Silverton Report

Brigid, Andy
October 12, 2017
Silverton Area

Introduction:
In this report we will investigate the temperature, pH, turbidity, conductivity, and streamflow of Cement
Creek, Mineral Creek, and the Upper Animas. This data will provide us with the ability to predict these
values for the Animas River. Temperature, the measure of the average kinetic energy of the atoms or
molecules in a system, was measured with a thermometer for each of these waterways. Potential of
hydrogen (pH) is defined as acid-base reactions characterized by acids, which dissociate in aqueous
solution to form hydrogen ions (H+) and bases, which form hydroxide (OH) ions. Acids are defined as a
compound or element that releases hydrogen(H+) ions into the solution, by Arrhenius on
chem.libretexts.org. Turbidity was how cloudy or clear each waterway was, conductivity showed us how
much each waterway conducted electricity. Lastly, streamflow -- also known as channel runoff --
demonstrates amount of water, usually in cubic feet per second (USGS).
To predict these solutions, it is critical that we use mathematical concepts including: Weighted Average,
Measures of Central Tendency (mean, median), and Measures of Variability (maximum/minimum, range,
Standard Deviation). According to www.investopedia.com, weighted average is an average in which each
quantity to be averaged is assigned a weight, and these weightings determine the relative importance of
each quantity on the average. To find weighted average, one would multiply each data value number by
its percentage and then add these sums together. The mean of a data set is essentially the average of all the
numbers within the data set (one would add all of the numbers up and divide this number by the number
of data points), while the median is the middle number of a chronologically ordered data set. The
minimum and maximum is the smallest and largest number in a data set, and the range is the maximum
subtracted by the minimum. Lastly, standard deviation is a measure of how spread out data set values are.
Once the values of these variables have been predicted, we will compare our hypothetical results with the
results of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to see how accurate our predictions were, along
with how our data may have been inaccurate -- resulting in an unreliable prediction.

Problem Statement:
The task of this report is to compare the results of Andy and Brigid with the results of the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) to see how accurate our predictions were, along with how and why our data
may have been inaccurate -- and whether or not we are confident with certain parts of our predictions or
not.

Visual Representation:
Table 1: Class Data on Water Quality
This Spreadsheets table represents all of the data from each of the classes that traveled to Silverton. This
was helpful as it allowed us to organize and see all of the data that was collected from three different
streams in the Silverton area that eventually flowed into the Animas River. The data represented in the
table is from a range of quality parameters such as temperature, pH, streamflow, and other characteristics
of each stream. As each of our classes are separated, this table helps us to see what other classes measured
for use in our predictions of the Animas River.

Figure 1: Pivot Table

These pivot tables were created in Spreadsheets to help us calculate the average, median, minimum,
maximum, and standard deviation of the data from the class spreadsheet. Creating these pivot tables made
it easier for our group to easily reference certain values and understand whether or not the data was
relevant to our prediction or if there were outliers that would mess up our final calculation.

Table 2: Weighted Average of Silverton Streams in the Animas River

This Spreadsheets table helped us to calculate the weighted average of each stream by taking data from
our pivot tables and plugging them into equations. After finding the percentage of each stream (based off
of the pivot tables above), we were able to use this chart to find the average of the Animas River after
each stream comes together. Each row lines up with the stream above; ex: temperature of 2.323 is the
temperature of Cement creek. The numbers in bold at the bottom are the final calculations of what the
Animas Rivers values should be.

Table 3: Prediction of Animas River

Explanation: This is simply a table of our
final calculations compiled into an easier to
read format. This makes it easier to reference
when comparing to the USGS data website.
Methods/Process:
Finding Data
To investigate and predict the water quality of the Animas River in Silverton, we collected data from each
large stream in the Silverton area including Cement Creek, Mineral Creek, and the Upper Animas, all of
which lead into the main Animas River. As a class, we compiled all of our data into a Spreadsheet which
allowed us to look at all of the aggregated data. This data includes turbidity, conductivity, pH,
streamflow, and temperature of each stream. To find turbidity, we used a turbidity sensor with a one point
calibration, using a sample of clear water. We used a conductivity probe, calibrating it with low and high
conductive solutions, and pH probe to find the conductivity and pH of each waterway. We calibrated the
pH probe with a solution of pH 7, and a solution of pH 10. Lastly, we had to find the streamflow of each
waterway. To do this, we took the width of three parts of the stream within a 50 feet measure --
beginning, middle, and end. We then measured the depth of the middle, end, and beginning of the way
across each section. After doing this, we took a bob and dropped it at the beginning of the 50ft and timed
how long it would take to reach the end of 50ft. After we collected this data, we multiplied the velocity
(time) by the cross section of the stream.

