
calcium was most abundant.  Sodium was nearly  as  abundant  as calcium in all
Maine rivers, but was much lower than calcium  in  the White River.
Magnesium was intermediate and potassium was lowest in concentration in all
streams.

     Potassium concentrations were nearly constant over time with no
apparent temporal pattern.  Magnesium was relatively constant over most of
the year but concentrations generally declined in spring during the period
of snow melt and high discharge.  This occurred in April in  1980 and 1982,
but multiple discharge peaks occurred in 1981  (December 1980, March, May,
July, and August 1981).  Snow cover disappeared in February  and March  in
1981.

     Calcium and sodium had similar seasonal patterns of concentration.
Concentrations were highest in August and lowest  in April  in 1980 and  1982.
Again, 1981 was characterized by multiple cycles.  Sodium concentrations  in
the Narraguagus River were different from calcium in 1980, but were similar
thereafter.  All cations were negatively correlated with discharge (Table
5), except potassium in the Narraguagus River.
                                  24

-------
 3.OH
                      D   D         DUD   D
                                      PH
Figure 14.   Linear  regressions of log^o total aluminum concentration on pH.
            Regression equation;  Logic Al = 3.97 - 0.31 pH  (_r2  =  0.36,
            £ <0.0001, N = 333).

-------
  Table 6.  Mean chemical concentrations, for the period of measurement in the nine streams, organized by
  watershed and order.  Units are  ueq/1 except as noted.
ro
Watershed Order
and Site
MaAAa.gua.gui>
Sinclair Bk.
Narraguagus R.
Kerwin Bk.
Holmes Bk.
Bowles Bk.
Old Str.
Machias R.
E. Mac/tou
Harmon Bk.
Connectccot
White R.

1
3
1
1
2
3
3

1

3
PH

5.56
6.33
5.31
5.52
5.36
6.19
6.09

5.95

6.83
Color

65
42
75
94
92
81
90

54


-------
                                                                             n— n
ro
   200-

   175-

   ISO-

   125-
U
E  100-
Q
L   75^
           25-
            0-
              DEC
                                                                               _   Na
                 APR      AUG
                     1980
DEC
APR      AUG
    1981
DEC
APR
 1982
AUG
              Figure 15.  Variation of total concentrations of base cations over time
                        for the Narraguagus River.

-------
ro
oo
         70-
         60-
U  50-
E
Q
/  HO-
L

   30^
         20-
OCT
                             DEC
                                       FEB
APR
JUN
                     1981
                                              1982
              Figure 16.  Variations of total concentrations of base cations over time
                        for Sinclair Brook.

-------
ro
i-O
   150


   140


   120-


   100-

U
E   80-
Q
            0-
                                                                              D-— D  Ca
              DEC
                                                                              +-+  K
                 APR       AUG

                     1980
DEC
APR      AUG
    1981
DEC
APR       AUG
 1982
              Figure 17.   Variations of total concentrations of base cations over
                         time for the Machias River.

-------
   150-1
   125-
   100-
u
E   75^
Q
    50-1
    25-
     0-
                         D—a c»
                              Mg
                              Na
                          -+ K

       DEC      APR      AUG      DEC
                   1980
APR     AUG
    1981
DEC     APR      AUG
          1982
      Figure 18.  Variations of total concentrations of base cations  over
                 time for  Kerwin Brook.

-------
    100-1
     75
U
E    50-
Q
       0-
           I I I I I 11 11 I 111 11 I 11 I 11 I I 111 I I I 11
          OCT               DEC
                  1981
"I"
 FEB
APR
JUN
        1982
       Figure 19.  Variations  of total  concentrations of base cations
                  over time for Holmes Brook.

-------
co
ro
           150-



           140-J



           120-
        u
        E
        Q
        L   60-
            20-:


             0-
II  I  I
4-M-
                                                   1  -H '•
•II I •*- I
FEB     APR      JUN     AUG      OCT

                    1981
                                                           DEC      FEB      APR

                                                                       1982
                                                       JUN
                 Figure 20.   Variations of total concentration of base cations over
                            time for Old Stream.

-------
GO
co
U
E
Q
/
L
           100-1
             75-
             50-
               0-
                                      H	1
          1 1 1 ii ii ii ijii 1 1 1 n 1 1| 1 1 MI i M i| i

         OCT              DEC
                 1981
                                               11111111111111 >f T 111111111111111111 [ 11111111111111111111
                                                  FEB
APR
JUN
                                                          1982
             Figure 21.  Variations  of total  concentrations of base cations over
                        time for Bowles Brook.

-------
CO
           100-]
       u
       E
       Q
            75-
50-
            25-
              0-
OCT
                                DEC
                        1981
                                   "I"

                                    FEB
APR
JUN
                                            1982
             Figure 22.  Variations of total concentrations of base cations over
                       time for Harmon Brook.

-------
CO
01
         50CM
         400-
         300
      U
      E
      Q
      /  200
      L
          100-
            0-
1—M	1  'I  4 II  I  I—I—I	II  i   I I  I—1—H-+
  1111IIIII[IIIIIII11[ 11 111 111 n IIIIIIII1111

OCT             DEC             FEB
        1981
                                                           ..... ii 1 1 1 ii i

                                                               APR
                                            M I I MI I|I I I I I II I I |

                                                  JUN
                                                       1982
             Figure 23.  Variations of total concentrations of base cations over
                       time for the White River.

-------
Anions

     The most abundant anions  in  all  streams  were  bicarbonate,  sulfate,  and
chloride (Table 6).  Organic anions were  intermediate  in  concentration in
all streams except the White River, where they were  very  low.   Nitrate was
low in all  streams except the  White River, where it  was intermediate.
Fluoride was very low in all streams.

     Few anions other than alkalinity (bicarbonate)  were  correlated with
discharge (Table 5), although  the sum of  all  anions  was negatively
correlated.  Both sulfate and  nitrate (Figures 24-32)  showed a  tendency  to
reach a peak concentration in  March of 1981,  proceeding the discharge peak
in April (Figure 4) and coinciding with the period of  snowmelt  (Table 4).
The nitrate peak was variable, sometimes  sharp and sometimes broad.  The
timing of the nitrate peak was somewhat later in the White River.

     Chloride concentrations were highly  variable.  Generally there were
multiple chloride peaks, usually in the fall  and again in late  spring,
after peak discharge.  Chloride concentrations were often stable  during
winter.  Organic anions usually reached their maximum  concentration in
fall.  There often also was a  small  peak  coinciding with  peak discharge  in
April.  Organic anions were very low  and stable in the White River.
Fluoride concentrations were low and  stable in all streams.

Ion Correlations

     Simple product moment correlations were calculated for  pH, alkalinity,
and all cations and anions.  The number of significant (p _<0.05)
correlations out of the nine correlations for each pair,  and the  direction
of these correlations, were charted as an index of the overall  significance
of each possible correlation  (Table 7).  Five or more significant
correlations of the same direction were judged indicative of a  strong
relationship.  There were 13 such strong relationships out of 66  possible.
Alkalinity was positively related to calcium, magnesium,  and sodium,  and
negatively related to aluminum.  The relationships for pH were positive
with alkalinity and sodium, and negative with aluminum.  Calcium was
positively related to magnesium and sodium.  There were four other strong
relationships, all positive:  magnesium with sodium, sodium with  fluoride,
chloride with  sulfate, and aluminum with organic anions.

Ion Discharge

     Two rivers studied  (Narraguagus and White) were gauged and discharge
records were available to enable calculation of discharge of major ions.
Precipitation  input data for  major ions were also available from National
Atmospheric Deposition Program stations at Acadia National Park,  Maine,
(47 km  from Narraguagus River) and Hubbard Brook, New Hampshire (76 km from
White River).  The  input and  output  of total ions were calculated on an
areal basis  (Table 8).  Total ions input  from precipitation were estimated
by multiplying wet  deposition by 1.5  (Wright and Johannessen 1980).  Both
river systems  discharged more calcium and magnesium than were input from
precipitation, but  less  hydrogen ion.  Potassium was nearly balanced at
both  sites, with  input approximately the  same as  output.  Sodium was nearly
balanced in the Narraguagus but there was an excess of discharge in the

                                   36

-------
        125
        100-
         75-
    U
    E
    Q
         50-
to
         25-
           0-
              I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I II I I I I II	I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [ M I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I  M I I I I I I I I I I I I

             OCT                 DEC                 FEB                 APR                 JUN

                   1980                                      1981
            Figure 24.  Variations of total concentrations of major anions over
                      time for the Narraguagus River.

-------
        125-
        100-
CO
00
     75-
U
E
Q
/    50-
L
          25-
           0-
              OCT
                            DEC
                                            r
                                                I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 II |T IT I I I If It
' I '

FEB
                    1980
                                                         11
                                                        1981
APR
JUN
             Figure 25.  Variations of total concentrations  of major anions over
                       time for Sinclair Brook.

-------
CO
           50-
        U
        E
        Q
           25-
                  I I I I I I I I
                OCT
DEC
nj ii

 FEB
APR
JUN
                      1980
                             1981
               Figure 26.   Variations of total  concentrations of major anions over
                           time  for the Machias River.

-------
.p.
o
         100-1
      u
      E
      Q
           75
50-
          25-
            0-
               OCT
                                     I I I I I I I I
                        DEC
I I I I I I I

   FEB
                                                                 I I I I I I I I TI TIIIIlTIIIIIIII
APR
                     1980
                                                    1981
JUN
              Figure 27.  Variations of total concentrations of major anions over
                        time for Kerwin Brook.

-------
   100-
u
E
Q
     75-
50-
     25-
      0-
         OCT
                                                             A
                                                             -H4
                       DEC
FEB
1 ' ' I "

  APR
               1980
                                                   1981
11

JUN
        Figure 28.  Variations of total concentrations of major anions over
                  time for Holmes Brook.

-------
   100-J
     75-
U
E    50-
Q
      0-
           I I 111 I» I
                                ITTi i i r I I i 1 I I I
         OCT
DEC
FEB
APR
i i i i I

   JUN
               1980
                            1981
        Figure 29.  Variations of total concentrations of major anions  over
                   time for Old Stream.

-------
        100-1
         75-
to
     U
     E   50
     Q
         25-
           0-
                          A*.
 I I M I I I I I I | I I ' I I I I I I | I ........ | I I I I I I I I I | I I I I I I I M pi I I
OCT               DEC               FEB
     1980                                 1981
                                                             I I I M | I I I I II I I I | I I ....... |
                                                                 APR               JUN
             Figure 30.  Variations of total  concentrations of major anions over
                      time for Bowles Brook.

-------
        D—D


        A	A
   80-1
   60-
u
E  40-1
Q
   20-1
     0-
S04


N03


Organic


Cl


F
                                       -e-
                ^\  V
                                                        ff~^-A
                                                         i  i  3*  -^
        I I I I I I I I I I | I I I I I M I I | I I I I I I I I I | I I I I I I I I I | I I I I

       OCT               DEC                FEB

             1980
                              I II I I | I I I I I I I M | I I I I I I H I | I I I I I I I I I |
                                           APR
JUN
                                 1981
      Figure 31.  Variations of total concentrations of major anions over
                 time for Harmon  Brook.

-------
en
        200-
        150-
     U
     E  100-
     Q
          50-
           0-
              OCT
                    1980
DEC
                                           I '
I I I II I rri I I I FT

FEB

         1981
i 11 i 11 11 i

    APR
i i i i i i i I

      JUN
            Figure 32.  Variations of total concentrations of major anions  over
                       time for the White River.

-------
Table 7.  Number and direction of significant (£ <0.05)  correlation
coefficients among the ions measured.

pH

alkalinity

calcium
magnesium

sodium
potassium
chloride
nitrate
sulfate
aluminum
fluoride
.? 1
c E •-
•i-31/l
•— -r- Q)

-o
tl
o
3
14-
1 +

3+

2+
2+

5+
1-
2+
0
0
1-
v
organic
anions
3-

3-

2+
4+

2+
2-
0
2-
2-
9+
1+
                             46

-------
Table 8.  Precipitation input,  discharge output,  and  net  retention  (input-output) of major  ions for the
Narraguagus and White rivers.   Units are meq/m /year  except  as  noted.
Narraquaqus R.
p re c i p i t a t i on

Ca
Mg
Na
K
H
£ cations
HC03
so4
N03
Cl
Organic anion
z anions
water (mm)
wet
7
16
61
2
33
119
0
44
15
72
0
130

total
11
24
92
3
50
179
0
66
23
108
0
195
1,048
discharge
130
46
88
18
^1
284
87
81
10
61
59
298
768
net
retention
-119
-22
4
-15
49
-105
-87
-15
13
47
-59
-103
-280
White R.
precipitation
wet
5
3
3
0
34
45
0
33
21
4
0
58

total
8
5
5
0
51
68
0
50
32
6
0
87
886
discharge
182
67
86
8
<1
343
162
106
35
99
<1
403
626
net
retention
-174
-62
-81
-8
51
-275
-162
-56
-3
-93
%0
-316
-256

-------
White River.  Inputs were relatively similar at  the two  sites for calcium,
magnesium, and hydrogen ion, but sodium and potassium were  much higher at
the Narraguagus.  Discharge of calcium, magnesium,  and sodium were highest
in the White River.

     Discharge of sulfate and chloride were higher  than  precipitation input
for the White River.  The Narraguagus River retained chloride, and sulfate
was nearly balanced.  Nitrate was nearly balanced in both rivers.
Bicarbonate discharge exceeds precipitation input,  which is negligible for
this ion, for both rivers.  Discharge of all  anions, including nitrate, was
higher in the White River than in the Narraguagus River. Precipitation
input of chloride was highest in the Narraguagus River.  Sulfate input was
also higher in the Narraguagus River, as was  hydrogen ion,  but nitrate
input was lower.

     The ionic balance of both discharge output  and precipitation input was
reasonably good.  The cation denudation rate  (CDR)  for each of the gauged
rivers, defined as the discharge of non-marine cations excluding hydrogen
ion per unit watershed area, was 215 meq/m /yr for  the Narraguagus River
and 232 meq/m /yr for the White River.  The contribution of cations from
precipitation is negligible, except for hydrogen ion. The CDR model of
Thompson (1982) predicts a pH of 6.27 for the Narraguagus River and 6.51
for the White River.  The CDR model as presented ignores nitrate, which was
significant in the White River.  If nitrate is included  in the model the
predicted pHs are 6.24 and 6.39 respectively. The  actual volume weighted
mean pH was 6.02 for the Narraguagus River and 6.92 for  the White River.

Intragravel Water

     Intragravel water samples were very difficult  to collect under the
conditions experienced.  The standpipes froze, were dislodged by moving
ice, and filled with silt.  The vacuum tubing froze and  the pump
clogged with silt.  Consequently, few water samples of adequate quality
were obtained for analysis:   four samples from Bowles Brook and six from
Old Stream.

     Intragravel pH (Figure 33), alkalinity (Figure 34), and specific
conductance (Figure 35) were generally higher than  stream values for the
same sample dates.  Both the stream and intragravel  values follow similar
seasonal patterns, with no apparent time lag  for the intragravel values.
Values for Old Stream almost always exceeded  those  of Bowles Brook.  The
differences between the two sets of values were  smallest during the period
of high discharge in April.

