Notes From the Tri-State Mining District Forum

Here are my notes from the Tri-State Mining District Forum.

Day 1
1. Crossing jurisdictional lines
2. Contamination does not know state lines
3. Remedial effort on a 'watershed' basis
4. Need resources to tackle huge tasks
5. What has worked & what didn't
6. Focus on Natural Resources
7. How to get co-ordination moving forward
8. "Injured" resource vs. "damages"
9. RP= responsible parties
10. PRP= prospective responsible parties
11. Cost of remediation
12 Ten Tribes: Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Miami Nation of Oklahoma, Ottawa tribe of Oklahoma, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma, Cherokee nation, Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma, Seneca-Cayugo Tribe, and Shawnee Tribe.
13. Tribal concerns: chat, subsidence, surface water, ground water, air quality, sediments, and cultural issues
14. "Is it safe to practice traditional lifestyles?"
15. SW=surface water; GW=ground water; QW= water quality
16. Look at the Kansas-Missouri contribution to flow
17. Look at Watershed scale
18. Data sharing, more so than data collection
19. Trustees & EPA are focused on remediation and restoration without consideration and understanding of true hydrolics
20. Significantly elevated levels of Cadmium, Lead and Zinc in soft body tissues
21. 70-75 fish species in (Kansas) Spring River (up stream from Empire Lake)
22. Pathways to contamination
23. Comparing floristic qualities of native versus planted grasslands
24. Sensitivity, Tolerance
25. Originally (Pre-settlement) 90% tall grass prairie, 10% forest
26. Assemblages of plants adaptable/suitable for contaminated sites
27. Sequential extraction, "pore" water
28. Crayfish are 'keystone' species
29. Assimilative capacity-resilience, contaminant penetrates to target sites (tissue)
30. Exposure pathway
31. Heme Biosynthetesis and Pb, AOAD Aminoleualinic Acid Dehydratose ALA-D
32. Documentation = laboratory + field study
33. Iron oxide-oozing out of ground
34. Contamination by metals evident in Tri-State Mining District fish. Bioavailability issue resolved
35. Blood, liver, metals correlation
36. Penetration to active sites (tissues)
37. Higher level effects also evident
38. Bioaccumulation
39. Spacial, temporal variability
40. Streambed sediments 2004-2005, Phase 1
41. Empire Lake sediment 2005-2006, Phase 2
42. Total trace element analysis (complete digestion)
43. Metal reducing bacteria
44. Empirically derived sediment quality guidelines
45. Equilibrium Partitioning (EqP) = Can this contiminant, at this concentration, in this sediment contribute to or cause toxicity?
46. MacDonald Values
47. Is this sediment likely to be toxic or not?
48. AET=apparent effects threshold; ERM= effects range median (50%); and ERL= effects range low (10%)
49. "Smart sediment assessors do it both ways"
50. SQG= sediment quality guidelines
51. Characterization vs. remediation
52. Evaluations include: comparability, reliability, predictive ability

