OPERABLE UNIT 1 OPERATION MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT …

OPERABLE UNIT 1 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

ANNUAL REPORT 2020

TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OTTAWA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

JANUARY 2021

PREPARED BY: Ellen Isbell

For

Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 2

2.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

3.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL ...................................................................................... 4

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 4 TABLE 1: RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

5.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 6

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 7

7.0 ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 8

8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 9

9.0 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................. 10 9.1 APPENDIX A: FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... 10 9.2 APPENDIX B: DOUTHAT AREA DIVERSION SITE (O-3) INSPECTION FORM .................................................... 15 9.1 APPENDIX C: WELL LOCATIONS AND ATTRIBUTES ......................................................................................... 21 9.2 APPENDIX D: HISTORICAL ANALYTICAL DATA ............................................................................................. 23 9.1 APPENDIX E: PHOTOS ....................................................................................................................................... 28 9.2 APPENDIX F: FIELD LOGBOOK ......................................................................................................................... 32 9.1 APPENDIX G: LAB RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 36

Page 1 of 50

1. Introduction

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of Operable Unit (OU) 1 at the Tar Creek Superfund Site (Site) in Ottawa County, Oklahoma is conducted under the authority of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Historically, OU1 O&M activities have included annual monitoring of four Roubidoux Aquifer groundwater wells within Ottawa County. However, one of these wells, Picher #5 (P5), is to be plugged due to previous monitoring results which have consistently exceeded Tolerance Limits and Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs). The O&M program will continue monitoring the three remaining wells. Additional wells will be evaluated for inclusion into OU1 O&M monitoring to replace Picher #5.

The three remaining groundwater wells comprise two public water supply wells—one in Quapaw (Q4) and one in Picher (P7)—and one monitoring well in Commerce (C5) that is constructed to a public water supply (PWS) well standard. The groundwater well locations are presented in Figure 1. Well attributes are outlined in Appendix C. All wells are sampled for lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), Arsenic (As), and sulfates (SO4). Fe, Zn, and SO4 are considered indicator parameters for identifying impacts by acid mine water (AMW). Development of these indicator parameters was described in a technical memorandum during the first phase of After Action Monitoring (AAM) (DEQ, 1993). Results from groundwater analyses for indicator parameters are compared to background levels, tolerance limits, and Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or SMCLs. This comparison helps to determine whether water from the Roubidoux Aquifer wells is being impacted by AMW contamination originating from the Boone Aquifer. The three indicator parameters were chosen primarily because comparisons between AMW impacted groundwater and non-impacted groundwater showed the greatest numerical difference for these constituents; secondarily, data from a Tar Creek study showed that these constituents move more quickly through groundwater than Pb or Cd, thus providing an early warning of AMW contamination.

Also included in OU1 O&M activities, is the visual inspection of the Lytle Creek diversion dike in the Douthat area (O-3). O-3 is located within the southwest quarter of Section 29, Township 29 North, Range 23 East. Visual inspection of the Lytle Creek Diversion Dike is used to assess the integrity and functionality of the dike and diversion channel. This O-3 diversion dike was conceived as part of a plan to reduce surface water recharge into mines, thus reducing the volume of acid mine water (AMW) generated that can eventually upwell back to the surface and into water bodies such as Tar Creek.

Page 2 of 50

2. Methods

Groundwater sampling was conducted by DEQ personnel under a DEQ approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (DEQ, July 2020) and followed Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) with strict chain-of-custody protocols. Wells Q4, C5, and P7 were sampled on October 15, 2020.

Groundwater was the only matrix sampled. Samples were collected at the wellhead (without chlorination) under reduced flow conditions via a spigot. Date, time, weather conditions, and sampling team personnel were recorded in the field logbook. Prior to sample collection, water stability parameters—pH, temperature, specific conductivity (SC), and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)—were measured using a YSI Multiparameter Meter and recorded in the field logbook. At the time of this sampling event, a replacement for the dissolved oxygen (DO) probe was not available, so DO was not measured. The YSI meter was calibrated prior to field use. Any observed, unusual characteristics (e.g., relating to the presence of gas bubbles, odor, coloration, or clarity) of the water samples were also noted. Field notes and recorded logbook data are shown in Appendix G.