Calculations
In the beginning, we thought that we could simply take the average of each stream for each value, add
them together and that would be our final prediction. This turned out to be false as the predictions we
made would only work if each stream was the same size and had the same flow rate. We figured this out
after Steve Smith, our chemistry teacher, demonstrated how this was incorrect. He showed us that if there
is a larger amount of one liquid that is warm in a container, than there is of another container with a small
amount of cold liquid, then simply taking the averages of those two liquid temperatures wouldnt take the
the amount of liquid into account. Therefore, we had to find another way to use averages while also
taking into account the amount of water flowing from each river (flow rate). Our group went about
calculating the data below the confluence using weighted averages, as this is the average of data based on
influence, (or amount). For the weighted averages we took the streamflow from each river that was
measured and added them together to create a general sum of what the Animas values should be when all
of the streams converge. After finding the overall Animas streamflow, we went back and found what
percentage each stream made up of that final sum. For example, the total streamflow of the Animas was
around 107 cf/s, and because Cement creek contributed around 26 cf/s we calculated that the percentage
of Cement creek in the Animas is about 24.5%. This is important because it allowed us to see what
percentage the rest of the data from each stream will make up of the Animas after they converge. To find
the weighted average of the data from each stream, we took the percentage of the stream and multiplied it
by the values of that stream. For example, we multiplied the temperature of each stream by their
respective percentages to find how much they contributed to the Animas. Looking at Table 2 w e can see
that the temperature of Cement creek contributed approximately 2.323 degrees (celcius) to the Animas.
We did this for each stream, for each value, finally adding the calculations together to create our
prediction for the Animas River.
Solutions/Predictions:
These are our predictions for what the Animas River should be based on our calculations and observations

Calculations/Explanation:

Streamflow: We are confident in our prediction of streamflow for the Animas river and know that it is
close to what the USGS data should summarize. For this field trip to Silverton, we went about finding the
steam flow by measuring different depths of each each stream along a certain length, then we timed how
long it took a bobble to float down that length. After the preliminary data was recorded, we calculated the
estimated volume of each section, then figured out how fast the water was moving. After all of this data
was recorded we went about finding the streamflow below the confluence by simply adding the
streamflows from the Cement, Mineral, and Upper Animas together.

Stream Flow total

Cement Creek 26.46
Mineral Creek 57.07
Upper Animas 24.45
Total 107.97
The reason that this works is because when all of the streams come together they simply combine into one
larger river, making the calculations quite simple.

Temperature:
To calculate temperature we took the weighted average of each stream, which is basically the average of
something based off of how much there is. In this case the weighted average is how much each stream
makes up the Animas below the confluence. We took the weighted average of each stream and multiplied
it by the average temperature of each steam: Ex:
WA of Cement Creek: 24.5%
Temp of Cement Creek: 9.48
9.48 * 24.5%= 2.4
We did this for each stream based off of their weighted averages and added those together to get the final
temperature prediction for the Animas River. However, we cannot trust this prediction because all of the
values from each stream were collected at different times of day. Because they were collected at different
times of day, the temperature would also have changed throughout the day, making the prediction useless
and incorrect.
pH:
To calculate the pH for our prediction we took the weighted averages of each stream, same as with the
temperature. Then after finding the weighted average we took the sum of each pH for each stream, same
as we would have done for temperature. In the beginning we thought our prediction was correct, and
when we compared it to the USGS data it seemed to line up. However, during class, Steve brought up
how pH increases in factors of 10, which should have made all of our pH calculations incorrect, but
confusing to him, our data lined up and his did not. He is not sure why this is and neither are we. In a
way, our prediction of pH is correct, except we didnt do the calculations the same way as most scientists.

Conductivity:
Again with conductivity, we simply took the weighted average of each stream and multiplied it by the
average conductivity. This should have given us an accurate prediction of what the water below the
convergence should be, however due to freezing temperatures we will never know exactly. Although
looking at the trend over time, our calculations fall within an acceptable margin, and seem to be correct.

Turbidity:
Our calculations and predictions for turbidity are not trustworthy, as we measured the stream turbidity
with a one-point calculation, allowing for a large margin of error to occur. Looking through the data on
turbidity, we know we cannot use most of it because they span from -11 to 12 within the same, leading us
to believe that those readings cannot be trusted. We decided to go forward with the calculations, thinking
it wouldnt hurt, so we filtered out all of the negative numbers recorded for turbidity. We calculated
turbidity the same as the previous values, taking the weighted average and adding the final results
together. Surprisingly, when compared to the USGS or prediction wasnt far off from what the data would
have been had it not froze.

USGS Trends
According to USGS data, the values of the Animas river follow certain trends depending on
environmental conditions. All data is from October 1st to the 12th, 2017.
Temperature:
The data for temperature for the Animas River has a trend of temperature dropping at night and increasing
during the day. This is probably due to the fact that there is no sun at night, therefore the temperature
drops, as well as the change in seasons.
Conductance:
According to the USGS data, the conductance of the Animas River water was steadily rising day-by-day,
with a few dips in data here and there. This was the case until the Animas River encountered freezing
temperatures, which corrupted the data for a few days.
pH:
Over the last few weeks the pH maintained an average of around 6.7 Standard Units (S.U), increasing
during the day and decreasing at night. The most probable cause of this is the amount of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, which acts like an acid in water, and decreases at night because photosynthesis is not
occurring.

