The Water Systems At Bulls Creek, Wild Basin, And Mckinney Falls

Introduction: The purpose of this research is to determine whether there has been a change in the overall water quality of the Lake Tarpon Basin, and if so, whether the quality has improved or worsened. The variables that will determine whether the quality has changed are: nutrients (phosphates and nitrates) and dissolved oxygen (DO). The expected changes are lower dissolved oxygen levels (from the already low levels), higher nitrogen levels (from the already high nitrogen levels), and the state qualifications still are not met for nutrients and dissolved oxygen (Levy, Flock, Burnes, Myers, Weed, River 2010). This topic relates to environmental management because the changes in water quality would be due to pollution, which relates to the question “How does human activity lead to the pollution of water stores?” The hypothesis that will be tested is that Lake Tarpon’s water quality will have worsened since the last measurements by Levy, Flock, Burnes, Myers, Weed, and Rivera in 2010.

Between the 1840s and the 1960s, New York City established the greatest metropolitan water distribution system internationally. Even though NYC’s Water system is a work in progress it can be considered one of the best in respects to its quality, reliability and innovative management.

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 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

Government agencies carefully monitor water quality and its effect on wetlands (Reference: Environment Protection Agency Wetland Report EPA 832-R-93-005). Of particular concern is the concentration of nitrogen in water draining from fertilized lands. Too much nitrogen can kill fish and wildlife. Twenty-eight samples of water were taken at random from a lake. The nitrogen concentration (milligrams of nitrogen per liter of water) was determined for each sample. The variable in this information is nitrogen concentration (mg nitrogen/l water).

As humans, we have a few basic needs. Some of these being security, shelter, food, clothing, and arguably most important, water. When living in a desert though, water may not be quite so readily accessible. With recent droughts in the southwest and the already relatively scarce amount of water and rainfall in Arizona, now is the time when Arizona should begin to make itself more efficient and conservative with its water consumption, because of our reliance on the Colorado River and rapidly depleting groundwater sources and the rapidly growing population and its water demands.

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.

Why is the Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin so important? Might it be because of the history it has with helping pilgrims settle in North Carolina? Or might it be because it drains not only parts of North Carolina, but also parts of South Carolinas. Some interesting information of the Yadkin River would be that there are a total number of 22 counties in the basin and, another fact would be that there is a total of 22988 acres of lakes in the basin. Another interesting fact would be that the population of the basin is about 1,463,535 people

The first piece of evidence supporting this statement is a water quality index of 48. The 7 pollution sensitive organisms in the creek are worth three points each on the water quality index, plus the 10 moderately tolerant organisms each 2 points and the 7 tolerant organisms each 1 point add up to get the 48 water quality index. The water quality level is considered excellent if it is 23 or above. The water quality in the U-High creek is more than twice that. There were many different types of organisms found in the creek including 7 pollution intolerant micro invertebrates. The total number of organisms including the 88 pollution intolerant Caddis fly larvae point to a low pollution level in the creek. The 10 moderately tolerant micro invertebrates also point to low polluted creek. There were also a high number of midges and aquatic worms. The water in the creek was also very clear and did not have a smell. There were many small fish and plants growing in and around it concluding a low pollution level in the

Either or both of those two things could have runoff from the land and drained into the creek. They are negative to the creek. Our results showed that the creek was containing little to no phosphate. The average number after 15 tests was just 0.3- zero being the best. Similarly, nitrate is a salt or ester, but it is made of nitric acid, containing the anion NO3. It is found in runoff from fertilized farms and treatment plants. The same process was used for testing nitrate levels. The average level out of eight tests was 0.8, which is a higher than phosphate but still relatively low. Both of those test results were very positive. It showed that the creek was low in eutrophication. Another chemical test is testing for dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen is microscopic bubbles of oxygen (O2) that are in the water and there for aquatic organisms to breathe in, which is necessary for almost all organisms. The testing process was similar to that of nitrate and phosphate tests. After testing the water, we got an average level of 11.4. More dissolved oxygen allows for more gaseous bubbles for organisms to breathe in. Therefore, a higher number is better. Twelve is the highest level of dissolved oxygen possible. Thus, since 11.4 is very close to 12, the dissolved oxygen level was very good. Dissolved oxygen can be changed in a number of ways. First, stagnant, or not moving, water has a much lower level of dissolved oxygen. Also, hotter water has less dissolved water. Lastly, chemicals like phosphate and nitrate can cause the growth of algae (which will be discussed in more detail in paragraph three), taking away oxygen. Additionally, the students tested for acid rain pollution. The tests falling under the acid rain category would test for acidity or alkalinity in water. We took a pH test, which is a level expressing the

To address this issue, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NYS DEC have recently increased their attention to stormwater management. Explicitly requiring permits for municipalities in New York State that are located near urbanized areas, and have their storm sewer system separate from their sanitary sewer systems. Unlike municipalities with combined sewer systems, an MS4 discharges untreated stormwater directly into the nearest body of water. This type of system can be detrimental for numerous reasons and has ultimately resulted in the EPA’s creation of a federal regulation known as the Stormwater Phase II. It was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 1999 and has since effected every MS4 community in New York State (US EPA, 2005).

The Conodoguinet Creek flows 101 miles through the Cumberland Valley of Pennsylvania. We traveled to just a small portion of the Conodoguinet Creek. In our area eutrophication and acid rain are common. Eutrophication is caused by sewage treatment plants, home sewage systems, and fertilizer runoff. Acid rain is caused by fossil fuel burning. If we were to test the Conodoguinet Creek for signs of acid rain, eutrophication or other types of pollution, then it would test with high levels of pollution. That way my hypothesis and what I thought about the pollution in the Conodoguinet Creek before I went there and tested the water.

Recently, ecologists have begun the idea of a no mow zone. A no mow zone is letting areas of land grow on their own or without mowing. (http://www.pinellascounty.org/park/no_mow.htm) It was stated in the paragraph above that fertilizers and pesticides wash into the creek and bring down the water quality. With the no mow zones, the plants surrounding the body of water filter the runoff and also block liter from entering the creek.

Water pollution is defined as “a change in the chemical, physical and biological health of a waterway due to human activity” (1). Over the past 50 years, pollution in the Great Lakes has been a rising concern. Pollution in the Great Lakes includes the disposal of sewage, heavy metals, invasive species, and pesticides that come from factory dumping, runoff of agriculture, nautical transportation, and air pollution. According to an article published by the US Department of Commerce, roughly 40 million people depend on the Great Lakes for drinking water, sport, power (electricity), and transportation (McCartney). The negative consequences of water pollution include, but are not limited to, the killing off of vital organisms, an increase in birth defects, infertility, malfunctioning nervous systems, and learning disabilities (McCartney).

My original hypothesis was that the source of contamination was the industry. In reality, it was the East River. First of all, one of the locations my partner and I chose to investigate was location 23. Location 23 is closest to the dog park, the east side water treatment center, and the East River. We chose this location because it was in the middle of the lake, so we would know the lakes's ppm level when everything blended in and combined. When we measured the phosphate concentration level, it was .16. This may not seem like a lot, but the normal ppm of the lake is .05. This shows that either the dog park, treatment center, or river was affecting the lake. When we examined the water near the dog park and treatment center the results were