     Intragravel values of calcium (Figure 36) and  aluminum (Figure 37)
also generally exceeded stream values.  The maximum aluminum concentrations
reached in intragravel water samples were as  much as 40  times higher than
in stream water samples.  Sulfate concentrations are slightly higher in the
stream than in intragravel water and are slightly higher in Bowles Brook
than in Old Stream (Figure 38).
                                  48

-------
    7.0-
    6.5-
    6.0-
    5.5-
    5.0-
    14.5-
P
H   "A.0-1
U   3.5
N
I   3.U-I
T
S   2.5-1
    2.0-
    1.5-
    1.0-
    0.5-
    0.0-
          T—
         DEC
         1981
      Bowles ambient
O---Q Bowles intragravel
      Old Stream ambient
      Old Stream intragravel
      —I—
       JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
                                        MAY
                           1982
         Figure 33.  Comparison of pH of ambient and  intragravel  stream
                    water  over time for Bowles Brook and Old Stream.

-------
en
o
R
I
K
fl
I
I
N
I
T
Y

U
E
Q
               150-
               125-
                                                      „„-* »
                                                            I
               100-
      •owlet ambitnt

Q--D Bowlti intragravtl

Jk—A Old Stream ambient

A—A Old Stream intragravei
                 0
                                                                            APR
                                                                              MAY
                                                       1982
                Figure 34.  Comparison of alkalinity of ambient and intragravei
                            stream water over  time for Bowles  Brook and Old  Stream,

-------
           HO-I
(Ji
           30-
           20-
c
0
N
D
U
C
T
R
N
C
E
        U
        s
        /   10-
        c
        M
                     Bowles ambient

               Q—-O Bowles intragravel

                     Old Stream ambient

                     Old Stream intragravel
             0-
                T—
               DEC

               1981
                      JAN
FEB
MAR
—I—
 APR
MAY
                                             1982
                Figure 35.  Comparison of specific conductance  of ambient and intragravel
                            stream water over time for Bowles Brook and Old Stream.

-------
tn
ro
C
R
L
C
I
U
M

U
E
Q
/
L
175H


150


125-


100-


 75-=


 50^


 25-


   0
                                                                                       Bowles ambient
                                                                                Q---O Bowles intragravel
                                                                                       Old Stream ambient

                                                                                       Old Stream intragravel
              DEC
              1981
                         JAN
                                     FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
                                                1982
              Figure 36.   Comparison of calcium concentration of ambient and intragravel
                         stream water over time for Bowles Brook and Old Stream.

-------
CJ1










fl
L
U
M
I
N
U
M


U
G

L










HQOQ-
-

.
—
-
•
3000-
m

m
-
"
-
—
2000-
*"
"

™
\
-

1000-

-
«
m
-
*•
0-
9
• — • Bowles ambient / 1
i i
O—Q Bowles intragravel / ,
i «
A— A Old Stream ambient ' ',
i »
£s~-& Old Stream intragravel ' •
i »
j »
i i
i t
i i
i t
i i
* <
i »

i
'.
X 1
x' 1
1
s \
" \
f \
s t
X ^•*~ \ |
' ««•» N
/ ..--- \ 1
X „•• N I
---"*" Xl
S^»~~"~~ \ *"'^,
f^2k i *Jk
f">"x \
qfel_ u ^ m
1 " "*
1 1 1 1 1 1
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
1981 1982
                Figure  37.   Comparison  of  aluminum concentration  of  ambient  and  intragravel
                            stream water over  time for  Bowles  Brook  and  Old  Stream.

-------
en
               70-1
               60-
               50-
               140-
5
U
L
F
F)
T
E
   30-
U
E
Q
/  20-
                10-
                 0-
                    1—
                   DEC
                  1981
       Bowie* ambient

Q--D  Bowles intragravel

       Old Stream ambient

       Old Stream intragravel
                     —I—
                      JAN
                      —I—
                       FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
                                            1982
                Figure 38.  Comparison of sulfate concentration of  ambient  and  intragravel
                            stream water over time for Bowles Brook and  Old Stream.

-------
 Comparisons with Previous Data

     Previous chemistry data were available for the Narraguagus and Machias
rivers.  Data were available for 10 samples collected nearly  monthly from
February 1969 to January 1970 (Taylor 1973).  The discharge of the
Narraguagus River on sample dates in 1969 was  similar to that during our
sampling3period.  The mean sample date discharge was 18 m /sec in 1969,
and 20/m /sec in 1981-82.  Comparison of pH and alkalinity data from
1980-82 to those of 1969 (Figures 39-42) reveals no apparent  differences.
The timing of annual cycles is similar and the maxima and minima are also
similar.  The alkalinity data plotted for 1980-82 are fixed endpoint data,
which is what was measured in 1969.  Specific  conductance (Figures 43-44)
appears to have been slightly higher in 1980-82 than in 1969.

     The only chemical factor that is markedly different between the
historical and recent data is aluminum (Figures 45-46).  Total aluminum
concentrations were considerably higher for 1980-82, but seasonal patterns
were similar.  Concentrations in 1980-82 appeared to be higher than in 1969
during periods of high discharge but similar to those in 1969 during
periods of low discharge.
                                   55

-------
               7.0-
            P  6.5-
            H
en
               6.0-
               5.5-
JAN     MAR     MAY      JUL     SEP

                         MONTH
                                                              NOV
JAN
             Figure 39.  Comparison of recent and previous pH for the Narraguagus River.

-------
en
            7.0-1
             6.5-
         P   6.0-
         H
             5.5-
             5.0-
•
A
o
X
1969
I960
198 1
1982
               JAN    MAR     MAY
 JUL     SEP

MONTH
NOV
JAN
             Figure 40.  Comparison of recent and previous pH for the Machias River.

-------
en
CO
                 250-4
                 200H

               R
               L
               K
               R
               L 150
               I
               N
               I

               Y
U
E
Q
                 100-
                  50-
                   0-
                    JAN     MAR     MAY
                               JUL     SEP     NOV

                              MONTH
JAN
              Figure 41.  Comparison of recent and previous alkalinity for the
                        Narraguagus River.

-------
en
                 15CH
                 125-
P
L
K 100-
R
L
I
N
I  75-
T
Y

U
E  50-
Q
                    0-
JAN
                                                     1
              MAR
                                      MAY
 JUL

MONTH
SEP
NOV
JAN
              Figure 42.  Comparison of recent and previous alkalinity  for the  Machias River.

-------
  50-1
  UO-

C
0
N
0
U 30-
C
T
fl
N
C
E 20-

U
S
/
C
M 10-
    0-
JAN
             MAR
MAY
 JUL

MONTH
SEP
NOV
JAN
 Figure 43.  Comparison of recent  and previous specific conductance for
           the Narraguagus River.

-------
  uo-l
C 30-
0
N
D
U
C
T
fl 20
N
C
E

U
S
/ 10-1
C
M
    0-
JAN
MAR
MAY
                               JUL

                              MONTH
SEP
NOV
JAN
    Figure 44.  Comparison of recent and previous specific conductance for
              the Machias River.

-------
rto
            fl
            L
            U
            M
            I
            N
            U
            M
              30CH
              250-
  200-
  150-
U
G 100-
               50-
                0-
                               11111
                                      i 11 11 i
                 JAN
              MAR
MAY
 JUL

MONTH
SEP
NOV
JAN
              Figure 45.  Comparison of recent and previous aluminum concentration for
                        the Narraguagus River.

-------
en
to
fl
L
U
M
I
N
U
M
U
G
            350-1
            300-
            250-
             200-
             150-
             100-
              50-
               0-

•
A
o
X
1969
1980
1981
1982
1 1 1 1 1 1
JAN
T-r i i | i i i i
MAR
MAY
1 ' ' • ' i • • • • • •
JUL
MONTH
• ' • i • • • •
SEP
1 ' ' ' ' TT "•' ' '
NOV
JAN
               Figure 46.  Comparison of recent and previous aluminum concentration
                          for the Machias  River.

-------
                                 Discussion

Quality Assurance

     Precision was high and bias was generally low for  major  ions,  but were
variable and less satisfactory for aluminum  and manganese.  We  believe that
the results are generally acceptable, however.  The regressions of  measured
on calculated specific conductance and sum of cations on  sum  of anions
indicate that there are no major measurement or coding  errors in the  data
set.

Chemical Factors

pH. Alkalinity, and Conductance

     The seasonal pattern of change in these three factors  is apparently
related to periods of high precipitation and increased  discharge.  The
magnitude and timing of the declines that we observed were  similar  to those
observed in other low order streams that are located in resistant bedrock
and that receive precipitation of similar chemistry (Jeffries et_ a]_.  1979;
Martin 1979;' Christophersen and Wright 1980; Colquhoun  et_ al_. 1981; Webb
1982).  These declines are associated with high precipitation and peak
stream discharge, and follow snowmelt.  However, Watt  et_ aU  (1983) found
that the annual minimum pH and alkalinity occurred before the peak
discharge in Nova Scotia rivers.  They attributed this  to the fact  that
snow was higher in pH than rain in this area so that snowmelt water did  not
depress stream pH or alkalinity.  In the White River,  pH and  alkalinity  are
buffered by carbonate minerals in the watershed and show little
relationship to precipitation or discharge.

     The fall pH, alkalinity, and conductance declines are  also associated
with increased discharge that accompanies increased precipitation occurring
as  rain, before soils freeze and a snowpack forms.  Similar declines have
been observed in Norway  (Webb 1982), Ontario  (Jeffries et aJL 1979), Nova
Scotia  (Watt et^ aj_. 1983), and New Hampshire  (Martin 1977).  Additional
declines occurred in our streams during the summer of 1981, following
intense precipitation events and again associated with increased discharge.
The summer declines may be enhanced  by the fact that precipitation  is more
acidic  during summer than at other times of the year (National  Atmospheric
Deposition Program 1983).  During periods of  high precipitation water may
enter streams via overland flow  rather than percolation through soil.

     In contrast to the above, Likens et_ al_.  (1977) reported that  stream ptt
in  the  Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest was  very stable seasonally, which
was attributed to buffering by the terrestrial ecosystem.  The  stream pH
was chronically  depressed below  5.0.

     There appeared to  be a general  relationship  between bedrock geology
class and  soil sensitivity class  in  the watershed and stream pH,
alkalinity,  and  conductance.  Streams that were lowest in pH and alkalinity
generally  drained watersheds  that had a high  proportion of low sensitivity
bedrock, soil, or both  (e.g., Kerwin Brook, Narraguagus River), whereas
streams that were highest  in  pH  and  alkalinity  drained watersheds  with  a
preponderance of non-sensitive  materials  (e.g., Harmon Brook,  White  River).

                                    64

-------
All rivers in Maine were located in areas with moderately  sensitive soils
(McFee 1980), and all were lower in pH, alkalinity,  and conductance than
the White River, which was located entirely in a non-sensitive soil area.
The lower pH, alkalinity, and conductance values in  smaller,  lower order
streams may also result from the smaller watersheds  of these  streams, which
provide less opportunity for precipitation water to  percolate through soil.
The degree to which influent water passed through inorganic soil horizons
was found to be the critical factor governing lake pH and  alkalinity in the
Adirondack Mountain region of New York (Chen et_ aU  1983). Small streams
also tend to have less diverse geology and soil  types in their watersheds,
offering less opportunity for buffering from incursions of higher buffering
materials in the watershed.  Johnson (1979) found that stream pH was highly
correlated with order for small streams in the Hubbard Brook, New
Hampshire, watershed.  Low order streams had lower pH than higher order
streams in the same watershed, even though ionic strength  was the same.  He
attributed the neutralization of hydrogen ion to dissolution  of preexisting
aluminum hydroxide compounds in the upper soil horizons.

     Other authors, however, believe that hydrogen ion from precipitation
increases weathering reactions and is exchanged for base cations  (Fisher et^
al. 1968; Martin 1979; Webb 1982).  For example, Martin (1979) found that
pH~, alkalinity, and base cations increased from a headwater to a  downstream
site in a watershed in New Hampshire.  In our streams aluminum
concentration is highest in low order streams.  As stream  order increases
aluminum concentration declines but conductivity and alkalinity increase.
It appears that reduced pH increases aluminum solubilization  initially.
Later, the hydrogen ion is exchanged for base cations, pH  increases, and
aluminum is precipitated out of solution.

Color

     Color is moderate to high in the Maine rivers,  and virtually absent in
the White River.  Color was highest from late summer to early fall and may
result from leaching of organic compounds from decaying vegetation at this
time.  Color was lowest during spring when discharge was highest  and pH was
lowest.  Therefore the pH depression at high discharge cannot be  attributed
to increases in organic acids.

Aluminum

     The increase in aluminum concentration at periods of  high discharge
probably results from increased aluminum dissolved from terrestrial rocks
and soils and aquatic sediments by the increased hydrogen  ion, especially
considering that other cations decrease at this time.  Many authors have
shown that lake aluminum is highly correlated with pH (Wright and 6jessing
1976; Dickson 1980; Wright and Henriksen 1980; Schofield 1982; Haines and
Alielaszek 1983), and this is consistent with the relationship between
stream pH and aluminum hypothesized by Johnson (1979).

     Inasmuch as we did not filter our samples or fractionate aluminum
compounds, our data represent only total aluminum.  Recent comparisons of
filtered and unfiltered samples in our laboratory show little or  no
difference in aluminum concentration.  We conclude that particulate
aluminum is very low in these streams.  Color is appreciable  in the Maine

                                   65

-------
streams, and much of the aluminum may have been present  as  an  organic
complex.  Aluminum concentration was positively correlated  with  organic
anion concentration in all nine streams.

Cations

     The concentrations of cations in the first order streams  in Maine were
similar to those from comparable (similar order, bedrock and soil  types,
and precipitation chemistry) streams reported elsewhere  (Table 9).  The
slightly higher sodium concentrations in our streams  probably  reflect the
proximity to the ocean; concentrations were even higher  at  Birkenes.
Higher order Maine streams had higher calcium concentrations,  but  other
cations were little, if any, higher than in first order  streams.  The White
River had much higher cation concentrations than third order Maine rivers,
reflecting the presence of more soluble bedrock and higher  concentrations
of exchangable soil cations in this area.  Calcium was the  dominant cation
in all streams, as it generally is in surface waters  world-wide
(Livingstone 1963).

     The seasonal cycles of cation concentrations in  our streams are
similar to those reported for New Hampshire streams (Likens et^ a]_.  1977;
Martin 1979).  The spring and fall declines in cations result  from dilution
of base flow by precipitation runoff and snowmelt. However, in  Sweden
(Calles 1983) and Norway (Webb 1982), base cations, primarily  calcium,
increase at spring snowmelt and high discharge, and decline in summer.
This is attributed to leaching of base cations by hydrogen  ion.  In our
streams hydrogen ion and aluminum increase at spring  snowmelt  and  high
discharge.  Increases in base cations occur at downstream locations in
higher order streams concomitant with decreases in hydrogen ion  and
aluminum.

