Emery Hannum and Cady Bright

Math 3 and Chemistry

10.31.17

SilvertonReport

ProblemStatement
On October 12, 2017, the entire Grade 11 class drove up to Silverton and performed a series of tests,
among other activities, on the creeks, resulting in the following data. The purpose of this unit was test water
quality parameters three different tributaries of the Animas River - Mineral Creek, Cement Creek, and the
Upper Animas - evaluate the reliability of the data, and then make predictions about what the water quality of
the Animas River would be below the confluence of the three tributaries. Then, this data was to be compared
with United States Geologic Survey data to assess the success of the experiment.

Introduction
The goal of this investigation was to collect data from the Upper Animas, Cement Creek, and Mineral
Creek and use the acquired data to make a prediction about what the values would be further down the river.
The purpose of this experiment series was to learn more about water quality (mainly data collection and how
human activity affects it) and the Animas River Watershed (particularly about the effects of mines).
To effectively perform this experiment, we needed to understand what the six things we were testing
for actually were. Streamflow is the rate at which water flows through a river or stream at a certain point, and
is measured in cubic feet per second in the United States and in cubic metres per second most elsewhere.
Turbidity is the relative clarity of a liquid, and is measured in Nephelometric Turbidity Unit, or NTUs. pH is the
acidity or alkalinity of a substance, measured on a scale of 1-12. Conductivity is how easily a substance or
material conducts electricity, and is measured in microSiemens per centimeter or S/cm. Dissolved oxygen is
exactly what it sounds like - the amount of oxygen dissolved in the water - and is measured in mg/L. We also
measured temperature, in Celsius. To put these terms in perspective, drinking water should be below 1 NTU,
have a pH of 7, and have a conductivity between 5 50 mS/m.N ext, we needed to interpret and evaluate the
reliability of this data after the experiment, using the measures of variability, consisting of the maximum and
minimums, range (the difference of the maximum and minimum), and standard deviation (a value calculated
to show the dispersion in a set of data). Another set of mathematical tools we used was the measures of
central tendency, which consists of functions such as the mean (average), median (centre of a data set
arranged in numerical order) and weighted average, which is an average calculated by multiplying values of a
data set by a specific percentage of a whole and adding every part together. Weighted average was especially
important in making predictions about the quality of the Animas River at the confluence.

VisualRepresentation
Table #1 shows all of data that each of the groups assigned to the three different groups gathered.
They tested for temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen in mg/L and (% saturation), turbidity, conductivity, and
streamflow. This data was stored in a Google Sheet made available to the entire grade. The darker coloured
boxes display values we eventually threw away due to their effect on standard deviation, and overall
differentiation from the rest of the data.
Table #1: W
ater Quality Parameters
DissolvedOxygen DissolvedOxygen(%
Stream Temperature(C) pH (mg/L) saturation) Turbidity(NTU) Conductivity(uS/cm) Streamflow(cfs)

Cement Creek 9.1 4.6 N/A N/A 16 1017 34.91

Cement Creek 9.6 3.45 -11.3 973

Cement Creek 9.5 -17 19.00

Cement Creek 9.5 3.7 N/A N/A 16.3 972 26.23

Cement Creek 9.8 3.64 0

Cement Creek 9.4 3.7 -5.4 994 35.62

Mineral Creek 10

Mineral Creek 6.7 7.04 0

Mineral Creek 7 31.1 427 46.00

Mineral Creek 6.8 7 26.65

Mineral Creek 6.9 77.25

Mineral Creek 7 7.1

Upper Animas 4.7 8.54 94.2 0.78 12.91

Upper Animas 4.5 7.52 8.5 94.1 -5 302

Upper Animas 4.6 5.5 8.5 94.4 0.78 865

Upper Animas 4.9 5.27 8.47 94.3 34.3 313 24.40

Upper Animas 4.9 7.1 8.48 94 34.4 315 24.49

Table #2 shows the pivot table we made using Table #1 after omitting the highlighted values.
Utilising a pivot table allowed us to make many calculations very quickly. This is also the table that we took the
averages from to make our final predictions
.
Table #2: Water Quality Parameters Pivot Table
AVERAGE of Temperature (C) MEDIAN of Temperature (C) MAX of Temperature (C) MIN of Temperature (C) STDEV of Temperature (C)

Cement
Creek 9.483333333 9.5 9.8 9.1 0.2316606714

Mineral
Creek 6.88 6.9 7 6.7 0.1303840481

Upper
Animas 4.72 4.7 4.9 4.5 0.1788854382

AVERAGE of pH MEDIAN of pH MAX of pH MIN of pH STDEV of pH

Cement
Creek 3.818 3.7 4.6 3.45 0.4490211576

Mineral
Creek 7.046666667 7.04 7.1 7 0.05033222957

Upper
Animas 6.3475 6.3 7.52 5.27 1.128461342

 AVERAGE of Dissolved Oxygen MEDIAN of Dissolved Oxygen MAX of Dissolved Oxygen MIN of Dissolved Oxygen STDEV of Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

Cement
Creek #DIV/0! #NUM! 0 0 #DIV/0!

