Sawmill Creek Hypothesis

The mill creek watershed is 166 square miles with 450,000 people. The main sources of water are rivers, aquifers, and rainwater. The major body of water is the Ohio River. The land around it is hilly.The Mill Creek lies at the heart, soul, and industrial center of Greater Cincinnati. This 28-mile stream begins in Liberty Township, travels through 34 communities, and flows into the Ohio River just west of downtown Cincinnati. The Mill Creek Watershed has withstood two centuries of urbanization and is poised for a comeback. The Mill Creek drew settlers over 200 years ago looking for rich, fertile farmland and water power to support industry, ultimately building Cincinnati into a prosperous industrial powerhouse.

This is a map of the Conodoguinet Creek, where the 8-Orange team of East Pennsboro Middle School went yesterday to study the creek. The 8-Orange team, including myself was studying to see if the Conodoguinet Creek had any type of pollution. The reasons for us going down to the creek to test is the problems we have in Central, Pa. Some problems are the acid rain coming from the Power Plants down the road, and sometimes from Pittsburg, Pa also. Theres many more problems but these are the two main ones. We all split up into three groups which were, finding the velocity of the surface water, identifying the different critters there are in the creek, and testing the water for (phosphate, nitrate, and dissolved oxygen). It was incredible we all got different amounts of data.

On October 8th, 2015 our 8-Orange team took a field trip to the Conodoguinet Creek to test the water quality. The Conodoguinet Creek was tested about 2 different times. It was tested about 2 times to take a test to see if the water was polluted or unpolluted. The results will help you understand the conflict of the Conodoguinet Creek.The water came up to about our knees. This trip was different but very informational.

On October 8th, 2015 I went to the Conodoguinet Creek with the rest of my 8-orange team. The main thing we were doing there was testing the level of water pollution. Before we arrived there we had to make a hypothesis stating whether or not we thought the water was polluted. Knowing a little bit about the creek and looking back on past years data, I stated in my hypothesis that I thought the water was polluted. While we were there, they had us do other activities that helped us determine the pollution level and helped us learn more about the creek. In total we did three stations to get all the information we needed to be positive about our statement on the level of pollution. We accomplished finding critters, testing the pollution levels, and testing the velocity of the surface water in one day.

Each person got to test either the phosphates, nitrates, dissolved oxygen, or the ph in the creek. Phosphates and nitrates are nutrients found in water due to fertilizers, decaying plants and bacteria. Dissolved oxygen is the amount of gaseous oxygen dissolved in the water. As we recorded our results, we discovered that the dissolved oxygen levels were very high, which is good because the higher amount of dissolved oxygen in the water, the healthier the creek is. The phosphates levels in the creek were all perfect zeros, which is great because having nutrients in the creek is not healthy. The nitrate levels were slightly higher, at 0.9. That is not bad at all, but it isn’t perfect, showing signs of pollution. The ph levels in the rocks were neutral, right at seven. If they were lower than 7, that would mean they have acids in them, and if they were higher than 7, they would have alkaline in them. Alkaline, or bases, neutralizes acids. The number of rocks that we found that neutralized acid was 65, and the number of rocks that did not neutralize acids were 29. This shows that about one-third of the rocks in the creek do not neutralize acids.

The Conodoguinet Creek is a creek that runs 90 miles long from Carlisle to the Susquehanna River. The Susquehanna River is located in West Fairview. Now the question is, is the Conodoguinet Creek polluted? Pollution is caused by smoke in the air from big metal companies and fertilizers from farmers. Acid rain takes that smoke and fertilizers and rains into the ground and into waterways. That pollution can kill the organisms living in that waterway. My hypothesis is that the Conodoguinet Creek will not be polluted. Some things that will tell us if it is polluted or not is tests, scales, rocks, macroinvertebrates, and the velocity of the water. Is this acid damaging the Conodoguinet Creek?