Anions

     The most abundant anion in the low order streams was sulfate,  and in
the higher order streams bicarbonate.  Bicarbonate is the most abundant
anion in surface waters world-wide (Livingstone 1963).  In  acidified
surface waters sulfate replaces bicarbonate (Wright and  Henriksen  1983).
Sulfate concentrations were not highly related to stream order in  the Maine
streams, being only slightly lower in higher order streams  (Table  9), but
sulfate was considerably higher in the White River than  any Maine  river,
even though the White River is not acidified.  This may  simply be  a
reflection of the much higher concentration of all ions  in  this  river,
inasmuch as bicarbonate far exceeds sulfate.  Bicarbonate was  higher in
third order than in first or second order streams in  similar geological and
soil regions in Maine, possibly as a result of weathering reactions.

     Nitrate was generally present at very low concentrations  in the Maine
rivers.  This is expected because of the high biological uptake  rates for
this important nutrient.  The intermediate nitrate concentration in
Sinclair Brook is unexplained.  Nitrate was consistently elevated  in all
samples and good ionic balance is achieved, ruling out analytical  error.
Nitrate was relatively high in the White River, probably as a  result of
agricultural and urban runoff in this more developed  river  basin.   Nitrate
concentrations in the Maine streams were comparable to Sweden  (Calles 1983)

                                  66

-------
cr>
      Table 9.  Mean concentrations of major ions in streams located  in  areas where bedrock  is resistant
      to weathering and precipitation  is acidic (pH <4.5).   Concentrations  are  inyeq/1.
Location
Maine, first order3
Maine, third order9
New Hampshire
New Hampshire0
New Hampshire
Sweden6
N orway
N orway^
Ca
66
107
100
120
83
100-400
50
67
Mg
37
37
25
29
31

15
40
Na
72
76
44
57
38
40-90
50-80
123
Ion
K H Al
10 3.0 18
12 0.6 13
15 1.6
15 0.4
6 12.6

7
7 33 71
so4
59
54
94
82
130
60-200
80-90
152
N03
3
5
37
40
31

-------
and Norway (Webb 1982), but much lower than in New Hampshire.   Likens  et^
al. (1977) report nitrate concentrations averaging about  30  ueq/1  in the
HUbbard Brook system, and Martin (1979) found that nitrate concentrations
averaged 37-40 ieq/1 in The Bowl natural area.  Both these areas  have
deciduous forest vegetation, whereas forests are primarily coniferous  in
our study area.

     The seasonal pattern of bicarbonate concentration is similar to that
of cations in all streams, for the same reason.  Sulfate  concentrations
were highest at the time of high discharge, when pH was lowest.  Nitrate
concentrations were relatively constant, but there generally was  a small
increase coinciding with snowmelt and proceeding peak discharge.   This may
result because snow is relatively high in nitrate, and biological activity
is relatively low at this time.  Galloway and Dillon (1983)  found that
nitrate increased in lakes and streams following snowmelt, and Gallway et^
al. (1983) observed that sulfate was relatively constant  but nitrate
Increased during spring snowmelt in three watersheds in New  York.  These
results coincide with our findings.  Both sulfate and nitrate  tended to  be
lowest during summer base flow, when biological activity  was highest,  and
gradually increased during fall and winter, when biological  activity
declined.  Calles (1983) found that sulfate increased at  peak  runoff  in  one
stream in Sweden, nitrate increased in a second stream, and  neither
increased in a third stream.  The pH of these streams was not  reported.
Webb  (1982) reported a general increase in sulfate and decrease in nitrate
during the peak discharge period for the Tovdal River, Norway.  At this
time, river pH declined from  5.0 to  4.6.

Ion Correlations

      In our streams, pH was most highly correlated to discharge and to
alkalinity.  There were significant correlations for all  streams tested.
There were significant correlations with organic anions in three streams
 (negative), with nitrate in one stream  (negative), and with  sulfate in one
stream  (positive).  The positive correlation with sulfate is probably
spurious.  Thus the pH decline at peak  discharge probably results from
dilution  of base flow with  low alkalinity  runoff water, rather than from an
increase  in sulfate or nitrate.

 Ion Discharge

      Ion  discharge  from a watershed is  a function of the  chemistry of
 precipitation  and the  interaction of  the chemicals  in  precipitation with
those in  the terrestrial  components of the watershed.  Among the
 interactions that may  take  place are  the following:

      uptake  and release  by  vegetation
      cation  exchange  reactions
      weathering reactions
      oxidation/reduction  reactions, including those mediated  by  microbes
      accumulation and  depletion from  watershed reservoirs
      formation and  dissociation of  carbonic acid
      dissolution of organic and other weak acids

 Along with the above interactions,  the chemical  nature of the rocks,  soil,

                                    68

-------
and till in the watershed, the type of vegetation, and hydrological
characteristics that affect contact time between precipitation and
watershed components will ultimately control the chemistry of water
discharged from a watershed.

     All watersheds located in glaciated areas for which ion discharge  data
were available had a net loss of all cations except hydrogen (Table  10).
Net loss was generally highest for calcium, intermediate for magnesium  and
sodium, and lowest for potassium.  The White River had the highest net
output of cations, probably as the result of carbonate weathering reactions
(Johnson 1979).  Wright and Johannessen (1980) reported that cation  output
far exceeded acid input in non-granitic watersheds, probably because of
carbonation reactions.  The net output of cations was lowest in the  Rawson
Lake watershed, which is granitic and does not receive acidic precipitation
(Schindler et^ al_. 1976).  Although Johnson et^ aK (1972) believed that  the
cation discharge from Hubbard Brook was low as compared to regional  or
world-wide averages, the net loss of cations for this watershed is higher
than that for acidified areas in Scandinavia.

     The net output of cations was higher in higher order streams.  Martin
(1979) found higher cation discharge at downstream as compared to upstream
locations.  Both the Narraguagus and White rivers are third order streams
and cation concentrations are relatively high as compared to the other
streams in Table 10, most of which are first order streams.  Johnson (1979)
found that ionic strength increased with stream order as strong acids were
neutralized, allowing carbonic acid to ionize and carbonation reactions to
occur.  There was also an exchange of aluminum compounds for base cations
in higher order streams.  Galloway et^ a_K (1983) found that depth of soil
and till were also important factors in determining discharge of base
cations from watersheds in New York.  Generally higher order streams will
have larger watersheds, lower gradients, and thicker soils, all of which
contribute to increased contact of precipitation with soil particles, which
in turn promotes weathering reactions.  An examination of Table 10 strongly
suggests that some factor or factors other than acid deposition alone are
responsible for the differences in cation discharge among the watersheds
listed.  Rather minor differences in the chemistry of bedrock or soils, in
addition to differences in soil contact time, could appreciably affect  the
chemistry of the precipitation as it passes through the system.

     Some authors have attempted to quantitatively relate the deposition of
acid to the discharge of cations.  Fisher et^ aj[. (1968) assumed that H  ion
input approximated cation output.  Their data supported this assumption,
but they did not consider precipitation inputs of other cations.  Dillon gt
al. (1980) estimated the input of acid as the net retention of H ion and
ML ion in the watershed plus the loss of HCO- ion from the watershed,  and
output of ions mobilized by acid as the sum of cations lost plus NO-
retained.  In practice, NH. and NO., ion are roughly equivalent, canceling
each other, and ma^y be ignored.  Wright and Henriksen (1983) calculated two
functions -- g(Ca  + Mg ) and SA ~ and related these funjtions^to S04
resulting from atmospheric deposition.  Tfce function g(Ca  + Mg ) is
empirically derived and is 0.93 (Ca  + Mg ) -14, where the asterisk
signifies correction for marine aerosols.  This is an estimate of major
cations in the absence of acid deposition.  The function SA is defined  as
H + Al - HC03 and represents strong acid.  Net S04  is computed by

                                   69

-------
Table  10.   Precipitation  input,  discharge output,  and  net  retention  (input - output) of ions for a
              number of watersheds  located  in glaciated  areas in  North  America and Europe.  Units  are
              meq/m2/year.



Ca

Maine4
Vermont*
Norway6
Norway0
Swedend
New Hampshire6
New Hampsh1ref
New Hampshire9
Ontario11
Ontario1
In out
11 130
8 182
7 35
21 72
19 66
16 115
16 132
11 68

14 22
net In
-119 16
-174 5
-28 3
-51 29
-47 6
-99 6
-116 6
-57 5
-55
-8 7

Mt|
out
46
67
12
43
30
28
31
26

15


net
-22
-62
-9
-14
-24
-22
-25
-21
-34
-8


In
92
5
10
123
12
6
6
7

4

Na
out
88
86
16
133
23
44
57
32

12


net
4
-81
-6
-10
-11
-38
-51
-25
-7
-8


1n
3
0
3
8
3
6
6
2

2

K
out net
18 -15
8 -8
3 0
8 0
4 -1
15 -9
18 -12
5 -3
-3
3 -1


In
50
51
59
127



97
70
8
Ion
H
out
0.95
0.12
16
36



10
3
3


net
49
34
43
91



87
67
5

Al
In out net In
0 20 -20 0
07-70
0 16 -16 0
0 77 -77 0

0
0
08 -38 -0 13



HCO,
out net
87 -87
162 -162
0 0
0 0

29 -29
69 -69
-13 80
-32



In
66
50
63
164
49
112
112
112

6

SO,
out
81
106
50
164
29
101
90
-32

7


net
-15
-56
13
0
20
11
22
32

-1


in
23
32
25
84
3
43
43
28

51

NO.
out '
10
35
1
8
0.3
47
47
4

6

)
net
13
-3
24
76
3
-4
-4
20
32
45

Cl
In out net
108 61 47
6 99 -93
11 11 0
133 133 0
770


14 6

6 1 5
 "This study.    Langtjern watershed (Wright 1983).  cB1rkenes, South Norway (Wright and Johannessen 1980).  Tentral  Sweden, average for three
 watersheds (Calles 1983).  eThe Bowl, headwater site (Martin, 1979).  TThe Bowl, downstream site  (Martin 1979).  ^ubbard Brook (Likens et a].. 1977).
 Muskoka-Hal1burton area, Harp Lake (Dillon et al... 1980).   Rawson Lk., Ontario, average for three streams (Schlndler et al_. 1976).

-------
subtracting*estima.ted natural, or ^background," SO.  from measured SO.  .
Then:  9(Ca  + Mg ) + SA = net S04 .              *                 H

     Comparison of these various methods for watersheds that  have data
available (Table 11) indicates that the discharge of cations  far exceeds H
ion deposition for all watersheds except Langtjern, Norway.   The question
arising, then, is how are cations mobilized from a watershed  if not  by  H
ion in precipitation.  The apparent explanation is that there is
considerable internal H ion generation from ionization of carbonic acid,
which could be appreciable where mineral acid inputs are neutralized by ion
exchange reactions in the watershed (Johnson 1979; Wright and Johannessen
1980).  Although wet deposition measurements probably underestimate  H ion
deposition by a factor of one third, even making this correction does not
account for the discrepancy in our data.

     The net retention of H ion plus HCO^ lost generally provides a  better
approximation of the sum of cations lost from the watersheds. This
relationship presumes that the output of HCO, results from acid
neutralization reactions in the watershed, including internally generated
acids.  The neutralization process plus other weathering reactions that
consume H ion results in the release of cations, including both aluminum
and base cations.

     The function g(Ca  + Mg ) + SA of Wright and Henriksen  (1983)
represents H ion that passes through the system unneutralized plus that
which is neutralized and results in the release of Al and HCO^.   Internally
generated H ion is assumed to be responsible for the estimated normal  (or
"background") sum of major cations in watershed discharge, as well as part
of the HCO-, ion.  These two quantities should approximate SO^ correction
for normal ("background") SO, and that resulting from marine  aerosols.  The
agreement is fair.  In a previous study we found that this relationship
also generally held true for lakes in New England  (Haines and Akielaszek
1983).  The strength of this relationship is that  it allows  calculation of
surface water pH if acid deposition should change  (Wright and Henriksen
1983). Watt et_ aj_. (1983) compared recent and historical water chemistry
for rivers in Nova Scotia.  They concluded that increased acid deposition
had resulted in increased sulfate, aluminum, and H ion and decreased HCO,
in these ri vers.

     Thompson (1982) proposed that the sum of non-marine base cations --
CDR -- would reflect leaching of cations by acid deposition.   Among
watersheds for which such data were located (Table 12) there  seems to be
little relationship between acid deposition and CDR.  The chemistry  of
bedrock and soil, watershed characteristics such as size, depth of soil and
till, etc., and the deposition of cations are more likely explanations  of
differences in CDR.

     It is nearly universal that watersheds have a net loss of bicarbonate,
providing only that the pH of the drainage water is sufficiently  high for
bicarbonate ion to exist (Table 10).  There is essentially no bicarbonate
ion in precipitation.  The source of bicarbonate in these noncalcareous
systems is apparently dissociation of carbonic acid.  The largest
bicarbonate loss was from the White River, which was the largest  river  and

                                  71

-------
Table 11.   Comparison of various  parameters assumed to reflect acid
deposition or cation discharge.   All  units are meq/m /year.
Location
Maineb
Vermont
Norway0
Norway
New Hampshire6
Ontari o
Ontario9
cati ons
lost
21
339
59
152
144
99
25a
H ion
input
50
51
59
127
97
70
8
H ion retained
+ HCQ 1 ost
136
213
43
91
100
99
-
g(Ca* + Mg*)
+ SA
71
40
60
176
105
-
-
net S0*4
25
46
34
136
61
-
-
aNot including Al.   bThis study.   cLangtjern  (Wright  1983).  dBerkenesf
(Wright and Johannessen 1980).   eHubbard Brook  (Likens et Jl. 1977).   Harp
Lake (Dillcn^t^L  1980).   9Rawson Lake (Schindler ^t a\_. 1976).
                                    72

-------
Table 12.  Cation Denudation Rate, and H ion deposition,
meq/m /year, for various watersheds.
Location
Narraguagus R.c
White R.c
New Hampshire (The Bowl, headwater) d
New Hampshire (The Bowl, downstream)d
New Hampshire (Hubbard Brook)6
North Carolina (hardwoods )f

New England (upper drainage basins)9

Northeastern U.S. 9
Oregon (S. Cascade Glacier)h
Ontario (mean of 3 streams)1
Newfoundland (mean of 10 streams)-}
Nova Scotia (mean of 11 streams)-3
Norway (Langtjern)1
Norway (Birkenes)"1

Sweden (mean of 3 streams)"
Great Britain0

World average"
CDR
215
343
202
238
115
116

220

680
930
51
124
106
53
125

116
78

390
H ion
50a
5ia
158
158
97
_b
b

b

b
10
20
40
59
127
b

10
b

 aWet  deposition  only.   bNot  measured.   cThis  study.   dMartin
 jf!979).   6Likens  et  al.  (1977).   fJohnson  and Swank  (1973).
 "Johnson  et  al_.  (T972T-   "Reynolds  and  Johnson  (1972).
 iSchindler et  al. (1976).  ^Thompson  (1982).  ^Thompson et al_.
 (1980).   IwTTght  (1983).   Bright and Johannessen  (1980).
 "Calles  (1983).   °Cryer (1976).
                                     73

-------
had the highest alkalinity concentration.  This river also probably has
carbonate minerals in the watershed.  Johnson et^ aK (1972)  found that
alkalinity increased as stream size increased, and Galloway £L il- (1983)
found that the largest loss of bicarbonate was from the watershed where
alkalinity was highest.