Day 2
53. Citizens Task Force, environmental master plan
54. Ground water ordinance
55. Holistic approach
56. OU = Operable Unit
57. Oklahoma OU #1-surface water, ground water, divisional dikes; OU #2-residential properties, yard remediation; OU#3-complete, Eagle Picher facility; OU#4-chat piles flotation pools, communication, human health risk assessment (incl. tribes); OU#5-sediments
58. OU#4 Phase 1-find chat piles, metal loading sites; Phase 2-characterize chat piles; Phase 3-find sampling locations.
59. Closed 80 shafts, engineered closure, revegetation, applying bio-solids, phosphates to reduce lead
60. Long term maintenance (stewardship), long term remedy
61. Institutional controls, forever?
62. Natural resource damage trustee
63. A 'second' cleanup
64. Economy of effort
65. Remedial partner
66. Cleanup chat pile in Spring River at Turkey Creek
67. Remove material (remediation)
68. Main stream, streams
69. Focused approach
70. Sediment toxicity numers
71. Upstream, downstream
72. State to State issues, (a Big Deal)
73. A "Basin Study - Basin Action"
74. Need geo-morphologists, stream loading
75. How to remove sediment without causing other problems
76. Stream sediment dredging
77. Phosphate tends to bind organic matter (clay, metals), is a problem if erosion, column leaching study, not a nutriment loading problem
78. "Basin wide" approach to sharing information. Co-ordinator for entire watershed
79. MOU= Memorandum of Understanding
80. Elk River is already supersaturated with phosphate
81. Keep phosperous out of streams
82. Geo-morphological data is shortcoming in watershed management process.
83. NOI = Notice of Intent
84. Subaqueous mine waste disposal
85. Historically not placed mine wastes in saturated zone
86. Change of approach-large scale pilot study
87. Characterization of low hydraulic permediability & gradient
88. Collection of data (incredible amount of information produced)
89. Serchable data base; reference list; published and unpublished information; A,B,C qualifier (i.e peer reviewed, informational purposes only)
90. Geo-morphology-what will we do with these sedements?
91. Mine pool and deeper aquafer are connected. Need good ground water monitoring system
92. Co-ordination-doing more with less; Be more flexible in approach; Recognize public's frustration
93. Watershed Framework Project, quarterly meetings
94. MOU, monthly-quarterly project manager meetings
95. Long term operation, maintenance in perpetuity
96. Least common denominator = rules/regulations
97. "Manure, plumbing and gravity"
98. Tri-State Partnership Agreement (US Fish & Wildlife, KS, MO, OK, and the Tribes)
99. Surrogates compromised the Seneca tribe
100. "Orphan share" of responsibility (only 10% of PRP identified) causalty of NRD component.
101. Watershed Managament Framework, 2-objectives: determining the extent of contamination, priortizing cleanup of mine wastes.
102. Phase I, Develop watershed wide remediation plan for cleanup, based on ranking and priortization of source area.
103. Concentrations and risk
104. Existing data assements for the watershed, summary of source chacterization, develop risk assessment for sediment & surface water exposure
105. Access existing site specific toxicity studies & establish toxicity and screening values
106. Indentify data gaps and additional data needed
107. Finalize basin-wide risk assessment
108. Establish & evaluate WQS, TMDL
109. TMDL= Total maximum daily load
110. "Terrestrial" risk
111. Watershed modeling, validate GIS based QW, metal load reduction requirements, define & rank priority source areas
112. Develop cleanup implementation plan
113. Establish monitoring plan, including performance monitoring, conduct 1-2 year pre-remediation, continue monitoring throughout the life of the remedial actions.
114. Phase II, Non-superfund site related issues
115. Identify lead agencies/entities
116. Develop goals & objectives
117. Identify stressors and source
118. Establish required load reductions
119. Identify physical issues
120. Identify management measures & critical areas
121. Identify QW success criteria
122. Will include Missouri OU#5, Kansas OU#2, and Oklahoma OU#5
123. Sequencing remedial activities, including human health risk assessment, ecological acquatics and terestial (sensitive receptors) risk assessments
124. Stream study vs Grand Lake study
125. 319 Lead Agency, required watershed implementation in place
126. Issues identification & solutions: information needs(database, modeling, evaluations, reasearch, monitoring); duplication of effort (who is doing what? What is being duplicated?); Communication MOU (missing MOU) outreach, gaps; and co-ordination/co-operation (opporyunities, leadership, who should lead it?)

