Ava Stills & Caeley McClain

October 12, 2017

Silverton, Colorado
Silverton Report
Problem Statement:
With the data regarding the streamflow, pH, temperature, turbidity, and conductivity that
we collected from three tributaries, Mineral Creek, Cement Creek, and the Upper Animas, in
Silverton on October 12th, we will predict what these values will translate to below their
confluence.

Introduction:
For this experiment, we conducted a series of tests on the three tributaries of the Animas.
We performed these tests in order to collect data that we could use to predict the values below
the confluence. Each test determined a different variable. These variables included: streamflow
(discharge), turbidity, pH, conductivity, and temperature. Streamflow is the amount of water
passing through a channel. Streamflow is computed by multiplying the area of water in a channel
cross section by the average velocity of the water in that cross section. Turbidity is the
cloudiness or haziness of a fluid. pH is how acidic or basic a substance is. Conductivity is the
ability or power to conduct or transmit heat, electricity, or sound. Finally, temperature is the
degree of heat present in a substance.
Once we had collected these variables, we used mathematical functions to calculate
needed values such as measures of central tendency and measures of variability in order to
determine the values below the confluence. We used standard deviation and weighted averages
to calculate different values. Weighted average is an average resulting from the multiplication of
each component by a factor reflecting its importance. Measures of Central Tendency include
mean and median. Mean is the average of a data set. It is found by adding all of the values then
dividing the sum by the amount of values. The median is the central value from the data set.
Measures of variability include maximum, minimum, range, and standard deviation. Standard
deviation is a quantity calculated to indicate the extent of the variation for a group as a whole.
The maximum is the highest value in the data set and the minimum is the lowest. The range is
the difference between the lowest and highest values in the dataset.
Visual Representations:
Table 1: Data collected from three tributaries in Silverton

Table 2: Totals for Variables Contributing to Lower Animas Values

Predictions

Temperature pH Conductivity Turbidity Streamflow

Cement Creek 2.76 1.11 287.80 -0.07 28.94

Mineral Creek 3.45 3.54 214.25 6.88 49.97

Upper Animas 0.98 1.31 63.65 1.6 20.6

Table 3: Pivot Table Representing Measures of Central Tendency and Measures of Variability
for Temperature of Each Tributary
Temperature 10/12/2017

AVERAGE of STDEV of Temperature MEDIAN of MIN of Temperature

Temperature (C) (C) Temperature (C) (C) MAX of Temperature (C)

Cement Creek 9.48 0.23 9.5 9.1 9.80

Mineral Creek 6.88 0.1303840481 6.9 6.7 7.00

Upper Animas 4.72 0.1788854382 4.7 4.5 4.90

Table 4: Pivot Table Representing Measures of Central Tendency and Measures of Variability
for pH of Each Tributary
pH 10/12/2017

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

Cement Creek 3.82 0.4490211576 3.7 3.45 4.60

Mineral Creek 7.05 0.05033222957 7.04 7 7.10

Upper Animas 6.35 1.128461342 6.3 5.27 7.52

Table 5: Pivot Table Representing Measures of Central Tendency and Measures of Variability
for Turbidity of Each Tributary
Turbidity 10/12/2017

AVERAGE of STDEV of Turbidity MEDIAN of Turbidity MIN of Turbidity

Turbidity (NTU) (NTU) (NTU) (NTU) MAX of Turbidity (NTU)

Cement Creek -0.23 13.90836679 -2.7 -17 16.30

Mineral Creek 13.7 15.87671251 10 0 31.10

Upper Animas 7.72 17.93155412 0.78 -5 34.30

Table 6: Pivot Table Representing Measures of Central Tendency and Measures of variability for
Conductivity of Each Tributary
Conductivity 10/12/2017

AVERAGE of
Conductivity STDEV of Conductivity MEDIAN of MIN of Conductivity MAX of Conductivity
(uS/cm) (uS/cm) Conductivity (uS/cm) (uS/cm) (uS/cm)

Cement Creek 989 21.24460716 983.5 972 1017.00

Mineral Creek 427 #DIV/0! 427 427 427

Upper Animas 307.50 7.778174593 307.5 302 313.00

Table 7: Pivot Table Representing Measures of Central Tendency and Measures of variability for
Streamflow of Each Tributary
Streamflow 10/12/2017

AVERAGE of STDEV of Streamflow MIN of Streamflow MAX of Streamflow MEDIAN of Streamflow

Streamflow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)

Cement Creek 28.94 7.88 19.00 35.62 30.57

Mineral Creek 49.97 25.53 26.65 77.248 46.00

Upper Animas 20.60 6.659131768 12.91 24.49 24.40

Table 8: Predictions of pH, turbidity, streamflow, conductivity, and temperature of the

confluence below the three tributaries.

