Group+F

= **//__Stream Study__//** = Lydia H. Matt E.  Don H.  Becky L.  10/30/08-11/6/08 Ms. Chang Earth and Environmental Science TT2nd

On Oct. 21, 2008 we studied the water quality in the Catawba River shed. We went to the Swannanoa Creek and Catawba River to sample water. There we measured dissolved oxygen, nitrates, ph, phosphates, chlorine, turbidity, and temperature. We also find and inditified macroinvertabates. It is important to monitor the water quality because water is very important to us. Our bodies are made up of seventy percent of water. We use water to drink and for other things. Bad water quality will affect us, the plants, animals, and the environment. People and animals will get sick and perhaps die, plants will die, and the environment will be in terrible condition. Our hypothesis was that the Swannanoa Creek has better water quality than the Catawaba River because the Catawaba River was down stream. Upstream has better water quality than down stream.

=__//**Materials and Methods**://__=


 * DO kit
 * Nitrates kit
 * pH kit
 * Phosphates kit
 * Chlorine kit
 * Turbidity kit
 * Thermometers
 * Kick Net
 * Hand Lens
 * Buckets
 * Ice Cube trays
 * Tweezers
 * Sample tubes
 * ID sheets
 * Instructions
 * Field note-book
 * Writing utensils

Our Methods:

 * Go to the stream
 * Take notes about what the weather looks like, what the data is, and where your site is in your field note book
 * Do test on the water (chemical and physical)
 * Take notes on what was discovered
 * Use kick net to see what kind of macro-invertebrates live in the water
 * Use tweezers to get the macro-invertebrates off the kick net and into a bucket of water
 * Determine what kinds live in the water
 * Take notes about the macro-invertebrates
 * Repeat for your second site

=__**Results**:__=

__ Chemical: __
DO: 4 ppm Nitrate: 2.5 ppm Ph: 7 ppm Phosphate: 1 ppm Chlorine: 0 ppm Turbidity: 0 JTU

__ Physical: __
Temperature Upstream: 10 degrees C Downstream: 10 degrees C  Shade? Yes Riffle, run or pool? All

__ Biological: __

 * ** Species ** || ** Number Counted ** ||
 * Mayfly ||  4  ||
 * Stonefly ||  7  ||
 * Caddisfly ||  7  ||
 * Atagic Worm ||  1  ||
 * Water Penny ||  2  ||
 * Snail ||  2  ||

__ Chemical: __
DO: 4 ppm Nitrate: 2 ppm Ph: 7 ppm Phosphate: 0.5 ppm Chlorine: 0 ppm Turbidity: 0 ppm

__ Physical: __
Temperature Upstream: 15 degrees C Downstream: 13 degrees C  Shade? Yes Riffle, run or pool? Run

We did have enough time to do a biological test with the Catawba.

=**//__Discussion:__//**=

Our results show that the dissolved oxygen level is low in our water. It was 4ppm in both of the streams we sampled and the ideal level is 6ppm or higher. The nitrate level should be less than 4ppm and it was 2.5 in the Swannanoa and 2 in the Catawba which is good. The ideal pH level is between 6.5 and 8.2 and it was 7 in both streams. Phosphate levels were 1ppm in the Swannanoa and 0.5 in the Catawba which is a little high. It should be less than 0.1. The extra phosphate could have come from fertilizers on the farmland nearby. There was no chlorine in either stream. There was no turbidity in either stream because there was nothing to disturb it. Most of the macro-invertebrates we found were sensitive to pollution so we can assume even without the chemical tests that the water quality is good. The water quality was good at both sites but it was better in the Swannanoa because it is upstream and doesn’t have as much chance to be polluted. Our hypothesis was that the water quality of the Swannanoa Creek would be better than the water quality of the Catawba River, which we found to be true.