     Nitrate is generally strongly retained by watersheds.  The  only
exception noted in the literature was one stream in New Hampshire (Martin
1979).  This loss was small and may represent a net balance in a mature,
undisturbed watershed.  In our data the White River had a large  net loss of
nitrate, possibly as the result of agricultural and urban runoff.
Mechanisms of nitrate retention include uptake by vegetation,  accumulation
in soil organic matter, loss of volatile nitrogen compounds such as nitric
oxide, or dissimilatory reduction such as denitrification or ammonification
(Calles 1983; Galloway and Dillon 1983).

     Sulfate discharge was quite variable among rivers ranging from net
loss to balance to net retention.  A net loss of sulfate may indicate a
source of sulfate in the watershed other than precipitation (Galloway et^
al. 1983), or an underestimation of sulfate input because of failure to
account for-dry deposition or gaseous sulfur dioxide (Dillon et  al. 1982).
The data from Sweden (Calles 1983), New Hampshire (Martin 197UJ, and
Ontario (Schindler et_ al_. 1976) are bulk deposition, which underestimates
sulfate deposition.   Both the Narraguagus and White rivers had  net losses
of sulfate, even though deposition estimates were adjusted to include dry
deposition.  A net retention of sulfate could result from accumulation of
sulfur in soil organic matter, release of volatile sulfur compounds such as
methyl sulfide, or sulfate reduction to form sulfide minerals  (Calles 1983;
Wright 1983).  A balance of sulfate input and output does not  necessarily
mean that sulfate does not enter into any significant reaction pathways.
In fact, sulfate may function as a "mobile anion" (Christophersen et al.
1982) resulting in net loss of base cations.

     Chloride is generally conserved and is geochemically unimportant.   It
should therefore be in balance for input and discharge.  In some cases this
is assumed, and any discrepancy is assumed to result from measurement
errors and ion deposition is adjusted to result in balance (Calles 1983;
Wright 1983).  Streams in New Hampshire (Likens et^ al_. 1977) and Ontario
(Schindler _e_t a_K 1976) have a net retention of chloride.  In  our data the
Narraguagus had a net retention and the White had a net loss.  Road deicing
salt may contribute to the net loss for the White River.  Chloride
deposition measurements are much higher for the Narraguagus River because
of the proximity to the ocean.  The precipitation station was  much closer
to the ocean than was the water chemistry station.

Intragravel Water

     Intragravel water was similar to, but slightly more alkaline than,
stream water.  Inasmuch as both stream and intragravel water exhibited
similar temporal chemistry patterns, the exchange between the two types
must be relatively rapid.  The slightly higher pH, alkalinity, calcium, and
specific conductance in intragravel water may result from very fine
particles of substrate that exert a minor neutralizing effect.  In New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia streams intragravel pH was slightly higher than

                                   74

-------
stream water for streams with pH <5.5, but slightly lower for streams with
pH >5.5 (6. Lacroix, Fisheries and Oceans, St. Andrews,  New Brunswick,
personal communication).  Williams and Hynes (1974) found that pH declined
from 7.8-8.2 at the water-substrate interface to 7.4-7.6 at 20 cm depth in
the substrate in the Speed River, Ontario.  Water chemistry within
gravel-filled hatching boxes placed in two lakes was measured by Gunn and
Keller (1980).  They found slightly higher pH, alkalinity, calcium, and
specific conductance in intragravel water from mixed noncalcareous  gravel
placed in acidic (pH 5.2) Lake George.  However, there was no difference
between ambient lake and intragravel water from a circumneutral  lake  (pH
6.7).

     Intragravel water from our streams was extremely high in aluminum.
These high concentrations may have resulted from clay particles  washed from
the sediment.  However, aluminum was highest in the intragravel  water with
the lowest pH, and intragravel aluminum concentrations followed  temporal
patterns similar to stream water aluminum.  If this difference is real,
elevated aluminum could constitute a threat to salmonid reproduction  in
these streams.  Because of the small number of samples and the lack of
filtering, these results should be interpreted cautiously.

Comparisons with Previous Data

     Except for aluminum, there was little or no difference between water
chemistry factors measured in 1969 and those in our study.  This is not too
surprising considering the time interval between measurements was only 12
years.  Precipitation chemistry has probably changed little during  this
time.  We expected that continued acid deposition would increase leaching
of base cations or decrease alkalinity, but neither seems to have occurred.
In contrast to this, Thompson et_ _al_.  (1980) found a significant  decline  in
pH and calcium in three Nova Scotia rivers between 1954-55 and 1973,  and
substantial pH declines from 1965 to 1973, but no such declines  in  three
Newfoundland  rivers.  The Nova Scotia rivers?had mean annual  pHs ranging
from 4.4 to 6.2, and CDRs of 80 to 115 meq/m  /year.  The pHs  were 4.8 to
6.0 and CDRs  were 150-200 meq/m /year for the Newfoundland rivers.
However, Watt et^ al_. (1983) found no  change in calcium, magnesium,  sodium,
or potassium  between 1954-55 and 1980-81  in four Nova Scotia rivers.  They
did find a significant decrease in bicarbonate and increase in hydrogen
ion, aluminum, and sulfate.  We previously found that lakes in Maine
located near  the rivers studied here  had  declined in pH and alkalinity
(Haines and Akielaszek 1983).

     We did find an increase in aluminum  concentration as compared  to the
historical values, even though hydrogen ion concentration of the rivers  was
not different.  It is possible that the increase represents an  improvement
in methodology.  Aluminum is an analytically  difficult element,  and
quantification methods have  improved  greatly  in  recent years.

     Historical comparisons  in  streams are  subject to error because of
differences in discharge, vegetation, and climatic conditions.   These
factors also  affect lakes,  but to  a  lesser  extent than in streams.   We  were
fortunate to  have  relatively  similar  discharge  levels in our data sets,  and
to locate historical data that were  collected over an annual cycle.  A  much
                                   75

-------
 longer  series of data would be required to accurately assess historical
 chemical changes in these rivers.

 Potential Effects on Atlantic Salmon

     Reduction or elimination of native Atlantic salmon populations has
 been reported for acidic rivers in southern Norway and Nova Scotia.  In
 Norway, Atlantic salmon have disappeared from seven rivers with a mean pH
 of 5.12 (Leivestad et^ aJL 1976).  Mortality of naturally produced presmolts
 has been observed in rivers at pH 5.15-5.50 and labile aluminum
 concentrations of 30-55 wj/1 (Hesthagen and Skogheim 1983).  Labile
 aluminum usually constitutes 60 to 98% of total aluminum in Norwegian
 rivers  (Skogheim et^ al_. 1983).  In Nova Scotia, Atlantic salmon populations
 have been severely reduced or eliminated from 10 rivers with annual mean pH
 5.0 or  less  (Watt et^ al_. 1983).  Rivers with mean pH above 5.0 had no
 declines in  fish populations.

     The difference in the pH at which Atlantic salmon are affected in
 Norwegian versus Nova Scotian rivers is most likely the result of different
 amounts of color (= dissolved organic matter) in the rivers of these two
 regions.  The increased dissolved organic matter chelates proportionally
 more of the  aluminum, rendering it non-toxic to fish (Driscoll et al.
 1980).  Color is very low in the Norwegian rivers (<5 color units;
 Hesthagen and Skogheim 1983), and ranges from 30 to >100 color units in
 Nova Scotia  rivers (Watt et^ al_. 1983).

     The pH  and aluminum concentrations in some of the first and second
 order streams in Maine (Table 6) are similar to those of Norwegian  rivers
 where Atlantic salmon mortalities have recently been reported.  However,
 inasmuch as  the color levels of the Maine rivers are similar to those of
 Nova Scotia  rivers, such severe mortalities may not occur in the Maine
 rivers at the present pH and aluminum conditions.  Only total  aluminum was
 measured in  Nova Scotia and Maine rivers, but it is probable that only half
 the aluminum or less is present in the labile, toxic form.  The conditions
 of the most  acidic Maine rivers appear to be marginally toxic to sensitive
 life stages of Atlantic salmon.  Although marked population declines may
 not yet occur, low levels of mortality may result and prevent the full
 utilization of available spawning and nursery habitat.

     Surveys indicate that tributaries contribute about 34% of the  total
 spawning habitat in the Machias River, about 19% in the Narraguagus River,
 and about 30-40% in the East Machias River (Bryant 1952;  E. Baum and K.
 Beland, Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission, personal  communication).
 Therefore tributaries constitute a significant portion of available
Atlantic salmon habitat in Maine.
                                   76

-------
                                Conclusions

     A survey of water chemistry was conducted in nine Atlantic salmon
rivers in New England.  Eight streams were located in Maine,  ranged in size
from first to third order, and all contained native populations of Atlantic
salmon.  One river was located in Vermont, was third order, and was being
stocked with Atlantic salmon.  All streams exhibited a seasonal pattern of
change in chemical composition.  At periods of high discharge, which were
associated with spring snowmelt and increased precipitation in spring and
fall, pH declined (hydrogen ion increased), base cations and  alkalinity
decreased, and aluminum increased.  Sulfate tended to increase with
discharge, especially during the spring high discharge period, and nitrate
generally reached a peak slightly before peak discharge.  The magnitude of
the seasonal change was largest in first order streams in Maine,  and
smallest in the third order stream in Vermont.  The low pH and high
aluminum concentrations reached are not as severe as those in Norway and
Nova Scotia, where Atlantic salmon populations have declined  as a result of
acidification.

     The chemistry of these streams reflects the interaction  of
precipitation chemistry, watershed hydrology, and chemistry of soils, till
and bedrock in the watersheds.  First order streams with small watersheds
composed of geologic materials resistant to weathering reacted the most to
atmospheric inputs of acid, but the effects of acidification, are not yet
severe.  Atmospheric deposition of acid was not sufficient to account for
all ions leached from these watersheds.  The output of base cations and
aluminum, balanced by bicarbonate and sulfate, far exceeds the amount of
hydrogen ion deposited.  The excess is most likely produced by internal
generation of hydrogen ion from dissociation of carbonic acid.

     The present chemical conditions in the rivers surveyed are not yet
critical for Atlantic salmon survival.  However, continued or increased
deposition of acid may further degrade conditions in the small tributary
streams, which constitute 20-40% of the available Atlantic salmon habitat
in these rivers.
                                   77

-------
                                 References

American Public Health Association,  American Water Works Association, and
     Water Pollution Control  Federation. 1975.  Standard methods for the
     examination of water and wastewater.  Fourteenth edition.  American
     Public Health Association,  Washington, D.C.

Beland, K. 1983.  A strategic plan for  management of Atlantic salmon in the
     state of Maine.  Draft Report,  Atlantic Sea-Run Salmon Commission,
     Augusta, Maine.

Bryant, G. 1952.  A survey of the Narraguagus River and its tributaries.
     Research Report No.  2, Atlantic Sea-Run Salmon Commission, Augusta,
     Maine.

Calles, V. 1983.  Dissolved inorganic substances:  A study of mass balance
     in three small drainage  basins. Hydrobiologia 101:  13-18.

Chen, C., S. Gherini, J.  Dean, and R. Hudson. 1983.  Overview of the
     integrated lake-watershed  acidification study (ILWAS).  Pages 1-1 to
     1-31 j_n The Integrated Lake-Watershed Acidification Study:
     Proceedings of the ILWAS Annual Review Conference.  Electric Power
     Research Institute Report EA-2827.

Christopherson, N., A. Stuanes,  and  R.  Wright. 1982.  Runoff chemistry at a
     mini-catchment watershed with "unpolluted precipitation".  Nordic
     Hydrol. 13:  115-128.

Christophersen, N., and R. Wright. 1980.  Sulfate at Birkenes, a small
     forested catchment in southernmost Norway.  Pages 286-287 j[n D.
     Drablos and A. Tollan, editors. Ecological Impact of Acid
     Precipitation.  Acid Precipitation - Effects on Forest and Fish
     Project, Aas, Norway.

Colquhoun, J., J. Symula, M.  Pfeiffer,  and J. Feuer. 1981.  Preliminary
     report of stream sampling for acidification studies 1980.  Tech. Rep.
     81-2, Dept. Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.

Cryer, R. 1976.  The significance and variation of atmospheric nutrient
     inputs in a small catchment system.  J. Hydrol. 29:  121-137.

Dickson, W. 1980.  Properties of acidified waters.  Pages 75-83 jm D.
     Drablos and A. Tollan, editors. Ecological Impact of Acid
     Precipitation.  Acid Precipitation - Effects on Forest and Fish
     Project, Aas, Norway.

Dillon, P., D. Jeffries,  W. Scheider, and N. Van. 1980.  Some aspects of
     acidification in southern Ontario.  Pages 212-213 ji£ D. Drablos and
     A. Tollan, editors.   Ecological Impact of Acid Precipitation.  Acid
     Precipitation - Effects  on  Forest  and Fish Project, Aas, Norway.

Dillon, P., D. Jeffries,  and  W.  Scheider. 1982.  The use of calibrated
     lakes and watersheds for estimating atmospheric deposition near a
     large point source.   Water  Air  Soil Pollut. 18:  241-258.

                                  78

-------
Driscoll, C., J.  Baker,  J.  Bisogni,  and  C. Schofield. 1980.  Effects  of
     aluminum speciation on fish  in  dilute, acidified waters.  Nature 284:
     161-164.

Elson, P., and H. Hord.   Undated. The Atlantic  salmon.  Fisheries Fact
     Sheet, Fisheries and Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Fisher, D., A. Gambell,  G.  Likens, and F.  Bormann. 1968.  Atmospheric
     contributions to water quality  of streams in the Hubbard Brook
     Experimental Forest, New Hampshire.  Water  Resour. Res. 4:  1115-1126.

Galloway, J., and P. Dillon. 1983.   Effects of acid  deposition:  the
     importance of nitrogen.  Pages  145-160 i_n_ Ecological Effects of Acid
     Deposition.  National  Swedish  Environment Protection Board Report PM
     1636.

Galloway, J., C. Schofield, G. Hendrey,  N. Peters, and A. Johannes. 1983.
     Lake acidification during spring snowmelt:   Processes and causes.
     Pages 10-1 to 10-19 jm The Integrated Lake-Watershed Acidification
     Study:  Proceedings of the ILWAS Annual  Review  Conference.   Electric
     Power Research Institute Report EA-2827.

Gunn, J., and W. Keller. 1980.  Enhancement  of the survival  of rainbow
     trout (Salmo gairdneri) eggs and fry in  an  acid lake through
     incubation in limestone.  Can.  J. Fish.  Aquat.  Sci. 37:   1522-1530.

Gustafson-Marjanen, K.  1982.  Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) fry
     emergence:  success, timing, distribution.   Master  of Science Thesis,
     Dept. of Zoology,  University of Maine,  Orono, Maine.

Haines,  T.,  and J. Akielaszek. 1983.  A regional survey  of chemistry  of
     headwater lakes and streams in New England:  Vulnerability to
     acidification.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastern Energy  and
     Land Use Team.  FWS/OBS-80/40.15.

Hatch, R. 1957.  Success of natural spawning of rainbow trout in  the  Finger
     Lakes region of New York.   N.Y. Fish Game J. 40:  69-87.