Predictions for the lower Animas

Temperature (C) 7.19
pH 5.96
Conductivity
(uS/cm) 565.81
Turbidity (NTU) 8.41
Stream Flow
(cf/s) 99.51

Methods/Process:
To test each stream for the different variables, Steve split us up between the three
tributaries. Within the tributary groups, we got into teams of three. Our team consisted of us and
Amanda. We began our tests with finding the turbidity of the Upper Animas. To find the
turbidity we did a one-point calibration using a solution with a known turbidity. We then took a
sample of the Upper Animas, put it into the turbidity sensor, and recorded our data. We next
tested for the temperature of the stream. We first took the thermometer and held it in the open air
to gauge the accuracy of the thermometer. We then inserted the thermometer into the water and
recorded the temperature. After taking the temperature, we found the pH of the water. To find
the pH we did a two-point calibration. This calibration consisted of taking the pH rod and
inserting it into a buffer solution with a known pH of 7. We entered the pH value into our
interface for our first calibration. We repeated the process, but with a buffer solution with a pH
of 10. To perform the actual test we held the pH rod in the water until the value the interface was
reading leveled out. Once the number steadied out we recorded the data and moved on to our last
test. We finished our testing by finding the conductivity of the Upper Animas. This test was
started with finding the sensitivity of the sensor. Once we chose a sensitivity we performed a
two-point calibrations using two solutions with either high or lower conductivity than the
sensitivity we found. After the calibrations, we stuck the probe into the water and measured the
conductivity of the water.
Following our Silverton tests, we recorded our data in a spreadsheet as a class. We then
each created pivot tables displaying the mean, median, standard deviation, maximum, and
minimum. These pivot tables were used to condense the collected data. With the data represented
in our pivot tables, we began our calculations. For our calculations, we used weighted average to
find our values. We started by adding up the streamflow of each of the three tributaries. We then
divided the streamflow of each of tributary by the sum of all three. The quotient that you get for
each stream is the decimal representation of the percentage that each tributary contributes to
below the confluence. After finding the percent of each tributary we multiplied the percentage by
the average of each variable per tributary. For example, we multiplied the average temperature of
Cement Creek by the percentage we had found. We then took the product of each creek for a
certain variable and added them together. That sum was our prediction for the values below the
confluence.

Solutions/Predictions:
In this experiment, we were able to use both quantitative and qualitative data. We used
qualitative data when we were testing the streams. We looked at the color of the stream and the
structure of the stream. We analyzed those observations and discussed how they affect the
quality of the waster. We then were able to back up this data with quantitative data. By testing
the water for pH, temperature, streamflow, turbidity, and conductivity it showed us how much
those variables really affected the water quality. For example, the lower pH level showed us that
the water was more acidic, which meant there wasnt a lot of life in the water.
Before we started calculating our predictions for the lower Animas, we went through and
analyzed our data that we had collected. The results as a class from our data collection were
varying. The data contained fairly consistent ranges, but there were quite a few outliers. These
outliers caused the most worry when summarizing our data in the pivot tables because they
changed results such as averages quite substantially. We decided to not include dissolved oxygen
when we calculating the predictions for the lower Animas because we lacked the necessary data.
We only had dissolved oxygen data for the upper Animas; the groups that collected data for
mineral creek and cement creek didnt have enough time to test for dissolved oxygen.
In order to calculate for streamflow below the confluence, we started by taking the values
we had collected at the site. We went about collecting the data at the site by measuring different
depths across the stream at certain lengths, then our class floated a container down and times
how long it took to complete 50 feet. Once we had collected this data we found the volume of
each section and figured out how fast it was moving in each tributary, which gave us the
streamflow. We took the streamflow from each tributary and them together to find the
streamflow for the confluence below the tributaries. This method worked and made sense
because when all the streams came together, their water rates combined, therefore, making the
lower Animas larger and faster. When we added all of the streamflows from each tributary, we
found that the streamflow of the Lower Animas would be 99.51 cubic feet per second. When
comparing it to USGS data we found that our streamflow was around the same. The USGS found
that the streamflow from when we were there was around 102-105 cubic feet per second. The
week before we tested up in Silverton (October 1st-October 12th) the streamflow was slowly
decreasing, which is most likely due to the lack of snowmelt. There were some days that it
slightly went back up, which was most likely from the rain we had been having during the
month. We believe that our prediction for streamflow is correct because it was only a few units
off from the USGS results and the process was fairly easy that it would have been hard to make
mistakes.

Table 9: The Process Used to Find the Total Streamflow for the Confluence Below the Three
Tributaries.

