EPA 910-R-99-Q04
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Office of environmental Assessment
April 1999
Alaska Placer Mining
Metals Study -YearTwo
-------
?,EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10,1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101 -1128
Alaska Placer Mining
Metals Study - Year Two
April, 1999
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Office of Environmental Assessment
Region 10
-------
Contributors
Project Planning
Cmdi Godsey. Carla Fisher, Jim Corpuz
Office of Water
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Laura Castrilli, Bruce Woods
Office of Environmental Assessment
Field Team
Cindi Godsey, Val Haney. Ann Winther, Martha Barber, Rick Albright, Mark Jen
USEPA
Victor Ross
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Dean Boening, Mark Silverstein. Jesse (Woody) Campbell, Neil Arnick
Lockheed Martin (ESAT)
Laboratory Analysis
USEPA Manchester Environmental Laboratory
Map Compilation
Steve Schumakei'
Lockheed Martin iESAT)
Report Compilation
Joe Guulet, David Frank, Krisien Rydiny, Lorraine Edmond
Office of Environmental Assessment
-------
Table of Contents
Contributors to Study ii
Abstract I
1. Introduction I
A. Background 1
B, Goal and Objectives 1
11, Methods 2
A. Study Design 2
I. Sample Sites 2
2. Measurement Parameters 3
B. Field Work 4
C. Laboratory Methods 5
III. Results 5
A. Distribution of Mines and Relationship to Regional Geology 5
B. Overview of Data 6
1. Analytical Results 6
2. Temporal Variability ft
3. Estimation of Background 7
4. Comparison Upstream and Downstream of Mines 7
5. Summary of Exceedances of Criteria 7
6. Comparison with 1997 Results S
C. Relationship Between Physical and Chemical Measures H
I. Settleable Solids. Total Suspended Solids (TSS). and Turbidity 8
2. Comparison of Physical Measures and Metal Concentrations 9
IV, Discussion and Conclusions 10
V. Limitations of Study 11
VI. References 11
Appendices 92
A. Quality Assurance Project Plan
B- Field Reports
C. Description of placer mining districts, irom Nokleberg and others {1996).
D. Laboratory Report of Data
-------
List of Figures
I. Index map of Alaska placer mines and mining districts included in study. 14
2. Mine layout and sample sites,
a, Eldorado Creek. 15
b. Ester Creek. 16
c. Faith Creek. 17
d, Ketchem Creek. IK
3. Temporal variability of field parameters and metals. 19
a-g. Eldorado Creek. 20-26
h-n. Ester Creek. 27-33
o-u. Faith Creek, 34-40
v-ab. Ketchem Creek. 41 -47
4, Comparison of physical and chemical parameters. 48
a. Aluminum 49
b. Antimony 50
c. Arsenic 51
d. Cadmium 52
e. Calcium 53
I*. Chromium 54
g. Copper 55
h. Nickel 56
i. Lead 57
j. Magnesium 58
k. Mercury 59
1. Selenium 60
in. Silver 6!
n. Zinc 62
List of Tables
1 . Placer mine sites. 64
2, Source of placer gold deposits. 65-67
3, List ol analytical data 6X-75
4. Summary statistics of data by mine and sampling location. 76-X9
5, Alaska water quality criteria, 90
6. Linear correlation coefficients tor comparison of measurement parameters. 9 1
-------
Abstract
EPA sampled tour placer mines in Alaska during the summer of 1998. This was the
second phase of a study of the distribution ot metals in surface water at placer mines in surface
water upstream of the mine site, downstream of the mine discharge, and in the effluent. The first
phase uf the study evaluated one-time measurements collected in 1997 from 31 mines located in
14 mining districts across Alaska. The second phase of the study, reported in this document.
examines temporal variations from eight rounds of measurements collected during 1998 from four
placer mines located in three mining districts. During the second phase in 1998, EPA obtained
field measurements of temperature, pH, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and
settleable solids. In addition, EPA analyzed samples for total suspended solids, total recoverable
metals, dissolved metals, and hardness. The metals analyses included aluminum, antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, calcium, chromium, copper, lead, magnesium, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver,
and zinc. The 199H data show typically large variations in total recoverable and dissolved metals
concentrations through the course of the mining season. Consistent with 1997 results, turbidity
was an effective indicator for some, but not all. total recoverable metals found in surface waters.
In addition to turbidity, total suspended solids measurements showed similar variations with total
recoverable metal content.
I. Introduction
A, Background
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undertook a two-year study of metals
in placer mining areas of Alaska in 1997. This document is a report of data collected during the
second year of the study. The report of the first year study is titled Alaska Placer Mining Metais
Study
-------
dissolved and lulu! recoverable metals turbidity
total suspended solids settleahle solids
pH hardness
temperature electrical conductivity
during summer at all discharging mines and approximately half of the active, but not
discharging, mines during year I. The parameters of concern were selected on the basis
their usefulness in evaluating the distribution of metals in the aquatic environment at placer
mines.
Temporal variability of metals concentrations and other parameters in effluent at a few
representative sites during year 2.
The "natural background" of the parameters of concern for representative placer mining
operations in mining districts tn Alaska.
The parameters of concern immediately upstream of the mining operations,
The parameters at" concern downstream from the placer mining operations,
The relationship between metais and total suspended solids, settleable solids nr turbidity in
the natural background conditions and discharges.
II, Methods
Appendix A contains the Quality Assurance Project Plan for thus work, which includes
analytical methods and sampling specifications.
A. Stud)1 Design
1. Sample Sites
huir placer mining operations were selected and sampled at weekly intervals. Where a
mine was discharging waste water, four samples were taken, one from each of the following:
I) upstream of any obvious disturbance (i.e.. "background"),
2) immediateK upstream ot the discharge.
3) the ettluem,
4i down.sire.am ot the point of mixing (determined visually). Where the state of Alaska indicated
the physical location oft he edge of the mixing zone, samples were taken at the edge of the mixing
/one.
-------
Where a mine uas not discharging, samples were only collected upstream of any I'i
disturbance (background) and immediately downstream from the site. The objective tor the
selection of" background was intended to be sites unaffected by mining or other construction
disturbance. Considering the mining history of Alaska, it is unrealistic that all of the background
sites chosen for this study actually represent a natural background completely unaffected by
mining activities. Although an attempt was made to pick background sues upstream from obvious
disturbance, the background data may not be representative of true natural conditions,
2. Measurement Parameters
Physical measures consisted of field measurements of temperature, electrical conductiviiy,
turbidity and seitleable solids, and laboratory analyses of total suspended solids (TSS). Chemical
measures consisted of field measurements of pH and laboratory analyses of total recoverable and
dissolved metals, and hardness.
Three of the physical measures including settieable solids, turbidity, and TSS, should be
related to suspended paniculate material in the water column. Settieable solids are determined by
measuring the depth of sediment that settles from a sample of the water column over a one-hour
period. Settieable solids represent only the coarsest paniculate material in the water column
because substantial fine participates may remain suspended after an hour of settling.
Total suspended solids (TSS) is determined by a gravimetric measurement of filterable
material and therefore is a direct measure of the amount of particulates greater than the filter size.
0.45 ,-in, in a sample of the water column. The finest-size particulates such as colloidal material
may pass through the 0.45 ,-m filter and not be included in a TSS measurement.
Turbidity is determined by a measurement of light scattered by paniculate material in a
sample of the water column. Light scatter is affected not just by the amount of paniculate
material, but also by the density, shape, and color of the particulates. Therefore, turbidity can be
considered an indirect rather than direct measure of the amount of particulates. Turbidity is
especially sensitive to finer grained material
bach of these physical measures is sensitive to somewhat different characteristics of
suspended paniculate material. In practice, rough correlation is usually found between total
suspended solids and turbidity, Settieable solids, being a measure of only the coarsest fraction of
water-borne material, may show less correlation with turbidity and TSS when the predominant
part of the suspended material is fine-grained.
One physical measure, electrical conductivity, should be related to the dissolved metal
content. Conductivity is determined by measuring the ability of water to conduct electricity
Since conductance is directh related to the charged ion content of waier and since most of the
dissolved metals in natural surface waters occur as charged ions, electrical conductivity can he
then be related to the major dissolved metals.
-------
The chemical measures tor metals were lota] recoverable and dissolved Total recoverable
melals were determined by analysis of unfihered samples, which would represent metals in the
combined dissolved and suspended paniculate phases. Dissolved meiuls were determined by
analysis of samples passed through a 0.45 ,,ni filter. Therefore, the difference in metals
concentrations between the unfiltered and filtered samples should represent mostly metals in the
particulate phase.
The chemical measure, hardness, was determined by the sum of the magnesium and
calcium content. Hardness was included in the list of parameters because it Is used in calculating
chronic water quality criteria for some of the trace metals, cadmium, copper, lead, and nickel.
B, Field Work
During the summer of 1998, EPA collected 120 samples and duplicates from four mine
sites located near Talkeetna, Central, and Fairbanks, Alaska (Figure 1). Table 1 lists the mines.
their owners and the mine locations. Locations are based on uncorrected GPS readings except for
Eldorado Creek which was determined by plotting on a map.
The four mines sampled in 199H in eastern Alaska were in addition to the 3 1 mines
studied during 1997 in both the Fairbanks and other areas in eastern Alaska, and the McGrath
and Nome areas in western Alaska (Figure I). Criteria for mine selection for both years included:
I) representative distribution from several mining districts. 2) preference for operating and
discharging mines, and 3) accessibility. Because of the necessity for repeated measurements, all
of the 1998 sites were within driving or helicopter distance from Fairbanks. All mines included in
the study were operating, though most were recycling waste water rather than discharging.
Dischargers included nine of 31 mines studied in 1997, and three of the four mines in 1998.