During sampling, all total metals and sulfate samples were collected directly from the well spigot into pre-labeled sample containers. Dissolved metals samples were filtered in the field using a 0.45-micrometer (µm) filter and a peristaltic pump. All filters and tubing (used to filter for dissolved metals) were dedicated to a specific well and then disposed of after a single use; nevertheless, prior to each sample collection, filters and tubing were purged with at least 3 tube-lengths of sample water. It was not necessary to preserve samples collected for metals analyses with acid in the field because all samples were scheduled to reach the Oklahoma State Environmental Laboratory Services (SELS). Sample containers were stored and delivered to SELS on ice to meet the requirements of EPA Method 375.4. Samples were analyzed by SELS using EPA Method 200.7 for dissolved & total Fe and Zn, EPA Method 200.8 for dissolved & total Pb, As and Cd, and EPA Method 375.4 for SO4.

The O-3 Inspection Form (Appendix B) was used to assess and document the integrity of the dike, channel, and mineshaft seal on-site (Figure 2).

Page 3 of 50

3. Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Duplicate samples were used to evaluate the precision of the laboratory performance and sampling method. Duplicate samples were collected for all analytes at well P7 on October 15, 2020. The duplicate samples were pre-labeled with unique IDs that did not reveal that they were duplicates. The specific well associated with each duplicate sample was recorded in the field logbook. As defined in the QAPP, for each analyte, the relative percent difference (RPD) between the two reported results of the sample and its duplicate were calculated and compared to the required laboratory precision of +/- 30% difference. For the October 15, 2020 sampling event, RPDs for all analytes from all samples did not exceed +/- 30% difference, so no QA/QC contingencies were triggered.

Clean sample containers and analytical grade deionized (DI) water were supplied by SELS prior to the sampling event. Dedicated sampling equipment (filter and hose) was used at each well to avoid cross contamination between wells. A field blank for total metals was collected at well C5 at 9AM.

4. Results and Discussion

The EPA has established primary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for both Pb and Cd. Results of the October 2020 sampling events showed no detections of Pb or Cd in any of the three wells.

This project’s indicator parameters (Fe, SO4, and Zn) have unregulated SMCLs, tolerance limits, and background levels assigned to help interpret the analytical data results reported by SELS. These laboratory results are shown in Table 1 for all three indicator parameters. Only P7 results contained exceedances of Tolerance Limits, for which only one analyte, sulfate, was exceeded. The other two wells, Q4 and C5, displayed no exceedances of indicator parameters other than a total Fe Background Levels exceedance at C5. The graphs in Figures 3 A&B show the recent and historical exceedances of indicator parameters at well P7. No graph for zinc at P7 is presented; this is because groundwater sampling of zinc at well P7 has typically yielded results with non-detect concentrations.

The relative percent difference between the primary samples and their duplicates was less than 18% for all analytes. For purposes of calculating RPD, data reported as being between zero and the reporting limit was assigned a numerical value equal to the reporting limit, itself (e.g., “<20 ppb” was interpreted to be exactly 20 ppb). This was done to minimize the chance of estimated values needlessly triggering QA/QC contingencies. Field blank results were below detection limits for all analytes.

Page 4 of 50

Table 1: Concentrations of Indicator Parameters in OU1 O&M Wells (October 2020) Limits Iron (µg/L) Sulfates (mg/L) Zinc (µg/L) Background Level Tolerance Limit SMCL

61.5 207 300

25 82 250

8.8 43

5,000 Well Total/Dissolved Total Total/Dissolved Quapaw 4 <20.0/<20.0 15.1 <5.0/<5.0 Picher 7 201/21.4 129 <5.0/<5.0 Duplicate (P7) 197/<20.0 128 <5.0/<5.0 Commerce 5 95.7/<20.0 14.4 <5.0/<5.0

*Bold text indicates an exceedance of the corresponding Tolerance Limit. Underlined text indicates an exceedance ofthe corresponding Secondary MCL.