Hendrey, G., J.  Galloway, S. Norton, C. Schofield, P. Shaffer, and D.
     Burns.  1980.  Geological and hydrochemical  sensitivity  of the eastern
     United  States to Acid  Precipitation.  Environmental Protection
     Agency, Corvallis  Environmental Research Laboratory,  Report
     EPA-600/3-80-024,  Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Hesthagen, T., and 0. Skogheim.  1983.   High mortality of presmolt Atlantic
      salmon, Salmo salar L., and sea trout, Salmo trutta L.   during  spring
      snowmelt  1982 TrTRTver Vikedalselva, western Norway.  Verh.  Internat.
      Verein. Limnol. 22:   In Press.

Jeffries,  D.,  C. Cox, and  P. Dillon.  1979.  Depression of pH in  lakes and
      streams in  central Ontario  during  snowmelt.  J. Fish. Res.  Bd.  tan.
      36:  640-646.
                                    79

-------
Johnson, N. 1979.  Acid rain:   neutralization  within the Hubbard Brook
     ecosystem and regional implications.   Science  204:  497-499.

Johnson, N., R. Reynolds, and 6. Likens. 1972. Atmospheric sulfur:  Its
     effect on the chemical weathering of  New  England.  Science 177:
     514-516.

Johnson, P., and W. Swank. 1973.  Studies  of cation budgets in the southern
     Appalachians on four experimental  watersheds with contrasting
     vegetation.  Ecology 54:   70-80.

Jordan, R., and K. Beland. 1981.  Atlantic salmon spawning survey and
     evaluation of natural spawning success.   Final Performance Report
     AFS-20-R, Atlantic Sea-Run Salmon  Commmission, Bangor, Maine.

Koo, T. (Editor). 1964.  F.R.I. Field  Manual.  Circular No. 143, Fisheries
     Research Institute, University of  Washington,  Seattle.

Leivestad, H., G. Hendrey, I.  Muniz, and E. Snekvik. 1976.  Effects of acid
     precipitation on freshwater organisms.  Pages  86-111 _i£ F. Braekke,
     editor.  Impact of acid precipitation on  forest and freshwater
     ecosystems in Norway.  Research Report 6, Acid Precipitation - Effects
     on Forest and Fish Project, Aas,  Norway.

Likens, G., F. Bormann, R. Pierce, J. Eaton, and N. Johnson. 1977.
     Biogeochemistry of a forested ecosystem.  Springer-Verlag, New York,
     New York.

Livingstone, D. 1963.  Data of geochemistry.   Prof. Paper 440-G, U.S.
     Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Martin, C. 1979.  Precipitation and streamwater chemistry in an undisturbed
     forested watershed in New Hampshire.  Ecology  60:  36-42.

McFee, W. 1980.  Sensitivity of soil regions to acid precipitation.
     Corvallis Environmental  Research Laboratory Report  EPA-600/3-80-013,
     Corvallis, U.S. EPA, Oregon,  USA.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program. 1983. NADP Report:  Precipitation
     Chemistry; First Quarter 1981. Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory,
     Colorado State University, Fort Collins,  Colorado.

Omernik, J., and C. Powers. 1982.   Total alkalinity of surface waters -- a
     national map.  EPA-600/D-82-333.   Environmental Protection Agency,
     Corvallis, Oregon.

Overrein, L., H. Seip, and A.  Toll an. 1980.  Acid precipitation - effects
     on forest and fish.  Research Report  FR 19, Acid Precipitation -
     Effects on Forest and Fish Project, Aas,  Norway.

Peterson, R., P. Daye, and J.  Metcalfe. 1980.  Inhibition of Atlantic
     salmon (Salmo salar) hatching at  low  pH.  Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
     37:  770^774T	
                                  80

-------
Reynolds, R., and N. Johnson.  1972.   Chemical weathering in the temperate
     glacial  environment  of the  Northern Cascade Mountains.  Geochim.
     Cosmochim.  Acta 36:   537-554.

Schindler, D., R. Newbury,  K.  Beaty,  and P. Campbell. 1976.  Natural water
     and chemical budgets  for  a  small  precambrian lake basin in central
     Canada.   J.  Fish. Res. Bd.  Can.  33:  2526-2543.

Schofield, C. 1982.  Historical  fisheries changes in the United States
     related  to decreases  in surface  water pH.  Pages 57-67 j[n_
     T. Haines and R. Johnson, editors.  Acid Rain/Fisheries.  American
     Fisheries Society, Bethesda,  Maryland.

Skogheim, 0., B.  Rosseland, and  I. Sevaldrud. 1983.  Deaths of spawners  of
     Atlantic salmon in River  Ogna, SW Norway, caused by acidified,
     aluminum-rich water.   Verh. Internet. Verein. Limnol. 22:  In Press.

Stumm, W., and J. Morgan.  1981.   Aquatic chemistry.  2nd ed.  John Wiley
     and Sons, New York,  New York.

Taylor, J. 1973.   Comparative  water quality of Atlantic salmon streams.
     Unpublished  report,  Maine Cooperative Fishery Research Unit,
     University of Maine,  Orono, Maine.

Terhune, L. 1958.  The Mark VI groundwater standpipe for measuring seepage
     through  salmon spawning gravel.   J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 15:
     1027-1063.

Thompson, M.  1982.  The cation denudation rate as a quantitative index of
     sensitivity  of eastern Canadian  rivers to acidic atmospheric
     precipitation.  Water Air Soil Pollut. 18:  215-226.

Thompson, M., F.  Elder, A. Davis,  and S. Whitlow. 1980.  Evidence of
     acidification of rivers of  eastern Canada.  Pages 244-245 in D.
     Drablos  and  A. Tollan, editors.   Ecological Impacts of Acid
     Precipitation.  Acid Precipitation - Effects on Forest and Fish
     Project, Aas, Norway.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  1983. Region 5 Regional Resource Plan:
     Atlantic salmon.  U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
     Newton Corner, Mass.

Watt, W., C.  Scott, and W. White. 1983.  Evidence of acidification of some
     Nova Scotian rivers and its impact on Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar.
     Can. J.  Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40: 462-473.

Weast, R. (editor). 1978.  CRC handbook of chemistry and physics.  CRC
     Press, West  Palm Beach, Florida.

Webb, A. 1982.  Weak acid concentration and  river chemistry in the Tovdal
     River, southern Norway.  Water Res. 16:  641-648.

Williams, D., and H. Hynes. 1974.  The occurrence of benthos  deep in the
     substratum of a stream.  Freshwat. Biol. 4:  233-256.

                                   81

-------
Wright, R. 1983.  Input-output  budgets at Langtjern, a small acidified
     lake in southern  Norway.   Hydrobiologia 101:1-12.

Wright, R., and 6.  Gjessing. 1976.  Acid precipitation:  changes in the
     chemical composition of lakes.  Ambio 5:  219-223.

Wright, R., and A.  Henriksen. 1980.  Regional survey of lakes and streams
     in southwestern Scotland,  April 1979.  Report IR 72/80, Acid
     Precipitation  - Effects on Forest and Fish Project, Aas, Norway.

Wright, R., and A.  Henriksen. 1983.  Restoration of Norwegian lakes by
     reduction in sulfur deposition.  Nature 305:  422-424.

Wright, R., and M.  Johannessen. 1980.  Input-output budgets of major ions
     at gauged catchments in Norway.  Pages 250-251 in D. Drablos and
     A. Tollan, editors.  Ecological Impact of Acid Precipitation.  Acid
     Precipitation  - Effects on Forest and Fish Project, Aas, Norway.
                                  82

-------
                            Appendix A



Water chemistry data collected from nine rivers in Maine and Vermont.
                                  83

-------
       Appendix A.
        DATE    PH
                   N»RR»GU»GUS RIVER

PH  »LK 11.PI ALK tl.PI AlK 1F.E.P1  »LK IF.E.P)  CONO
     (UEO/L)   (UEO/L)    CUEQ/ll      IUEO/LI  US/CM
              CONO  COLOR COLOR CALCIUM SODIUM POTASSIUM MAGNESIUM
              US/CM UNITS UNITS (UEO/L) IUEO/LI  (UEO/L)    IUEO/L)
co
12480 6.45 .
22780 6.55 6.55
32880 6.15 .
40480 6.45 .
41180 6.05 .
41880 6.25 .
42580 6.15 .
50280 6.30 .
50980 6.50 .
5168C 6.50 .
5238C 6.70 .
53080 6.75 .
60680 7.00 .
61280 7.10 .
62780 7.05 .
71180 7.20 .
81180 7.10 .
90480 7.05 .
91980 6.85 .
100280 6.50 .
101680 6.35 .
102480 6.70 .
103080 6.45 .
110680 6.55 .
111380 6.50 .
120480 5.95 .
121880 6.30 .
10981 6.15 .
11481 6.30 .
20381 6.40 .
21781 6.00 .
22681 6.35 .
31981 6.55 .
32581 6.65 .
40781 5.95 .
41681 6.20 .
42281 6.25 .
43081 6.05 .
50781 6.75 .
52181 6.15 .
60481 6.85 .
72281 6.20 .
80581 6.85 6.80
81881 5.75 5.70
82781 6.75 6. 85
90181 6.85 .
91081 6.75 6.80
92881 6.30 .
100781 6.30 6.40
101981 6.45 6.55
102981 6.05 6. 12
111081 6.30 6.36
111981 6.35 6.35
156
216
71
76
41
51
51
63
78
88
104
135
128
117
136
172
152
172
118
100
76
123
71
89
79
35
101
120
132
136
59
66
97
94
52
63
71
78
113
81
109
78
144
42
112
128
143
65
72
89
52
73
65
                                    216
                           190
                           245
                            96
                           100
                            72
                            83
                            75
                            83
                           102
                           113
                            124
                            161
                            167
                            146
                            163
                            201
                                                          246
                                     155
                                      49
                                     111

                                     146
                                       •
                                      74
                                     109
                                      54
                                      SO
                                      71
                            147
                            158
                            162
                             fl5
                             93
                            122
                            120
                             81
                             90
                             93
                             96
                            136
                            112
                            142
                            104
                            172
                             89
                            145
                            158
                            183
                             94
                            104
                            120
                             81
                             95
                             89
188
 89
149

183

106
147
 94
108
102
34
26
22
23
29
27
27
24
28
32
42
28
26
25
30
28
32
29
28
34
25
28
37
30
28
26
32
32
27
24
31
42
31
33
34
33
35
41
44
27
30 30
30 30
29 29
26 26
28 28
24
25 24
31
24 26
27 27
24 24
30
40
40
50
60
50
70
60
60
50
60
50
70
50
50
100
70
110
130
100
110
70
60
80
50
60
50
40
50
50
40
30
50
40
30
40
60
70
80
140
90
130
w
,
m
120
90
80
100
90
80
.
.
.
•
.
.
.
.
.
^
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
•
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
^
100
150
m
•
80
*
100
,
100
90
80
181
102
96
82
96
98
102
106
115
121
138
129
121
137
145
144
153
153
146
132
126
121
119
119
98
124
140
140
100
95
115
120
90
105
120
120
135
120
135
145
160
145
140
140
135
115
105
95
95
90
65
84
82
70
81
90
96
119
81
102
108
152
74
73
81
78
88
90
87
81
80
80
74
78
97
102
89
*
74
70
61
57
65
91
83
83
122
100
126
122
139
78
91
65
78
83
83
70
70
87
70
70
70
14
15
14
18
17
16
15
15
14
15
17
14
13
15
14
16
16
15
12
15
14
15
13
14
12
13
*
15
13
13
13
13
15
18
15
13
10
13
10
15
13
13
15
13
13
13
13
10
13
15
13
13
51
35
33
32
34
35
35
36
37
38
41
39
37
41
43
44
46
49
47
45
43
43
40
42
38
42
•
41
41
33
33
33
33
33
33
41
41
41
41
41
49
49
49
41
41
41
33
33
33
33
33
33

-------
       Appendix  A.   Continued.
        l?018t 6.55 6.59     98       IOC       122         132       2fl    28     60    60    120      74      10        41
        121481 6.40 6.40     74        76        99         106       26    26     60    60    110      65      10        33
        123081 6.65 6.55     99       103       126         130       29    30     40    40    120      70      10        33
         11982 6.10 6.22     88        84       119         117       31    31     60    60    115      71      11        35
         20482 6.10 6.18    102       106       130         137       30    29     50    50    120      67      11        37
         22382 «.30 6.29    110       116       139         146       32    32     60    60    130      7T      13        38
         30982 6.25 6.33    107       106       137         137       31    31     50    50    135      69      13        41
         31682 6.05 6.10     69        70        95         100       27    26     50    50    115      64      13        38
         32482 6.40 6.45     85        82       109         116       30    30     50    50    120      82      13        39
         33082 6.35 6.29     63        6<5        95          96       24    24     50    50    110      58      13        35
         40182 6.05 6.05     44        47        71          71       22    21     70    60     90      47      13        32
         40582 5.90 5.94     33        32        59          63       20    20     50    50     80      44      13        27
         41982 6.00 5.98     30        34        59          60       22    22     60    60     65      66      12        25
         42682 6.35 6.34     55        57        81          86       22    20     50    50     78      53      11        28
         50682 6.55 6.60     74        82       102         117       34    33     40    40    110     125      13        35
         52082 6.85 6.75    111       11!       135         139       28    28     50    50    117      68      13        35
         60382 6.75 6.72    118       119       145         14S       29    28     70    70    117      69      13        38
00
cn

-------
        Appendix A.   Continued.
CO
cr>
DATE

12480
22780
32880
40480
41180
41880
42580
50280
50980
51680
52180
53080
60680
61280
62780
71180
81180
90480
91980
100280
101680
102480
103080
110680
111380
120480
121880
10981
11481
20381
21781
22681
31981
32581
40781
41681
42281
43081
50781
52181
60481
72281
80581
81881
82781
90181
91081
92881
100781
101981
102981
111081
111981
IRON
(UG/l)
*
110
100
80
200
130
110
100
110
120
120
120
140
140
180
180
290
200
280
230
200
190
190
230
160
160
150
•
200
200
100
100
100
100
100
100
70
90
100
110
150
290
340
260
240
180
170
200
200
200
200
100
100
MANGANESE
IU6/LI
,
5
20
22
47
11
10
8
11
13
15
14
13
12
17
14
11
9
13
6
n
7
9
8
5
10
7
•
16
7
13
8
7
4
5
7
7
12
11
12
15
7
18
42
11
11
7
14
7
10
13
7
8
                                      ALUMINUM
                                       IUG/L)
 78
235
111
263
20?
139
154
114
101
 85
124
 74
 92
14-)
 79
130
 78
164
145
168
128
159
121
141
13!
101

133
 61
101
 12
 83
 59
111
 83
 •56
 70
 60
 92
 78
213
 98
199
106
 70
 75
130
109
134
122
120
           CHLORIDE
           (UEO/L I
NITRATE
(UEO/Lt
SULFATE
(UEO/LI
FLUORTOE
(UEO/Lt
                                                     72
                                                     56
                                                     49
                                                     50
              55
              58
              56
              59

