OwlSheets
Flood Planning for Lake Junction Clinic worksheet preview

WorksheetPremium

Flood Planning for Lake Junction Clinic

Compare flood-protection designs for a lakeside clinic using model results, costs, neighboring impacts, and stronger-flood tests.

Grade 4ScienceInteractive · Printable

Aligned to4-ESS3-2

Buy this worksheet: $1.50

Or unlock every Premium worksheet with Premium

PrintUnlock to print
Answer keyUnlock to see answers
Assign to classUnlock to assign with a class code

What’s included

  • Single worksheet
  • Auto-graded online
  • 1 NGSS standard
  • Printable answer key
  • 14 questions
  • Classroom-ready

Details

Format
Interactive · Printable
Grade
Grade 4
Subject
Science
Question types
Fill in the blank, Multiple choice, Circle the answer, Sorting, Short answer

About this worksheet

What students practice

  • Students compare flood-protection designs using results for a clinic and nearby yards.
  • Students evaluate designs using cost limits, protection goals, and different flood conditions.
  • Students support a design recommendation with evidence and explain a limit of model tests.

How to use

Read the planning report together. Have students compare both graphs before choosing designs, then use the additional tests to revise their recommendations.

Curriculum

NGSS standard covered

4-ESS3-2

Compare solutions that reduce the effects of natural hazards such as earthquakes, floods and volcanoes on people.

Preview

OwlSheets.com

Name Date

Flood Planning for Lake Junction Clinic

Compare flood designs, weigh trade-offs, and recommend a safer plan.

1. Compare Effects in Two Places

Read the report and both graphs. Less water means less flooding in the measured area. Model cost points are not real construction prices.

A Clinic Where the River Meets the Lake

Lake Junction Clinic stands on low ground where a river enters a lake. After long periods of heavy rain, rising water can reach the clinic and nearby homes. Floodwater could damage medical supplies and make the clinic difficult to use. Local planners want to compare ways to reduce these effects without sending more water toward the homes.

A science club built a model of the area in a large tray. A small container represented a room in the clinic. Another marked area represented neighboring yards. The students compared four designs. “No change” left the model as it was. An entry wall stood in front of the clinic. A side channel guided water around both marked areas toward a collecting basin. A raised floor lifted the model clinic room on short supports.

For each design, students poured one liter of room-temperature water into the river end of the tray over thirty seconds. They kept the tray slope, model ground, starting water level, and pouring place the same. They emptied and reset the tray between tests. Only the protection design changed. After each pour, they measured water collected inside the model clinic and in the neighboring-yard area. The two graphs show the results of this first test in milliliters, or mL.

The designs also had model costs: no change cost 0 points, the entry wall cost 3 points, the side channel cost 5 points, and the raised floor cost 8 points. The first planning goal was to keep clinic water at 80 mL or less and yard water at 120 mL or less while spending no more than 5 points.

The tray cannot copy every real flood. Full-size designs would need trained planners to study local land and water conditions. Clinic workers and patients must still follow official flood warnings and leave when directed.

First Test: Water Inside the Clinic020406080100120140160No changeEntry wallSide channelRaised floorProtection designWater collected (mL)
First Test: Water in Neighboring Yards020406080100120140160180No changeEntry wallSide channelRaised floorProtection designWater collected (mL)

The preview shows the first questions. Unlock the worksheet to see all of it.

Related worksheets