The following evaluation criteria are used in evaluating the groundwater data obtained from the

monitoring activities:

• A well producing water with concentrations more than the Tolerance Limits for all three

indicator parameters indicates the Roubidoux Aquifer is impacted by acid mine water

locally near the well site

• A well producing water with concentrations more than the Background Levels for all three

indicator parameters and above the Tolerance Limits for two of the indicator parameters

indicates the Roubidoux Aquifer is probably impacted by AMW locally near the well site

• A well producing water with concentrations more than the Background Levels for two of

the three indicator parameters and above the Tolerance Limits for one of the indicator

parameters indicates the Roubidoux Aquifer is possibly impacted by AMW locally near

the well site.

The above evaluation criteria do not directly address whether contaminants with primary MCLs,

such as Pb and Cd, are present in each wells’ groundwater, but rather use indicator parameters to

determine if the Roubidoux Aquifer is likely being contaminated by Boone Aquifer groundwater.

Page 5 of 50

5. Conclusions

Roubidoux Groundwater

Based on the evaluation criteria for indicator parameters presented in the previous section, wells

Q4 and C5 are considered not impacted. Well P7 exceeds two Background Levels (Total Iron and

Sulfates) and exceeds one Tolerance Limit (Sulfates); it is considered possibly impacted.

Due to the designation of wells Q4 and C5 as not impacted, no further action is necessary at these

wells until the next O&M sampling event. Well P7 sulfate results have historically exceeded

tolerance levels, as shown in Figure 3A, but have been decreasing over the years since the highest

recorded value in 2012. This suggests that there is not currently a concerning trend at well P7 and

is reinforced by the recent October 2020 sampling event that yielded no Tolerance Level

exceedances of the other two indicator parameters, iron (Figure 3B) and zinc.

Diversion Dike

The dike is in good condition and there is no evidence of erosion, settlement, or sloughing. The

only potential lack of integrity on the dike was an animal burrow approximately 1–2 feet in

diameter (Photo #2 in Appendix D). DEQ personnel filled this burrow with dirt on October 15,

2020. The existence of a small beaver dams (Photos #3, 4, 5 in Appendix D) may not significantly

impede flow during high-flow events, but is likely to impede flow during times of base flow or

low flow. Water levels appeared lower at the time of inspection compared to the previous year’s

inspection. Flow from the watershed to the north of the dike is being conveyed through the

constructed channel that diverts Lytle Creek into an upper reach of Tar Creek.

Overall, O-3 is functioning as designed, though the benefit of this surface water diversion has only

been partially effective. The original intent of O-3 was to divert surface water away from the area,

and diking projects in Kansas were expected to change the Douthat O-3 area from a location of

groundwater upwelling to a location of groundwater inflow, which could generate undesired

AMW. Unfortunately, the area remains a point of discharge of AMW into Tar Creek, but the

promotion of drainage in the area provided by O-3 is assumed to help reduce short-term rises in

mine water levels in response to high-flow precipitation events (DEQ, 2015).

Page 6 of 50

6. Recommendations

DEQ recommends continued annual monitoring of all chemicals of concern, Pb, Cd, Fe, Zn, and

SO4 at wells Q4, P7 and C5.

In addition to groundwater sampling, the Douthat O-3 inspection should continue annually. The

dike should be mowed if trees begin to grow on the dike or if vegetation growth becomes excessive

and hinders O-3 inspections.

Removal of all beaver dams is recommended. Road maintenance and other wildlife intrusion

should continue to be monitored.

Page 7 of 50

7.0 Abbreviations

AAM After Action Monitoring AMW Acid Mine Water BGL Below Ground Level C5 Commerce 5 Monitoring Well COC Chemicals of Concern DEQ Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality DI Deionized DO Dissolved Oxygen EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FYR Five-Year Review GWMP Groundwater Monitoring Plan MCL Maximum Contaminant Level O&M Operation and Maintenance O-3 Douthat Diversion Dike Site ORP Oxidation-Reduction Potential OU Operable Unit OWRB Oklahoma Water Resources Board P5 Picher 5 Supply Well PWS Public Water Supply Q4 Quapaw 4 Supply Well QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RA Remedial Action RPD Relative Percent Difference ROD Record of Decision SC Specific Conductance SELS State Environmental Laboratory Services SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level SOP Standard Operating Procedure TCSS Tar Creek Superfund Site USGS United States Geological Survey

