The following paper was the result of a habitat analysis of Strouble's Creek and the Duck pond. A statistical analysis of the macroinvertabrates was performed and physical observations of the surrounding habitat and wildlife were recorded.
Physical Observations:
Our group traveled to Coal Hollow to record physical observations and take samples. We chose an area that was right off of the road, underneath of an old bridge. Despite the fact that our location was far away from a heavily trafficked area, there was an unusually large amount of pollution. The area on both sides of the stream was covered with trash and debris. We walked along the shore, and then went underneath of the bridge and to make observations. The most noticeable feature of the stream at this location was the presence of a pay telephone and an old VCR lying directly in the water. Other than that, the stream looked normal. There was very little trash in the stream itself.
Sampling Strategy:
The first thing our group did was to take a water sample of the stream. To do this, we filled a small, glass sampling bottle with water from the middle of the stream. We also used this water for our diatom count.
Next, we took the net out to the middle of the stream, and did a kick-test for one minute. To do this, the net was held on the bed of the stream, while the area directly in front of the net was kicked up by foot for a minute. This caused all the bugs to be disturbed, and hopefully moved them into the net. After the minute was up, the net was shaken out into a plastic bag, and the samples were taken back to the lab. The insect sample was rinsed and preserved in alcohol, killing any bugs that were present. The water sample was refrigerated.
Results:
From the insect sample, the following bugs were counted:
“Other Worms”: 12
Trichoptera: 2
Diptera: 19
Shrimp: 1
Clams: 1
Coleoplera (beetle): 1
In all, 36 bugs were found in the sample taken. “Other worms” accounted for a third of those found, while Trichoptera made up a mere 5.6%. Diptera made up over half of the sample, at 52.8%, and Shrimp, Clams and Coleoplera each made up 2.8% of the sample. Unfortunately, almost all of the bugs found are considered “non-sensitive” insects. This means that they can survive in highly polluted water, and are not affected by drastic changes in the chemical make-up of the water. The good news is that out of all of the sites where samples were taken, Coal Hollow was the only site to find a Coleoplera (beetle). This is a good sign, because it is a sensitive insect. Of course, Coal Hollow was also the farthest site from the Duck pond, and therefore should be the healthiest site of all (even though only one was found). All in all, 36 bugs is not a lot for a site that was so far from the Duck pond. Only two other sites, the Channel and above the pond, had less bugs. The other six sites all had more. This could be due to differences in sampling techniques though. Foxridge had the largest number of bugs at 153, but all of these were “non sensitive” insects. Overall, at all the sites, the most common bug found was Diptera, or “true flies.” This is not good news at all, considering that these insects can live just about anywhere, and are not an indicator of a healthy stream at all.
The diatom samples yielded the following results:
Eunotia: 2
Nitzschia: 4
Navicula (large): 58
Navicula (small): 7
Cymbella: 4
“Species A”: 2
Cocconeis: 22
By far, the large Navicula were most prevalent in the sample, making up 58%. Cocconeis were second, at 22%, small Navicula made up 7%, Nitzschia and Cymbella each made up 4% and Eunotia and “Species A” each made up 2%. Both the large Navicula and the Cymbella are indicative of a nutrient “rich” stream, or one that has too much of a nutrient in it. The small Navicula is found more in a clean stream.
The stream study conducted here shows conclusive results. Obviously, the Duck pond and Strouble's Creek have a lot of problems that will not be easily solved with a “Phase 1” study. It is recommended that a more thorough study of the problem be conducted, and more samples taken at each site, at different times of the year. A monthly monitoring schedule should be set up and followed, using a variety of tests, to insure that all possible impactors of the stream are taken into account.