The 1998 mines included operations on Eldorado Creek near Talkeetna, Ester Creek near
Fairbanks. Faith Creek near Fairbanks, and Ketchem Creek near Central (Figure I). As with
mines studied in 1997. sample sites at each mine were chosen to determine the effects of the
mining activity on the respective stream (Figures 2a-d). Each of the mines studied in 1998 had a
sample site chosen to be representative ot background and another of downstream below mining
activities. The three mines with discharges (Eldorado, Faith, and Ketchem Creeks) had additional
sample sites for effluent and upstream of the discharge point for effluent. The mine on Ketchem
Creek also had an established mixing zone designated by the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation. Consequently, the downstream sampling point at Ketchem Creek was set to
coincide with the edge of the mixing zone. The mine on Faith Creek had a change of in the
operation during the course of the sampling whereby water was redirected among the holding
ponds (Appendix B). Only the mine operator on Fster Creek continued to recycle waste water
during the study, and thus had no effluent sample.
Sample collection occurred between June 23 and September 2 Sampling at the 'lalkeetna
mine began uti June 23 and continued through September 1. Sampling at the three mines near
Central and Fairbanks bciMn the week ot Julv 13 and continued through the week of August 31.
-------
The sampling plan was followed with some exceptions. Dissolved oxygen was not
measured at she Talkeeum mine due to limitations on time available in the field and availubiliis of
Held equipment- Turbidity was not measured during the first week at Talkeelna due to problems
with calibrating the turbidimeter. Two weeks of sampling were lost at Talkeetna, one due to bad
weather and another due to helicopter repair. Heavy rainfall in the Fairbanks area caused a
washout of part of the Steese Highway during the first week of sampling. Access to the Faith
Creek mine was impeded on several occasions due to high water but the sampling crew was able
to return later in each week to conduct sampling.
Samples were collected using a "clean hands" technique, labeled in the field, and shipped
with a chain of custody form to the Manchester Laboratory using USEPA (1996) procedures.
Details of the sampling procedure are described in the Quality Assurance Plan. Appendix A.
Appendix B contains the field reports.
C. Laboratory Methods
Laboratory methods are. described in the Quality Assurance Plan, Appendix A
III. Results
A, Distribution of Mines and Relationship to Regional Geology
Alaska has been divided into ten mining regions which are subdivided into 67 mining
districts, as defined by the U.S. Geological Survey (Cobb, 1973). Over the two-year period of
this project, mines were sampled in 14 of the mining districts (Figure 1). primarily within the
Seward Peninsula and Yukon River Regions. Since the report on 1997 data did not consider the
distribution of mines with respect to mining district or to regional geology, the following
discussion includes both sets of mines sampled during 1997 and 199K.
Summary information relating the placer mining districts to their regional geologic
settings can be found in Cobb (1973) and in Nokleberg and others (1996). Appendix C contains
selected district descriptions taken from Nokleberg and others (1996). Table 2 derived from these
references lists the types of potential source mineralization found in the districts sampled, as well
as iheir associated mineralogy and host rock type.
In most cases, the precise source of the placer gold deposited in these districts remains
unknown, but. inferences arc- often made based on the surrounding geology. While some of the
summary information applies to the particular drainage containing the sampled mine, more often
the descriptions are less specific and apply to the entire district.
The most common type of source mineralization described is pnlyrnetallic veins and/or
guld-quartz veins related to igneous intrusions, which are included in nearly all the districts.
-------
Massive sulfide deposits are described in the Bonnifield and Circle Districts, and skarn deposits
are described in the Fairbanks and Circle Districts.
B, Overview of Data
1. Analytical Results
Table 3 lists the full data set tor analyses of both laboratory and field parameters. The
results are arranged by mine, sampling round, and type of sample site. Sample types are denoted
by background, upstream, effluent, downstream, and mixing zone designations that refer to the
respective locations noted on the mine diagrams (Figure 2). Appendix D contains the laboratory
reports for IWH data. Summary statistics of laboratory and field data are listed in Table 4.
Statistical functions include the arithmetic mean, geometric mean, and maximum and minimum
values derived from the full data set in Table 3. The summary data are grouped in Table 4 by
measurement parameter and by sample type for each mine, and for the combination of all four
sample types for each mine.
2. Temporal Variability
An objective of the 199X study was to determine the temporal variability of metals
concentrations by repeated sampling through most of a mining season. Figures 3a through 3ab
show the variation for field parameters and metals during eight rounds of sampling. The. sampling
rounds span the period from June 23 to September 2. Inspection of the temporal plots shows that
metal concentrations at all mines are variable through time, but in general in a non-synoptic
manner except for Round 6.
Comparison with field observations of site conditions indicates that periods of higher
precipitation and stream flow generally result in greater variability in concentrations. At Ester
Creek, for example, maximum variation in metals concentrations occurred for both background
and downstream samples in Round 6 at a time when very wet conditions had increased the stream
flow and turbidity (see Figures 3i - turbidity. 3j - aluminum, 3k-n - other metals). The mine on
Ester Creek was not discharging at the time of the samples, indicating that increased turbidity and
u.etals concentrations during that round resulted from naturally occurring erosion. The results tbi
the other three mines, which were discharging, also show increases in turbidity and several metals
for Round A. However, additional variability among the mines during the remaining part of the
mining season does not appear ID coincide \\iih changing background conditions.
Data tor the Faith Creek mine provide a specific example of the influence of changing sue
operations. The operation of holding ponds at Faith Creek changed between the Round 3 and
Round 4 sampling, as noted in the field work reports (Appendix Bi. Figures 3o-3u for Faith
Creek show increases in TSS. lurbidity. and all i>tThe trace metals during this period. The
increases coincide with the redirection ot the mine discharge. This example and most of the other
trends in temporal variability among the mines studied appear in genera! to be specific lor each
site rather than coincident amonsi sites.
-------
3, Estimation of Background
The arithmetic mean concentrations of background measurements for the tour mines are
listed in Table 4. As shown by the summary in Table 4 and by the temporal plots of individual
measurements (Figure 3). the background concentrations represent the lowest values found at
each mine for turbidity and for most, but not all, metals. In those few cases where metals in
background are at higher concentrations than downstream sites, the difference in mean values is
less than a factor of two. The most conspicuous of the high background values occurred for
aluminum, copper, mercury, and zinc, with a smaller increase for antimony, lead, and selenium.
Background concentrations for some trace metals differ by over an order of magnitude
from mine to mine, indicating that background is quite specific to a particular site. Using
aluminum as an example, three of the mines had mean values for dissolved aluminum in the range
of 1H-60 ug/L whereas, the Ketchem mine had a value of 615 ug/L (Table 4). Additionally, in
contrast to the other sites with circumneutral pH values, the Ketchem site had a relatively low-
mean pH of 6 for the background site. For most dissolved metals, the Ketchem mine had the
highest background concentrations. Exceptions occurred for dissolved arsenic and nickel, for
which highest background values were found at the Ester Creek mine, and for dissolved selenium
found to be highest in at the background site for the Eldorado Creek mine (Table 4).
4. Comparison Lfpstream and Downstream of Mines
The most common pattern for mean metals concentrations at the four mines is an increa.se
from the background site to the upstream-of-mine site, followed by a further increase to the
downstream site (Table 4). For arithmetic mean values of 12 dissolved trace metals at four mines.
representing a combination of 48 mean measurements. 77'??- had higher concentrations at the
downstream site than at either the upstream or the background site (Table 4). For mean values of
12 total recoverable trace metals, X7r/f had higher concentrations at the downstream site. The
data show that the relative concentration of upstream versus downstream sampling sues is specific
to each mine.
5, Summary of Exceedances of Criteria
Analyie concentrations tor both the total recoverable and dissolved samples were
compared with Alaska water quality criteria for chronic ettects to freshwater aquatic life, with the
exception of arsenic (Table 5 i. For arsenic Alaska has adopted a freshwater criterion for public
water supplies, which is used in Table 5 as a benchmark for comparison with measured
concentrations (see Office of the Federal Register, IWS).
Flxceedances of criteria are depicted on graphs that show variation with time (Figure 3)
Criteria on these graphs are shown by doited lines when the criteria are within the plotting range
ot the graph. Fable 3 also depicts criteria exceedances with outlined values. For metals that used
hardness for calculating criteria, the hardness value measured at each sample site was used.
-------
Exceedances were found for the following parameters: arsenic, cadfiuum. chromium.
copper. lead, mercury, silver and zinc. Copper, lead and mercury had the largest number ot
exceeiJanc.es. In general, most exceedances occurred in the effluent samples, with a decreasing
number of observance* found in downstream, upstream and background samples, in that order.
Looking at exceedances by creek. Eldorado Creek had the fewest with only one
exceedance of the mercury criterion in a downstream sample. In Ester Creek, four background
and one downstream sample exceeded the water quality criteria for the total recoverable mercury.
Faith Creek hud exceedances for seven metals. Most exceedances were observed in the
effluent samples with the exception of lead, where exceedances were found at all stream sample
locations at some time during the study.
Ketchem Creek had exceedances for eight metals and the highest total number of
exeeedances. Copper, lead and mercury criteria were exceeded at all sampling locations in almost
every sample round.
6. Comparison with Il>97 Results
In general, metals concentrations found in I99X measurements are similar to those found
in 1997. During both years, mean concentrations varied greatly between individual mines.
However when values are averaged together tor all mines for each year, the mean yearly values
show more similarity. For example, comparison of mean values for each type of sample site
(background, upstream, effluent, downstream) in Table 4 of this report with mean values listed in
[he report of 1997 data (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Table 4) shows that
averaged data from both years are within an order of magnitude regardless of'sample site.
C. Relationship between Physical and Chemical Measures.
The discussion below follows the approach taken for 1997 data (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, IWKK A comparison of the physical measures is made with the two types of
metals samples, tillered and unfiltered. in order to examine the relationships between physical and
chemical measures. As no led under study design, the unfiltered metals samples represent metals
in the combined dissolved and paniculate phases. The filtered samples represent metals largely in
the dissolved phase.
