Final Notes
Over the course of the year, quite a bit changed about my project. Owing to time constraints, equipment, or there reality of the available waterways, I had to change a few things about my data. First, because of malfunctions with my turbidity device, I ended up not including that data in my final results. The information I did collect was too imprecise for it to be useful in the comparisons. Second, I had to strike a few testing sites because of unrealistic parameters. I could not find a suitable location that was urban and far from shore, and I could not find suitable locations for empty land usage, as they were either impossible to access or too open to the bay. Lastly, I ended up trimming down the amount of data I collected. I ended up with enough data to make comparisons between each variable I was able to examine.
Interpreting the Data
Because of the nature of the experiment, the data does not lend itself to graphs or other common demonstrative methods. I decided to use a series of tables that compared two variables. If all but one variable are the same between two locations, that should result in a comparison of that variable. For example, by comparing Weems Creek and Cox Creek in the spring and at the same depth, we can compare lightly populated to agricultural land usage.
Conclusions
The phrase I would use to describe the results is remarkably unremarkable. First of all, I set out to determine how the pollution levels of the bay are effected by certain factors. While there are a few significant changes, the majority of environmental factors appear unaffected by the majority of variables. The exceptions would be slight pH increases at lower depths, the relatively high pH of the urban data, increase in dissolved oxygen during the spring, and the sharp rise in bacteria for urban and agricultural land usages. What makes this data remarkable is the fact that it seems to run contrary to other accepted and proven results. Not only would you certainly expect certain variables, land usage at least, to have a significant effect, but the numbers themselves are far better than I would have expected. Multiple reports on the Severn River and the Bay (linked below) as a whole are not optimistic. Our nitrogen grade is a D for example, yet I consistently found insignificant amounts of nutrient pollution. Perhaps there was an issue with the procedure or execution that resulted in inaccurate data, or maybe my research was flawed, leading to my idea of a healthy Bay being considered unhealthy by experts.
Similar Projects
CBF State of the Bay 2020: https://www.cbf.org/document-library/cbf-reports/2020-state-of-the-bay-report.pdf
Severn River Association Water Quality Monitoring: https://severnriver.org/programs/water-quality-monitoring/
Severn River Association Water Quality Monitoring: https://severnriver.org/programs/water-quality-monitoring/