-------
        Appendix A.    Continued.
         120181    100           4           80          37.0         4.0         49.0        4.0
         121481    100           3           80          43.0         6.0         63.0        3.0
         123081    100           4           60          47.4         8.8         60.2        5.0
          11982    120           5           57          45.0         8.0         59.0        3.0
          20482    130           7           72          50.0        11.?         62.1        4.4
          22382    130           6           74          55.0        10.5         55.0        3.7
          30982    160           7           78          48.5        13.7         58.7        3.0
          31682    150           10          114          44.2        15.3         65.9        2.3
          32482    160           8           77          73.4        1?.9         57.6        2.7
          33082    200           1
-------
Appendix A.   Continued.
                               SINCLAIR BROCK

  DATE   PH   PH  ALK II.P)  ALK (I.P) ALK (F.F.PI  ALK  (F.E.PI COND
                  (UEO/L)    (UEO/LI    (UEO/L)      (UEO/L I  US/CM




















00
00
102981
111081
111981
I201RI
121481
123081
11982
21182
22382
30982
315B2
32382
33082
401 R2
40582
41982
42682
50682
52082
60382


5.25
5.65
?.45
5.75
5.70
5.90
5.75
5.85
6.00
5.80
5.55
5.80
5.65
5.10
?.25
5.35
5.45
5.85
ft. 15
5.45


5.46
5.72
5.45
5.84
5.68
5. 87
5.79
5.76
5.92
5.82
5.59
5.84
5.68
5.02
5.25
5.34
5.45
5. 81
6.12
5.45


7
22
14
20
14
20
21
16
31
23
13
19
16
-I
1
2
6
15
31
16


                              14
                              20
                              17
                              23
                              19
                              23
                              22
                              22
                              27
                              24
                              16
                              24
                              11
                              -3
                               7
                               5
                              10
                              17
                              34
                              17
34
44
38
46
41
51
48
51
61
48
41
46
44
31
31
31
37
44
54
45
                         COND  COLOR  COLOR CALCIUM SODIUM POTASSIUM  MAGNESIUM
                         US/CM UNITS  UNITS tUEO/L) IUEO/L) (UEO/L)    IUFO/11
41
41
41
39
38
39
37
36
39
45
44
44
44
38
36
30
29
35
37
4?
52
51
45
55
45
50
51
51
54
55
45
54
44
26
33
32
36
45
61
49
26
26
24
28
24
24
28
26
25
26
26
24
24
24
23
21
20
22
22
2!
26
26
26
26
24
24
28
24
25
26
26
24
24
24
23
20
19
21
2?
24
70
60
60
40
30
30
30
20
30
30
30
30
40
50
30
40
40
40
40
too
70
60
60
40
30
30
30
20
30
30
30
30
40
60
30
40
40
40
40
100
55
50
55
60
55
55
55
55
55
60
60
60
60
55
50
41
38
44
4R
62
78
78
74
75
70
70
71
69
72
72
67
72
67
43
51
50
51
61
70
69
15
13
13
11
11
10
12
11
11
12
13
12
14
18
15
13
12
12
14
12

-------
      Appendix  A.   Continued.
DATE

102981
111081
111981
120181
121481
123081
11982
21182
22382
30982
31582
32382
33082
40182
40582
41982
42682
50682
52082
60382
IRON
tUG/L)
100
100
too
90
80
80
90
80
80
70
60
40
60
160
30
40
60
4C
60
140
MANGANESE
(UG/L)
22
16
18
18
IS
13
9
8
6
14
18
10
16
42
22
21
13
13
13
18
                                     ALUMINUM
                                      (UG/LI
                                       149
                                       190
                                        95
                                        98
                                        70
                                        82
                                        81
                                        86
                                       112
                                       104
                                        95
                                       101
                                       342
                                       111
                                       113
                                       111
                                       115
                                       100
                                       113
CHLORIDE
(UEO/L)

  63.0
  65.0
  60.0
  59.0
  52.0
  55.1
  52.7
  50.7
  51.8
  50.1
  49.2
  45.1
  44.6
  30.0
  43.1
 111.0
  32.6
  45.0
  50.0
  46.0
                                                              NITRATE
19.0
18.0
23.0
25.0
26.0
27.5
27.3
26.5
28.8
24.2
29.8
30.3
32.6
34.6
25.0
15.8
13.2
14.0
 7.0
 e.o
SUIFUTE FLUORIDE
(UEO/L) IUFO/L)
69.0 1.0
f7.0 1.0
73.0 2.0
69.9 2.5
72.0
68.0
69. 2
*5.3
65. 
-------
Appendix A.   Continued.
                               HACHIAS  RIVER

DATE   PH   PH  ALK (l.Pt  ALK   26
I 26
9 32
23
> 24
22
> 22
.
23
24
24
.
.
•
.
.
•
•
.
.
•
•
*
w
m
,
•
.
•
•
.
*
.
.
•
.
•
.
•
.
.
»
•
*
.
.
•
•
•
.
•
.
27
26
25
22
24
*
22
•
23
24
22
60
60
70
70
70
60
80
70
60
50
50
50
70
50
50
70
40
100
90
70
70
70
60
90
60
80
70
70
70
BO
70
60
70
40
40
80
60
80
90
200
70
100
w
•
60
tto
100
120
100
90
•
•
.
•
.
•
.
.
«
m
*
.
^
•
«
^
.
•
-
"
.
•
•
^
m
,
m
•
•
•
•

•
m
„
•
.
.
.
•
80
170
•
•
70
»
90
120
100
90
116
85
86
74
84
(2
81
80
ti
87
91
90
88
93
53
92
102
112
103
98
92
95
90
92
80
95
90
95
CO
80
85
80
75
70
90
85
90
70
95
115
105
120
100
95
90
75
75
75
75
75
70
90
68
64
59
67
64
61
63
64
65
67
72
71
71
77
85
85
89
82
73
70
71
70
71
64
77
70
7+
65
65
65
65
61
57
70
74
74
87
78
83
87
70
74
74
74
70
70
74
70
70
70
13
12
11
15
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
15
14
13
13
14
16
15
13
13
13
13
12
12
10
11
*
13
13
13
10
10
10
13
10
10
10
13
10
10
10
13
13
13
13
13
10
10
10
10
10
10

-------
Appendix  A.   Continued.
120181 6.25 6.28     61         59         81           91        23    2*     90    90     90      65      10        33
121*81 6.10 6.12     42         46         68           75        22    23     80    80     85      65      10        33
123081 6.2! 6.22     45         51         77           83        24    24     80    80     85      70       8        33
 11987 5.90 6.01     46         42         71           74        26    26     80    80     85      71       9        29
 20482 5.85 5.88     48         52         78           86        24    24     70    70     85      67       9        29
 21182 5.90 5.89     51         50         87           85        26    26     70    70     85      72       9        29
 22382 6.10 6.08     60         61         95           97        26    26     80    80     90      70       9        30
 30982 6.05 6.10     58         60         89           94        26    26     80    90    100      74      11        34
 31682 5.95 6.02     50         54         75           84        26    26     80    70     95      72      12        32
 32482 «.15 6.26     54         6C         79           91        24    24     70    70     95      70      10        32
 33082 6.20 6.15     48         51         78           80        22    2?     80    80     90      68      11        31
 40182 5.85 5.85     36         35         61           60        24    20     80    80     80      57      11        28
 40582 5.70 5.71     19         21         48           50        22    21     60    60     75      57      II        26
 41982 5.75 5.74     21         25         51           53        18    18     BO    flO     57      52       9        22
 42682 5.95 5.93     25         31         58           60        18    18     70    70     58      54       9        22
 50682 6.30 6.11     32         41         70           68        19    19     60    60     63      54       8        23
 52082 6.45 6.45     51         52         77           78        20    20     60    60     68      60       9        25
 6C382 6.40 6.34     68         67         93           92        22    22     90    90     17      67      10        28

-------
<£>
Appendix A,
DATE

12480
22780
32880
40480
41180
41B80
42580
50280
50980
51680
52380
53080
60680
61? 80
62780
71180
81180
90480
91980
100280
101680
102480
103080
110680
111380
120480
121880
10981
11481
20381
21781
22681
31981
32581
40781
41681
42281
43081
50781
52181
60481
72281
80581
81881
82781
90181
91081
92881
100781
101981
102981
111081
111981
IROK
(UG/LI
.
120
120
120
250
140
140
130
120
90
120
100
120
110
130
110
160
120
280
17C
140
120
150
120
150
140
130
,
200
200
200
200
200
200
100
100
90
100
100
100
150
350
210
330
200
170
160
200
100
100
200
100
200
Continued.
H4NGANESE
   (UG/l)
 6
17
15
31
16
13
13
12
14
16
16
18
15
2C
14
14
14
59
16
17
12
17
11
12
22
1«
16
13
13
13
18
10
12
10
10
 7
14
41
14
46
15
12
10
17
11
14
13
 9
13
              «IUPINUN
               (UG/U
                162
                272
                148
                344
                2«!S
                146
                245
                1«9
                146
                127
                16t
                121
                124
                103
                  76
                  85
                  47
                200
                141
                164
                130
                159
                117
                187
                150
                148
                   •
                  II
                109
                1««
                128
                147
                101
                129
                113
                  86
                102
                  96
                175
                103
                268
                103
                ?72
                  88
                  66
                  66
                 154
                111
                 10;
                 148
                 122
                 148
                                                  CHLORIDE
                                                   (UEQ/L)
                                   NITR»TF
                                   (UEC/LI
                                               SULF*TE
                                               (UFC/L)
FLUORIDE
(UEO/ll
                                                     47
                                                     49
                                                     44
                                                  «4
                                                  52
                                                  52

-------
      Appendix A.    Continued.
      120181   200           7           124          38.0         6.0         53.0        4.0
      121481   200          10           139          38.0         2.0         53.0        4.0
      123081   200           7           114          39.0         3.0         51.0        4.0
       11982   140           8           120          43.4         2.3         53.8        3.8
       20482   160          10           131          49.2         3.9         54.1        4.2
       21182   160          10           125          43.9         3.8         53.5        4.0
       22382   150           8           102          51.2         4.0         52.5        4.0
       30982   230           9           124          24.2         2.4         31.9        3.3
       31682   200          12           117          49.2         5.6         58.1        3.3
       32482   210          10           115          46.9         5.6         54.4        3.3
       33082   220          II           116          41.8         4.5         52.9        3.7
       40182   260          23           147          59.0         5.5         55.0        1.0
       40582   190           9           106          44.3         3.2         51.2        3.0
       41982   130          14           118          34.5         3.2         46.9        2.7
       42682   120          13           98          31.5         2.6         47.8        3.0
       50682   140           9           110          33.0        11.0         48.0        3.0
       52082   110           9           SI          37.0         0.8         43.0        3.0
       60382   190          14           110          42.0         C.8         39.0        4.0
IO
OO

-------
Appendix A.   Continued.
                               KF.RWIN BROOK

DATE   PH   PH  ALK ([.PI  AlK  (I.P» ALK  (F.E.PI ALK tF.E.P) COND
                 (UEQ/L)    1UEO/L)    tUEO/U      (UFC/L)  US/CP
22780
32880
40480
41180
4188C
42980
502BO
50480
91680
52380
53080
60680
61280
62780
71180
81180
9C48C
91980
10 100280
-P» 101680
102480
103080
11C680
111380
120480
12188C
20381
21781
2268t
32581
40781
41681
42281
43081
50781
52181
60481
72281
8C581
81881
827B1
9C181
91081
92881
IOCT81
101981
1029ft!
111081
111981
170181
121481
123081
1198?
6.15 .
5.45 .
5,65 .
5.05 .
5.25 .
5.35 .
5.00 .
5.10 .
5.50 .
5.80 .
5.80 .
5.85 .
6.05 .
6.20 .
6.20 .
6.15 .
6.30 .
5.35 .
5.75 .
5.35 .
5.75 .
5.25 .
5.55 .
5.20 .
4.85 .
5.60 .
6.00 .
5.15 .
5.35 .
5.95 .
5.15 .
5.20 .
5.55 .
5.25 .
5.65 .
5.15 .
5.30 .
4.95 .
5.60 5.60
4.70 4.65
5.50 5.50
5.65 .
5.65 5.65
4.90 .
5.05 5.10
5.15 5.33
4.90 5.04
5.05 5.18
5.00 5.06
5.45 5.52
*.30 5.28
5.65 5.68
5.55 5.5H
99
11
20
-3
5
8
2
5
19
33
36
27
35
66
83
94
123
15
52
26
33
14
26
5
-7
30
53
8
15
41
11
-2
7
11
34
7
19
9
55
-24
34
49
42
-8
11
12
-4
1
3
16
12
18
22



























8
2
5
*
t
•
6
*
I
6
1
9
7
5
1
128
42
50
29
33
36
33
33
46
60
61
70
67
94
111
78
32
44
74
35
27
25
33
56
40
50
35
95
20
63
79
84
25
40
46
25
31
31
41
38
51
46
                                                   99
                                                   22
                                                   64

                                                   79
                                                    •
                                                   36
                                                   79
                                                   48
                                                   43
                                                   39
                                                   54
                                                   38
                                                   57
                                                   52
CONO  COLOR COLOR  CALCIUM  SODIUM POTASSIUM MAGNESIUK
US/CK UNITS UNITS  (UFC/L 1  (UEO/l I (UFO/L)   (UFO/l)
                                              39
                                              23
                                              21
                                              25
                                              26
                                              26
                                              25
                                              76
                                              25
                                              26
                                              76
                                              27
                                              26
                                              29
                                              31
                                              35
                                              35
                                              53
                                              41
                                              41
                                              36
                                              39
                                              33
                                              38
                                              33
                                              27
                                              25
                                              25
                                              25
                                              16
                                              25
                                              25
                                              25
                                              25
                                              25
                                              49
                                              33
                                              49
                                              33
                                              49
                                              33
                                              25
                                              25
                                              33
                                              25
                                              33
                                              33
                                              33
                                              25
                                              23
                                              21
                                              20
                                              20
26
20
18
21
20
20
20
20
20
28
24
26
22
24
29
26
26
32
28
32
26
26
31
25
21
23
24
20
23
26
24
20
24
21
27
28
28
25
33
24
2?
22
24
23
28
26
24
23
22
22
22
23
*
•
•
•
•
•
m
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
,
m
m
m
»
•
•
•
•
m
•
•
•
•
25
36
24
20
20
.
21
•
30
24
23
22
22
22
23
30
60
60
80
70
80
100
100
80
70
60
90
90
70
80
90
60
140
100
120
100
too
80
110
70
60
70
70
60
70
BO
70
90
90
100
100
?80
140
270
.
.
140
160
120
140
150
130
120
no
70
70
7C
•
•
•
•
•
„
*
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
m
.
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
m
m
•
•
„
*
•
•
•
,
•
150
700
•
•
140
•
110
•
150
no
120
BO
70
70
70
115
54
51
59
59
61
60
59
57
61
65
69
67
74
81
90
91
134
102
95
84
88
76
86
71
<1
65
60
50
55
55
50
60
70
65
130
70
125
90
120
75
70
BO
65
60
70
70
«C
60
55
50
50
50
93
66
65
50
67
65
66
64
69
74
79
66
82
88
90
96
97
102
97
92
F6
78
80
82
67
81
74
65
65
70
52
61
78
78
83
91
91
96
100
83
96
100
100
74
78
87
78
78
78
76
67
77
74
15
12
14
16
15
15
15
13
13
13
16
20
15
18
15
16
18
12
IB
17
12
11
11
11
8
10
13
13
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
8
10
ft
10
10
10
10
13
15
13
10
10
8
8
8
9