1, Settleable Solids. Total Suspended Solids (TSS). and Turbidity
Three ol the mines had delectable values of settleable solids, hut mostly only in trace
amounts (see values noted by ""I"" in Table K Ol those with detectable settleable solids, only one
mine (Faith Creek) hud at least one value greater than 0.2 ml/L. which is a value used as an
eltlucnt limitation criterion. Inspection of Table 3 shows limited correlation between settleable
suhd.s. turbtdiu and TSS wherein the site with the highesi value tor settleable solids t 1.2 ml/L in
an effluent sample at Faith Creek i al>o had one m (he highest turbidity values i MhO \'I I' i and
-------
TSS (N76 ing/Li. The remaining data show poor correlation between settleable solids and either
turbidity or TSS. Many samples with no detectable seuleable solids still had turbidity values well
over 10 NTU to as hi ah as 2000 NTLr. and TSS to over 900 mg/L.
Turbidity measurements are well correlated with TSS daia, with a correlation value of
r = 0.95 tor 106 comparisons (Table 6). Turbidity measurements were made in the field at all
sites, whereas TSS was measured in lab samples. Both parameters appear to be useful measures
of participates in the water column for the I99H data. Because of their sensitivity, both turbidity
and TSS rather than seitleable solids are used in the discussion below as the paniculate measures
with which to compare metals concentration.
2, Comparison of Physical Measures with Metal Concentrations
Concentrations of total recoverable metals and dissolved metals were compared with
turbidity and other physical measures using the same method as used for 1997 data (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, I99X). Figures 4a~4n show the comparison of metal
concentration of both total recoverable and dissolved fractions with other chemical and physical
measures including turbidity. Linear correlation coefficients, r values, were calculated for some of
the comparisons and are listed in Table 6. The correlation coefficients indicate that for the
combination of all mines, moderate to strong correlation (r values between 0.92 and 0.97) occurs
between most total recoverable trace metals and turbidity. These trace metals include aluminum,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. Somewhat lower correlation (r =
0.87) occurs for mercury. Inspection of the data indicates that similar correlations also exist
between the same total recoverable trace metals and TSS. In contrast, no correlation occurs
between dissolved trace metals and either turbidity or TSS (all r values less than 0.5 in Table 6),
The only physical measure that shows correlation with dissolved metals concentration is electrical
conductivity, and then only for the major metals, calcium and magnesium.
The degree of correlation between the total recoverable trace metals and turbidity in the
199K daia is influenced to a large extent by results from the two mines with the highest values, on
Ketchem Creek and Faith ("reek. For copper for example, the correlation (r) with turbidity for the
complete data .set is 0.95 (Table 6). Consideration of each of the four mines individually yields r
values of 0.99 (Ketchem), 0.90 (Faith). 0.7S (Eldorado), and 0,52 (Ester). In another example tor
lead, overall correlation with turbidity is 0.97 whereas r values for individual mines are 0.99
(Ketchem). O.K8 (Faith). 0.72 (Eldorado), and 0.34 (Ester). The characteristics controlling metal
partitioning at Faith Creek and especially Ketchem Creek, therefore, tend to dominate the amount
of correlation found in the complete data set. Conversely, poorer correlation values result when
the evaluation is restricted to just those mines at Eldorado Creek and Ester Creek which had
lower concentrations more in the range of aquatic criteria.
Inspection of the temporal plots thgure 3) shows that the variation of total recoverable
trace metals at individual sites through time are also associated with changes in turbidity as well as
total dissolved solids. An example using the data discussed previously for Eldorado Creek shows
the highest downstream measurement of total recoverable aluminum, chromium, copper, nickel.
-------
and zinc occurring in Round 6 when turbidity was also at its highest in the downstream .sample.
Simitar temporal patterns of increasing total recoverable concentrations and increasing turbidit.)
are evident at the oilier sites, especially tor this same group of trace metals,
In contrast, no similarity in temporal patterns of dissolved trace metals and turbidity
occurs for these sites. The physical measure expected to be influenced by dissolved metals is
electrical conductivity as noted above under Study Design (Section II.A.2). The dissolved major
metals, calcium and magnesium (and consequently hardness which is derived from calcium and
magnesium), show a strong coincidence of temporal trends for all sites. For trace metals.
however, very limited similarity in trend through time occurs with electrical conductivity. An
isolated example can he shown for dissolved nickel and electrical conductivity at the Eldorado
Creek mine (Figures 3a and 3f) whereby an increasing trend in dissolved nickel concentration is
evident through time coincidental with increasing conductivity. However, most dissolved trace
metals do not track well with conductivity or any of the other physical measures.
IV. Discussion and Conclusions
The 1998 data indicate that all four mine sites had surface water that exceeded chronic
aquatic criteria for at least one metal. The highest concentrations, greatest number of elevated
metals, and most numerous exceedances occurred at two of the four mines. These e.xceedances
generally occurred at higher concentrations in downstream relative to upstream sample sites,
indicating an influence from mining operations. The remaining two mines only had exceedances
for one metal, mercury. One of these mines had the highest mercury value in the downstream
sample even though the effluent did not exceed criteria. The other mine had its highest values for
mercury at the background sample site as well as downstream, suggesting the occurrence of an
unrecognized source of mercury further upstream.
Comparison of the results from IM°S mines with those studied in 1997 can be made in
general terms, though with the recognition that the two sets oJ sites are not the same. The
individual ore characteristics and depositional environment tit the placer deposits would be
expected to be important factors controlling relationships between the metals content in either the
paniculate or dissolved phase and the physical measures. Although the second year's study sites
were different from the first, two characteristics show broad commonality. First, except for the
mine sm Eldorado Creek, the selection of mines for 1WX came from three of the same mining
districts examined in IU97 (Section 111.A). Second, the mean values tor metal concentrations
derived from each year's data set are within an order of magnitude (see Section 11I.B.6) and the
overall spread of data cover a similar broad range for each year.
The data sliou that for several metals, the physical measure of turbidit)' wa.s a good
quaiiiative indicator of total recoverable concentration for the IWS samples. The best
correlations between the paniculate measures and the total recoverable metal concentration
occurred for aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. The
correlation fur total recoverable mercurv was not as strum1 The IWX dala are consistent with
-------
1997 data in that good correlation was also found in the first year's study lor aluminum, copper.
lead, nickel, and zinc (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 199K. p. 12). Too few data above
detection limits were available for 1997 to draw conclusions for cadmium and mercury- Arsenic
showed little correlation with turbidity or any other physical measure in 1997 data; whereas for
I99S data, arsenic shows good correlation with turbidity (r = 0.94).
These results are consistent with the occurrence of most trace metals in the placer streams
as primarily adsorbed or coprecipitated phases in paniculate material. The major metals, calcium
and magnesium, show poor correlation with turbidity but high correlation with electrical
conductivity, indicating occurrence primarily in the dissolved phase. The metalloid, arsenic.
occurs in both the dissolved and paniculate phases depending on site and which year's data are
considered. The other metalloids, antimony and selenium, appear to be primarily in the dissolved
phase though fewer data above detection limits are available for these species to .support the
evaluation.
V. Limitations of Study
The results of this study would not be expected to necessarily be representative of other
placer mining areas not included in the study. For example, a placer mine operating in alluvial
sediments that are much more mineralized than those sites included in the study, or that have ore
minerals of much higher solubility, would be expected to have higher metals concentrations
relative to turbidity than found here. The results for background conditions found in this study do
not necessarily represent a natural background because of the potential occurrence of mining or
other activities that were not recognized when selecting background sites.
VI. References
Alaska Administrative Code, I99K, 18 AAC 70.020, Toxics and other deleterious organic and
inorganic substances. March I. 1998.
Cobb. Edward H.. 1973. Placer deposits of Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1374, 20
-------
L2
-------
List of Figures
1. Index map of Alaska placer mines and mining districts included in study, 14
2. Mine layout and sample sites.
a. Eldorado Creek. 15
b. Ester Creek. 16
c. Faith Creek. 17
d, Ketehem Creek. IK
3. Temporal variability of Held parameters and metals. 19
a-w. Eldorado Creek, 20-26
h-n. Ester Creek. 27-33
o-u. Faith Creek. 34-40
v-ab. Ketehem Creek. 41-47
4, Comparison of physical and chemical parameters. 4H
a. Aluminum 49
b. Antimony 50
c. Arsenic 5 I
d. Cadmium 52
e. Calcium 53
f. Chromium 54
g. Copper 55
h. Nickel 5ft
i. Lead 57
j. Magnesium 5K
k. Mercury 59
1. Selenium 60
Silver AI
Zinc 62
-------
-------
• City
'• 1997 Sample Sits
A 1998 Sample Site (labeled by name)
s Mining District ID
Mining District Boundary
0 50 100 150 200 250 Miles
' ^ V f*
1997-98 Sample Sites' *
Alaska Placer Mines
Figure 1
•Juneati,
-------
-------
Seepage
Background
Sample Point
Eldorado Creek
Upstream
Sample Point
N
igure 2u. Eldorado Creek Site Ma
-------
Background
.sampling point
Downstream
sampling point
l-airnanks
apprux 4 miles
Fiure 2h. Ester Creek Site Mii
-------
Settling j
Settling pond runoff
Mountains of
Tailing*/ \vastt- rock
Effluent
sample point
Downstream
sample point
Effluent
Sample Point^
upstream
Sample I'oint
Background
Sample Point
H»|H'
Downstream
Sample Point
Mining Operations
4 onward
\
Figure 2c. Faith Creek Site Map
-------
Background
Sample Point
-N
Old Stees« Hwy
TciCirdt, AK
Upstream
Sample Point
Pooled Effluent
Sample Locale
Downstream
Sample Point
Ketelwm Cr. Rd.
Holdem Creek
Figure 2d. Ketchem Creek Site Map
-------
Figure 3a - 3 ab. Temporal variability of field parameters and metals. The following time trace
graphs are arranged in order by creek and parameter with ? pages for each creek:
a-g. Eldorado Creek.
h-n. Ester Creek.
o-u. Faith Creek.
v-ab. Ketchem Creek.
Chronic aquatic criteria are shown as horizontal dotted lines on those graphs where the
criteria occur within the field of the diagram.
-------
Time Trace for River Conditions, Eldorado Creek
246
Hniind Samnlfi IVOR = Tnfal
o
o
C\J
o
CO
o
o-
o
03
B
2 4 Q 8
Round Samnie Tvne = Dissolved
o-
^
Round
4 6
Round
Figure 3a. Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Hardness, TSS, and pH.
