Task statement:

Our class went to silverton to test the water quality of the three main tributaries of the upper
Animas watershed, Cement creek, Mineral creek, and the Upper Animas. We tested things like
Streamflow (The flow of water in a river), Temperature, Turbidity (The cloudiness of a fluid), pH
(How acidic a liquid is), and Conductivity (how conductive a material is). We then used the
results of these tests to help us predict what the levels of the Upper Animas will be by using
methods like averages (a number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data),
standard deviation (A quantity calculated to indicate the extent of deviation for a group as a
whole), mean (average), median (Middle number), maximum (Highest number), minimum
(Lowest number), and range (The difference between the lowest and highest values).

Map of Measurement Locations

AHS Measurement Pivot Tables
Date of Study 10/12/2017
AVERAGE of MEDIAN of STDEV of MAX of
Temperature Temperature Temperature Temperature MIN of
(C) (C) (C) (C) Temperature (C)
Cement Creek 9.483333333 9.5 0.2316606714 9.8 9.1
Mineral Creek 6.88 6.9 0.1303840481 7 6.7
Upper Animas 4.72 4.7 0.1788854382 4.9 4.5
Grand Total 7.18125 6.95 2.049461311 9.8 4.5

Date of Study 10/12/2017

AVERAGE of
pH MAX of pH MIN of pH MEDIAN of pH STDEV of pH
Cement Creek 3.818 4.6 3.45 3.7 0.4490211576
Mineral Creek 7.046666667 7.1 7 7.04 0.05033222957
Upper Animas 6.3475 7.52 5.27 6.3 1.128461342
Grand Total 5.468333333 7.52 3.45 5.385 1.618500054

Date of Study 10/12/2017

AVERAGE of MAX of MIN of MEDIAN of STDEV of
Turbidity (NTU) Turbidity (NTU) Turbidity (NTU) Turbidity ( NTU) Turbidity ( NTU)
Cement Creek 10.77 16.30 0.00 16.00 9.33
Mineral Creek 13.70 31.10 0.00 10.00 15.88
Upper Animas 17.57 34.40 0.78 17.54 19.38
Grand Total 14.366 34.4 0 13 14.47659889
Date of Study 10/12/2017
AVERAGE of MAX of MIN of MEDIAN of STDEV of
Conductivity Conductivity Conductivity Conductivity Conductivity
(uS/cm) (uS/cm) (uS/cm) (uS/cm) (uS/cm)
Cement Creek 989 1017 972 983.5 21.24460716
Mineral Creek 427 427 427 427 #DIV/0!
Upper Animas 310 315 302 313 7
Grand Total 664.125 1017 302 699.5 349.7078117

Date of Study 10/12/2017

AVERAGE of MAX of MIN of MEDIAN of
Streamflow Streamflow Streamflow Streamflow STDEV of
(cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Streamflow (cfs)
Cement Creek 28.94 34.91 25.80 26.11 5.171617384
Mineral Creek 49.966 77.248 26.65 46 25.53108435
Upper Animas 24.445 24.49 24.4 24.445 0.06363961031
Grand Total 35.70 77.25 24.40 26.38 18.35439808

USGS Measurement Graphs

Our class tested the turbidity, pH, streamflow, conductivity, and temperature of Cement Creek.
For all of the tests, we used a Labquest Interface and sensors. Because we were using sensors,
The first step was to calibrate. For turbidity, we had only one sample with a known turbidity (100
NTU), so a single point calibration was used. After we calibrated, we collected a water sample in
the turbidity sample glass then inserted it into the sensor giving us our data point in NTU. When
we calibrated for pH, we had two known pH solutions (7, and 10 pH) to calibrate with so a two
point calibration was used. After calibrating, we collected a water sample in a tupperware and
stuck the probe in stirring slowly while collecting the datapoint in pH. When we collected our
streamflow data point, we used the rotor instead of the bober. First, someone walked out into
the stream and took measurements with the rotor sensor in ft/s (it didnt need to be calibrated.)
After taking the stream speed measurements someone measured the length across the stream
and the depth in three places , , , across the stream, and observed if condition of the
stream. After collecting all of that data we averaged the three depths and found the cross
sectional area of the stream then, multiplied it by our measured stream speed to get flow rate in
ft3/s or CFS. After all of that, we multiplied by a correction factor corresponding to the condition
of the bottom of the stream to get our corrected streamflow datapoint. When we tested for
conductivity, we performed a two point calibration using the high and low conductivity solutions.
We then stuck the probe in the stream and adjusted the probe sensitivity for the accuracy of the
readings on the labquest giving us our datapoint. Lastly For measuring temperature, we did not
have to calibrate. We collected a sample in a plastic bottle and stuck the temperature probe in
the sample then collected the data point in degrees celsius or oc.
The one point calibration used in turbidity tests showed in its accuracy. Many of the turbidity
values in the dataset were negative which is impossible on a scale from 0-4000 or greater NTU.
The values that were a negative NTU were removed from the data set. The other piece of data
we removed was an outlier from the Upper Animas data set which was more than twice the
average. Now looking at the reliability of the data sets as a whole we decided that the whole
turbidity dataset was unreliable because she standard deviation of the datasets were very close
to the datasets average. We also decided that the flow rate dataset for mineral creek was
unreliable because its standard deviation was much higher than that of the other streams.

