Alan, Sareth, John

Oct. 12, 2017, Silverton, CO

Problem Statement - Alan

The purpose of this lab was to measure the conductivity, turbidity, temperature, pH, and
streamflow of the three main creeks that flow into the Animas River (Mineral Creek, Cement
Creek, Upper Animas) and determine how the given measurements will combine in the greater
Animas.

Introduction - Alan

On October 12th, the junior class ventured to Silverton to measure the various qualities of
three different streams that ultimately combine to form the Animas River. The qualities that we
measured in this lab are the conductivity, turbidity, temperature, streamflow, pH, and oxygen
levels within Mineral Creek, Cement Creek, and the Upper Animas. One group measured the
Upper Animas from 10:00-11:15, the other measured Mineral Creek from 11:15-12:30, and the
last measured Cement Creek from 1:15-2:30. Conductivity measures how easily the water
conducts electricity; this can change based on the substances dissolved within the water, such as
salt or various metals. Turbidity measures the cloudiness/clarity of the water; this changes as a
result of the presence of different elements in the water, such as heavy metals. pH is the acidity or
basicity of the water; this is affected by the minerals in the water, such as mining waste (iron,
mercury, etc). Temperature varies based on the source of the stream as well as the conditions of
the path the stream takes, such as underground of shaded/sunny areas. Dissolved oxygen in mg/L
& % saturation measure how much oxygen is mixed in the water. Finally, streamflow measures
how fast the river is moving as well as how much water is being pushed through over time. Back
in Durango, our ultimate goal was to find out how the data gathered from these three creeks
combines and how we might predict what these numbers will be.

Visual Representations - Sareth

Temp Cement Creek temp Upper Animas temp Mineral Creek temp Grand Average
Celsius Celsius Celsius

Sareth 9.483333 4.675 6.85 7.0027

John 9.483333 4.72 6.88 7.0277766667

Alan 9.483333 4.72 6.88 7.0277766667

This table represents the different temperatures our group members got in the various streams.
PH Cement Creek PH Upper Animas PH Mineral Creek PH Grand Average

Sareth 3.818 6.09 7.02 5.646

John 3.818 6.466 6.3475 5.3311666667

Alan 3.818 7.046666667 6.3475 5.73738889

The ph is a measurement of the acidity of a liquid.
Turbidity Cement Creek Turb. Upper Animas Mineral Creek Grand Average
Turb. Turb.
Sareth -0.2333333333 6.096666667 7.02 7.06

John -0.2333333333 13.052 13.7 8.839

Alan -0.2333333333 13.052 13.7 8.839

Turbidity is the measurement of the transparency of water.

Conductivity Cement Creek Upper Animas Mineral Creek Grand Average

Cond. Cond. Cond.

Sareth 989 493.3333333 427 636.444

John 989 310 427 575.333333333

Alan 989 310 427 575.333333333

Conductivity is the waters ability to pass on an electrical current.

Stream Flow Cement Creek Upper Animas Mineral Creek Grand Average

Sareth 25.955 46.985 24.445 33.461666667

John 25.955 46.985 24.445 33.461666667

Alan 25.955 46.985 24.445 33.461666667

Stream Flow is the measurement of the amount of water moving through a stream.

Methods/Process

Sareth: I made a pivot table to include the data for all three streams (cement creek=C.C., mineral
creek=M.C., and the upper animas=U.A.). I first made a table for temperature resulting in an
average temperature of 9.483333 degrees celsius for C.C. An average temperature of 4.675
degrees celsius for U.A. and a average temperature of 6.85 degrees celsius for M.C. I next tabled
the pH of the streams resulting in a pH of 3.818 for C.C., a pH of 4.675 for U.A., and a pH of
6.85 for M.C. I continued this method throughout the process of organizing the data collected and
found the following averages.
Mineral creek Turbidity Conductivity Streamflow

7.02 427 427

Upper Animas Turbidity Conductivity Streamflow

6.096666667 493.3333333 46.985

Cement Creek Turbidity Conductivity Streamflow

-0.2333333333 989 25.955

For my grand averages of all of the streams together I got Average Temperature C: 7.0027,
Average PH: 5.646, Average Turbidity:7.060, Average Conductivity: 636.444, Average dissolved
water %: 31.4%, Average Streamflow: 32.44666 cfs