20
-------
Time Trace lor River Conditions, Eldorado Creek
o
o
CO
o
if)
00
I3O
c
o
LO
O
o
ound
6
o
CM
IO.
T
&
if)'
4 r, 5 , 6
Round
tr
E
0)
LO
4
Round
Figure 3b, Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Conductivity, turbidity, and temperature,
21
-------
Eldorado Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
5-
-id bampN? type - To^a!
-a B 8 a
JfS
I
e
a
o
E
B—
Round, Sample Jype ~
Round, Sample type =
--a a & g QC; B
Round, Sampfs Sype = Di
-r~
Figure 3c. Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Aluminum, antimony, and arsenic
22
-------
Eldorado Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
-—B
5Round,4^
:>un
-------
Eldorado Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
type <
"
Round, Saniffle fype -
Hound, Sample type = Disso^ed
Round Sampis type ^ Dissolved
Bound, sample type = Total
, Sample type = Dissolved
Figure 3e. Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Copper, lead, and magnesium.
24
-------
Eldorado Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
sr
,3o
^r
, jo
c"
^
•3
4D-4
.a
B- • — O B B D B B -B
ie fype ~
4 5
ill. Sample type - Total
6 7 S~
"fr
—
'^rs
^^
u
"®
u
C5
>J
/
/
/
/
f. t- ^«a— — e— •* ^^&*
d, Sample lype =
F?Oijfid( Sample type^
Figure 3f, Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Mercury, nickel, and selenium,
25
-------
Eldorado Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
7
•"R
-i
~-
?,',
r
*t
° * * " ~^ " 8 B
s 'i ': 4 , S , fi ? 6
LjiOi.iriO b^mpie type ~ io1:is
,Ex_^
^^*^X^-^*il_ "XS
i ; i 4 s _ 6 ? a
Rjisrci ^riftiGift Ivoe s To'ai
o
.-G
s
*£•
3
fe
!JS
O
CM
O
In
g=,
c
Ol
""" e °" "^ B & "" fl
2 J,^^ 5 _ , 6 ? A
Round, Sample iype ^ Oi^so»y»o
s,
/ X
f n
' N
/\
1 2 S _ 4 S . 6 ? 8
Figure 3^. Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Silver and zinc.
26
-------
Time Trace for River Conditions, Ester Creek
o
CO-
or
co
•oo
a'
Ho
oo"
o
<£>'
B.
B
B
B
246
Hound. 5amnle Tvne = Total
B
o
CO-
CD*"
CO
T3O-
feT_
To
oo
B
B
"B
2 4 Q 8
Round. SamDle Tvne = Dissolved
irv
CM'
O
CM'
o-
4
Round
O)-
oo-
to-
LO
B
i 6
Round
Figure 3h. Temporal variation of field parameters and metals, Hardness. TSS, and pH.
2?
-------
Time Trace for River Conditions, Ester Creek
CL
E
03
If)
ound
B
o
CO
LO
CM
1"
1—0,
ounri
ound
Figure 3i. Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Conductivity, temperature, and turbidity.
28
-------
Ester Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
p
c
B
•B
Fiound, Sampie type - Qis
Round, Sample !ype - Tata
Round, Ssrtipte lype r Di&soived
•B &•-•
•"B ft B"" --&••• B
Ruund, Sa,rnp!e !ype ^ Total
Sa
~
_j. _j g
Royndp Sample type ^ Lhssolved
Figure 3j, Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Aluminum, antimony, and arsenic.
-------
Ester Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
1
^ Tytai
"T ~~™ &~~~~— g"l^~~~™5"
Round, bampig )ype = Tola
»=!
r
B
o
Tound, Sample type"^ Dissolved
"-B""
Hound, Sample type = Dissolved
, Sample tvp© -•
Figure 3k, Temporal variation of field parameters and metak. Cadmium, calcium, and chromium,
30
-------
Ester Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
e?
; type = ^olt
.6-..
"Round, bample lype = ToSal
Round, Sample !ype = Total
i
B,
Hound, Sample typs*4 i
-B B O B B —&— B
Hound, SampEe type = Dissolved
, Sample typ'e =
7 B
Figure 31. Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Copper, lead, and magnesium,
31
-------
Ester Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
io. Ssn-.pffe type - Total"
.. 6-.
Round, Sample lypo ^. Tots!
•-B.
If
f'
3"
Tound, Sample type ~ Dissolved
Round, Sample ?ype^ Dissolved
-B B-
, Sample typ^ =
Figure 3m. Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Mercury, nickel, and selenium.
32
-------
Ester Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
*
cp
& B-
- B B-
~5 3—!—£
R&und, os
ample type - Total
g B B g g_
•r^ TT g™ T' ^
" Round, Sample lype = Tolal
-B -B
6 &-
»«•
-B B --B 0— —B
<^ j ^ •* , . S _. .6,
Hound, Sample type = Dissolved
-B e-
_ ^
Round,
—f-
Figure 3n, Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Silver and zinc.
33
-------
Time Trace for River Conditions, Faith Creek
o
OQ
O
CO'
w
w
O5
co
I
o
CM
o
o
co
o
o
C£>
73
—O
E----E
2
H
48
ounri Samnle Tvne ~ Total
4
Round
o
GO'
O
CO"
w
w
CO
"'
TO
X
o
OJ
o-
O3-
QO
CO-
— E
2 4 Q 8
Round. Samnie Tvne - Dissolved
'*•&---&
- - -&'i
4
R
ound
Figure 3o, Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Hardness, TSS, and pH,
34
-------
Time Trace for River Conditions, Faith Creek
o
o-
CM
o
3
?0
§0
"
o
ID
E- - - -c
to
4 6
Round
,-E-
2 4 6 8
Round
o
o
o
o
CD-
CD
tg
I— O-
o
o-
CM
o-
- -E
Q D D P -"fr
ound
Figure 3p. Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Conductivity, temperature, and turbidity
35
-------
Faith Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
, barnpie Sype - Total
f"
':Ai.'
c*3
&
E
c5*>^
<
- - "*^
_Jlr' v
-• %
^ %
^ *" ^
/ ^
B •• • --B H t+ b 8 -"B B
Hound, Sample type -• Total
Round, sample type - Tola!
fa.
E
.-&--..
'••6.
nound, Sample lype "^
2*
•S3
E
Round, Sampte lype =
Round, Sample type ^ Dissolvect
Figure 3q, Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Aluminum, antimony, and arsenic.
36
-------
Faith Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
&^=^,fr - - - $ 0 « u-
0 B-
""F;;ourid, Sample type
^ounrt, sample type ~ Tsla!
_g e— g- _e-
" Round, Sample lype = Toial
JO
f
e*.
^^
4
*•'
B a-
-a -a B B-
T r
Tourid, SamrJe lype = Dissolved
E".
^?,
C-Xs
Kound, Sampis typo ^- Dis&oiwd
a B-
T r
noundj Sampifi* typ^ = i
-a e B
Figure 3r. Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Cadmium, calcium, and chromium,
37
-------
Faith Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
3*4
-£»•
E- ---
" -e
-o—-
—f
Round, Sample type ~ Total
SH
«X-
t
Tound, Sample typ^ °~
-& 0 0^ -e-
1 2
^456
HTouHEi, Sample (ype -•% DsssoiyiiO
•- •&,
B-
Tound, Sampie typa =
Figure 3s. Temporal variation of Meld parameters and metals. Copper, lead, and magnesium.
38
-------
Faith Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
jfi
£2%,
M
:>
^
....
.«"
O
C
E
fe
r/i
0
<* v F^.
f
/
2 3R™«Mf,|anlpiS«^
r s
/
_-€--- - ^
Round, barnpie Eype
Round, bampie lyp'8
- -a
v v
T s t " • 's
= Toiai
_
~-B.^^
J ~a'g > J5m
T , 6 t 8
i Total
*
-^>
o
£r
3^
2
o
a'
H|
se
O
f
tp-
o
fe
*
3}
1 2 r$^c-^, Snife
Hound, Samp!© type ™ Dissolved
Round, Sample iypa'= Dissolved
i—j j_ __^_^^4 ^_j g^ _
HourKi, samptg lyp^ — Uis^iOlvso
"
} ^
— -flh-— — 0
7 8
T^ ff
Figure 3i. Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Mercury, nickel, and selenium.
39
-------
Faith Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
/
f \
•' \
^ '" ' \
i S- 3 r A 5 _ . 5 7 §
T- jt J ^jrtp » *>p- - T..!dl
,'-
/
/ ^
V
e
^
»
i
i
I
o
Hound, Sample !yp« ^ Dissolved
Figure 3u^ Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Silver and zinc.
40
-------
Time Trace for River Conditions, Ketchem Creek
246
Hound Samole Tvoe - Total
o
CO
0>
c
"OO
ra"*
r
o
cy
._-&-_.,--.£---&
2468
Round, Samnle Tvne = Dissolved
o
o
o
o
CO
o
o
•J)
—o
o-
o
o
CM
O
4 6
Round
o>
4
Round
Figure 3v. Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Hardness, TSS, and pH.
4!
-------
o
C\J-
o
CM
m.
E
to-
Time Trace for River Conditions, Ketchem Creek
•-E
4
Round
4
Round
o
o
o
eu
o
o
o
o-
ound
Figure 3w. Temporal variation of field parameters and meials. Conductivity, temperature, and turhkliiy.
42
-------
Ketchem Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
eK
ER
. - -e-
;f
?
5
&.
Hound.
lrpu - Tuf.il
dfc
Round, Sa*nple type = Total
_ - - t 6.
Round, Sarnplt* t
a
i
"JUT
r
Round, Saropto lyps » Dissolved
zfiz
Roucid. Sample type = Dissolve
4 g
Round, Sarrpte lype ^ Dissolved
:igure 3x, Temporal vanalion of field parameters and metals. Aluminum, antimony, and arsenic.
43
-------
Ketchem Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
? 3_ .4 5 T - ,6
Hound Cample iype = Total
Round. Sample !ype - Total
3='
d, Sample
Round, Sarnpie type =.
-a a-
1 2
Round,. Sample type "i i
Figure 3y. Temporal variation of field parameters and metals. Cadmium, calcium, and chromium.