To Predict the values for streamflow below the confluence, we added up the average
streamflow for all three of the streams to get a total streamflow of 103.34 ft3/s. To Predict the
values for turbidity, conductivity, and temperature found below the convergence of these three
streams we used a weighted average. A weighted average is just like taking an average, but
each piece of the data set has a percent weight all adding up to 100%. A weighted average
allows different data points to have weight affecting the average different amounts. An example
of how we used weighted average is how we predicted temperature. If two different water
sources with different temperatures converge and have the same streamflow, you can just take
the average of the two temperatures to predict the temperature at the confluence, but this
doesn't work if the streamflows are different. When the streamflow is different a weighted
average is used. We found the weights by dividing the average streamflow of the stream we
were trying to find the weight for by the total streamflow 28% for Cement Creek 48.3% for
Mineral Creek and 23.7% for the Upper Animas. Then we multiply the average temperature of
each stream by its corresponding percent weight. After finding those values, they are added
together to find the weighted average. This process can be expressed in this formula where F is
the flow rate of a tributary, and V is the value you want to predict after the confluence.
f1 f2 f3
f +f +f ... * v 1 + f +f +f ... * v 2 + f +f +f ... * v 3 ... The weighted average for temperature was 7.1oc. We
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

used that same weighted average procedure for turbidity, and conductivity as well and predicted
the following conditions after the confluence. We predicted that turbidity would be 13.8 NTU
after the confluence, and that conductivity would be 556.3 uS/cm. To conclude we added the
water volume of all the tributaries to predict streamflow, and used weighted averages to predict
all the other values, because of the unequal contribution from the separate streams. We did not
predict pH because we didnt understand how we should predict it (because it is on a
logarithmic scale) as well as Steve telling us we didnt need to. We think that all of our
calculations are correct and any inconsistencies with the USGS data after the confluence come
from data inconsistencies.

To reiterate our prediction for temperature was 7.1oc for turbidity it was 13.8 NTU, for
conductivity it was 556.3 uS/cm, and for streamflow, it was 103.34 ft3/s. In a general sense, our
predictions were pretty spot on, but there was 1 prediction that was higher than the USGS
measurements by a significant amount. Streamflow, temperature, and turbidity were the 3
where our predictions lined up best with the USGS data. Our temperature prediction (7.1oc) was
within the 4-9o range for that day as well as being pretty close to the daily average at around
6o. Our streamflow prediction (103.34 ft3/s) was very close to the data point on that day 105
ft3/s, but not so close to the daily average around 140 ft3/s though the USGS data for this year
wasnt as well. For our predictions about turbidity and conductivity, we had to use daily
averages because the sensors froze. Our Turbidity prediction (13.8 NTU) was quite close to the
daily average of between 12-15 NTU, though the trend of this year's data was set to prove us
wrong. Now lastly conductivity, our predicted conductivity (556.3 uS/cm) was significantly higher
than the daily average about 475. Although the data from this years trend was headed to
around 530 uS/cm within a significant margin of our prediction though, this years conductivity is
in general higher than the daily average and was raising at a faster rate. Even though at some
points our predictions are askew, all of them had at least one piece of evidence from the USGS
stations to support them.

Even though this investigation was designed for us to fail, we think that it was very worthwhile.
This investigation made us not only think of how we are going to solve the problem we are
presented with, but also what assumptions do we make in our solution. A good example of this
was predicting pH. Like we said before the investigation was set up so that people would fail,
this is because people would assume that pH is on a linear scale like almost any other
measurement 5 is 1 bigger than 4. Although this is true for all of the other units of measurement
in the investigation pH is logarithmic meaning 5 is 10 times bigger than 4. Though predicting pH
couldve been hard, we had all of the tools to predict all of the other values fairly easily, but
overall it was fun.

I think we deserve an A because we worked hard to make sure the way we were making
predictions was accurate as well as fine tuning our datasets to make sure we got correct
answers.