Pb Lead Cd Cadmium Fe Iron SO4 Sulfate Zn Zinc

Page 8 of 50

8. References

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Record of Decision, Remedial Alternative Selection. June 6, 1984.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Technical Memo: “Sampling Results of Public Water Supply Wells, August 1992 through January 1993, Tar Creek Superfund Site”, OK. December 1993.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). After Action Monitoring of the Roubidoux Aquifer at the Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, OK. 2014.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Sixth Five-Year Review for Tar Creek Superfund Site. July 2020.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Operable Unit 1 Operation & Maintenance Annual Report 2017 for Tar Creek Superfund Site. April 2017.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Operation & Maintenance Plan, Tar Creek Superfund Site, OU1. February 28, 2018.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Roubidoux Aquifer Groundwater Monitoring Plan, Tar Creek Superfund Site, OU1. February 28, 2018.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Quality Assurance Project Plan for Tar Creek Operable Unit 1Operation & Maintenance. July 24, 2020.

Page 9 of 50

Page 10 of 50

APPENDIX A:

FIGURES

Page 11 of 50

Figure 1: The wells monitored for OU1 O&M

Page 12 of 50

Figure 2: The Douthat Diversion Site (O-3) as observed during O&M inspection

Page 13 of 50

Figure 3A: Sulfate concentrations at Picher 7 well compared to tolerance limit and SMCL

SMCL = 250 ppm

Tolerance Limit = 82 ppm

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

12/1

3/20

01

4/19

/200

2

11/5

/200

3

4/27

/200

4

10/1

2/20

04

4/25

/200

5

10/1

7/20

05

4/11

/200

6

11/7

/200

6

5/8/

2007

10/2

2/20

07

4/21

/200

8

3/23

/201

0

11/9

/201

0

11/6

/201

2

10/2

9/20

13

4/25

/201

8

4/30

/201

9

10/1

5/20

20

Conc

entr

atio

n(m

g/L)

Picher #7 Well—Sulfate Results

Sulfate

Page 14 of 50

Figure 3B: Iron concentrations at Picher 7 well compared to tolerance limit and SMCL

Tolerance Limit = 207

SMCL = 300

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

12/1

3/20

01

4/19

/200

2

11/5

/200

3

4/27

/200

4

10/1

2/20

04

4/25

/200

5

10/1

7/20

05

4/11

/200

6

11/7

/200

6

5/8/

2007

10/2

2/20

07

4/21

/200

8

3/23

/201

0

11/9

/201

0

11/6

/201

2

10/2

9/20

13

4/25

/201

8

4/30

/201

9

10/1

5/20

20

Conc

entr

atio

n (m

g/L)

Picher #7 Well—Iron Results

Total Fe

Dissolved Fe

Page 15 of 50

APPENDIX B:

Douthat Area Diversion Site (O-3) Inspection Form

Page 16 of 50

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site name: OU1 Douthat Diversion Site Date of inspection: 10/14/2020

Location and Region: Tar Creek, Ottawa County Weather/temperature: Sunny, 84°F

Attachments: ■ Site map available within this report – Figure 2

II. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

1. O&M Documents■ O&M manual ■ Readily available ■ Up to date □ N/A

Remarks: QAPP Updated 07/24/2020. All related O&M documents were available on-site. ___________________________________________________________________

2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan ■ Readily available ■ Up to date □ N/A■ Contingency plan/emergency response plan ■ Readily available ■ Up to date □ N/ARemarks___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. O&M and OSHA Training Records ■ Readily available ■ Up to date □ N/ARemarks: All training up to date for Ellen Isbell and Zach Bradley.

Page 17 of 50

III. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Maintenance Organization□ Contractor for State ■ Other: Oklahoma Dept of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

Organization:_______________________________________________________________

2. O&M Cost Records■ Readily available ■ Up to date□ Funding mechanism/agreement in placeOriginal O&M cost estimate____________________ □ Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if available

From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attachedDate Date Total cost





3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review PeriodDescribe costs and reasons: Not Applicable

Page 18 of 50

IV. DIKE

1. Road ■ Location shown on site map ■ Road adequateRemarks: The road was somewhat difficult to locate in areas. We should keep consider futuremaintenance if the road continues to degrade.________________________________________________________________________

1. Settlement □ Location shown on site map ■ Settlement not evidentAreal extent______________ Depth____________Remarks: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Erosion □ Location shown on site map ■ Erosion not evidentAreal extent______________ Depth____________Remarks: No significant erosion, but some riparian areas on the east/northeast side of the dike have beenaffected by wildlife which could lead to erosion. Photo included in report. Something to keep track forfuture inspections.