44
-------
Ketchem Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
p..--
._--fi.
Rourtfl S*imp(e iyp« ^ Tolai
f
Ro
und, Sampie type
|J
8
S-]
Round, Sarnpfe lype » Dissolved
Round, Sample type * Tola!
Hound. Sample type = Dissolved
Figure 3z. Temporal variation of Held parameters and metals. Copper, lead, and magnesium.
45
-------
Ketchem Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
t5 I,
hd, Simple Ivp* js Tola!
-•€,
i lypfe ^ Total
•e- •
-a—
• *- .
-B~
-e =:-B-
Sa
mple ty)>« a Tolas
Round,
, Sample type
B a a-——e & a B a
1 5 3 rf"r"» , ,—5T~~~T
Royndv Sample lyp^ * OsssvOlvea
Figure 3aa. Temporal variation of Field parameters and metals, Mercury, nickel, and selenium.
46
-------
Ketchem Creek - Time Trace of Concentration
E:
JT
Ftoytul Sample *yp3e c Totaf
.,6,
l
-a B-
amp!« type « Dis&otvea
Round,
....e
7 8
Figure 3ab. Temporal variation of field parameters and metals, Silver and zinc,
47
-------
Figure 4a - 4n. Comparison of physical and chemical parameters. The following correlation
graphs are arranged by metal. Values for tola! recoverable metals are labeled T: values for
dissolved metals are labeled D. Axes are logarithmic.
48
-------
Giw**i
-------
>r T T
jj|b 1[|p j '__,
j- 3 ^ D
IT OUBO!' D 0I3T GmBHDEK [BIT WE 11 FimJlMMQS^^MD DCI
CM
O
If'
Bo
3=,
er-
as"
o
o
1O
T ?T T
§fc s ""^ ,n% ,1 n O) D
f *
HUE' IMIDJJ DUD nnnBtm •[!••£ IDD D cB ffi
Bin
S,,,
6.
Co
12
1 4 1,(i 1 8 2.0
Haidfiess iog 10
2.2
is 0°°°
• OH) UHID D I
J fuibtditj log 10
I 1
D III IDEM D OP UBimUHL) IB ffli D
am
'14 16 ,, 1.8 , , 2-0,„
Uonduclivity fog 10
0.5 1.0 ... . O . .20
lol Slis - log 10
Ii) Q! (HI) UK
D) C0B
H9
6,0
6,5
, ,
pH
7 0
' ID iMIHMl'' IWIDIID
7,5
8.0
4h. Comparison of physical and chemical parameters. Antimony,
50
-------
-#4
fr T
It?
ODD
jfetrtJ
1 4. . 1 6 18 20 2.2
Hrjroness - *oq 10
0 Bi
T Tflf
?T 1^TTTTT
•J. ^9 DD%
Turbidity • log 1C
T aO!
I
CcmdudivMy - Kg 10
T T
TT
T TT T
S
OPf) I
ODD ODD
0.5 1.0 , ..US ....20 25 "30
Tot S'ys • log to
80
Figure 4c. Comparison of physical and chemical parameters. Arsenic,
51
-------
nnnmiifc in: j; tntmnl^Bn
14 1.6 . .1.8 2.0 2.J
Har
. . ..
ardness - tog 111
T
T
'TTy'T
5^T i-
o
5 , . .,1 . l Sijs,
.
uj 10
6.0 6,5 U7.0 7.5 8.0
pH
Figure 4d. Comparison of physical and chemical parameters. Cadmium,
52
-------
12 14,16 , -1.8 20
Hardness loq 10
Tufbjdity log
.
fto
10
[01 ffl
• 1 I!8
iO
§8
05 10
"ft
?
5
33
To!
T3~~ "To T?T
bus log ID
30
fi.O 65 .,70 7.5
pH
8.0
Figure 4e, Comparison of physical and chemical parameters, Calcium.
53
-------
ss - log 1
Turbtdily- log 10
a.o
E !
fir
rt f
oL
Figure 4f. Comparison of physical and chemical parameters. Chromium.
54
-------
T it T
$'
• l°9 n
D0D
Turbidrty - log 10
Oi
14 ' 6
I T
I »
T
D
T 'TT1
3D
5 DO
D D
05 10
o S
Tol.'siis, • log lB'°
30
T
D 0
i» ft)
65 pH7.0 75
80
Figure 4a. Comparison of physical and chemical parameters Copper.
55
-------
fT
T
.T tTf
TirVftD-jV T
CD OTDUftUnHKOO
10 12
t 4. , 1.6 , JS 20
Hardness - log 10
0-5
TT
TT
D
DD D
! 0 _ ,15 , ,20 2,5 30
Tot. Sus. - log 10
iidlty -
Turbidity- tog 10
T T
D
n
u
80
f"?
T T T
6.5 U7.0 7,S 80
pH
t>
T_
T '
T fTTT 1
'D §9)0
TH-W~' s" Tcrfi-lynrr, ' TT
% !•?..*- _
D OD D KMOnmCl
1'4 16 C»Md,vily-SflO 22 2-4
Figure 41i. Comparison of physical and chemical parameters. Lead.
5ft
-------
y
20 22
Iff
1 urtiidtty • log 10 ''
* if f8
i» *
D (fl |)
10 To.Vk..|oB.6-0
Conductivity fog 10
60 6.S U70 75
pH
80
Figure 4i. Comparison of physical and chemical parameters. Magnesium.
57
-------
_P>
"ar
fr
g oP
raro
1.4. j 16. .18
Hairiness • log !Q
20
Turbidity - log 10
T TT
f
_
iaiup OP
1'6 Conductivity Eg 10
I
ii
rr
D
?
1
T "" fj f "" 0
mummimmaDDso Dm o DO ° cP S*
S
0 D
60
-(0018°
T
TT T
T T
pH
7.0
8,0
Figure 4j. Comparison of physical and chemical parameters. Mercury.
58
-------
,'
'*'
9'=J
Turbidity log 10 **
.
--o
0
r, DD -
U
10 T tS . 2 0
Tot sus tog It)
,
f5'
........ IT ....................... f
.
Conductivity loo 10
2,4
6.0 6,
#
Figure 4k, Comparison of physical and chemical parameters. Nickel.
59
-------
a
Ifi! —
P4 ]
_Tg
DT
OMJ
•|5 DT TD
g~t CD T
g3 T D BID D
|g TT 0 OTOTJD
S T T P DT
O
o
OT QODOT 0 o o OX^^^^^^^Hu IBVT T pi IJIUKJU Bm^UH^ 0
10 1.2 \A, . 1.6 , ,1 8 2.0 2.2
Hardness - log 10
"I
CJ
to
"-B
cw
"§ji
£
CO
^**.
P
o
o
o
T
OT
D D T T
DTD
0 D B> D T
ID D nr ID TT
D ID T DT T T
JBP JR. ,a_BI_MtMJBinE_lP ,n> _B_1 JG.IL
05 10 ..tJ.S0 25 30
Tal.sus. -tog 10
€*"i|
o
M
^§ T
0*4
3s
T DO T
DT
Jl DOC T D T
f^> BD ED Offi) TT
gl DtBT D TOT T T
04 m ^ jBamapiaBiiiiiapna KB MOB gpii gp
?*i
o
«
3$
I
™
WO
o
o
o
T
a
O T) T
D T
T DO D 0)
T TT ffi DD i DB CD D
T D T TtTPT CD
. .1 i. _ ^ MM*. a fflDm ja • • • ••!' iiii^^niiiii i
° T"lV"i'"° 2 " ^^
o
i
£
Oil
"fflc
T
DT
T TJ
DDT
T D D • 0
T T D OBDE ID
3 TT D DDJD
0 ""^
^j mm mivim m rffi ItlHmMm^^^B !V MH EWftHimnrflilfi fl tV
Figure 41. C'omparLson of physical and chemical parameters, Selenium.
60
-------
3
'to
t»i
«
O
o
ro
1
03 '
rfP
m
O
o
^>
8) '
>
to
^7
r tf T
1 T \
p T '
T» T T T
1 ! T Tl T
10 1 ? 14. j 1 6 . .1.8 2.0 2,1
Haidite&s tog 10
T tf
T T T
f,T T
I T ' 7 ^ T
D [DBEnBBHBHHHBBflU DD OQQBD D DO D
1 " lurbidilj log 10
T Trf
T
IT^ 1 ^ 1
T T T n i i
Li Ul U 111 Ul L LUJ ,U1 .^Bi^B !• •• • lUUM^UHUUV •
"
1
o» *
^S
u"
-15 -lfV%.^tf.O
I
r ' ' T
TT / '
T T T *T\
FT T T ,
am mm m mm/asm m)ntunD oa v u D ID on
05 1.0 , . t-5 , ,20 25 30
Tot. sUs log 10
TT T T
T
T 1
T /r 1 T
, T TIT T T
6.0 6:5 ..70 75 8!0
pH
rr^r tTfT ,," ~?o,n" "^^
Uonduetivrty - fog 10
Figure 4m. Comparison of physical and chemical parameters. Silver,
61
-------
'.I.'
t 0
D
T ° Tf
uBD •ED ¥ ODD til
T I
11 J T *
t T'
IT 1
T T T T T
DD D ib
• isoaBttl DID D DD ° 03 ffl)
10 T , La 2.0
Tot bus, • loq ID
-rf
T T
D
7 T
fit,
T
T
D D
J Turbicftiy - tog 10
5:0
'
•• ff
QD
FT ............. ..... 1*6 ~ 1ST F
onduelivrty - fcg
Londuelivrty - fcg 10
T T
Tl
'T
T
T y
° f
3.0
T
ij' »r
e:o
Figure 4n. Comparison of physical and chemical parameters. Zinc.
