Group+K

Stream sampling/Water quality  Gilberto Harley Isaac Ms. Chang earth and environmental science TT 3rd DUE: October 30, 2008


 * Introduction:**

We went on this field trip to study the water quality in two different streams. It is very important to monitor the quality of the streams in your area so that if something goes wrong and someone gets sick or dies that you could have an idea if one of the direct sources of water in your area is to blame. When we went to the two streams we tested many different aspects of the water, some of which include the pH levels, the phosphate levels, and the chlorine levels in the water.

We are comparing the Swannanoa Creek to the Catawba river, to see which one is dirtier or more polluted. We thought that the Catawba River would be way more polluted, just because it is not as secluded as the Swannanoa Creek, and it is right behind Wal-Mart.


 * Materials and Methods**:

Materials: Thermometer hand lens tweezers ice trays buckets kick net ID sheets Kits: phosphates nitrates chlorine temperature ph turbidity DO (dissolved oxygen)

Methods: Chemical tests: Step I: Pick one of the six kits (phosphates, nitrates, chlorine,ph, turbidity, DO)

Step II: Take out the glass tube and get as much water as the instructions call for.

Step III: Take out the tablet and place in water for the amount of time the instructions state (shaking the glass tube may be required)

Step IV: Then compare the color of the water to the color on the test paper given to you by the kit. Record the number that is related to the color.

Physical tests: Step I: Open the kit for the temperature, place it upstream for five minutes, and record the temperature that is shown. Look at the surrounding area and record if it is a riffle, run, or a pool.

Step III: Go downsream and place the thermometer in the water for five minutes, record the temperature shown on the thermometer. Look at the surrounding area and record if it is a riffle, run, or a pool.

Biological tests: Step I: Get a empty bucket and fill it halfway full with water, get an ice tray and fill it up with water too.

Step II: Get the kick net and stretch it out in a smaller part of the creek to ensure fewer things just bypass the net. Also place rocks on the bottom of the net so nothing escapes from underneath.

Step III: Disturb the area in front of the net by moving rocks and kicking up sand under the water.

Step IV: Wait about five minutes while the water flows through the net.

Step V: Carefully pull the net out of the water by pulling the end of the poles that you are not holding up.

Step VI: Splash water onto the net to get out excess sand or soil.

Step VII: Place the net on the shore and pick out the macro invertebrates placing them in the ice tray.

Step VIII: Use the ID sheet to identify each of the organisms in the ice tray. If there are more than one of any type of organism then you a line next to the name by number.




 * Results**

The ideal range for chlorine should be below 0.75.In our first sample from the Swannanoa Creek showed that the creek was at the ideal range. In our second sample at the Catawba River was above the ideal range of 0.75.Due to the high level of chlorine the Catawba River maybe fatal to aquatic organisms. The increase in level maybe from industrial development. In our phosphate test of the Swannanoa it was below the ideal range by 0.1ppm,as for the Catawba the phosphate test was identical to the Swannanoa Creek. In the nitrates test the Swannanoa was at the ideal range which would have stopped the overgrowth of algae and other lifeforms. As for the Catawba River the nitrates test showed that it was within the ideal range. For the dissolve oxygen test the Swannanoa Creek was below the ideal range of 6 ppm which may greatly reduce aquatic organisms. We received the same results for the Catawba River during the dissolved oxygen test. The pH test show that both river were at the ideal range despite the different location. During the turbidity test the Swannanoa Creek had a higher turbidity which may cause to much to be in the river which could change the temperature but, the temperature was the same both upstream and downstream. The Catawba River had 0 turbidity which is the ideal range but there was a difference in temperature which may kill aquatic organisms.
 * Discussion**:

For the Swannanoa Creek the benthic macroinvertebrates show that the creek was in good health because the macroinvertebrates where sensitive to pollution. For example we found stone flies which are sensitive to polluted water. Unfortunately we were not able to search for macroinvertebrates at the Catawba River so we can't judge it on the health of the river by biological data. But based on the data collected we think the Catawba River wasn't healthy due to the chemicals in it and the difference in water temperature. Comparing the Swannanoa creek and the Catawba river we have concluded that the Swannanoa Creek is more healthy then the Catawba River, though they are in the same watershed, it would be obvious that the Swannanoa Creek is much less polluted because of it's seclusion. We did not get a chance to perform the biological tests at the Catawba river due to lack of time. There were many different organisms in the Swannnanoa Creek. This fact can also help to prove the thory that the Swannanoa Creek is relatively clean, since there are so many organisms that can survive there.

We accept our hypothesis. The Catawba River was far more polluted than the Swannanoa Creek. This was very evident, even without the tests that we performed. It just looked so much more disgusting and it did not smell good at all. It was an ugly green color and it looked all mucky.