Day 3
127. Excess zinc in acidic soils, Zn phytotoxicity, DGT-resin based method for valuing biotoxicity
128. Phospherous affects Zinc transfer in plant tissue
129. Kansas chronic metal criteria, hydrology is major factor, hydrology & loading, hydrology & hardness, acquatic life impairment, EPT taxa on Spring River
130. Baxter Springs, Spring Branch, Willow Creek, Brush Creek, Shoal Creek, Shawnee Creek, Short Creek, Turkey Creek, Center Creek, Crestline
131. Higher flows, higher exceedances, chronic, accute issues
132. High flows inpact 'clean sites'
133. "Short Creek is a mess"
134. TMDL allocations, WLA=waste load allocations (point sources), LA= load allocations (non point sources), MOS= Margin of safety
135. Load reduction strategy: tributary reduction for self & Baxter Springs; removal of in-channel sediments; potential dredging of Empire Lake (sink & source)
136. Highest priorities: Short Creek Zn, Cd; Turkey Creek Zn, Cd; Center Creek Zn, Cd, Pb; Shawnee Creek Pb; Shoal Creek Zn; and Baxter Springs Pb, Zn.
137. 2005-2008 ongoing remedial action
138. 2008 Reopen TMDL-NRDA data, effluent monitoring, establish WLAs
139. 2009 Begin targeting sediment removal
140. 2013 Revisit TMDL, note progress
141. Existing national water quality levels not sufficient to protect/sustain muscles
142. February 1923, lead poisioning mallards & pintails in Baxter Springs, from mines and refuse in Spring River
143. Winter warm fowl, mallards, canada geese, bob white, doves, swallows, cardinals, robins
144. Evaluating injury, histopathology, concentrations of metals in tissues, ppm
145. Lead sensitive enzyme, ALAD in blood
146. Sublethal, physiological toxic effects
147. "When the well is dry, we learn the value of water" Benjamin Franklin
148. Categories of damages: clean drinking water, ability to store water, increased public utilities, loss of in-situ services, and loss of amenity value by presence of contaminated plumes
149. Areas of disagreements: scarcity of water, price of water, role of replacement
150. Scarcity: uncertainity(decline in Ozark aquifer, future development); intergenerational equity; role of trusteeship (protect natural assets)
Price of water: local consumer prices, commercial rates, agricultural rates, and in-situ and future value; Role of Replacement:remedial efforts to improve groundwater, alternative provision of bottled water and wastewater treatment facilities, access to an alternative aquifer
151. Valuation Methods: I Market Price Methodology (pg 260 in 43 CFR); II Cost Estimating Methodologies (NRDAR) (pg 259 in 43 CFR; III Hedonic Pricing Method (property values) (pgs 260-261 in 43 CFR; IV Contingent Valuation method; V Conjoint Analysis; VI Habitat Equivalency Analysis; VII Resource Equivalency Analysys, (focused on restoration)
152. Sonar survey, geo-referencing
153. Oxidation, turbidity
154. Phosphate based treatment of contaminated land
Phosphoric acid + Pb, chloropyromorphite, reduce Pb bioavailability and solubility
155. Other cat-ions compete with Pb/phospherous reaction
156. "Can't do it willy-nilly"
157. Revegitation using bio-solids, including: mushroom solids, Mizzou Doo, composted chicken litter, un composted turket litter, City of Springfield composted sewage sludge, topsoil, contaminated soil repository
158. Geochemical reactions in sub-aerial setting, pyrite oxidation, acid generation, sulfide dissolution, metals release
159. Post remedy foot print reduced
160. Hydraulically isolated pits
161. Chat has higher permeability than tailings
162. lack of understanding of mine pool hydrology, potential ecotoxicity
163. Co-ordination of Tri-State Partnership and Corps Watershed Plan
Terchnical issues: ecological issues cross political boundaries, expanding applicability of studies, increase co-operation, co-ordination & consolidation among technical investigators
164. Technical Information, including acquatic, NRDAR, remedial
165. issue identification & Solutions: information needs/actions; duplication of efforts; communication; co-ordination/co-orperation
166. What did we learn? Communication & outreach are critical. Development of web based communication, NGOs, local groups
167. Co-ordination: incorporation of research; sequencing & timing of response is important; subsidence teams & groundwater teams; consider a clearing house for funding, requests and requirment for partnership
168. Data Gaps/technical needs: Use consistent approaches; develop long term biological, chemical; continue research in ecological toxicology; consequences of chat disposal in mines; connectivity of surface & ground water; sediment studies in all 3-states; Fluvial Hydrogemorphology; 'acceptable' protocols for data gathering; lack of geochemical information and modeling; better understanding of integration of NRDAR into remedial processes; value of ground water; water quality standards (303d list); and expand existing ground water model across the region.
169. There were missing players, both in academia and legislative
170. Study boundaries should define themselves
171. Remediation, Rehabilitation, Reclamation, and Restoration do not mean the same.
172. QAPP

The End