62
-------
List of Tables
i. Placer mine .sites, 64
2. Source of placer gold deposits. 65-67
3. List of analytical data 68-75
4, Summary statistics of data by mine and sampling location. 76-89
5. Alaska water quality criteria, 90
6, Linear correlation coefficients for comparison of measurement parameters. 91
-------
Table i. Placer Mine Sues, Sample locations ai three ot'the mines are bused on uncorrected GPS
readings: the general location ot'the mine at Eldorado Creek was determined by map
Mine Owner Receiving
Water
Tod Bauer
Eldorado Creek
Site
Mine
Location
62"45'35"N 149° 36' IO"W
Large n Claims
Ester Creek
Background
Downstream
64° 50' 55.32"N 148° 05' 05"W
64° 50' 36,38"N 148" 01' 37.59'
W
Sam Koppenberg
Faith Creek
Downstream
Upstream
Effluent
Background
65"21'21.33"N 146" 17' 13"W
65° 21' 38 "N 146° 17'03"W
65"21'38"N 146° 17'03"W
65"23'43"N 146" 17'03"W
John McClain
Ketchem Creek
Downstream
Upstream
Effluent
Background
65° 28' 48"N 144° 44' 43 "W
65°28'47.55"N 144° 44' 36.25'
65° 28' 44.38"N 144° 44' 39.93'
65° 28' 16.81"N 144° 44' 48.90'
W
W
W
C.4
-------
Table 2. Source of Placer Gold according to summaries of Nokleberg, 1996 (I) and Cobb, lc>73 (2)
(MiniiiL1 District designations are from Cobb)
IW7 Sampling
IL* \\.iiei Mining District and No, Gold Source, Host Rock' " Source Mineralization Type Assoc. Minerals'. Husi'
Fairbanks Disinci-50 Gold skurns and/or polymetallic veins 8. V Q, P, C I, M
associated with Cretaceous plutons (1.2)
2. Qnari/Creek Hoi Springs Disinct -5? Possibly related to granitic intrusions (1) — — I'
^ American Creek Hot Springs Disirrct-5.^ Quari/.-carbonate veins assoc. with shear V Q. C I1'
/one, possibly rel. to granitic intrusions (1)
4. Tol.nlanika Ri\er Bonniticld DiMnu-44 Gold-bearing quart/or polymetallic veins V, M Q, P M
and massive sulfides in rnetaniorphic rocks,
recycled through Tertiary gravels (1,2)
5, llomesiake Creek Bonnilield Districl-44 (see Tolatlanika River, above) V, M Q, P M
ft. Plan Creek Bonnilklcl Distncl-44 (see Tolatlanika River, above) V, M Q, P M
1 Hamsun Creek Circle Disirici-47 Gold-bearing quartz veins, polymetallic veins. V. S. M 0-P. C M
skarns, porphyry lode deposits, and volcanogenic
massive sultlde deposits in metamorplm: r*K:ks.
recycled through Tertiary conglomerates (1,2)
S Kelcliem Creek Circle Distnct-47 (See Harrison Creek, above) V. S, M Q, P, C M
'i Switch Cieck Circle Disinci-47 (See Harrison Creek, above) V. S, M Q, P, C M
Id. Crooked Creek Circle Disinci-47 iSee Harrison Creek, above) V, S, M Q, P, C M
(IJor.e : description (.•: mineralization type, associated mineralogy, and host rock may apply to thi;
particular deposit. •••! ..irainage, but many are less specific and apply to entire district)
:>:;, P- polymetallic, — = unknown
itary, M= metainorphic, — = unknown
65
-------
u Disii'K't
Gold Source. Host Rock
I I Bnnan/a Creek
12. Trili m ClierrvCk.
i J, Turk Creek
14. Canyon t reek
I v tiniiita Creek
In, Hatiiitttmil River
I / Boulder Geek7
IX Cultnado Creek
\'-> l.iulc Creek
2D. GaiK'< Creek
11. Timber Creek
22. Swifi Creek
23. Prince Creek
24. Solomon River
25. Col lee Creek
2h. Koiiiiarok Rivet
27. Diek Creek
2X. Mtnt Creek
Circle DiMnu-47
Fitrivmtlc Disinct -51
Fuilyiitfle Oisincf-5 I
ForlymiJe Distnci-5 i
Koyukuk District-?1)
Koyukiik Disinci-51)
Koyukiik Disinet-Sy
Innoko Disinct-5fi
lilil;iri)il Disiru.1-55
iniiukn
Ruhy Di
M i iieral i/uu ont ync
Ruhy
Idtlarod DisLnct-55
Nome Dislncl-31
Kouuarok Dis)ne(-2'-)
trok Disi.nci-29
Serpeniuie District-33
Fairliavcn Disirict-2X
Assoc. Minentls Ijosl
Q. P, C M
Q, P I
(Sec Harrison Creek, above) V, S, M
Golcl-quari/ and polymeiallic veins in mela- V
morphic rocks near contacts with Cretaceous
or airly Tertiary pinions (1,2)
(Sec fnh to Cherry Creek, above) V Q, P I
(See inh to Cherry Creek, abtwe) V Q. P t
Source ol'pold unknown (1,2)
Gold-quart/ and quartz-stibmle veins V Q, P M
(See Emmii Creek, above)
Qnaru-stibnite cinnabar vein (2) or granite Vs' Q.P'1 I
porphyry and mon/onite (1)
Vein deposits in morizonilic intrusives V Q.P I
and from other mineralized contact zones (1,2)
Mineral i/.ed basalt and rhyolite dikes V'.' P. Q'.' 1
in swarms intruding Cretaceous slate (1,2)
Polymciallic vein and skam deposits assoc. V P. C I
willi granitic intrusives (1)
(See Timber Creek, above) V P. C i
Vein deposits in mon/onitic intrusives V Q.P t
and from other min. contact zones (1,2)
Gold-bearing quartz vein deposits in V Q M
metaniorphic rocks (1)
Low-sulfide, gold-bearing quartz veins in V Q.P M, I
metamorphic rocks and from tin lode deposiis
assiK. with granitic plutons (1)
(See Coffee Creek, above) V Q, P M.I
Source of gold unknown, (2)
Polymciallic vein lode deposits assoc. with Q.' Q'' I.1, NT:
Cretaceous granitic plutons or alternatively
Irorn gold-hearing quaru veins m met. rocks (1)
66
-------
Recciviiii! Water
2«-*. C.ui.f Run
Mimim District Gold Source, Host Rock Source Mineralization Type Assoc. Minerals
Fairliavt-u Disinci 2.H (See Mud Creek, above! Q? Q?
Hosi
I'.'. M
1998 Sampling
3(t, Lldmadii Creek
31. Ketclicm Creek
32. Faiili Creek
33
Creek
Vaiikv Creek
Circle Distnei-47
Riirhanks Districted
Fairbanks Dislricl-5(i
hil>Tiietallic veins associated V
ttitJi Cretaceous plulons
intruding rnetasedimentary rocks (1)
(See Harrison Creek, above) V, S, M
Polyinetallic veins associated V
with Cretaceous plutons (2)
(see Faith Creek, above) V
Q, P
Q. P. C
Q.P.
Q.P.
l.M
M
massive Millide any muss ol'unusually abundant metallic sulfide minerals (in contrast to more localised vein deposits).
pulymeialhc deposits thai contain economically important quantities of three or more metals.
porphyry-an igneous rock with a texture ol" larger crystals set in a finer-grained matrix.
skarn- a rtck of complex mineralogy formed where igneous rocks intrude carbonate rocks,
67
-------
Table 3 List of Analytical data. Shading indicates detection limit values. Outlines indicate exceedances of aquatic criteria for Alaska.
Stream Type Hardne TSS AiuminvAntimo ArseniiCadmiuCalctu Chroi Coppe Lead Magnesi Mercur N»ekel Seleni Silve Zinc pH DO Cond Turbid Set. So Temp
mg/L mg/L ng/L M9/L C3/L M3/L- ycjft. MS'U H9/L jig/L ng/L ng/L (ig/L ng/L (ig/L ^ig/L mg/l nS NTU ml/L degC
Eldorado Creek - Round 1
Downslream tot rec
Downslream diss
Efllueni tot rec
Efllueni. diss
Upstream tot rec
Upstream diss
Background tot rec
Background diss
Eldorado Creek - Round 2
Down si ream tot rec
Downslream diss
Effluent tot rec
Effluenl diss
Upstream tot rec
Upstream diss
Background tot rec
Background diss
Upstream tot rec
Eldorado Creek - Round 3
Downslream tot rec
Downslream diss
Effluent tot rec
Effluent diss
Upstream tot rec
Upstream diss
Background tot rec
Background diss
Effluenl D' tot rec
Effluenl D1 diss
Eldorado Creek - Round 4
Downstream tot rec
Downstream diss
Effluent lol rec
Effluent diss
Upstream, tot rec
Upstream etiss
Background tot rec
93.7
96,9
114
118
94.5
96.7
83.1
85.2
108
112
128
131
108
(11
94.8
97.5
149
152
155
156
160
152
155
137
139
154
160
104
104
131
132
104
105
92.8
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
12
12
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2.5
2.5
2
2
105
105
2
52.1
24.5
42.6
279
58.5
19.3
49.8
23
40
20.1
51.2
21.7
39.5
18.8
30.6
17.9
371
30.3
17.2
67.1
23
35
16.9
20.1
15.7
44.2
22.5
327
19
39.9
16.5
31,4
te.9
28.8
0.5
0,5
3.1
0,5
0.5
0.5
5.5
O.S
0,6
0.5
2
0,5
0.5
0.5
0.97
O.S
05
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0,5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0,7
0.53
0.62
0.6
0.62
0.6
0.73
0.65
0.71 '
0.65
0.75
0.68
0.66
0.66
0.68
0.66
2.2'
0.61
0.66
0.75
0.63
0.66
0.59
0.72
0.74
0.66
0.6
0.63
0.65
0.6
0.59
0.6
0.57
0.65
0.04
0,04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0,04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.042
0.04
0.04
20200
21500
28000
30000
20200
21400
18000
19200
23200
24900
31500
33200
22900
24500
20500
21900
37900
32500
33300
37100
39000
31900
32900
29000
29700
37000
39200
22500
22400
32200
32600
22100
22500
20000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.7
0.9
0.87
0.65
0.64
0.5
0.72
0.55
0.6
0.51
0.55
0.54
0.77,
0.54
0.54
0.92
2.6
0.5
0.5
0.52
0.5
0,5
0.5
0,5
0,5
0,53
0.5
0.55
0.53
0.52
0.6
0,5
0.55
0,5
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.5
0,1
0,5
0.1
02
01
0.5
0.1
OJ»
0,1
0.5
0,1
0.79
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.1
O.S
0.1
0,5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.15
0.1
0.38
0.1
0.1
10500
10500
10700
10500
10700
10500
9260
9040
12200
12100
11900
11700,
12300
12100
10600
10400
13300
17300
17500
15400
15200
17500
17600
15600
15800
14900
15000
11700
1 1 700£
12300
12400
11800
11800
10400
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
16.6]
10
10
10
10
10
1.22
0.94
1,4
1.09
1,14
086
1.16
0.85
1.13
0.87
1.37
1.2
1.1
0.88
1
0,8
3.93
1.27
.01
.66
.25
.38
.07
.14
.03
,54
.26
1.05
0,85
1.3
1.09
0,92
0.9
1.03
1.2
1.