Mineral
Creek #DIV/0! #NUM! 0 0 #DIV/0!

Upper
Animas 8.498 8.5 8.54 8.47 0.02683281573

AVERAGE of Dissolved Oxygen (% MEDIAN of Dissolved Oxygen MAX of Dissolved Oxygen MIN of Dissolved Oxygen STDEV of Dissolved Oxygen
saturation) (% saturation) (% saturation) (% saturation) (% saturation)

Cement
Creek #DIV/0! #NUM! 0 0 #DIV/0!

Mineral
Creek #DIV/0! #NUM! 0 0 #DIV/0!

Upper
Animas 94.2 94.2 94.4 94 0.158113883

AVERAGE of Turbidity (NTU) MEDIAN of Turbidity (NTU) MAX of Turbidity (NTU) MIN of Turbidity (NTU) STDEV of Turbidity (NTU)

Cement
Creek -0.2333333333 -2.7 16.3 -17 13.90836679

Mineral
Creek 13.7 10 31.1 0 15.87671251

Upper
Animas 13.052 0.78 34.4 -5 19.58502796

MEDIAN of Conductivity MAX of Conductivity MIN of Conductivity STDEV of Conductivity

AVERAGE of Conductivity (uS/cm) (uS/cm) (uS/cm) (uS/cm) (uS/cm)

Cement
Creek 979.6666667 973 994 972 12.42309677

Mineral
Creek 427 427 427 427 #DIV/0!

Upper
Animas 310 313 315 302 7

AVERAGE of Streamflow (cfs) MEDIAN of Streamflow (cfs) MAX of Streamflow (cfs) MIN of Streamflow (cfs) STDEV of Streamflow (cfs)

Cement
Creek 32.25 34.91 35.62 26.23 5.2280394

Mineral
Creek 49.966 46 77.248 26.65 25.53108435

Upper
Animas 20.60 24.40 24.49 12.91 6.659131768

MethodsandProcess
The initial plan that each group would perform a series of tests in a respective spot on their stream. To
perform the tests necessary to streamflow, one person would go into the water wearing waders, and measure
the following: a distance of 50 feet, and how deep the stream was in five different places. Then, the person in
the water would measure how fast a floating object could travel the distance of 50 feet. This test was
performed five times and then averaged. This process brought some issues to light. For example, trying to not
to fall in and the floating object getting stuck messed with some of the times.
 While some equipment required help to figure out how it worked, this process helped us understand
and complete the experiment. We used many pieces of equipment to measure the different values. Some of
these required calibration. For example, to calibrate the pH probe, we would put it into substances that have a
pH we know, and enter the value into the probe.
Once we returned to school, we learned different ways to manipulate and use spreadsheets. For
example, we kept sections of the table lock in place using the freeze tool, and organised all of our data without
re-typing it. This simple method was very helpful as we had a lot of different data points to organize. Pivot
tables allowed us to quickly calculate the average, median, maximum, minimum, and standard deviation. We
proceeded to look at the reliability of our data - noticing that some of the data was out of place and and likely
miscalculated. Though this process didnt always work, as we had some data points that were extremely
random, by large it allowed us to use only reliable data to base our predictions on.

SolutionsandPredictions
Our summarised predictions are as follows in the table below. To find the majority of these values
(temperature, pH, conductivity, and turbidity), we used weighted averages. The blue boxes represent where
we believe the data would have been according to the trends exhibited by the graphs prior to the ice
interference. To acquire the experimental error value, we used the ((measured value-true value)/true
value)*100 equation.
Furthermore, when analysing trends in the USGS data, we used data from October 1st 2017 to October
17th 2017, but when comparing, we used data from the date and time we were at the sites.

Table #3: P
redictions
StudentData Percentage of River Streamflow (cfs) Temperature (C) pH Conductivity (uS/cm) Turbidity (NTU)

CementCreek 0.31 32.25 9.48 3.82 980 -0.23

MineralCreek 0.49 49.97 6.88 7.05 427 13.70
UpperAnimas 0.20 20.60 4.72 6.35 310 13.05

AnimasRiver 100.00 102.82 7.26 5.89 576.92 9.20

USGSData Percentage of River Streamflow (cfs) Temperature (C) pH Conductivity (uS/cm) Turbidity (NTU)

CementCreek 0.14 14 7.5 3.7 1130 8

MineralCreek 0.39 39 6 6.7 438 8.5
UpperAnimas 0.48 48 5 7.7 340 1.35

AnimasRiver 1.00 101 6.5 6.7 540 7

ExperimentalError N/A 1.80 11.75 -12.03 6.84 31.42

Streamflow:
The streamflow at the confluence, according to USGS data, appears to be starting a downward trend,
presumably because as it nears winter, more of the water will be freezing instead of flowing downriver. Our
confidence in this predicted value was not initially high - the raw data showed relative inconsistency, so while
the mean and median were close, the standard deviation was unnervingly high - however our final predicted
value aligns closely with the USGS data at the confluence, though not before. To calculate this value, we simply
added up all three streamflows, as the Animas is fed by all three streams.

