As a scientist and a member of the San Juan Basin Board of Health, I am in the interesting position of seeing how data collected from the Animas River are presented to the public by scientists and other interested parties.
There are many people looking at it with different lenses and contributing to a better plan for mine cleanup and water quality and sediment monitoring.
How can we, as users of the Animas River corridor, evaluate the quality of the information provided? We should support data-based decision-making and policy development, and in order to do so, we and our leaders should question things like the quality of data, where it comes from, how it was gathered and what’s behind the numbers. Is the data the result of rigorous, unbiased science?
We can use critical thinking to determine whether the science follows best scientific practices based on validated techniques. Good scientific studies select multiple sites to monitor and take multiple samples per site at many different times. In this way, average values can be determined for a site and lead to knowledge about sample variability in space and over time. In addition, unbiased science should carefully delineate the conditions that apply when interpreting the data. For example, statements about water quality (or watershed health) should be based on data that capture the many complex processes of a dynamic river system.
As citizen-scientists, we should be asking the scientists how they are interpreting the data, what information that interpretation is based on and why they interpreted the results in this way.
Durangoans are historical recipients of mine wastes flowing into the Animas River, and contaminants have been studied for different purposes for decades. Because different locations, methods and technologies have been used to collect historic data, we have a general, but sometimes patchy, understanding of what historically is in the river. However, the Gold King Mine spill has provided impetus for a unified, scientifically rigorous look at our watershed. We have scientific experts designing ways to monitor the river that employ both cutting edge technology and rigorous science to study the aftermath of the spill throughout the watershed, and warn us if there are ongoing dangers to public health or our river environment. The selection of the sampling locations, the use of real-time monitoring of multiple water quality variables, combined with laboratory analysis of sediment and water chemistry, have all been developed to answer questions important to public health and safety, as well as ecosystem quality.
For example, data collected during spring runoff shows that 2016 is a typical year so far – contaminants were at lower levels when a lot of clean snowmelt entered the river headwaters. Water quality is worse within the headwaters mining district than far below it, in Durango. Moreover, water quality guidelines for individual contaminants are sometimes exceeded, depending on flows, but never to an extent that has jeopardized public health. We also know from the best available science that in the fall when river flows are otherwise low, we can expect to see spikes in metals during storm events. Therefore, monitoring the fall season will focus on measuring water quality during monsoon storms that stir up contaminants from the bed and banks of the river.
Because there is so much data, and scientists frequently assume that everyone is used to looking at complex graphs and tables, it is sometimes difficult to understand what the data is telling us. Science needs to communicate results more clearly and, as a community, we need to become more comfortable as science consumers. It is clear that this information needs to be used appropriately to answer community questions. To this end, scientists from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment have developed a new consumer-friendly website that allows the public to interact with data (http://bit.ly/2aBDQh1) and answer questions regarding the locations, contaminants and types of river use, without having to search through the thousands of pieces of data that are shown on the EPA website.
As the regional agency tasked with providing expert information about issues related to public health, San Juan Basin Health has the long-term health of our community as its focus. It has every reason to scrutinize, understand and communicate the information about the Animas River so that the community remains healthy. In collaborating with scientists from both the state and Fort Lewis College, it has national and local experts working to provide data in which we can have confidence.
As members of the public continue to play in and around the Animas River, they should know that the best information and experts locally and nationally agree: All you need to do to use the river safely is to use some common sense. Wash with soap and water after river recreation, supervise your children so they don’t eat river sediment and treat river water before you use it for drinking.
San Juan Basin Health has also implemented a mechanism for community members to receive alerts, should river quality become a concern to human health. Anyone who wants to be alerted about the changing water and sediment quality can sign up for the alert system. Similar to 911 reverse calling, the system will send an alert whenever serious events like flash floods or releases of contaminated water pose a threat to health and safety.
Scientists and citizens should continue working together to get what we want – a transparent and modern system for public information about the Animas River watershed that is based on rigorous, unbiased science.
Shere Byrd is a biology professor at Fort Lewis College and a member of San Juan Basin Board of Health. Reach her at byrd_s@fortlewis.edu.