John: I created a pivot table to measure the pH of Cement creek, Mineral creek, and the upper
Animas. My calculations resulted in cement creek with a pH of 3.818, upper Animas with a pH of
6.466, and mineral creek with a pH of 6.3475. I found the mean of these numbers to find the
grand average of all three creeks resulting in 5.331166667. Next I found the temperature in
celsius of the three creeks. The temperatures I found for all three creeks was 9.483333 degrees
(C) for Cement Creek, 4.72 degrees (C) for the upper Animas, and 6.88 degrees (C) for mineral
creek. Using the same method as before, I found the mean of the temperatures of the creeks and
then found the grand average at 7.0277766667 degrees C. However, I found that I was not able
to calculate the dissolved oxygen (mg/L) or dissolved oxygen (% saturation), thus I eliminated
them. I then repeated the same process to get the measurements of turbidity and
conductivity. My grand average for turbidity was 8.839, and 575.333333333 for
conductivity.

Alan: After creating the pivot table, I began to examine the median and average for each data set
and compare them. I found that they were almost identical for each data set, so I moved on to
compare the average and standard deviation, as per Steves advice. I found that the standard
deviation of conductivity in the Upper Animas was far too high for the average, and I concluded
that this was due to a rogue data point of 865 among other points averaging at around 310. I then
decided that this was likely a measurement that came about through a mistake on the part of the
tester, so I removed it entirely. After that, I observed that the turbidity measured by each group
was all over the chart, with points ranging anywhere from 34.4 to -17. It seemed that most of us
were doing something wrong to get such bizarre measurements, but I could not determine exactly
what that was. As a result, I decided that we cannot properly determine the turbidity of the
Animas River at the time. The next wall that I encountered came when I examined the overall
data for dissolved oxygen: There wasnt any. Due to the fact that the only measurements of this
data point were from the Upper Animas group, I could not properly evaluate what the Animas
Rivers oxygen levels would be when combined with Mineral Creek and Cement Creek,
unfortunately. The last issue that I ran into was that there were only two data points for Mineral
Creeks streamflow, so I simply noted that the streamflow will not be 100% accurate. Next, I
decided to take the average streamflow of each river and try to find some way to make them into
percentages. Remarkably, they all added up to 98 cf/s, which is quite close to 100. I used this to
make a percentage value out of 100 for each rivers streamflow with the missing 2 out of 98 cf/s
being negligible, due to the fact that it only makes up for one-fiftieth of the prediction. I then took
the averages of our data points (conductivity, pH, etc.) and multiplied them into weighted
averages using the % contribution of each river to the Animas through their streamflow. Mineral
Creek made up for 47% of the streamflow (.47), Cement Creek was 26% (.26), and the Upper
Animas was 25% (.25). Through using weighted averages and then adding them together, I
believe that I got accurate results. To my understanding, the conductivity should be at 535.33, pH
should be 5.899, the temperature should be 6.8784 C (though this will fluctuate over time due to
sunlight, seasons, etc.), turbidity should be 9.6422, and dissolved oxygen should be 2.1245mg/L
or 23.55%. However, I have also noticed that going through this process without weighted
averages gives very similar results. I believe that this was Sareths technique, and I must say that
it was quite easier and admittedly brought results that were just as accurate.

Solutions/Predictions - Alan
 The three of us all had slightly varying results for our predictions, all of which were more or
less similar to the USGSs data; this is likely due to our varying techniques for our calculations.
The main difference is the set of results which used weighted averages and the ones that did not,
with another factor being that some of us deleted a few data points which did not make sense
while others left them in. Neither method is necessarily correct, but both lead to answers which
may be closer to the truth than the other method when compared with USGSs data. The
following data points will be for both methods of weighted averages and regular averages,
respectively, along side the USGSs data as well. It must also be noted that the USGS data is
estimated due to the lack of data for October 12, as the river froze over and prevented their testing
for that day. The numbers listed in place of definitive points will be based on the previous two
weeks of collection and where the trend was going.
Temperature: 6.8784 C, 7.0027 C, USGS 6 C
pH: 5.899, 5.646, USGS 6.6
Conductivity: 535.33, 636.444, USGS 515
Turbidity: 9.6422, 7.06, USGS 7

Looking at the data above, it is easy to see that no ones measurements conform to USGSs
data 100%. However, some are closer than others. For example, conductivity measured with
weighted averages is more accurate than doing so with regular averages, but the turbidity appears
to be significantly more accurate when using regular averages than with weighted averages.