1.2
1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1
1.3
1
1,1
1.1
1
1.2
1
1.2
1.1
1
1.1
1.1
1
1.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0,03
0,03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0,03
0,03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
4
4
4
4
4
4.7
•i
13
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4.1
4
14
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
9.7
4
6.3
4
4
4
4
7,55
7,55
7,34
7,34
7,27
7,27
7.78
7.78
8,01
8.01
7.93
7.93
7.91
7,91
8
8
781
7,81
762
7.62
6.77
6.77
8,05
8,05
7,9
7.9
7.22
7.22
7.66
766
784
139
139
180
tso
138
138
125.5
125.5
165.2
165.2
190.7
190.7
146.8
146.8
138.2
138.2
213
213
223
223
208
206
199
199
164
164
194.6
194.6
147.3
1473
140.8
0.6
0.6
1.5
1.5
1.75
1 75
1.5
1,5
1.5
1.5
2.8
2.8
2.4
2.4
2
2
1.4
14
2.5
2.5
1.2
1.2
<0,5
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
l
T
T
T
T
T
T
i
l
T
T
1
T
T
•
T
T
T
T
T
1
i
i
8
.-.
7
7
7
7
.
7
10
10
10
10
to
10
1 1
11
10
la
9
a
\
9
:<
9
8
B
B
8
8
B
B
6.3
-------
Table 3 List of Analytical data. Shading indicates detection limit values. Outlines indicate exceedances of aquatic criteria for Alaska.
Stream Type Hardna:TSS Alumim.Antimo Arsenii Cadmiu Calciu Chroi Coppe Lead Magnesi Mercur Nickel Selem Silve Zinc
mg/L mg/L pg/L
Background diss
Eldorado Creek - Round S
Downstream tot rec
Downstream diss
Effluent tot rec
Effluent diss
Upstream tot rec
Upstream diss
Background tot rec
Background diss
Eldorado Creek - Round 6
Downstream lol rec
Downstream diss
Effluent tot rec
Effluent diss
Upstream tot rec
Upstream diss
Background lol rec
Background diss
Eldorado Creek - Round 7
Downstream tot fee
Downstream diss
Effluent tot rec
E (fluent diss
Upstream tot rec
Upstream diss
Background tot rec
Background diss
Eldorado Creek - Round 8
Effluent D' lot rec
EHIuent D* diss
Downstream lol rec
Downstream diss
Effluent tot rec
Effluent diss
Upstream lol rec
Upstream diss
Background tot rec
93
125
126
139
137
125
127
119
120
143
142
149
150
142
142
133
136
146
143
152
149
145
144
122
135
172
171
192
188
174
174
193
189
178
2
2
Z
';
..'
2
2
2
2
51.4
51.4
6.8
6.8
42.8
42.B
8.2
8.2
8.6
8.6
13.7
13.7
11.5
11.5
3.7
3.7
20.5
20,5
5,2
5,2
17,8
17,8
4
4
3.6
165
42.1
17.4
50.5
13.9
61
16.1
29.1
15.2
440
21.9
95
15.3
369
17.7
62.9
20.8
83.3
17,5
135
26,4
127
19.7
47.5
20.4
506
15.7
63.6
17.5
253
15
53
12.8
30.1
.ig/L M9/L M9^
0,5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0,5
0,5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0,5
0,5
05
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0,5
0,5
0.5
05
0.5
0,5
0.5
0.5
0,5
0.5
1.3
0,5
0.66
0.65
0.68
0.71 .
0.57
0.69
0,63
0.69
0.65
2.5
0.61
1 1
0.57
2.3
0.62
1
0.69
I
0.68
1 3
0.59
1.2
0.68
0.76
0.69
1.7
0.66
0.84
0.67.
1.9
0.61
0.95
24.7
0.83
0.04
0.04
0.04
004
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.055
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0,04
0.04
0.04
0,04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0,04
0,04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
jg/L tig/L ;ig/L
20100
27000
26600
34400
33500
27000
26600
25900
25500
29900
30100
37600
37800
29900
30000
28200
28900
30300
30800
38900
38900
30100
31000
25400
29000
44700
45500
39700
39800
45200
48300
39500
39900
36500
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.2
1.4
1
1.1
1
1.1
1
1.7
1
0.5
1.5
3.7
1.4
0.5
0.69
0.5
0.54
0.83
3
0.5
1.5
0.5
2.5
0.5
0.68
0.53
0.86
0.5
1,3
0.5
2
0.51
0.54
n s
1.8
0.5
0.61
0.5
2.1
0.5
1.4
2.6
3.6
^9/L t
0.1
0.15
0.1
0.21
at
0,27
o.t
0.57
o;t
0.67
0.1
0.39
0.1
0,73
0-1
0.17
0.1
0.22
0.1
0,43
0.1
0,32
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.55
0,1
0,21
.0,1
0.64
0.1
019
0,1
0.16
ig/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L jig/L
10400
14000
14400
12800
13000
14100
14600
13200
13700
16500
16200
13500
13500
16400
16400
15200
15400
17100
16100
13400
12500
17000
16200
14300
15100
14600
13900
22600
21500
14800
14100
22800
21800
21000
10
10
10
10
so
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.87 1
1.28 1
1,13 1.3
1.37 1,3
1.12 1.1
1.3 1
1.06 1.2
1.17 1.2
1.08 1,2
3.91 1 1
1 21 1
2.47 ) 1
1.23 1
3.5 1
1.25 1.1
1.71 1.2
1.29 1.2
1.98 1.2
1.24
2.28
1.32
2.33
1.27
1.46
1.3
2.98
1.56
1.82
1.41
33
1.55
i.es
.4
.2
.2
.5
.3
.2
.4
.a
_4
.4
.5
.5
.3
.7
3.48 1
1.69 1.8
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
4
4
4
4.2
6.7
4
4
4
B
5.8
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
12
2l>
4,1
4
4
4
4.6
4
4
4
5.8
4
4
4
4
pH
7.84
7.13
7.13
6.67
6.67
7.27
7.27
7.47
7.47
7.56
7.56
7.05
7.05
7.37
7,37
7.6
7.6
6.77
6.77
7.12
7.12
7.37
737
7.24
7.24
7.21
7.21
7.6
76
7.59
DO Cond Turbid Set, So Temp
mg/L uS NTU ml/L dagC
140.8 <0.5 T B
165.6
165.6
188.5
188.5
168.5
168.5
159
159
190.9
190.9
IBS
188
215
215
186
186
212
212
211
211
188
188
177
177
270
270
261
261
264
264
248
0.84
0.84
3.6
3.6
2.52
252
0.43
0.43
n,
16
1 025
10.25
12.4
12,4
1.3
1.3
2.8
2.8
3.5
3.5
1 32
1 32
3.83
3.83
19.3
19.3
4.6
4.6
T
T
T
T
T
T
0.1
0.1
T
T
T
T
(
T
f
1
T
T
T
i
T
1
T
T
CT
0'
T
I
[
a
•:
8
S
!:•
>:
/
7
6
6
8
8
6
'
7
7
9
9
7
7
•
6
6
1
7
7
.
7
',
•
,-'
-------
Table 3 List of Analytical data. Shading indicates detection limit values. Outlines indicate exceedances of aquatic criteria for Alaska.
Stream Type Mardne TSS Alumini Antimo ArsenitCadmiuCalciu Chfoi Coppt Lead Magnesi Mercur Nickel Seleni Silve Zinc pH DO Cond Turbd 5el. So Temp
mg/L mg/L jjg/L (ig/L ^ig/L jigrt. ng/L \iglL fig/L (ig/L ^9"- "9/L ^g/L |jg/L ^ig/L ng/L mg/L tiS NTU rnl/L degC
Background diss
176 3.6 175 0,5 071 0.04 37100 1 0.5 0.1 20300 10 1.47 1.7 0.03
7,59
248
Ester Creek •
Downsiream
Downstream
Background
Background
Ester Creek -
Downsiream
Downstream
Background
Background
Ester Creek -
Downstream
Downstream
Background
Background
Eater Creek -
Downstream
Downstream
Background
Background
Ester Creek •
Downstream
Downsiream
Background
Background
Ester Creek •
Downsiream
Downsiream
Background
Background
Ester Creek -
Downsiream
Downsiream
Round 1
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
Round 2
to! rec
diss
tot rec
diss
Round 3
tot rec
diss
tol rec
diss
Round 4
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
Round S
tot rec
diss
tol rec
diss
Round 6
tol rec
diss
tot rec
diss
Round 7
tot rec
diss
154
161
114
119
146
150
80.9
65
150
152
89.1
92.6
154
159
101
106
122
124
68.2
68.5
90.6
91.7
46.7
48.8
117
116
a
A
4
4
;
4
4
4
2.3
2.3
2
2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
?.
2
4.7
4,7
6.6
6,6
24.3
24.3
2
2
20.7
13.6
43.3
31.3
20.8
14.9
99.9
57,7
19.7
10.6
68.6
42,6
202
to
48.6
33.9
66.6
14.1
175
101
418
37.5
440
171
38.1
15.1
1.6
1.6
0,5
0.5
1.6
1.7
0,5
0.5
1.3
1,4
0.5
0,5
1.3
1.2
0.5
0.5
2
1.9
0.52
0,5
2
1.6
0.5
0.5
1.5
: •!
