SOS Proposal 2 The Real ONE

This topic submitted by Lauren Allen, Elissa Erb, Natasha Sadoff, Gaya G. ( erbeb@muohio.edu ) on 10/14/03 .

Natural Systems 1 Syllabus---Western Program---Miami University

Save Our Stream Surveys at Collins Run and Bull Run -- Proposal

Introduction
The Oxford, Ohio area is full of small streams, including Collins Run and Bull Run (which flows into Collins Run). Many parts of these streams seem somewhat disturbed in both biotic and abiotic factors as they flow through different parts of Oxford, surrounding areas, and Miami University. In certain parts there was not much evidence of life when plainly looking at the stream, and it seemed somewhat murky and still. In other parts the stream flowed freely and fish and insects could be seen easily. Even though much of the stream runs through forests and other natural environments, there is still a large portion of the stream that goes through commercial and residential areas including Miami University, the Walmart area, many homes, and other shopping areas in Oxford. The Save Our Stream surveys, put out by the EPA, give out guidlines for testing streams for abiotic and biotic components. They include identification lists on macroinvertebrates, as well as tell which of those macroinvertebrates are indicator species of healthy or non healthy water. As our semester long project, we plan to use abiotic and biotic tests as part of the Save Our Stream survey to find out if this stream really is healthy, and if its health depends on which kind of area it goes through (natural or commercial/residential). If it is not healthy then we hope to use those tests to determine where the source of the contamination is.

Specific Research Hypothesis
Our purpose is to find the quality of water based on biotic and abiotic factors within Collins Run and Bull Run. We hypothesize that Collins Run and Bull Run are less healthy, as defined by ecological and chemical indices, in parts that run through or near commercial or residential areas. We also predict that with less interaction of humans there will consequently be less pollution in and around the stream, and therefore the quality of the stream and its inhabitants will be healitheir. We will be able to tell what the water quality is based on which indicator species we find, as well as from other biotic and abiotic tests.

Materials and Methods
We will be testing six different sites, includig upstream from commercial and residential areas, in the midst of the comercial and residential sites, based on their locations in terms of rural, commercial, or residential. We ill test these sites once a week until the weather prohibits. Our commercial sites are located on: Locust Street in front of Walmart, and another. Our residential sites are located on: Kehr Road (1/2 a mile from the intersection of Kehr Road and Chesnut Road), and behind Emerald Woods Drive. Our rural sites include: off of Kehr Road on Silver Leaf Drive, and Peffer Park. Our tests will include those listed in the Save Our Stream EPA surveying guide, as well as other abiotic tests including but not limited to: pH, dissolved oxygen, dissolved solids (electrical conductivity), temperature, and turbidity. The turbidity analysis will be done depending on what kinds of equipment of we have access to. The abiotic water quality indicators are directly correlated with the biotic factors. For example, a lower level of oxygen would denote less life, or less complex life, which would in tern mean poorer water quality. Biotic tests will include using dipnets to survey macroinvertebrates and look at which indicator species we find and what they prove about the water quality. The dip nets have weighted bottoms, allowing it to collect species that live all around the stream, whether it be on the bottom, swimming freely in the middle, or on the surface. We will them use macroinvertebrate field guids to identify the species that we find. SOS also has a chart depicting which species are indicator species, and what those species say about the water quality and environment. The Save Our Streams guides are based on species that are more or less tolerant of pollution. Species that are less tolerant of pollution are indicators of good water quality; these species would not be able to survive in polluted waterways. Species that are more tolerant of pollution are indicators of poor water quality because they can survive in disturbed waterways, whereas other species would die. There are also different levels of indicator species: some species are only found where water quality is very good, and some species can tolerate only a small amount of pollution. The complexity of the organism can denote what kind of water quality it is. For example, if we find leeches, we will be able to conclude that the water quality is poor. Also, if we find certain types of minnows, we will know that the stream is overall healthy, otherwise the minnows would not be able to live there.

Background Information -- Relevance of the Research Question
On a more global scale, doing water quality tests is becoming more and more important because of the rising amount of polluted and disturbed waterways. Of all the water in the world, only 3% is freshwater. Most of that freshwater is locked into the polar ice caps, therefore leaving a very small amount of freshwater for human use. As humans encroach closer and closer to protected areas or even just natural areas such as streams, their effects become more and more definite and prominant. Even the smallest species are affected by pollution, all the way up to humans, even though people may think that they are untouchable by the hazards of the environment. Most of the world is covered in water, and we are using up our terrestrial resources very quickly; it is crucial that humans begin to understand and appreciate water not only as a resource but as an environment and habitat. Our project helps identify possible threats to the environment so that we may become aware of them and eventually help control them.