-------
       Appendix  A.   Continued.
        21182  5.60 5.56     23        22        57         55       20    20     60    60     50       75       10        21
        3088?  5.75 5.79     39        38        63         70       23    23     70    70     65       74       u        27
        3158?  5.45 5.56     17        24        44         57       23    24     80    70     <5       73       u        28
        32382  5.70 5.74     31        37        58         68       23    23     70    70     60       74       H        26
        40182  5.25 5.19      9        11        41         40       22    22    ICC   100     65       56       13        29
        40582  4.90 4.98     -5        -3        20         26       22    2?     90    90     55       51       10        24
        41982  5.10 5.09-1         1        28         31       18    18     90    90     39       52       9        jq
        4268?  5.20 5.10      1        -1        37         29       18    18     80    RO     38       5?       8        18
        5C682  5.30 5.28      2         5        34         37       18    19     f»0    BO     38       54       9        ig
        52082  5.85 5.87     31        34        54         61       20    20     70    70     49       72       12        21
        60382  5.20 5.25     13        19        42         50       23    23    14C   140     76       70       8        31
ID
in

-------
Appendix A. Continue
DATE

22780
32880
4048C
41180
41880
4258C
59280
50980
«168C
52380
53080
60680
61280
62780
71180
BUBO
90480
91980
100280
101680
102480
103080
vo 110680
<7) 11138C
120480
121880
2D381
21781
22681
12581
40781
416R1
422J1
43081
50781
52181
60481
72281
80581
81881
82781
90181
91081
92881
V00781
101981
102981
H1081
111981
120181
121481
123081
11982
IRON
(UG/LI
650
80
90
110
130
16C
.160
180
120
120
100
130
120
140
150
200
190
280
230
240
190
220
200
23C
200
130
100
100
too
100
100
100
5C
120
80
16C
130
340
320
320
200
160
200
200
200
200
200
20C
200
110
110
130
90
MANGANESE

-------
Appendix A.   Continued.
21182   IOC           5          107          48.2         3.0         52.*        7.1
30882    90           5          1C4          45.4         2.4         53.1        7.7
31582   110           7          128          33.8         C.B         59.4        5.7
32382   110           3          116          42.0         7.9         73.9        2.0
40182   140          13          14
-------
       Appendix A.   Continued.
                                      HOLMES BROOK

        DATE   PH   PH  ALK  (t.P)  ALK  (I.PI ALK IF.F.P)  ALK  IF.E.Pt COND  CONO  COLOR  COLOR CALCIUM SODIUM POTASSIUM MAGNESIU*
                         (UEQ/L)   (UEO/L)    (UEO/L)      (UEQ/L)  US/CC  US/Cf UNITS  UNITS  (UFO/LI (UFO/LI (UEQ/ll    (UFC/L)
102901
111081
111981
120181
171481
123081
21182
33082
40182
40982
42682
90682
92082
60382
•5.15
5.50
5.25
5.95
5.80
6.09
5.90
5.70
5.25
5.05
5.75
6.02
6.45
5.35
5.34
5.65
5.35
5.96
5.80
6.07
5.83
5.71
5.20
5.05
5.70
e.is
6.44
5.43
8
21
12
33
26
45
42
30
8
4
19
39
69
29
                                      15
                                      26
                                      22
                                      42
                                      27
                                      51
                                      38
                                      28
                                      f
                                      -2
                                      21
                                      3S
                                      70
                                      35
41
56
46
64
51
75
73
56
38
27
56
68
92
62
61
70
55
76
59
81
75
58
31
28
48
66
98
69
28
26
25
24
22
24
22
21
20
22
18
24
21
24
28
26
25
24
22
24
21
21
20
22
18
23
21
24
150
140
140
80
70
70
50
60
60
50
70
100
60
190
150
140
140
no
70
70
50
60
60
50
70
90
60
190
85
70
80
65
55
60
60
60
50
50
42
50
63
96
78
83
83
80
74
74
75
68
*7
57
59
68
77
71
8
5
8
7
6
6
6
8
10
9
7
9
8
7
58
49
58
39
38
36
35
37
34
35
29
3?
37
57
UD
OO

-------
Appendix A.   Continued.
  DATE     IROU     MANGANESE     ALUHINUH     CHLORIDE     NITRATE      SULFATE    FLUORIDE
         IUG/L)       »UG/tl      eUG/U      «UEC/LI       (UEC/LI      lUfO/LI    (UEO/LI
 102981    200          18          ?37          74.0         3.0         54.0        2.0
 111081    300          11          190          73.0         0.0         «2.0        1.0
 111981    300          1*          204          65.0         6.0         59.0        2.0
 120181    180           7          I tit          68.0         2.0         56.0        2.0
 121481    160           6          145          53.0         2.0         56.0        1.0
 123081    150           4          111          53.8         5.0         52.4        2.5
  21182   170           8          141          53.6         6.8         51.8
  33082   180           9          141          47.7         5.3         5«.5
  40182   240          2C          178          36.1         6.1         44.1
  40582   140          20          140          65.5         1.6         50.0
 3
.0
.0
.0
  42682   120          6          132          38.2         0.0          45.7         .0
  50682   190          4          176          48.0         0.8          39.0         .0
  52082   190          7          l*f          51.0         C.8          38.0        2.0
  60382   390          18          415          39.0         4.0          33.0        2.0

-------
Appendix A.   Continued.
DATE

21781
22681
31981
32581
40781
41681
42281
43081
50781
52181
60481
72281
80581
81881
82781
90181
91081
92881
100781
101981
102981
111081
111981
120181
121481
123081
11982
20482
21182
22382
30982
31682
32482
33082
40182
40582
41982
42682
50682
57082
60382
PH PH

6.05 .
6.35 .
6.60 .
6.55 .
5.90 .
6.15 .
6.25 .
6.75 .
.65 .
.65 .
.65 .
.45 .
.65 6.55
.95 5.95
.65 6.65
6.65 .
6.70 6.75
5.95 .
6.40 6.30
6.15 .26
6.00 .20
ft. 40 .60
6.20 .17
6.50 .50
6.45 .48
6.65 .61
6.25 .28
6.10 .15
6.15 .15
6. 50 . 53
6.35 .40
6.25 .25
6.50 6.55
6.35 .36
5.75 .70
5.75 .16
5.80 .84
6.25 .18
6. !5 .65
6.80 .78
6.65 .65
ALK II. PI
tUEQ/lt
68
69
114
M4
32
74
93
74
86
96
115
36
130
56
100
120
120
56
78
57
49
86
57
101
88
119
101
88
99
130
109
82
88
86
32
32
24
43
86
126
119
                              OLD STREAM

                         ALK (I.PI ALK (F.E.Pt  ALK  (F.E.PI COND
                          (UEO/L)    tUEO/L)      (UEO/Lt  US/CD
                                       89
                                      102
                                      139
                                      139
                                       66
                                      102
                                      119
                                       96
                                      119
                                      125
                                      145
                                       64
                            130       163
                             54        94
                            102       134
                                      152
                            121       171
                                       84
                             83       109
                             6!        83
                             66        85
                             89       117
                             55        88
                             96       124
                             97       115
                            122       149
                            101       132
                             89       119
                             98       128
                            134       159
                            111       136
                             81       107
                             88       112
                             85       107
                             31        57
                             32        57
                             27        51
                             47        71
                             88       112
                            127       150
                            124       145
CONO  COLCR COLOR  CALCIUM  SODIUM POTASSIUM MAGNESIUM
US/CM UNITS UNITS  (UEO/L)  (UEO/LI IUEO/LI   (UEO/ll
                                              33
                                              33
                                              41
                                              41
                                              25
                                              33
                                              41
                                              41
                                              41
                                              33
                                              49
                                              49
                                              49
                                              49
                                              49
                                              49
                                              49
                                              41
                                              41
                                              41
                                              49
                                              49
                                              41
                                              43
                                              43
                                              44
                                              44
                                              39
                                              41
                                              49
                                              46
                                              43
                                              44
                                              44
                                              33
                                              32
                                              24
                                              27
                                              35
                                              44
                                              44





163
94
139
*
163
.
114
IOC
104
132
90
126
123
153
135
123
128
165
142
111
117
110
58
57
57
74
122
153
152
28
29
31
33
22
30
29
30
29
31
35
27
32
30
12
30
30
25
28
25
28
29
24
30
28
32
34
30
31
34
34
32
30
28
22
23
19
22
26
30
28
;
.
.
.
.
32
28
32
30
30
.
27
»
2t
29
24
30
28
32
34
30
32
34
33
32
30
28
22
23
19
21
25
30
28
60
60
50
40
70
60
50
80
80
80
100
200
120
140
.
.
100
160
110
100
110
100
uo
80
70
60
60
70
60
60
70
70
70
70
70
60
60
60
60
50
90
•
»
*
.
*
120
170
.
.
110
*
110
^
MO
100
MO
80
70
60
60
70
60
60
70
70
70
70
70
60
60
60
60
50
90
95
95
125
125
65
95
125
110
120
90
130
130
140
140
145
145
140
110
110
115
110
120
100
120
115
135
130
110
120
140
135
115
MS
115
75
75
105
65
98
129
MB
70
70
70
74
57
70
87
87
87
78
91
87
91
83
91
100
96
74
78
87
78
78
78
74
74
74
77
72
74
82
84
82
83
78
64
57
52
59
67
78
84
13
13
10
10
13
13
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
13
10
13
10
13
13
10
10
9
9
9
9
8
9
9
11
11
11
12
11
11
9
9
9
to
9

-------
Appendix  A.   Continued.
DATE

21781
22681
31981
32581
40781
41681
42281
43081
50781
52181
60481
72281
80581
81881
82781
90181
91081
92881
100781
101981
102981
111081
111981
120181
121481
123081
11982
20482
21182
22382
30982
31682
32482
33082
40182
40582
41982
42662
50682
52082
60362
IRON
tUG/L)
100
200
100
100
100
100
90
110
110
110
160
310
250
320
230
220
250
200
200
20C
200
200
200
120
120
110
120
120
120
100
190
190
200
190
190
200
90
70
90
110
180
MANGANESE
(UG/U
24
19
12
10
15
11
9
11
16
11
13
62
21
36
16
15
12
22
20
15
17
10
14
10
9
9
9
16
12
t
16
12
9
12
26
17
19
9
12
19
30
                                AIUPIMJM
                                 IUG/LI

                                  119
                                  123
                                   •53
                                   86
                                  129
                                  1C1
                                   77
                                   99
                                   B6
                                  100
                                   97
                                   53
                                  127
                                  271
                                  149

                                  105
                                  167
                                  141
                                  137
                                  m
                                  106
                                  157
                                  121
                                  1C1
                                   85
                                   75
                                   94
                                   97
                                   85
                                  132
                                  124
                                  103
                                   89
                                  147
                                  104
                                  106
                                  102
                                   85
                                   67
                                  138
CHLORIDE
(UEQ/L)
NITRATE
IUEO/U
                                                                      SULFATE
         FLUORIDE
         IUEO/L)
  49.0
  62.0
  61.0
  57.0
  56.0
  51.0
  55.0
  61.5
  61.5
  54,3
  89.2
  69.6
  74.6
  69.6
  53.2
  58.8
  54.5
  43.1
  46,0
  51.0
  59.0
  59.0
  1.0
  1.0
  1.0
  2.0
  1.0
  2.0
  4.0
  5.0
  6.3
  4.5
  6.1
  6.8
  7.3
  6.5
  4.5
  3.2
  2.4
  1.6
  C.8
  0.8
  C.8
  0.8
52.0
57.0
57.0
59.0
59.0
59.0
61.0
60.2
62.1
58.7
60.6
61.2
65.0
60.6
55.9
50.6
54.3
45.7
51.0
51.0
49.0
45.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.4
 .7
 .3
 .7
 .7
 .0
 .3
 .3
 .3
 .3
 .0
 .0
2.0
2.0

-------
     Appendix A.   Continued.
       DATE
              PH
                  PH
               BOWLES BROOK

ALK (t.PI ALK  (I.PI ALK (F.E.P) ALK (F.E.PI  CONO
 (UEQ/lt   (UEQ/L)    (UCQ/LI     (UEO/LI   US/CM
102981 4.9C 5.05
111081 5.15 5.29
111981 4.95 4.98
120181 5.95 5.89
121481 5.75 5.78
121681 5.60 5.71
123081 6.05 6.05
11982 5.95 6.01
21182 5.80 5.73
30882 5.90 5.87
31582 5.35 5.44
32382 5.85 5.86
40182 5. CO 4.96
40582 5.00 4.98
41982 5.05 5.06
42682 !.3S 5.32
50682 5.92 6.00
52082 6.55 6.55
60382 5.40 5.48
-2
7
-3
41
29
17
47
47
38
49
18
32
9
4
0
8
34
87
32
1
16
2
43
28
22
!C
4?
43
4f
20
35
-1
3
0
12
37
90
34
27
34
31
71
61
48
78
77
69
78
44
61
33
25
27
37
«6
112
57
CCNO  COLOR  COLOR  CALCIUM SODIUM POTASSIUM  MAGNESIUM
US/CM UNITS  UNITS  IUEQ/LI (UEQ/U (UEO/Lt    (UEO/L)
                                                                                                                    41
                                                                                                                    41
                                                                                                                    33
                                                                                                                    44
                                                                                                                    39
                                                                                                                     •
                                                                                                                    41
                                                                                                                    44
                                                                                                                    39
                                                                                                                    48
                                                                                                                    42
                                                                                                                    42
                                                                                                                    32
                                                                                                                    30
                                                                                                                    23
                                                                                                                    26
                                                                                                                    34
                                                                                                                    90
                                                                                                                    48
49
49
35
76
64
58
82
81
73
77
53
69
27
28
28
37
71
123
66
30
28
27
26
24
24
26
28
26
27
25
26
23
24
20
18
22
26
26
30
28
26
26
24
24
26
28
25
27
27
25
23
24
20
18
22
26
26
140
130
140
80
80
70
70
70
70
70
7C
70
80
60
80
80
90
110
150
140
130
140
HO
80
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
80
60
80
80
90
110
150
75
70
CS
80
70
.
75
75
70
80
75
75
60
55
38
43
57
81
85
18
78
74
80
74
.
77
81
80
87
80
83
55
56
48
53
67
88
80
13
10
10
9
9
•
9
9
9
11
12
11
14
12
10
10
8
12
10
o