Evaluation

Sareth: I think that this project was successful and was an interesting experience to present us
animas students. The field trip was a tad unorganized and confusing and I wish we would have
learned more about the instruments we were using before going out and using them. I also didnt
like the presenter very much, it would have been much easier to focus if we were walking around.
My favorite part of the trip was actually being hands on and being in the river. When we got back
and organized our data and started making pivot tables is when I started really enjoying this
project, I think that being able to use a spreadsheet is a good life skill and I appreciate learning it.
I think that overall this is a very useful project to teach us more about our local environment.

John: I would say that this project turned out to a successful learning experience with some
minor room for improvement. Starting with the silverton trip, I would say most of it was well
organized, however the end could have been a little better. I say this because I feel that we should
have taken a tour instead of just listing to a presentation. For the water quality predictions and
writeup I think things could have been much more organized. I say this because I was left
without a partner. I think that the method used to arrange partners was not the best way. I think if
it had been planned out better it would have worked out much better for me, and I would not have
ended up without a partner. All in all, it was a fun and interesting project, but there could have
been more thought into the planning of it.

Alan: I found this to be a fascinating experience all around, as there are so many aspects to water
quality that I was completely unaware of. While in Silverton, the lessons about the mines and
mining waste & tailings were also quite intriguing to me. Honestly, I did not know just how
interesting geology is and how it affects every single aspect of our ecology, right down to the
color of the dirt. Anyways, Ive found that this project has really piqued my interest in studying
water quality as well as the superfund site in San Juan County. The process that was used to help
us get to know the tools in Google Sheets was also quite helpful, as I have always had difficulties
using the program. Next time this is done, however, I would like to see the schedule in Silverton
improved a little bit. While I think that it worked quite well in every other aspect, we were unable
to get at least one measurement of each water quality aspect in each creek. For example, there
were no dissolved oxygen measurements in any river but the Upper Animas, thus hindering our
ability to measure the grand total in the Animas River accurately. If this kind of error can be
avoided in future projects, I think that everything should be peachy! :)

The Importance - Sareth

The importance of learning about the rivers and streams around us is very simple, these bodies of
water are part of our everyday lives and it is useful to know how to measure their changes. Using
a spreadsheet is also a very important thing to use in our everyday lives, organizing data and
making presentations of this nature are part of many career fields, not just science and math. The
most important thing to know how to do is measure and apply data to understand it deeper.

Self-Assessment

Sareth: I have to be honest and say I wish I would have asked more questions, there were some
simple definitions I had to look up to complete this process that I wish I would have just learned
earlier in the project. I did much better with organizing the data than actually writing about it, I
spent most of my time on the visual representations and wasnt left with as much time as I would
have liked to do the rest of the writing portion.

John: I would say that overall I surprised myself with how I did. The reason I bring this up is
due to the fact that I had a confusing situation with who I was supposed to work with for the
calculations and creation of the data chart. Basically I was originally supposed to work with a
student who was moved to a different group, thus leaving me without a partner. For about three
days I did not have a partner to work with. Because of this I missed the most crucial part of the
project process. Therefor I thought I was completely out of look and thought I was not going to
be able to recover or even gain any knowledge on the process. However, I was fortunately able to
find a group to work with. I definitely was far behind but I was able to learn some of what we
were doing and at least get some important knowledge on calculating aspects of the rivers. In
terms of the silverton trip, I felt that I was very successful in collecting data. All in all, I am
pleasantly surprised with how I was able to turn things around after missing such an important
part of the project.

Alan: I would say that this went rather swimmingly! I feel as if I did some pretty decent work
overall, but there are certainly a few areas that I think could have been better within my own
work and the project overall. For example, a great deal of the data was flawed or missing from the
sheet (namely turbidity and dissolved oxygen). I could have helped with this by asking more
questions, such as asking Steve which turbidity measurements he thinks are correct (they surely
shouldnt have all been incorrect, and he would likely know which ones are in more reasonable
parameters), or I could have made more of an effort to ensure both the quantity and quality of my
groups tests when we were in Silverton. Other than these rough areas, I think that everything was
pretty good. I am also quite happy with the work that my group has put in for this lab report, as I
most certainly could not have managed this on my own, let alone with such quality.