3. Holes ■ Location shown on site map □ Holes not evidentAreal extent: Approx. 1–2 ft dia. Depth: Approximately 3 ft

Remarks: Diameter decreases quickly with depth. This appears to be the same hole we filled last year. We filled it again. I suspect it is related to a burrowing animal.

4. Bare Areas □ Location shown on site map ■ N/A

Areal extent______________ Type____________Remarks___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type_Grasses_____________ □ No evidence of excessive growth■ Vegetation does not impede flow□ Location shown on site map Areal extent______________

Remarks: _________________________________________________________________________

7. Slope Instability □ Slides □ Location shown on site map ■ No evidence of slope instabilityAreal extent______________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

Page 19 of 50

V. CHANNEL

1. Obstructions Type:_Beaver dam _________________□ No obstructions■ Location shown on site map (Figure 2. And Photo#3)

Areal extent______________ Size____________ Remarks: There were several small beaver dams built across the channel. It is difficult to conclude if any of the dams are impeding flow because the water level was very low. Photos included. ________________________________________________________________________________

2. Erosion □ Location shown on site map ■ Erosion not evidentAreal extent______________ Depth____________Remarks___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

VI. MINESHAFT SEAL

1. Settlement □ Location shown on site map ■ Settlement not evidentAreal extent______________ Depth____________Remarks___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 20 of 50

VII. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

A. Implementation of the Remedy

Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).

O-3 remedy was designed to reduce acid mine water produced via recharge ofunderground mines. Because O-3 area remains a point of discharge rather than inflowfor groundwater, the benefit of the diversion dike is limited to high-flow precipitationevents.

B. Adequacy of O&M

Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. Discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.

Should the area south of the dike become a point of groundwater inflow, the current O&M procedures should ensure the integrity of the dike. The dike should be mowed if trees begin to grow on the dike or if vegetation growth becomes excessive and hinders inspections.

C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future.

N/A

D. Opportunities for Optimization

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.

N/A

INSPECTION/SAMPLE TEAM ROSTER

Ellen Isbell DEQ Environmental Programs Specialist Zach Bradley DEQ Engineering Intern

Page 21 of 50

APPENDIX C:

Well Locations and Attributes

Page 22 of 50

Groundwater Well Locations and Attributes

Quapaw 4 (Q4) Commerce 5 (C5) Picher 7 (P7) Location NW NW NW S1-T28N-

R23E

(N 36°56’33.4’’ W 94°47’ 11.2’’)

NW SE NW S6-T28N-R23E

(N 36° 56’ 19.4’’ W 94° 52’ 17.9’’)

SW SE SW S20 T29N-R23E

(N 36°58’ 28.37”, W 94°50’ 38.26”)

Type Public Supply Monitoring Well Public Supply Elevation 845’ 810’ 814’

Total Depth 1,350’ 1,100’ 1,102’ Casing Depth

620’ 8” at 850’ 8” at 850’

Pump Depth

608’ 795’ 800’

Page 23 of 50

APPENDIX D

Historical Analytical Data

Page 24 of 50

Cond. Temp. pH D.O. Sulfate Hardness Cadmium Iron Lead Zinc

Analysis (Field) (Field) (Field) (Field) SO4 CaCO3 Cd Fe Pb ZnUnit µS/cm °C mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

MCL/(SMCL) (6.5 – 8.5) 250 0.005 0.3 0.015 5

Roub. T.L. 82 0.207 0.043Roub. Bkgnd 25 0.062 0.009

Picher #5 - MW Master Record of Data Results7/17/2019 Totals 2000 19.4 6.4 - 1180 - <0.002 19.9 <0.005 3.49