Sources
1- Onyeike, Eugene N.; Ogbuja, Stanley I.; Nwunuka, Nuibani M.. January 2002. "Inorganic Ion levels of Soils and Streams, in Some Areas of Ogoni Land, Nigeria, as Affected by Crude Oil Spillage". Environmental Minortiy and Aseesment, Vol 73, issue 2, pages 199-204.
This article is based on the effects of cations and anions, different testing methods that they used fo their study. We could possibly use these methods in testing the Peffer Park, and if not we could at least learn from their techniques.
2- Gafny, Sarig; Goren, Menachem; Gasith, Abital. 2000. "Habitat Condition and Fish Aseemblage Structure in a Coastal Mediterranean Stream (Yargon, Israel) Recieving Domestic Effluent". Hydrobiologia, Vol 422/423, pages 319-330.
This article could be of great interest to our project because they did similar comparisons to what we plan on doing; they compared certain water quality variables among many selected sites of the same stream. These areas included the habitat conditions in fish assemblage structure for four consecutive years. Their reasearch showed how human interferance polluted those sections of the stream.
3- Luckenbach, Till; Kilian, Maja; Triebskorn; Oberemm, Axel. January 2003. "Assessment of the Developmental Success of Brown Trout (Salmotrutta F. Fario) Embryos in Two Differently Polluted Streams in Germany". Hydrobiologin, Vol 490, Issue 1-3, pages 53-62.
This article interests us because it indicates that the reason for destruction/ death of the aquatic life of a stream need not just be due to pollution, but even to factors such as temperature. Temperature is an abiotic factor that we are using in our surveying.
4- Silgato, Simonetta; Bohmer, Jurgen. 2001. "Using Indicators of Fish Health or Multiple Levels of Biological Organization to Assess Effects of Stream Pollution in South-West Germany". Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery, Vol 8, Issues 3&4, pages 371-386.
This article could be useful to us and our project because they are collecting fish, and using them to classify the river as moderate or good condition. In the more severly polluted areas of the stream, they collected less fish. This is part of our hypothesis; we expect that the polluted areas will have less species or at least more poor quality indicator species.
5- Daries, T.C.. 1996. "Chemistry and Pollution of Natural Waters in Western Kenya". Journal of African Earth Sciences, Vol 23, Issue 4, pages 547-563.
This article mentions a lot of abiotic water quality testers that we are planning on using for our own project including electrical conductivity and turbidity.
6- Behrens, H.; Beims, U.; Dieter, H.; Dietze, G.; et all. June, 2001. "Toxicological and Ecotoxicological Assessment of Water Tracers." Hydrogeology Journal, Vol 9, Issue 3, pgs 321-325.
This article is useful to our project because of the specific studies that they conduct with water quality and water pollution sources. They use toxicological tests to study, similar to the way we will use abiotic and biotic tests to study our stream in terms of water quality and pollution.
7- Blinn, Dean W.; Baily, Paul C.E. December, 2001. "Land-use, Influence on Stream Water Quality and Diatome Communities in Victoira, Australia: a Response to Secondary Salinization."Hydrobiologia, Vol 466, Issue 1/3, pgs 231-244.
This article concentrates on streams influenced by heavy irrigation practices and dryland farming. The study proves that species diversity and richness will be reduced, especially when compared to a system with low to moderate land use. Our study compares similar areas and the affects that pollutants such as farming, residential, and commercial areas will have on the stream environment.
8- Xinhao, Wang; Yin, Zhi-Yong. 1997. " Using GIS to Assess the relationship Between Land Use and Water Quality at a Watershed Level, " Environmental International, Vol 23, Issue 1, pgs 103-114.
This article focuses on conductivity as an abiotic water quality test. It says that conductivity may not be a sensitive water quality indicator of nonpoint sources. We are planning to use conductivity as a test in our water quality surveys.
9- Ward, Robert C. November, 2001. " Development and Use of Water Quality Criteria and Standards in the United States, " Regional Environmental Change, Vol 2, Issue 2, pgs 66-72.
In an effort to distinguish between the lines of 'good' and 'bad' quality water, this project as well as our own aims at designating a use of the water (society value). We aim towards doing the same by comparing the different samples we collect.
10- Stambuk-Giljanovic, Nives. November, 1999. " Water Quality Evaluation by Index in Dalmatia, " Water Research, Vol 33, Issue 16, pgs 3423-2440.
This article directly relates to the abiotic tests we will perform for our project such as: dissolved oxygen, temperature, and others. By taking the cumulation of all these abiotic that are significant, we can determine the quality of water.
11- Howd, Robert A., Brown, Joseph P., Morry, David W., et all. September/October 2000. " Development of California Public Health Goalds (PHGs) for Chemicals in Drinking Water," Journal of Applied Toxicology, Vol 20, Issue 5, pgs 365-380.
Since our experiment includes assessing the effects if water intake by the microinvertebrates, the chemicals in water are of prime importance. This article stresses public health considerations and our project deals with similar lines with repsect to aquatic life.
12- Novotny, Vladimir. 1996. " Integrated Water Quality Management, " Water Science and Technology, Vol 33, Issue 4-5, pgs 1-7.
The first component of UAA (Use Attainability Analysis) that deals with Water Body Assessments interests us because it deals with natural loads or conditions of water, as well as studying those bodies of water whenever man-made pollution contributes to water quality deterioration.