 |
|
||||
 Blog Entries
|
 Wrappin' It All Up! That's right Chimacum Creek is absolutely great! If you don't believe so, I'll prove it to you. All the sixth graders in Chimacum divided into water quality jobs and gathered this data: DO ( disolved oxygen ) average= 8.125 mg/l which is not too high or too low Ph ( positive hydrogen ) average= 6 which means that our creek is almost pure but slightly acidic. Turbidity average= 44.7 NTU which means our creek is clear. Nitrates average= 0.3 mg/l which means that there is enough nitrates for algae to grow but not enough for fish to be effected. Ammonium average= 1.6 mg/l which is the only average here that is bad. Flow rate average= 1972.8 gal/s which is slow enough for fish to rest but fast enough for the algae to not grow super big. Temperature average= 31.13 dergrees F which means the creek is cool. ( As in cold ). This data proves that Chimacum Creek is doing well. And if this still doesn't convince you, that data is backed by our benthic macros research. Jac and Aliina from the North Pacific Salmon Collition brought in water samples from the creek that had a bunch of bugs in it. A tool on the moodle showed us a chart of what bugs are tolerant and sensitive. We identified many mayflies which are very sensitive. That means that our creek is clean enough to be home to very sensitive bugs. So, all of this years water quality research has totally paid off, it lets us know that Chimacum Creek is doing awesome. But, just because we know that the creek is clean and healthy, doesn't mean we can take it lightly. We still need to make sure it stays clean. So please stop doing anything that might pollute it, even litering on land can effect the creek. Article posted February 29, 2012 at 03:26 PM • comment (1) • Reads 1041 • Return to Blog List Add a CommentPosted Comments  Your post has set out the data gathered in a manner easy to read. While scientists may be interested in all of the gathered data, the public might have little understanding. The ability to explain the data in simple non-scientific language helps get the message across. As I have seen in a previous post, the ammonia levels were an issue but the overall results seem positive. I would be curious to know why the ammonia levels were elevated. :) I like your inclusion of information about "bugs" in the water. They can be great guides to water health. In a way, they're like the canaries once used in coal mines to detect gas build up. If they die, we know it's unhealthy. I think your closing paragraph raises a good point. Just because the water at this time is healthy, we shouldn't be complacent. Once contaminated, the journey back to good water system health can be a long one. @RossMannell Teacher, NSW, Australia
Comment Posted on March 8, 2012 at 07:13 PM by
Ross Mannell |
 |
|||