Streamflow Averages
Cement Creek 28.94
Mineral Creek 49.97
Upper Animas 20.6
Total 99.51

In order to calculate our prediction for temperature, pH, conductivity, and turbidity we
started out by taking the weighted averages from the data we had collected. We then calculated
for the streamflow for the confluence below the tributaries. Then we divided the streamflow of
each tributary by the total we had found for the streamflow of the confluence. The number that
we got for each stream is the amount that each tributary contributes to the confluence below it.
Once we had found that value we multiplied it by the average of each variable for each tributary.
We did this for all three tributaries.
Example: Finding the temperature for the confluence below the tributaries
28.94/99.51=.291
49.97/99.51=.502
20.6/99.51=.207
.291*9.48=2.76
.502*6.88=3.45
.207*4.72=0.98
2.76+3.45+0.98=7.19
 When we did this process we found that the temperature of the confluence below the
tributaries would be 7.19 Celsius. We can not totally trust this prediction because each tributary
was being tested at different times of the day, therefore the temperature would have changed
throughout the day. According to USGS, the week before we did the experiment the temperature
at the confluence below the tributaries was fairly consistent. The temperature would rise during
the day and drop during the night. The day we tested in Silverton USGS found that the
temperature was around 6-7 Celsius. Our prediction seems to line up to the results USGS found.
However, our temperature data was taken from only certain times of the day, whereas USGS
data from the stream throughout the whole day.
For pH, after we had multiplied the weighted averages of each stream by the percentage
each stream contributes to the confluence and added those sums together, we found that the
confluences pH level would be 5.96. We are confident in our prediction because the data our
class collected for pH levels in the tributaries was very consistent. According to USGS, through
the week before we tested the pH levels stayed around 6.7. So our prediction was only a couple
units off. Unfortunately, the day we were testing it got so cold that the water froze over and
USGS was unable to record the pH level for the lower Animas. Therefore, we will never know if
our results lined up with USGSs results.
The results we had collected for conductivity were varying and we ended up an outlier.
For the Upper Animas, our class received the four data points 302, 865, 313, and 315. We felt
like the data point 865 was not close to the other three data points and would mess up our
weighted average, so we decided to get rid of it. Besides that, we felt the rest of the data points
were important to finding our prediction. Once we had calculated for the lower Animas, we
found that the conductivity would be around 565.81 uS per centimeter. We were unable to check
if our prediction matched up with USGSs results due to the tributaries having ice on them.
However, according to the week before the conductivity was slowly increasing and was around
500 uS per centimeter. So even though we didnt have data from that day from USGS according
to the week before our prediction should have lined up.
When we divided the weighted averages of turbidity for each tributary by the percentage
that stream contributes to the lower Animas, we found the turbidity for the lower animas would
be 8.41 NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units). Since the three stations where USGS tests for
variables was frozen over, turbidity was unable to be calculated. The week before our experiment
the USGS recorded that the turbidity stayed around 10 NTU, except for on October 7. On
October 7 the turbidity levels increased by 30 units, which could have been from a mine release
or a storm. If we compared our prediction with the data USGS collected the week before and
leave out October 7 our prediction would be correct.

Our predictions can be seen in table 8.

Evaluation:
The experiment was very interesting and educational. This experiment allowed us to
learn how to test water quality and the different aspects that contribute to water quality. It taught
us how to use different tests to find the water quality of one stream and then analyze that data to
predict the water quality of another stream. The experiment went really well, but one thing we
would change is having more time with testing the water quality of the three tributaries. Once we
had condensed all the data together we realized that a lot of the variables were missing. For
example, Mineral Creek was missing a lot of values for conductivity as well as dissolved
oxygen. Due to lack of time, many of the values were not found. We believe that with more time,
we would have been able to find the missing data. With that data we would have been able to
create more accurate predictions.
Making a prediction for the flow below the confluence was a challenge. It was difficult to
figure out where to start and what method to use. We asked our peers and they recommended the
use of weighted averages to find our predictions. Once we had found the weighted averages, we
were able to complete final calculations in order to find our predictions. From there on the
process was simple and we were able to figure it out.

The Importance:
Conducting tests to find temperature, streamflow, conductivity, turbidity, pH levels, and
dissolved oxygen in the Animas River and La Plata County is important because it helps us
understand what is affecting the quality of our water. The data from tests used to find
temperature, streamflow, conductivity, turbidity, pH levels, and dissolved oxygen can be
compared to average quality levels of other water sources. With the amount of mining in the
surrounding area, it is important that we monitor the quality of the water that we use often. The
Animas River is used for irrigation for many farms and water supply to various towns. The river
is also highly used in the summers for recreation such as fishing and whitewater rafting. If the
water quality of the lower Animas deteriorates, it will affect many people. It is important to keep
the river monitored in order for people to enjoy and utilize the river. A way we can help protect
the water quality of our river and streams is to inform our community about what has negative
effects on them. It is really hard to create a perfect solution, but we can start creating more
awareness towards the issue of water quality in our community.

Self-Assessment:
We believe we deserved an A for this experiment and report. We feel that we deserve this
grade because we were able to use critical thinking to solve the problem statement and overcome
the challenges we ran into. We were able to use the knowledge we gained in class and apply it to
finding the predictions of the confluence below the three tributaries. When we ran into a
challenge we were able to go to our peers and other resources to figure it out. We made sure to
communicate as a group and try to evenly distribute the workload.