Dissolved - - - - - <0.002 17.8 <0.005 3.387/17/2019 Totals - - - - 1180 - <0.002 20 <0.005 3.54

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 18.3 <0.005 3.415/2/2018 Totals 1891 23.3 6.17 14.1 1360 - <0.002 21.8 <0.005 3.14

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 21.9 <0.005 3.065/2/2018 Totals - - - - 1300 - <0.002 21.5 <0.005 2.85

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 21.8 <0.005 3.043/14/2017 Totals 587 17.55 7.76 14 141 - <0.002 - <0.005 -

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.0432 <0.005 0.01943/14/2017 Totals - - - - 141 - <0.002 - <0.005 -

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.0406 <0.005 0.019410/30/2013 Totals 703 19.17 6.82 1.11 171 329 <0.002 0.168 <0.005 <0.005

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.138 <0.005 <0.00510/30/2013 Totals 688 19.24 6.72 1.83 169 328 <0.002 0.172 <0.005 <0.005



Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.13 <0.005 <0.00511/1/2011 Totals 431 20.18 7.66 0.71 48.4 146 <0.002 0.239 <0.005 <0.01








Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.115 <0.005 0.04210/23/2007 Totals 605 19.25 7.17 2.5 122 268 <0.002 0.118 <0.005 <0.005






Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.046 <0.005 <0.005

Page 25 of 50

Cond. Temp. pH D.O. Sulfate Hardness Cadmium Iron Lead Zinc(Field) (Field) (Field) (Field) SO4 CaCO3 Cd Fe Pb ZnµS/cm °C mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

(6.5 – 8.5) 250 0.005 0.3 0.015 582 0.207 0.04325 0.062 0.009

Master Record of Data Results4/30/2019 Totals 468.5 19.5 7.22 - 138 <0.002 0.153 <0.005 <0.005

Dissolved <0.002 < 0.020 <0.005 <0.0054/30/2019 Totals 139 <0.002 0.162 <0.005 <0.005

Dissolved <0.002 0.0239 <0.005 <0.0054/25/2018 Totals 1328 19.3 7.24 9.6 172 - <0.002 0.387 <0.005 0.0123

Dissolved - - <0.002 0.372 <0.005 0.01254/25/2018 Totals - - - - 164 - <0.002 0.374 <0.005 0.0146

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 < 0.020 <0.005 0.010810/29/2013 Totals 855 19.25 6.74 2.9 346 551 <0.002 0.278 <0.005 <0.005


Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.326 <0.005 <0.00511/6/2012 Totals 933 19.24 7 1.42 351 565 <0.002 0.537 <0.005 <0.005

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.431 <0.005 <0.00511/1/2011 Totals na na na na na na na na na na

Dissolved - - - - - - na na na na11/9/2010 Totals 835 21.74 5.96 1.59 277 419 <0.002 0.204 <0.005 <0.01











Dissolved - - - - - - <0.005 0.072 <0.01 <0.00511/5/2003 Totals 563 14.7 6.89 n.a. 141 284 <0.002 0.166 <0.005 <0.01


Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.073 <0.005 <0.0112/13/2001 Totals 455 16.9 7.6 n.a. 93.3 211 <0.002 0.063 <0.005 <0.01



Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.159 <0.005 <0.01Averages 638 19 7.22 1.91 184.5 336 0.002 0.163 0.005 0.007

Picher #7 – MW

AnalysisUnit

MCL/(SMCL)Roub. T.L.

Roub. Back

Page 26 of 50

Cond. Temp. pH D.O. Sulfate Hardness Cadmium Iron Lead Zinc(Field) (Field) (Field) (Field) SO4 CaCO3 Cd Fe Pb Zn

µS/cm °C mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l(6.5 – 8.5) 250 0.005 0.3 0.015 5

82 0.207 0.04325 0.062 0.009

Master Record of Data Results4/30/2019 Totals 213.2 18.8 7.57 - 15.6 - <0.002 < 0.020 <0.005 <0.005

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 < 0.020 <0.005 <0.0054/25/2018 Totals 498.7 18.7 7.65 17.4 18.8 - <0.002 < 0.020 <0.005 0.0271

