Investigating the Water Quality of the Nippersink Creek

Megan Frasik Pd. 5-6

10/7/14

Abstract:
Wednesday October 1, 2014, AP Environmental Science went to the Nippersink
Creek, which is in Glacier Park located through the area of Wonder Lake, Illinois. Three
tests were conducted upon arriving at the creek; physical assessment, water chemistry,
and benthic macro invertebrate. After the tests were all completed, the overall rating of
the Nippersink Creek proved to be medium, with the physical assessment medium, water
quality rating medium, and the benthic macro invertebrates resulting in poor as well.

Introduction:
The problem statement; what is the water quality of the Nippersink Creek? The
following hypothesis; if the tests obtained poor to medium results, then the water quality
will demonstrate as being poor. Watersheds are known as areas of land that have water
flowing over and through, in the route towards a small body of water such as a stream,
lake, or river. The Nippersink watershed is the largest in accordance to the Fox River,
being 137 square miles through Illinois. It has been seen in recent past that the
Nippersink has contained large amounts of pollution, in relation to the species derived
from those areas that attain the water, often polluted with feces. Due to these occurrences,
numerous plants and animal life are endangered. Glacier Park/Tamarack Farms is the
primary subwatershed of the Nippersink Creek, consisting of 12,588.2 miles2, comprising
of 9.7% of the Nippersinks total watershed. This subwatershed is predominantly utilized
to help control waste management additionally. Three major characteristics of wetlands
are saturated land, organisms and vegetation adapted to the unique soil conditions, and

the amount of precipitation that these areas experience. These functions of wetlands
correlate with the Nippersink Creek watershed based on the extremities of these
conditions, such as having increased precipitation, therefore resulting in water bound soil,
which in turn will favor organisms and plant life adapted to these conditions. Main biotic
factors seen throughout the Nippersink would be the plant life, such as the prairie/tall
grasses, organisms living among the water, and the land thriving animals as well. Abiotic
factors would include the soil and its characteristics, water quality and flow, and the
weather and temperatures that occur through the varying seasons.

Materials and Methods:

For the physical assessment, there was distributed information regarding the
information, pictures, and the different ratings. Beginning this evaluation, observations
were made upon first arriving at the creek. Comparing the ten categories with the
pictorials and the ratings, ranging from one being poor to five being excellent, this was
done for each individual category. Each group was assigned a particular bucket with the
essential materials needed to complete the water quality tests, consisting of the booklet of
information that had the steps for each singular test and how to interpret those results,
vials for the contents of each test, tablets that related to the certain test, a half sheet to
compare and rank results, and charts used to record the gathered data as well. The
dissolved oxygen/ % saturation, nitrate, pH levels, phosphate, turbidity, and temperature
change tests were all completed at the Nippersink Creek Wednesday October 1, 2014.
The fecal coliform and biogeochemical oxygen demand tests were concluded with Mrs.
Engelbrecht beforehand. Each test was conducted by gathering water from the creek in

the container, and using the required amount for each test and following the instructions
in the booklet provided. After completing the tests, the results were then compared to the
ranking half sheet, and the data was then recorded in the data tables. Benthic macro
invertebrate testing was the final test conducted, which was done at the Nippersink Creek
as well. Materials distributed were the magnifying glass, a chart of numerous benthic
macro invertebrates, tarps to spread out retrieved samples, tweezers in order to gather the
organisms, and a dissecting tool to pick apart the samples. There were three different
tarps set up with various examples gathered from the creek. Groups would then record
the seen organisms, in comparison to the chart, for each tarp in the given data tables.
Totals for each group, ranging from most intolerant to most tolerant, were then
calculated.

Results:
Upon first arriving at the Nippersink Creek, journal entries were made to observe
the surroundings. Observations made regarded the temperature being briskly cold with a
slight breeze, and scarce clouds with sun shine. There were various forms of plant life,
such as tall grasses skirting the shoreline, overhang from grown trees, fallen leaves, and
scattered brush. The creek characteristics consisted of fast flowing water, small rapids,
risen rock from the bottom of the creek, and going from a narrower to wider width.
Animal life was diverse as well, with various forms of birds, small animals, and insects.
Results regarding the physical assessment came to a class average of 38, with an overall
rating of medium. Water quality had a calculated WQI of 53.0%, resulting in a rating of
medium also. Therefore, the benthic inventory data reported came to the weighted

average taxa of 9.125, being a WQI rating of poor. The overall WQI, which included the
physical assessment, water chemistry, and benthic tests, came to the concluded rating of
medium.

Discussion:
The derived results that were gathered after the completed tests of the Nippersink
Creek concluded that the WQI rating of the overall creek was medium. Physical
assessment results were gathered based more towards opinion, which caused varied totals
for each group. Water quality tests also differed from group to group, dependent on the
area in which the water was gathered from, which primarily altered the temperature of the
sample, and possibly the pH. For the benthic macro invertebrates test, results could have
greatly differentiated due the amount of rocks and samples observed and recorded which
would have varied the final index average total value, therefore changing the WQI rating
between groups. However, overall the majority of groups ended up with the WQI of
medium and or poor, therefore implicating that the Nippersink Creek watershed is in poor
conditions due to the over pollution of fecal waste. Possible reasonings that caused high
results would be the lack of observation of the entire creek, affecting the physical
assessment ratings. Low results most likely were due to the small varied sample size use
for the benthic macro invertebrate assessment. Not all organisms were recorded that were
present, henceforward, one sample as a whole shouldve been utilized for that test.

Conclusion:

It can be supported that the WQI of the Nippersink Creek is medium in

accordance with the recorded data. Also, the hypothesis was not supported, stating that if
the tests obtained results that were ranked poor to medium, then the WQI of the creek
would be considered poor as well. However, it is supported that the results from the test
demonstrate that the Nippersink Creek has medium water quality. Improvements that
couldve been made to the experiment wouldve been to fully observe the area of the
creek to more accurately assess the physical characteristics. Main sources of error that
were present was the unclear sample for the benthic macro invertebrate test, which
wouldve been more accurately completed if one sample was taken to be counted for
organisms.