Spring Creek Survey Report

747 Words3 Pages
quality. RESULTS A total of 11 species of macroinvertebrates were found by the study. At the Spring Creek site, nine different species were found, comprised of 23 individuals. 5 Mile had five different species, comprised of 39 individuals (Figure 1). Both of the sites studied rate as “Fair” in water quality based on the number of species detected, as well as their sensitivity to water quality (Figure 2). Using the number of species, a water quality rating of 15 was calculated for Spring Creek. Meanwhile, the water quality rating of 5 Mile Creek was 12. Based on analysis of the morphological data of the site, a habitat assessment score of “Poor” was found for Spring Creek due to its straight shape and lack of riffles. 5 Mile, on the other…show more content…
This differed with the hypothesis that stated 5 Mile Creek would have a better water and biological quality. This result could be attributed to measuring methods and sampling strategies. When the individual group’s data was compiled 5 Mile Creek did have a better water quality score than Spring Creek. It is possible that along the individual survey sections of the streams the differing species produced the results. The species for each stream also demonstrated whether the stream was healthy. At 5 Mile creek the presence of numerous organisms deemed as sensitive means the habitat is better able to support more native species (Sánchez-Montoya et al). In contrast at Spring Creek the lack of numerous sensitive organisms and increased presence of tolerant organisms means the creek is not as healthy as 5 Mile Creek. This is most likely due to human involvement in the Creek. Since Spring Creek has been built underground and channelized, or manufactured to flow in a straight line, it does not produce the habitat needed for sensitive organisms. Human pollution, such as the grease found at the Spring Creek site, only degrades the habitat

More about Spring Creek Survey Report

Open Document