Kate Job

Ecology 560 Research Paper

11/30/18

Species diversity of macroinvertebrates above and below a pit mine in Idaho:

Is there a difference?

Abstract

The East Fork of the South Fork Salmon River in Idaho hosts an inactive mining
pit previously used to extract heavy metals (gold, silver, antimony, tungsten). Above the site, the
river flows uninterrupted. When it reaches the pit, it pools in an unnatural reservoir before
continuing downstream. This study seeks to explore how the health of the river changes as it
passes through this disturbance, with the intention of developing a greater understanding of how
mining activity impacts river health. To quantify the change, macroinvertebrate populations were
collected at five sites above the pit and at five sites below the pit. The species diversity of each
collected population was calculated and compared in R, using a two-sample t-test. The resulting
analysis yields a statistically insignificant difference (p value = 0.08) between the species
diversities of macroinvertebrates above and below the mining pit. Limited collection time,
season, and chosen sampling locations were limiting factors to this study and should be
considered when reviewing results.

Keywords: species diversity, macroinvertebrates, East Fork of the South Fork Salmon river,
Yellow Pine, water quality, mining, river health.
Kate Job
Ecology 560 Research Paper
11/30/18

Introduction

On the East Fork of the South Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho, there is a mining pit that
divides the river. Commonly referred to as the "Yellow Pine Pit", the site was developed in 1938
(White, 1940) and lies 18.5 kilometers above the town of Yellow Pine (see Figure 1 below). This
manmade disturbance has changed the natural course of the river.

Previously, the pit site was an active mine.

First, from the 1920s-1950s, the area was mined for
gold, silver, antimony and tungsten. Later, in 1974,
mining activity resumed and continued into the late 90s
(Midas Gold Idaho, 2018). Though it's been 20 years
since any activity, the mine's impact is still visibly
evident at the site.

The location of the pit offers an opportunity to

study the same river above and below a mining site
where heavy metals were exposed. Antimony, while
not widely understood in terms of toxicology, is a
potential carcinogen (Telford, Kristy, et al. 2009).
Disturbing and mining gold can result in the
uncovering of poisonous lead and arsenic (Ogola,
Mitullah, et al. 2002). Both were mined at the pit, in
addition to silver and tungsten. By collecting and
isolating samples of macroinvertebrates from above
and below this area, the effects of the mine's pollution
can be better studied.

Macroinvertebrates have been chosen as a target measurement because of their

usefulness in indicating water pollution (Álvarez-Cabria, Barquín, Juanes. 2010) and because
Kate Job
Ecology 560 Research Paper
11/30/18

they are large enough to be collected and counted without the need for specialized equipment
(Goodnight, Clarence J. 1973). The data collected would be important in two ways. First, it
would identify any lingering differences between the numbers and types of macroinvertebrates
above and below the mining site, which could spark further exploration of how the metals mined
impacted the river. If there are statistically significant differences, one could then study how and
if they are/were related to the previous mine.

Second, regardless of any current differences between the data collected, the research
could serve as a baseline comparison for any studies conducted after a possible return to mining
along the same river. Currently there is a proposed mining project which would utilize the pit. If
this proposal is approved, operations will resume and the data collected prior to that activity
could be used to help measure differences in the environment throughout the mining process.

The purpose of this study is to collect data comparing species diversity of

macroinvertebrates above and below the previously discussed mining pit and compare them. One
objective is to identify current differences that may have been caused by mining activity. The
second objective is to compile measurements regarding the health of the EFSF Salmon that can
be reviewed under a newly approved mining project. It is hypothesized that there will not be a
statistically significant difference in macroinvertebrate species diversities above and below the
pit. The mine's inactivity puts the study's subject in the past, but creates an opportunity for
obtaining data that can be used later.

Methods

In order to obtain an accurate picture of the macroinvertebrates existing above and below
the mine, data was collected from five locations above Stibnite (most up-river location of mining
activity) and from five locations below the Yellow Pine pit (most down-river location of mining
activity). The locations were five meters apart and covered a 20 meter transect of the East Fork
of the South Fork Salmon river (hereinafter referred to as "the EFSF Salmon river.")
Kate Job
Ecology 560 Research Paper
11/30/18

At each collection location, species were gathered from the river current and from the
calm water in the eddies. The number of different macroinvertebrates species present were
counted, as well as the quantity of each represented species. These measurements were taken at
the study sites marked in the following Figure 2.

Figure 2
Map of collection sites, satellite image from Google Maps.

Collection was done in October, when streamflow is lower than in the spring and summer (~10-
13 CFS on average according to USGS records). May and June see the peak streamflow (USGS)
but spring snow and swift current would make access and collection difficult.

Results
The species diversity of each of the ten populations collected was calculated using the
Shannon Wiener Index. To test whether the difference between species diversities above and
below the mining site was statistically significant, R was used to run a two-sample t-test.
Kate Job
Ecology 560 Research Paper
11/30/18

Figure 3
Two-sample t-test results calculated in R.

Resulting statistical analysis yielded a statistically insignificant p-value of >0.05 (0.08),

leading to an acceptance of the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference
between the species diversities of macroinvertebrates below and above the Yellow Pit pine on
the EFSF Salmon river.

Discussion

Based on the collected data and statistical analysis of the difference in species diversity
above and below the Yellow Pine pit mine, there is no statistically significant difference in
Kate Job
Ecology 560 Research Paper
11/30/18

macroinvertebrate populations. It's worth noting that a greater variety of macroinvertebrate

species was collected above the pit mine. Eleven different species were collected above the pit
mine, while seven different species were found below (See Table 1 below). Additionally, there
were five species collected above the pit mine that were not at all present downriver (flatworms,
pyralid caterpillars, alderfly larvae, dobsonfly larvae, and midge larvae). Interestingly, aquatic
worms and midge larvae are both more highly tolerant of water pollution (Chadde, 2005).
Downriver from the mine though, a much greater population of mayfly and stonefly larvae were
collected, both species which have previously been studied as indicators of good water quality
(GaufinTarzwell,1956) and are less tolerant of water pollution (Chadde, 2005).

