U-High Creek Quality

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

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.

There were 3 different groups of the critters. If they were in the 1st group the water wasnt polluted, if they were in the second group the water was somewhat polluted, and if they were in the 3rd group, the water would be polluted. We found more critters living in group 1. In the graph it shows that we found 88% of the critters in group 1 are living in the water. The critters we found in group 1 were the gilled snails, water pennies, and the mayflies. It also shows that in group 2, only about 2% of the critters living in the water. The insect we found in group 2 was the crayfish. Than, in group 3, it shows that 10.7% of critters are living in the water. The critters found in group 3 were the dragonflies, worms, and the pouched

As the data showed, the Conodoguinet creek is NOT polluted! There were many macroinvertebrates living in the creek that could only live in non polluted

The U-high freshman biology class designed an experiment to test the question; based on the number of micro invertebrates, what is the water quality of the U-high creek? On 9/22/14, the day of the experiment, the conditions were recorded at 10:05 AM. The temperature was 55 degrees with a 6 mph wind, and 62% humidity. One of the observations of the creek is that there was some garbage and trash on the banks, although there was minimal amount. Another observation was that there was run-off leading into the creek from roads, nearby parking lots, and neighboring yards. There were about 40 small fish, only about 2-3 inches long swimming north against the current. The water was also very clear, and the bottom was clearly visible. Based on the observations

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.

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

The first experiment that was done to prove whether our hypotheses were correct or not was finding rocks and counting the organisms (or as we called them, critters) on the rock. Each of the organisms were classified into different groups. Group one macroinvertebrates were pollutant sensitive, group two was neither sensitive nor tolerant, and three was pollutant tolerant. As the circle graph (above) shows the creek obviously is not polluted or there would be no group one macroinvertebrates living the creek. This was the first test to prove whether our hypotheses were correct or not, and so far, it is proving that those who guessed that the creek was polluted are wrong.

The Conodoguinet Creek is a one-hundred mile long body of water running through central Pennsylvania. This area has many pollution issues, such as Eutrophication and many others. Eutrophication is when there is too much nutrients in the water. Some people might not understand why too much nutrients in the water is a problem, but it is a very serious one. The higher amounts of nutrients in the water allows a larger amount of algae to grow on the surface of the water, absorbing all the dissolved oxygen in the water, leaving no oxygen left for the fish, and they die.

I infer that the water quality was affected more by other factors. The two sites with about the same amount of human activity were McKinney Falls State Park and Bulls Creek. On the other hand, Wild Basin swimming is not allowed. Our results showed that the order from greatest to least amount of nitrate and phosphorous concentration was Bulls Creek, McKinney Falls, and Wild Basin at the lowest. Hence, because Bulls Creek was had the high amounts of human activity and nitrate and phosphorous levels, this relates

Brooker Creek is the largest natural area in Pinellas County. It is a preserved area where most of the organisms are protected by the state and cannot be touched or taken. This hike had a durability of one hour and it consisted on walking the entire trail and observing the different ecosystems found at the preserve. In order to see the different wild organisms that get to call the preserve home, we had to walk for around two hours. Some of the organisms mentioned by the guide of the hike and seeing at the preserve were: Golden orbs spiders, Coffee plants, lichens, mosses, sable palms, palmettos, blue gray knatt catchers, red maple trees, ferns, and tupelo trees. Although these organisms are very different from one another they are all able to live at Brooker Creek because of the different environments it has and offers its inhabitants.

“The watershed is bordered by the Palmer Divide to the north, Pikes Peak and the Pike National Forest to the west, and a minor divide 20 miles east of Colorado Springs”(Fountain Creek Watershed, 2015). The watershed area is described as an area with extremes temperature and precipitation, large elevation changes, steep gradients, diverse ecosystems, and a multitude of water uses. The elevation of this watershed area can vary from 14,100 feet to 5,000 feet of elevation. The Fountain Creek is the main creek in this watershed. This watershed supplies resources to more than 1,434,000 residents within the watershed. This is an increase of over 156% of population increase since1960. This watershed also provides irrigation to more than 100 farms and ranches in this area. “The rate of residential and commercial development is increasing in the watershed.” (Fountain Creek Watershed, 2015) The creek in this area does not provide public recreation due to some contamination issues in the past and recent events such as the E. coli case. People in the surrounding communities, do enjoy spending time next to the creek for recreation in many public parks.

As we initially hypothesized the overall population was much larger and much more varied in the Bear creek than in Cherry creek as was expected. Cherry Creeks as according to our findings only had two species that we were able to find and only 2 samples at that,Bear creek had 8 species and well over 50 in the total samples that we were able to collect. Bear Creek was smaller, had a slower flow rate and was slightly less acid in 2 out of 3 parts of the stream. levels of oxygen also proved to be much higher by comparison, though nitrite and nitrate levels did not show significant differences. The water at Bear Creek by comparison also was noticeably cooler than that of Cherry creek, which is reasonable considering the

The hypothesis is if the organisms were exposed to pollution then they will act differently and scared in the habitat. For the experiment the independent variable was the pollution that was added into the habitat,and the dependent variable was the reactions of the organisms from the pollution by adding trash to the environment. For the experiment the things that were controlled were the amount of the water in the habitat. Also how clean the water stayed was controlled as well as how much food the organisms got. These things make a good control group because if they are not controlled then the organism could die. The things we kept the same was the amount of food, the habitat, the amount of frogs, the temperature,