Emery Hannum and Cady Bright 

Math 3 and Chemistry 
10.31.17 

Silverton Report 
 
Problem Statement 
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 µS/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. 
 
 
 
 
Visual Representation 
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 
Dissolved Oxygen  Dissolved Oxygen (% 
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 

 
Methods and Process 
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 didn’t 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. 
 
 
Solutions and Predictions 
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 
Student Data  Percentage of River  Streamflow (cfs)  Temperature (C)  pH  Conductivity (uS/cm)  Turbidity (NTU) 

Cement Creek  0.31  32.25  9.48  3.82  980  -0.23 

Mineral Creek  0.49  49.97  6.88  7.05  427  13.70 
Upper Animas  0.20  20.60  4.72  6.35  310  13.05 

Animas River  100.00  102.82  7.26  5.89  576.92  9.20 

             

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

Cement Creek  0.14  14  7.5  3.7  1130  8 

Mineral Creek  0.39  39  6  6.7  438  8.5 
Upper Animas  0.48  48  5  7.7  340  1.35 

Animas River  1.00  101  6.5  6.7  540  7 

             

Experimental Error  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 it’s 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.  
 
The Importance 
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 mining’s 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. 
 
Works Cited 
Myers, Donna N. “Why Monitor Water Quality?” U ​ . S. Geological Survey​, 
water.usgs.gov/owq/WhyMonitorWaterQuality.pdf.