Turbidity:
The overall trend for turbidity seems to remain at a constant value for many days. However, there is an
outlier on the 7th of October -- the turbidity increased by over 35 units. There is no known reason for this
increase according to the USGS data, although it could be from a mine release or a storm. It may be due
to the massive hail storm which happened around that time, but the data is unclear as to when it did
happen.
Streamflow:
The USGS data of streamflow followed a steady fall over the last few weeks before we measured our
data. The streamflow dropped to around 100 cf/s the day we conducted our tests, which is close to our
predicted value of 107 cf/s. The reason for this steady decrease is mostly probably caused by the lack of
snow in the mountains due to the season, and the lack of rain in the few days before our arrival.

Comparison of Trends to Student Data

Reference: Table 3
We compared our data to the USGS data by looking at how close our calculations were to the sites data
that was collected around that same time that we collected data.
Temperature:
The temperature we found appears to line up with the data of the USGS. However, we are not confident in
our calculations for temperature because our data is within a broad time span, while the USGS data is
within a more specific time range.
Conductivity:
We are confident in our prediction for conductivity even though the streams encountered freezing
temperatures that day. The reason we are confident is because we compared our data to the USGS data
and our prediction lines up with what the conductivity should have been based off of historical data.
pH:
We are confident in our pH prediction because student data was consistent. Our prediction of pH lines up
with the historical trends over time compared to the USGS pH data. However, we discovered that the way
we collected this data was not correct (because we didnt use logarithms) even though are data was
plausible.
Turbidity:
We are not confident in our turbidity calculations because they were done with a one-point calibration,
increasing the likelihood of machine error. The data on the USGS site shows a turbidity of 7-8 units, and
our calculations found the turbidity to be 10. This is due to the unreliability of student data, which had a
range far greater than it should have.
Streamflow:
We are definitely confident in our predictions of streamflow as the students who recorded the data were
very thorough. We are confident in our prediction because we didnt have to do any fancy calculations,
we simply added the streamflow of each stream, as the Animas is a combined mass of all of them, and
this gave us our final prediction. We compared our data to the data on the USGS website and it appears to
match up, only off by a couple of gallons.
Evaluation:
We found the process of data collection to be very relevant and engaging. It was valuable that we were
gathering data at a site with mining water quality issues that had affected Durango in the past. It was also
interesting that we were gathering data at a site that the USGS was gathering data -- this made the field
trip feel more important and realistic. As for the lab report and data calculations, we found that this
process was important as well, but nevertheless a bit tedious. We liked that we were incorporating Math 3
content into Chemistry content -- our knowledge in the latter class truly helped us succeed in our data
calculations. This report was also valuable in that it helped us practice our writing skills in being concise
and conveying our methods and processes clearly.

Importance:
Understanding and assessing the water quality of the Animas River based off of predictions and
calculations is important in order to strengthen chemistry to math skills as well as critical thinking skills.
We strengthened critical thinking skills in this report by realizing what data from what variables was and
was not reliable, for example: our data for temperature did not correlate to the USGS data for temperature
-- therefore, we had to figure out why this was the case and explore the different variables that might be
affecting our data. This experiment/report also helped us in being more chemistry - math oriented.
Recognizing that chemistry and math can be interrelated was interesting and especially valuable to the
work we did in finding averages, standard deviation, etc., which ultimately led us to make predictions to
compare to the USGS data.
The reason that performing fieldwork on the Animas and San Juan rivers is important is because it helps
us to see if anything is affecting the water. Calculating these parameters is important because it can help
us determine if there are chemicals in the water that could potentially affect the aquatic life in a negative
way. By making these calculations, we can determine if the water is potable (safe to drink), or if the water
has been affected by mines close-by. Doing these calculations help us to make sound decision on whether
there are adverse properties in the water and if something needs to be done. A way we can help protect
our rivers, wildlife, and citizens is to help inform the community on what has negative effects on the
environment around them. It is hard to have a perfect solution to these problems, but one thing we can do
to take care of our water quality is to spread awareness about the current environmental issues in our
society.

Self Assessment:
We believe that we deserve a high A for this report/write-up. We feel that we deserve this because we
managed our time wisely throughout class to finish this report instead of procrastinating and being off
task. Furthermore, we did an excellent job in evenly distributing workload -- both of us feel that we
havent had to do the weight of the report. We made sure to communicate with each other and proofread
each other's writing to ensure that we were meeting the expectations of this report. We have also spent a
fair amount of time in revising and refining our work to verify that each section is clear and easy to
follow. We believe that all of this hard work corroborates into deserving an A for this report.
 Works Cited

Heat and Temperature. Khan Academy,

www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/heat.

Chem.libretexts.org

Streamflow - The Water Cycle. Streamflow - The Water Cycle, from USGS Water-Science
School, water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclestreamflow.html.

Staff, Investopedia. Weighted Average. Investopedia, 14 Feb. 2005,

www.investopedia.com/terms/w/weightedaverage.asp.