At this station, we tested the creek water for phosphates, nitrates, and dissolved oxygen. What we found for phosphates was an average of 0.3 phosphates. For nitrates, we found an average of 0.8 nitrates. For the dissolved oxygen, we got an average of 11.4. This shows that the Conodoguinet Creek is pretty healthy. We also tested for acidity and alkalinity. To do this, we needed to use a pH scale. A pH scale goes from 0 (acidic) to 14 (alkaline). A good place for the water to be is 7, this means that the water is not acidic, nor has alkaline in it, but it is neutral. The water in the Conodoguinet Creek was at 7, so it was

The first station we had was counting crustaceans and macroinvertebrates in the water. We found 113 critters that belonged in group 1 which means it is quality water. There were 2 organisms in group 2 which was somewhat quality water. Also, 16 critters in group 3 which means the water is very polluted. Overall, based on the critter

So we can conclude that the creek is not polluted based on this evidence. The creek creature are mostly from group 1 and 2. Also, the creek water contains little to no nitrates and phosphates. The creek also contains a high amount of dissolved oxygen (9.8ppm to be exact) Lastly, the creek limestone neutralize acid rain. The pH of the water is also a healthy 7. After all this evidence we can conclude that the creek is not

The eutrophication test tested if the creek has too many nutrients. If we found high levels of phosphate and nitrate in the water, that would mean the creek has eutrophication, which is bad. Phosphate and nitrates are found in fertilizers, and some detergents. On average, we found out the creek had .1% phosphate in it which is good.We, also, found out that was .9% nitrate in the creek, which is also good. The dissolved oxygen test tested how much oxygen was in the water. We found a 9.8% average for dissolved oxygen, which determines the type and number of macroinvertebrates that may live there. In past years it was tested that the water was warmer. The velocity of the water could affect this. As a result, I conducted the river does not have eutrophication.

The health of the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay was found based on Biological (macroinvertebrates and wildlife) and Chemicals characteristics (pH, dissolved oxygen, phosphates, nitrates, etc.) as well as physical observations (amount of forested buffers, wetlands, etc.) Overall it was concluded that the health of the water was good to excellent. What was found was that many of the macroinvertebrates found in the water were sensitive or facultative, meaning the water quality was good enough for them to live in. Also, the level of ph, temperature, dissolved oxygen, phosphates, nitrates, and turbidity showed that the water quality was good. Finally, while we were canoeing down the Susquehanna River, observations were made on the land

Through our research we aimed to determine if there were any differences in water quality of both the north and south forks of Strawberry Creek. As time progresses and the environment changes it is important to keep track of how certain species are being impacted by these features, and how they cope with change. We hypothesized that due to the lack of pollution, the south fork will promote a greater diversity of macroinvertebrates. This was due to the fact that there was less runoff and trash that could be introduced to the water in the south fork, than there was in the north fork. We gathered data by analyzing the different organisms living in both forks. We collected a total of fifty vials composed of five organisms from each fork, and inspected them under microscopic view. After gathering data and identifying the different kinds of organisms living in the different forks we assessed whether the organisms from the samples could live in high or low resolution water. We also took a t-test to assess the probability of these differences being due to relevant factors or by chance. Our major findings suggest that organisms in the south fork showed a higher demand to living in cleaner water indicating that our hypothesis was correct.

In the academic journal written by Ronald A. MacGillivray the purpose was to find out information about the Delaware River and how polluted it is. The research was done over a four-year period to find out if lethal toxins were coming out of tributaries (MacGillivrary et al., 2011). The research was done by a sampling procedure. The researchers would go out into the field and collect samples on a weekly basis depending on the weather to see how the toxic levels in the river were from 16 different locations (MacGillivrary et al., 2011). At the end of the four years that the research was taken the results were conclusive that the tributaries that led into the Delaware River were found to be at normal toxic water level rates (MacGillivrary et al., 2011). The pollution levels found were normal with a few exceptions depending on the water content of the day (MacGillivrary et al., 2011).

I conducted a survey of Pulaski county residents to get their opinion about the Pulaski county water supply. The purpose of the survey is to get others viewpoint of Pulaski County drinking water so that we can improve our waters system. In the Article “Arkansas Rivers is Too Polluted to Touch” written on April 24, 2000, it states “The river is fairly clean as it flows into Wichita, but by the time it leaves the city, the water is so dirty it is not safe for wading, fishing and touching, said Tom Stiles, chief of the office of planning and prevention at the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. The river also is not safe for canoeing, kayaking or water skiing.” Have Arkansas Rivers improved within 14 years? This question will help us to see how far Arkansas Rivers have come since the year 2000. According to Carl Safina in “Song for the Blue Ocean” he discussed how pollution can interfere with not only wildlife and aquatic animals, but humans as well. Pollution can get into our water system causing bacteria and diseases. These waters are the same that runs in our faucets and pipelines. I will discuss resent studies of central Arkansas water quality later in the survey report.

reagent 1 and 1 micro spoon of reagent 2 was added to the water. The