Temperature:
The temperature in degrees celsius at the confluence is also beginning a downward trend, visible
despite significant differences in temperature depending on the time of day (warmer in the daytime and cold
at night, of course). Our confidence in this value was likely the highest, as there is distinct consistency in the
initial data, as well as consistency between the mean and median of the data, and finally, a low rate of
deviation. This confidence was deserves as we were quite close to the USGS data at the confluence. To
calculate this value, we used a weighted average - multiplying the average temperature for each stream by the
percentage of the river, and then adding them together.

pH:
The pH at the confluence was consistently between 6.5 and 7 for the 12 days leading up to the
experiment, however the day before the experiment was conducted, the lowering temperatures resulted in
ice, and the USGS testing site at the confluence was unable to test for the pH, conductivity, and turbidity due
to the ice in its system. Our predicted value, being just below a pH of 6, was close to this range, and the
individual stream data matches USGS data well, making it adequately reliable. Steve revealed to us later on
that you can in fact not calculate a pH prediction with a weighted average due to the nature of how it is
quantitatively written. In spite of this, his method of finding the correct pH was not backed up by USGS data, a
phenomenon he is currently attempting to explain.

Conductivity:
The conductivity at the confluence was rising before the ice interfered with the system, following an
upward trend that likely would have continued between 530-540 uS/cm. We were moderately but not overly
confident in our results, because though the mean and median were close and the standard deviation was not
high, not all of our classmates performed a conductivity test, resulting in less data overall. This being said, our
value was not terribly off at 576.92 uS/cm. Ironically, the 1017 value that we cancelled out when evaluating
reliability was the closest to the USGS data for Cement Creek. We calculated our conductivity prediction once
again with weighted average.

Turbidity:
The turbidity at the confluence was around 6-8 FNUs (which is the same as 6-8 NTUs, but the data is
acquired differently) in the days leading up to the experiment, with the occasional spike. We were very unsure
of our results, as the turbidity measurements had the highest standard deviation, large differences between
the mean and median, and overall very random data. This data deficiency can likely be attributed to pilot
error. How we managed to come even close to the actual measurement at 9.2 NTUs is beyond us, but we used
weighted average to find this value also. The unreliability of this test is clear through its standard deviation
and percent experimental error.

Evaluation
 This investigation was both worthwhile and challenging, as working with real data tends to be. It was
beneficial for us to be able to actually go up to Silverton and follow the investigational process all the way to
this very report. Evaluating and correcting the data using standard deviation is what we found most engaging,
but also most difficult, as the class as a whole did not collect much consistent data, or much data at all in
certain areas. Therefore, it might have been more beneficial to work more on how one would evaluate the
reliability of a data set, because we felt slightly unprepared in that area, compared to how prepared we were
otherwise. It was deeply interesting to be able to compare the class-collected data to USGS data, and more
interesting still to see the obstacles that can arise when experimenting in real life, such as the pH problem, the
ice conundrum, and running out of time to perform some of the tests.
We found it fascinating when Steve talked about why pH can in fact not be predicted by weighted
averages, and expected us to get the wrong value to teach us about how to properly calculate it. This was
interesting because he was unable to explain at that moment exactly why the river was not at the value he
predicted through the correct method, giving us an insight to the often unpredictable world of real science.
Overall, the combination of Chemistry and Math 3 content supported us thoroughly, and allowed us to
strengthen skills that have applications across many STEM-related areas.

TheImportance
One of the most striking aspects of this investigation is how relevant and important it is to the
Durango community, which has long struggled with minings effect on the town and the Animas River
Watershed. The main concerns when it comes to water quality are the effects on the environment and on
public health, but the Animas has the added weight of being the source of many recreational pastimes for
citizens such as fishing, kayaking, rafting, and swimming, which makes it valuable to the tourist industry and
thus the town economy.
Water-quality monitoring is used to alert us to current, ongoing, and emerging problems, according
to Donna N. Myers, Chief of the Office of Water Quality at the U.S. Geological Survey. Some of these problems
take the form of harmful chemicals, heavy metals, and microbes in water, such as the lead in Flint, Michigan,
and the MCHM (4-Methylcyclohexane Methanol) in Charleston, West Virginia. More often than not,
calculating different water quality parameters brings clarity to existing problems - fertilizer runoff, acid mine
drainage, and other contaminants - so that they can hopefully be swiftly and effectively dealt with, preserving
the health of communities and environments surrounding rivers.

Self-Assessment
We believe that we deserve an A for this write up. We utilised many collaborative skills, such as equal
division of work, communication, and holding each other accountable. Furthermore, we went through several
drafts and critiquing processes with each other and our classmates, using the checklist and explanation, to
ensure that we present the most refined product that we can. Our only prominent pitfall was being slightly less
productive during class work time than was in our best interest, and even then we were quick to recognise and
combat this problem effectively.

WorksCited
Myers, Donna N. Why Monitor Water Quality? U . S. Geological Survey,
water.usgs.gov/owq/WhyMonitorWaterQuality.pdf.