-------
      Appendix A.   Continued.
OATF

107981
111081
111981
120181
171481
121681
121081
11982
21182
30882
31582
32382
40182
40582
41982
42682
50682
52082
60382
IRON
CUG/L)
200
200
20C
140
110
.
110
100
120
150
160
16C
140
1100
100
100
100
13C
240
MANGANESE
(UG/L)
21
13
22
10
11
•
10
10
10
15
16
9
23
15
12
1C
9
9
2S
UUKINUN
(UG/LI
312
277
287
181
189
138
144
133
104
176
174
2oe
134
130
127
129
121
365
CHLORIDE
tUEO/U
77.0
54.8
59.0
54.0
53.2
54.0
57.7
54.3
62.7
58.1
56.1
40.4
51.8
35.3
33.7
47.0
54.0
54.0
NTTR4TE
IUEC/U
0.0
0,7
9.0
6.0
1.2
8.0
7.5
6.1
10.5
6.5
6.1
3.0
C.8
8.1
0.0
1.0
0.8
2.0
SUIF4TE
IUEC/U
65.0
«5. 5
65.0
65.0
64. 1
63.0
63.1
60.6
66.9
73.9
64.1
50.0
57.4
48.1
52.2
53.0
48.0
46.0
FLUORIDE
tUFfl/ll
•
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
?!o
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.7
1.3
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
o
co

-------
Appendix A.   Continued.
                               HARMON  BROOK
 DATE   PH
AlK II.P)  «LK  II.Fl ALK (F.E.PI «LK  (F.E.P1 CONC
 (UEQ/L)   (UEO/LI    (UEQ/ll     (UEC/Lt  US/C»
100781 6.10
102981 5.65
111081
111981
uciai
121481
123081
11982
30882
31582
32382
33082
40182
4C582
41962
.55
.75
.C5
.05
.25
.15
.10
.00
.25
.10
.55
.05
.84
.09
.83
.12
.08
.26
.19
.17
.02
.30
.12
.54
.60 5.64
.10 5.18
42682 6.00 6.00
5C682 6.25 6.26
52082 «.85 *. 75
60382 5.85 5.92
65
28
49
31
56
42
66
61
69
52
68
52
22
14
19
34
55
ill
53
                              59
                              36
                              5C
                              37
                              55
                              4f
                              69
                              69
                              12
                              53
                              69
                              4S
                              22
                              17
                              22
                              33
                              57
                             11!
                              98
                       9e
                       98
                       75
                       61
                       78
                       71
                       92
                       87
                       SB
                       78
                       92
                       78
                       ;i
                       44
                       46
                       59
                       81
                       139
                       83
 94
 80
 90
 69
 87
 79
 97
 93
104
 81
 98
 78
 90
 45
 50
 99
 86
139
 96
              CONO  COLOR COLOR  CALCIUM SODIUM POTASSIUM MACNESIU*
              US/CM UNITS UMTS  (UEC/LJ fUEQ/ll (UEO/LI   lUEC/ll
41
41
41
41
38
39
39
46
42
43
37
35
31
26
29
35
41
44
24
26
26
24
26
26
26
29
28
26
26
24
20
20
18
20
26
28
26
24
26
26
24
26
26
26
29
28
26
26
24
22
20
18
22
26
28
26
7C
40
TO
80
40
40
40
30
50
40
30
40
60
40
50
40
90
90
120
70
90
70
80
40
40
40
30
90
40
10
40
60
40
90
40
90
90
120
^
C9
79
80
(5
79
89
19
99
89
89
60
70
to
49
97
12
89
93
•
83
83
78
ei
77
79
79
78
74
77
«C
48
54
94
99
73
80
74
•
10
8
8
7
7
7
8
9
9
9
8
12
9
7
7
9
10
6

-------
       Appendix  A.   Continued.
         CATE    IRON     MANGANESE     ALUKINUH     CHLORIDE     NITRATE     SUIFATE     FlUCRIOE
                IUG/LI        IUC/L)      IUG/tl      IUEO/L)      (UEO/U     (UEC/L)     (UEG/LI

        100781     .                        .            •                        •
        102981   200            7           197          63.0         3.0         70.0         2.0
        111081   200            4           141          65.0         1.0         10.0         2.0
        111981   IOC            5           176          50.0         0.0         72.0         2.0
        120181    80            4           120          42.0         4.0         62.0         2.0
        121481    90            4           107          49.0         3.0         73.0         2.0
        123081    70            3           83          50.0         7.5         69.9         2.5
         11982    70            3           81          51.0         7.0         71.0         2.0
         30882   190            8           89          48.6         8.3         70.(          .7
         31582   140            £           139          44.2         5.6         73.3          .3
         32382   140            6           91          45.4         5.6         68.3          .3
         33082   180            9           141          38.7         4.5-         «9.2          .7
         40182   21C           22           18C          33.3         2.4         58.0          .3
         40582   110           7           SS          46.3         1.6         61.7          .3
         41982    50           3           94          34.1         C.8         19.3          .7
         42682    4C           2           92          31.5         C.O         «3.0          .0
         50682    90           7           ft          44.0         C.8         63.0          .0
         52082   110           5           86          44.0         1.0         !9.0         2.0
         60382   18C          13           268          34.0         0.8         45.C         2.0
O
cn

-------
Appendix A.   Continued.
DATE

110581 '
111961 •
120181 1
120881 1
122381 1
123181 1
10882 '
11482 '
12182 1
12982 •
20582 -
21682 1
22682 <
31782 -
32282 <
40182
40982
41582
42382
50682
51482
52182
52782
PH

r. 16
r.25
r.2o
1.30
r.05
r.35
M5
r.oo
r.io
P. 05
r.05
r.05
i.70
r.io
..60
.80
.90
.10
.70
.35
.45
.60
.45
•H ALK II. P)
IUEQ/L)
230
256
263
238
270
309
224
280
334
310
168
246
247
273
202
111
188
,
138
183
231
194
239
                               WHITE RIVERt VERMONT

                          ALK (I.P) ALK IF.F.PI ALK IF.E.P)  CCNO
                           IUEQ/L)    tUEO/L)     IUEO/U   US/CH
                                       260
                                       295
                                       295
                                       262
                                       291
                                       336
                                       244
                                       291
                                       366
                                       396
                                       204
                                       268
                                       262
                                       285
                                       221
                                       122
                                       197

                                       148
                                       198
                                       244
                                       209
                                       262
CCNO  COLOR COLOR  CALCIUM  SODIUM POTASSIUM MAGNESIUM
US/CM UNITS UNITS  IUEO/L)  IUEO/LI IUEO/L)   IUEO/L)
                                              58
                                              69
                                              90
                                              93
                                              99
                                             101
                                              90
                                             100
                                             103
                                             108
                                              16
                                              96
                                             127
                                             107
                                             109
                                              79
                                              97
                                              89
                                              77
                                              82
                                              95
                                             102
                                             105
•
57
60
60
65
71
57
64
67
72
53
62
80
66
66
42
62
54
44
51
62
66
68
•
57
60
60
64
10
56
64
68
12
53
62
80
66
66
41
62
54
44
52
62
66
68
w
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
305
310
320
320
345
370
310
350
375
390
260
330
438
321
331
215
313
280
239
272
329
354
370
100
90
102
101
108
117
94
109
115
121
116
1 10
143
145
151
71
124
109
79
93
116
123
129
10
9
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
9
12
10
10
8
9
8
9
9
11
13
13

-------
Appendi
DATE
X A.
IROH
(UG/L)
110581
111981
120181
120881
1223S1
123181
10882
11482
12182
12982
20582
21682
22682
31782
32282
40182
40982
41582
42382
50682
51482
52182
52782
0
4C
30
60
20
20
30
20
10
0
70
50
60
90
270
390
0
20
150
0
20
20
20
Conclude'
MANGANESE
IUG/L»
10
3
5
9
3
3
2
2
3
0
8
3
6
15
33
59
13
15
20
14
12
5
4
ALUPINUH
 IUG/LI

    9
   14
   14
   32
    5
    8
   17
    9
    4
    6
   54
   22
   20
   47
  115
  223
   20
   52
   «3f
   46
   31
   23
   16
CHLORIDE
(UFO/LI

 103.0
  94.0
 106.0
 108.0
 118.1
 128.9
  97.6
 109.6
 119.3
 126.5
 136.1
 116.1
 163.9
 173.5
 194.0
  79.0
 160.2
 131.0
  86.0
 107.0
 141.0
 151.0
 159.0
NITRATE
tUEO/L)

 40.0
 30.6
 35.3
 35.3
 38.9
 41.7
 38.9
 41.7
 44.4
 44.4
 45.0
 41.7
 5C.O
 44.2
 44.4
 45.0
 55.6
 39.0
 47.0
 42.0
 36.0
 31.0
 28.0
SULFATE
IUFC/LI

 143.0
 134.7
 136.7
 138.8
 140.7
 140.7
 134.7
 142.7
 140.7
 140.7
 120.4
 134.7
 148.8
 132.7
 134.7
 118.0
 132.7
 126.0
 118.0
 122.0
 128.0
 130.0
 132.0
FLUORIDE
CUEO/H

   2.0
    .3
    .3
    .3
    .0
    .3
    .0
    .1
    .0
    .1
    .0
    .0
   2.0
   2.0
   2.0
   1.0

-------
                                 Appendix B

                           Salmon Redd Excavation

     During November 1981 two naturally spawned Atlantic salmon  redds were
located and mapped, one each in Old Stream and Bowles  Brook.   On April  26,
1982, each redd was excavated using a hooded shovel  (Hatch  1957) and eggs
and fry were collected in a drift net (Jordan and Beland 1981) and
preserved for later examination.  Excavation of the  marked  Atlantic salmon
redds was timed to occur after hatching of eggs but  before  emergence of
fry.  There were no live, unhatched eggs among those recovered.
Stream

Bowles
Old Stream
Dead
Eggs
10
0
Dead
Fry
6
1
Live
Fry
131
46
Total

147
47
Percent
Mortality
11
2
     The Bowles Brook redd had higher mortality of both eggs  and fry  than
did the Old Stream redd, although the total  number of fish  recovered  was
also larger.  The dead fry were partially encapsulated in the egg membrane.
Such failure to completely rupture the egg membrane has been  reported
previously for Atlantic salmon embryos exposed to acid stress (Peterson et^
al. 1980).  The number of fry emerging in Old Stream in 1980-81  ranged from
"9T to 109 for natural redds and 21 to 124 for artificial redds
(Gustafson-Marjanen 1982), thus the number we recovered is  reasonable.

     The use of naturally spawned Atlantic salmon redds precludes the
determination of total eggs deposited or total mortality.  The drift  net
used was large enough to ensure the collection of all eggs.  Fry that were
already hatched could have migrated away from the egg pit through the
gravel and may have been missed.  Eggs that died during development may
have disintegrated and would not be collected.  The estimated total
survival for Atlantic salmon eggs from eyed stage to emergence from natural
redds in Old Stream during 1980-1981 was 5.8-6.4% (Gustafson-Marjanen
1982).  In that study, excavation of natural redds following  fry emergence
resulted in recovery of only one or two dead eggs.  No dead fry were  found.
We found no dead eggs and one dead fry in the Old Stream redd we excavated.

     It is not possible to state conclusively that depressed  pH and/or
elevated aluminum concentrations resulted in decreased Atlantic salmon
embryo and fry survival in Bowles Brook.  Excavation of only  one redd per
stream does not permit calculation of confidence limits or  tests of
significance of mortality in the two streams.  However the  appearance of
the dead fry from Bowles Brook does suggest that acid stress  caused the
mortality.
                                   108

-------
50277-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION »• "EPORT NO. *.
PAGE FWS/OBS-80/40.18
Effects of Acidic Precipitation on Atlantic Salmon
Rivers in New England
7. Authord)
Haines, T.A. and J.J. Akielaszek
9. Performing Organization Nam* and Address
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia National
Fisheries Research Laboratory, Field Research Station,
Zoology Department, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469
12. Sponsoring Organization Nama and Address
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Servic
Division of Biological Services, Eastern Energy and Land
Use Team, Route 3, Box 44, Kearney svi lie, WV 25430
3. Rsclplanf s Accession No.
S. Raport Data
October 1984
«.
8. Performing Organization Rapt No.
10. Prolact/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or GranUG) No.
(C)
(C)
13. Typa of Raport & Parlod Covered
Final
14.
 15. Supplementary Notes
 16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
                    A  water chemistry survey  was  conducted in nine Atlantic salmon rivers
   in New England.  Eight rivers are in Maine  and contain native Atlantic salmon popula-
   tions.   One  river  is in Vermont and is  undergoing restoration of the Atlantic salmon
   population.  The rivers ranged in size  from first order tributary streams to third
   order main  stem  rivers.  All contained  actual  or potential Atlantic salmon spawning
   and nursery  habitat.  The chemistry of  the  Maine rivers was similar to that reported
   for other rivers located in areas where bedrock is low in acid neutralizing capacity
   and where precipitation is similarly acidic.   The Vermont river had much higher con-
   centrations  of all ions except aluminum and hydrogen than the Maine rivers, especially
   calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate, indicating the presence of carbonate mineral in
   the watershed of this river.  The pH and  aluminum concentrations in second and third
   order streams were well within safe limits  for Atlantic salmon, even during periods of
   high discharge.  First order streams,  however, reached levels of pH and aluminum con-
   centration  that  may be toxic to sensitive early life stages of Atlantic salmon, or
   during smoltification, although conditions  were not as severe as those reported for
   Atlantic salmon  streams in southern Norway or southwestern Nova Scotia, where Atlantic
   salmon populations have declined or disappeared apparently as a result of acidification
 17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
         acidification, pH, alkalinity,  aluminum concentration,  fisheries,  water  chemistry
   b, Identifiers/Open-Ended Term*

         Atlantic salmon, impacts,  stress, metal contamination,  water  quality,
         acid rain, acid deposition
c. COSATI Field/Group
IS. Availability Statement
unlimited
19. Security Class (This Report)
unclassified
20. Security Class (This Page)
.mrlaccifiPH 	

21. No. of Pages
xi + 108
22. Price
•frUS. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984-781-447/9545
                                                                              Dapartmant of Commerce

-------
Hawaiian Islands
"o
   Headquarters. Division o( Biological
     Services, Washington. DC

   Eastern Energy and Land Use Team
     Leetown, WV

   National Coastal Ecosystems Team
     Slidell. LA

   Western Energy and Land Use Team
     Ft Collins. CO

   Locations of Regional Offices
REGION  1
Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lloyd Five Hundred Building, Suite 1692
500 N.E. Multnomah Street
Portland, Oregon 97232
REGION  2
Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O.Box 1306
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
REGION 3
Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Building, Fort Snelling
Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111
REGION  4
Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Richard B. Russell Building
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
REGION  5
Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
One Gateway Center
Newton Corner, Massachusetts 02158
REGION  6
Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 25486
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
                                               REGION  7
                                               Regional Director
                                               U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                               1011 t. Tudor Road
                                               Anchorage, Alaska 99503

-------
   As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of
   the Interior has responsibility  for most  of our nationally owned
   public lands and  natural resources. This  includes fostering  the
   wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and
   wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of  our
   national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoy-
   ment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department  assesses
   our energy and  mineral resources and works to assure that their
   development is in  the best interests of all our people. The Depart-
   ment also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation
   communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S.
   administration.
               U.S.
         FISH A WILDLIFE
            SERVICE
         UNITED STATES
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
     Fish and Wildlife Service
EASTERN ENERGY & LAND USE TEAM
         Route 3, Box 44
 Kearneysville, West Virginia  25430

        OFFICIAL BUSINESS
    PENALTY FOP PRIVATE USE, $300
   POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        INT-417

-------