Table 1
Population collection chart.

# above the # below the

Species pit pit
mayfly larvae (3 tail) 13 105
mayfly larvae (2 tail) 10 31
stonefly larvae 5 34
predacious diving beetle
larvae 4 6
flatworm 10 0
pyralid catepillar 1 0
caddisfly larvae 12 11
alderfly larvae 1 0
damselfly larvae 2 1
dobsonfly larvae 1 0
midge larvae 1 0
riffle beetle larvae 0 1

These variations in present species and populations could be explained by a number of

factors. Two possible causes that bring in additional data sources are water temperature and river
flow (CFS). According to the river data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey, the water
temperature on the day macroinvertebrates were collected was nearly two degrees warmer below
the pit mine (6.1° C) than the water above (4.2° C).
Kate Job
Ecology 560 Research Paper
11/30/18

The rate of flow measured by cubic feet per second also changed, as the addition of Sugar
Creek enters the East Fork of the South Fork Salmon river between collection areas. This
tributary adds about 7 CFS to the river, increasing the upriver CFS of 13.4 CFS to about 21 CFS.
It's possible this change in flow could alter the river environment enough to result in different
types of macroinvertebrates thriving. At the most upriver point of collection (closest to the
headwaters) the EFSF Salmon was lower in volume and narrower, with more pools and drops.
Only here were aquatic worms and midge larvae found, both macroinvertebrates requiring less
dissolved oxygen. Below the addition of Sugar Creek, the midstream section of the river is
wider, and the tributary adds volume, and the current is consistently moving. Here, notably more
mayfly and stonefly larvae were found, both macroinvertebrates requiring a higher level of
dissolved oxygen (Chadde, 2005).

Inconsistencies could also be explained by a general change in river health, though

defining what makes a river healthy or not is an obscure practice involving biotic and abiotic
factors, as well as human impact (Norris and Thoms, 1999). Further sampling at additional sites
and throughout different seasons would be needed to provide a clearer picture of how differences
in species diversity on the EFSF Salmon river may be some indicator of the water quality.

The broadness of possible affecters discussed above, along with the secluded location of
the river and my own inexperience all served as limiting factors to this study. First, the EFSF
Salmon is difficult to access in terms of distance, road quality and time of year. Because of these
restraints, the study took place over one weekend with no ability to return and add to the original
data collection. As a result, fewer sampling sites were included than would have been if the river
was more accessible. I also recognize that, due largely to my inexperience in collecting
macroinvertebrates, I could have chosen sampling sites above and below the mine that were
more consistent with each other. This would have eliminated the absence of data at site 4 above
the mine, which affected the overall species diversity comparison. Without repeating the study,
adding to the data gathered and fixing some of the collection errors, the accuracy of the results
suffers.
Kate Job
Ecology 560 Research Paper
11/30/18

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study leaves more questions asked than answered. The difference
between species diversity of macroinvertebrates above and below the mining pit on the EFSF
Salmon river is not statistically significant. However, there were differences in the species
variety and population of each collection. To determine if these differences are caused by a
change in the environment of the river (temperature, CFS), variation in water quality, time of
year, the addition of a tributary, a factor that hasn't yet been identified, or a combination of some
or all, further studies are needed.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank McCall Outdoor Science School for the use of research
equipment, and Kurtis Perkins for assistance in sample collection.

References

Álvarez-Cabria, Mario, José Barquín, and José Antonio Juanes. "Spatial and seasonal variability
of macroinvertebrate metrics: Do macroinvertebrate communities track river health?."
Ecological Indicators 10.2 (2010): 370-379.

Chadde, Joan Schumaker. "Macroinvertebrates as bioindicators of stream health." S/D (2005).

Gaufin, Arden R., and Clarence M. Tarzwell. "Aquatic macro-invertebrate communities as

indicators of organic pollution in Lytle Creek." Sewage and Industrial Wastes 28.7 (1956): 906-
924.
Goodnight, Clarence J. "The use of aquatic macroinvertebrates as indicators of stream pollution."
Transactions of the American Microscopical Society (1973): 1-13.

Google Maps. Google, 2018. https://www.google.com/maps

Midas Gold Idaho. Midas Gold, 2018. http://midasgoldidaho.com

Norris, Richard H., and Martin C. Thoms. "What is river health?." Freshwater biology 41.2
(1999): 197-209.
Kate Job
Ecology 560 Research Paper
11/30/18

Ogola, J. S., Mitullah, W. V., & Omulo, M. A. (2002). Impact of gold mining on the
environment and human health: a case study in the Migori gold belt, Kenya. Environmental
geochemistry and health, 24(2), 141-157.

USGS Current Conditions for Idaho: Streamflow. U.S. Geological Survey, 2018.
http://waterdata.usgs.gov

Telford, Kristy, William Maher, Frank Krikowa, Simon Foster, Michael J. Ellwood, Paul M.
Ashley, Peter V. Lockwood, and Susan C. Wilson. "Bioaccumulation of antimony and arsenic in
a highly contaminated stream adjacent to the Hillgrove Mine, NSW, Australia." Environmental
Chemistry 6, no. 2 (2009): 133-143.

White, Donald E. Antimony deposits of a part of the Yellow Pine district, Valley County, Idaho.
US Government Printing Office, 1940.