Lower Olentangy Watershed - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 20
About This Presentation
Title:

Lower Olentangy Watershed

Description:

The lower Olentangy watershed includes 4 counties, Union, Madison, Franklin, and Delaware. ... Bouchard, Sharon Schraegle, Shannon Schraegle, Kelly Dufore ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:71
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 21
Provided by: osc4
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Lower Olentangy Watershed


1
Lower Olentangy Watershed
  • Sarah Kelley
  • Dominique Pope
  • Kiah Lotus

2
The Lower Olentangy Watershed
  • The lower Olentangy watershed includes 4
    counties, Union, Madison, Franklin, and Delaware.
  • The majority of the watershed is in Franklin
    county, but also encompasses areas of Madison,
    Delaware and Union counties. Most of Columbus is
    located within this watershed.
  • The major sources of impairment are nutrient
    enrichment and habitat/flow alterations.

3
Lower Olentangy Watershed Map
4
Land Use of the Lower Olentangy
  • The majority of this watershed is an urban area.
  • There are twelve sampling stations along the
    Olentangy River.
  • Six of the stations are in city areas, six are
    in non-city areas.

5
Lower Olentangy Watershed Photos
6
HYPOTHESIS 1
  • We think that when a farmer puts fertilizer on
    his/her crops, the rain washes it down into the
    stream causing the biological oxygen demand (BOD)
    to rise in rural areas.
  • Fertilizers (nutrients) increase vegetation,
    which decay and attract bacteria. Bacteria
    consume oxygen, increasing the BOD. High BOD is
    unfavorable for life.

7
Biological Oxygen Demand
8
RESULTS
  • We found out that our hypothesis was supported,
    because the data shows higher BOD in rural areas
    where there is more farming and fertilizer runoff.

9
HYPOTHESIS 2
  • We think that there will be more sediments (total
    suspended solids or TSS) in city waterways then
    in agricultural waterways due to river
    straightening and habitat destruction.

10
Total Suspended Sediments
11
RESULTS
  • This hypothesis was disproved, because there
    turned out to be more sediment in the non-city
    areas.
  • We believe this has happened because farmers are
    plowing to the edge of their land. This is
    causing the erosion of the banks.

12
HYPOTHESIS 3
  • We believe that the lower the quality of the
    habitat (measured by QHEI, the quantitative
    habitat index), the lower the ICI count.
  • ICI is a measure of the amount of invertebrates
    in the water.
  • A healthier system has a higher ICI count.

13
QHEI (Quantitative Habitat Evaluation Index) vs.
ICI
14
RESULTS
  • The hypothesis was supported by this data. When
    the QHEI went up, the ICI count went up.
    Therefore, the better the habitat, the healthier
    the community.

15
DEVIATIONS
  • We separated the sampling stations into city and
    rural. Each category was mostly consistent
    except for two stations that showed large
    deviations, stations 159 and 86.


16
ICI and Maximum pH Values in City and Farm
Sampling Stations
17
HYPOTHESES
  • Station 86 shows very high levels of nutrients
    and high BOD levels, perhaps due to high
    concentrations of farming in the area.
  • The EPA reports that the area of the watershed
    where station 159 is located is polluted with a
    lot of wastewater runoff.

18
CONCLUSION
  • We chose to study the Lower Olentangy Watershed,
    which had some healthy and impaired areas.
  • Based on class/group discussions and our field
    trip experience, we formed three hypothesis.
  • Runoff of fertilizer from crops impairs water
    quality.
  • River modification in urban areas increases
    sediment.
  • Better quality habitats lead to healthier
    ecosystems.

19
CONCLUSION
  • We looked at the water shed maps and graphed data
    values to test our hypotheses.
  • We found biological oxygen demand was greater in
    rural areas which supported hypothesis 1.
  • We found total sentiment suspension was greater
    in urban areas which made hypothesis 2 wrong.
  • We found that ICI does increase with better
    quality habitats.

20
We would like to Thank
  • Chaperones
  • Lori Summers, Paula Williams, Fen Lewis, Virginie
    Bouchard, Sharon Schraegle, Shannon Schraegle,
    Kelly Dufore
  • Naturalists
  • Carrie, Elisse, Tim, and Greg
  • Organizers
  • Sue Brown and Elaine Landwehr
  • Instructors/Panelists/Speakers
  • Steve Gordon, Virginie Bouchard, Lori Summers,
    Kathryn Kelley, Bettina Bair, Debra Haley, Sushma
    Joshi, Charlotte Elster, Gabrielle Gordon, Maria
    Palazzi, Barbara Woodall, Leslie Southern, and
    Kay Howell
  • Videographers
  • Kevin and Jason
  • YWSI 2000 Friends
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com