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.0264 <0.005 0.01923/14/2017 Totals 287 17.81 7.49 6 16.3 - <0.002 - <0.005 -

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 < 0.02 <0.005 <0.00510/31/2013 Totals 295 19.12 7.09 1.49 14.3 126 <0.002 0.025 <0.005 <0.005

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.02 <0.005 <0.00511/8/2012 Totals 284 18.23 7.34 0.58 15.5 128 <0.002 0.031 <0.005 0.007



Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.034 <0.005 <0.0111/11/2010 Totals 263 17.89 5.73 0.48 15.7 117 <0.002 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 <0.02 <0.005 <0.0111/11/2010 Totals 263 17.89 5.73 0.48 15.2 116 <0.002 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 <0.02 <0.005 <0.013/25/2010 Totals 228 17.16 6.97 0.86 14.7 121 <0.002 0.026 <0.005 0.031




Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 <0.02 <0.005 0.015/9/2007 Totals 287 19.85 7.28 1.12 12.6 132 <0.002 <0.02 <0.005 0.043

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 <0.02 <0.005 0.04111/9/2006 Totals 276 19.12 7.39 0.52 20 134 <0.002 <0.02 <0.005 <0.005





Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 <0.02 <0.01 0.00510/13/2004 Totals 242 17.4 7.86 1.43 12.8 121 <0.002 <0.02 <0.005 <0.005

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 <0.02 <0.005 <0.0054/28/2004 Totals 275 19.4 7.31 2.29 11.8 122 <0.005 <0.02 <0.005 0.005

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.005 <0.02 <0.005 <0.00511/6/2003 Totals 249 17.7 7.03 n.a. 11.1 120 <0.002 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 <0.02 <0.005 <0.0111/6/2003 Totals 249 17.7 7.03 n.a. 11.1 121 <0.002 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 <0.02 <0.005 <0.01

Analysis

UnitMCL/(SMCL)

Roub. T.L.Roub. Back

Quapaw #4

Page 27 of 50

Cond. Temp. pH D.O. Sulfate Hardness Cadmium Iron Lead Zinc(Field) (Field) (Field) (Field) SO4 CaCO3 Cd Fe Pb ZnµS/cm °C mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

(6.5 – 8.5) 250 0.005 0.3 0.015 582 0.207 0.04325 0.062 0.009

Master Record of Data Results4/30/2019 Totals 235.3 19.8 7.65 - 15.4 <0.002 0.0983 <0.005 <0.005

Dissolved <0.002 < 0.02 <0.005 <0.0054/25/2018 Totals 585 19.6 7.69 18.1 18.2 - <0.002 0.0977 <0.005 0.0129

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 < 0.02 <0.005 0.00813/14/2017 Totals 291 17.55 7.92 - 15.6 - <0.002 - <0.005 -









Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.031 <0.005 0.00765/8/2007 Totals 308 20.04 7.74 1.49 12.1 135 <0.002 0.042 <0.005 <0.005






Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 <0.02 <0.005 <0.0054/27/2004 Totals 252 18.9 7.82 5.75 11.8 122 <0.005 0.093 <0.01 <0.005



Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.048 <0.005 0.014/18/2002 Totals 294 20.6 7.5 n.a. 11.6 128 <0.002 0.116 <0.005 <0.01



Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.137 <0.005 <0.0110/13/2000 Totals 333 21 7.68 2.89 10.3 129 <0.002 0.22 <0.005 <0.01

Dissolved - - - - - - <0.002 0.178 <0.005 <0.01

AnalysisUnit

MCL/(SMCL)Roub. T.L.

Roub. BackCommerce #5

Page 28 of 50

Appendix E

Photographs

Page 29 of 50

Photo 1- Animal Trail along eastern riparian area. Photo 2 - Filled animal burrow.

Photo 3 – View of a beaver dam looking northeast from diversion dike.

Page 30 of 50

Photo 4 – Beaver dam 2 Photo 5 – Beaver dam 3

Photo 6 - Mineshaft seal

Page 31 of 50

Photo 7- P7 Photo One

Photo 8 - P7 Photo 2

Page 32 of 50

APPENDIX F

Field Logbook

Page 36 of 50

APPENDIX G

Lab Results

Date post:	01-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times