24.3
19
4
3.8
22.7
19.6
3.7
3.3
31.4
24,8
3.8
3.6
33.5
24.9
4.1
3.6
17,2
13,2
3.6
3.2
20.6
6.71
4.2
2.6
19.4
16.8
0.04
0.04
0.066
0,04
0,04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0,04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.041
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
34400
36900
25000
26800
32700
34200
16000
19200
33600
34400
19900
20900
34600
36500
22500
24000
27800
27500
15900
15600
19900
19900
10800
11100
25900
26800
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 3
1
1.2
1
1
1
3
2.4
1.3
1.1
3.4
2.8
1.6
1.4
3
2.4
t.3
3.5
3.2
2.3
1.2
1.1
4.5
3.2
2,2
1.7
5.22
3.7
2.7
2.1
3.9
3
04,
0.1
0.9
" Oil
0^5
0.1
O.S
0,1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.16
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.31
0.1
1.44
0,1
0.79
0,1
o.ee
0.1
0.19
0.1
16500
16800
12500
12600
15300
15700
8730[
8990F
16000
16000
9S70[
9820
16500
16600
10800
11100
12800
13500
692Q[
7170[
9980[
10200
4800[
5080
12600
11900
to
to
10
10
10
10
1361
18.5|
10
10
" 14 61
10
10
10
11.3
10.13
10
^0
1681
~lj"^l
16.6|
10
16.31
• 10
10
10
272
3.75.
1.73
2.6
2.97
3.62
1.69
2.53
2.84
3.48
1.57
2.63
2.98
3.8
1.63
258
3.1
3.23
1.91
2.44
4.59
3.69
2,36
2.66
3.26
3.27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0,03
0-03
0.03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4.1
8.2
4
4
A
A
7.31
7,31
7.53
7.53
712
7 12
7,36
7.36
7.32
7.32
7.63
7.63
7.3
7.3
7.63
7,63
707
7,07
7.25
7.2S
7,09
7.09
6.94
6.94
6-95
6.95
6.5
6.5
10.39
10.39
9.85
9.85
13.04
13.04
7.65
7.65
11.34
11.34
6.91
6.91
10.4
10.4
772
7.72
11.4
11.4
12.95
1295
15.54
15.54
10.23
10.23
306
306
221
221
295
295
162
162
303
303
178
178
2.95
295
191
191
234
234
124
124
180
180
88
es
240
240
2.3
2,3
t.9
1,9
2.1
2,1
5.B
5.8
2.95
2.95
1,85
1.85
3.81
3.81
3.04
3.04
4.14
4.14
3.44
3.44
25,4
25.4
8.96
8.96
4.63
4.63
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
a
Q
0
0
d
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.2
8.2
7.3
7.3
8.9
fi 9
5.8
S ft
8.6
8.6
4.9
4.9
9
9
Li.':,
5.5
9.6
9.6
3.7
3.7
6.7
6.7
2.8
2.8
8.2
82
70
-------
Table 3 List of Analytical data. Shading indicates detection limit values. Outlines indicate exceedances of aquatic criteria for Alaska,
Stream
Background
Background
Backgroun D*
Backgroun D*
Ester Creek -
Downstream
Down stream
Downstrea D"
Downslrea D*
Background
Background
Faith Creek -
Downstream
Downstream
MIXING
MIXING
Eflluenl
Eftluenl
Background
Background
Upmixing
Upmixing
Upmixing D"
Upmixing D*
Faith Creek •
Downslream
Downstream'
Effluent
Eflluenl
Upmixing
Upmixing
Background
Background
Faith Creek -
Oownslream
Downslream
Type
lol rec
diss
tot me
diss
Round 8
lot rec
diss
lot rec
diss
lol rec
diss
Round 1
lot rec
diss
lOt (BG
diss
lot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
lot rec
diss
Round 2
tot rec
diss
lot rec
diss
tot ree
diss
lot rec
diss
Round 3
tot rec
diss
Hardne
mg/L
77.9
77.4
77,2
77.7
127
129
127
128
92
93.4
27.6
28.9
44.3
46.5
45.2
48.7
21.2
22
31.5
33.8
31.9
33,5
34.2
35.9
74,9
78,1
32.9
34.2
24.4
25.2
33.8
35.7
TSS
mg/L
4.2
4.2
2.8
2.8
2
2
2.6
2.6
2
2
2
2
4
4
4.4
4.4
2
2
4
4
4
4
11.2
11.2
3.9
3.9
9.5
9.5
4
A
2.2
2.2
Alumint Antimo Arsenii Cadmiu Caleiu Chroi Coppc Lead
Uflfl.
95.9
53
103
58.9
21 7
16.9
20,7
12.5
59.6
382
90.6
55
219
31.5
189
32.2
76,6
53.2
42.9
28.2
49.2
27.3
149
21.9
50
33.7
181
22,4
31.5
28.2
42.6
20.4
H9/L tioA ug/L pg/L ug/L jig/L ng/L
0,6 3.6 0.04 17600 1 1.4 0.22
0.5 3.2 0.04 18400 1 1.3 0.1
0.5 3.5 0.052 17600 1 1,5 0,12
0,5 2.9 Q.Q4 17700 1 1.4 0.16
1.3 25.8 0.04 28600 1 3.3 0.1
0.5 0.63 0.04 29600 1.4 0.5 0.1
1,3 26.4 0.0* 28400 1 4 0.1
1.2 24.1 0,04 29400 1.7 2.5 0.1
0.5 3.4 0.04 20800 1 1.2 012
0.5 3.4 0,04 21700 1.5 1,6 0-1
1.7 2.1 0.072 8610 1 1.6 0,17
1.7 1,3 0;04 9190 1 2.3 0,1
2.5 3.7 0.06 13700 1 2,8 1.14
2.1 1.2 OJM' 14700 1 1.7 0.1
2.5 3,6 0.044 14000 1 2.8 1.09
2.1 1.2 . (ftM 1S400 1 1.8 0,1
0,5 0.62 0.073 7100 1 1.1 0.1
0.5 0,66 0,04 7450 1 I 0.1
£4 1.4 0.04 9820 1 1.4 0.5
2.3 1.2 0,04 10700 1 11 0,1
2.3 1.5 0.04 9930 1 2.1 0.5
2.4 1.3 0,04 10600 1 1.2 0.1
3,2 3.8 0.04 10600 1 1.sfp9
3.1 1.4 0,04 11200 1 0.95 0.1
0,5 1.8 0.069 22700 1 2.9 0.5
0.5 1.7 0.041 23800 1 1.7 0,1
3.2 4.1 0.04 10200 1 1.8JTT9
3.2 1.5 0.04 10700 1 0.92 0,1
0.5 0.57 0,04 8240 1 0.5 0.5
0.5 0.65 0.04 8520 1 0.67 0,1
3.1 1.8 0.04 10500 1 1.8[T8B
2.9 1.3 0.04 11300 1 1 1 0,1
Magnesi
J19/L
8120
7650
8070
8140
13600
13300
13600
13300
9730
9520
1480
1450
2440
£370
2480
2480
853
830
1690
1720
1720
1700
1870
1920
4420
4530
1800
1810
926
948
1650
1820
Mercur
ng/L
11.5
16,4
12.4
14
10
10
10
10
10
10,6
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Nickel Seleni Silve
ug/L ng/L [tg!L
1.56 1 0.03
1.88 1 0.03
1.73 1 0.03
2.13 1 0.03
3.02 1 0.03
1,38 1,5 0.03
3,16 1 0,03
3.16 1 0.03
1.52 1 0.03
2,07 1 0.03
1.77 1 008
2.62 1 0.03
2.36
2.81
2.26
2.85
1.5
2.88
0.83
2.16
0.86
t.99
1.37
1.78
5,84
6.5
1.35
1.78
0.66
1.76
0.03
0.03
0.11
0,03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0,07
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.77 1 0,03
1.89 1 0,03
Zinc
Mg/L
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
7.2
4
4
4
4
4
pH
7
7
7.41
7,41
6.77
6,77
6,79
6,79
7,08
7,08
77
7.7
7.61
7.61
7,58
7,58
7.44
744
7.78
7-78
7.65
7.65
7.67
7.67
7,08
7.08
7.57
7.57
7.54
7.54
7,61
7,61
DO
mg/L
15.03
15.03
17.92
17.92
8,28
8,28
8.1
8.1
13.18
13.18
8.18
8,18
1 0.85
10.85
1099
10.99
13.14
13.14
11.8
11.8
11.95
11.95
13.85
13.85
11,66
11 66
13.95
13.95
12.67
12.67
11.02
11.02
Cond
us
157
157
156
156
266
266
266
266
187
187
62
62
102
102
105
105
50
50
71
71
71
71
78
78
162
162
76
76
59
59
77
77
Turbid Set
So Temp
NTU ml/L degC
3,11
3,11
2,85
2.85
2.7
2.7
2.38
2.38
2,26
2.26
1.08
1.08
16.8
18.8
19,7
19.7
0.44
0.44
0.97
0.97
1.4
1.4
8.8
8.8
2,4
2.4
5.2
5.2
1
1
1 91
1.91
0 3.5
0 3.5
0 3.5
0 3.5
o a
0 S
0 8.1
0 8.1
0 3.1
0 3.1
0 6.9
0 6,9
0 11.3
0 11.3
0 11.5
0115
0 6.3
0 6.3
0 8
0 8
0 8.1
0 8.1
0 8.9
0 8.9
0 9,6
0 9,6
0 9.S
0 9,9
0 9.9
0 9.9
0 9.4
0 9.4
-------
Table 3 List of Analytical data. Shading indicates detection limit values. Outlines indicate exceedances of aquatic criteria for Alaska.
Stream
Type HardneTSS Alumini. Anfimo Arsenii CadmiuCalciu Chroi Copp« Lead Magnesi Mercur Nickel Seleni Silve Zinc pH DO Cond Turbid Set. So Temp
mg/L mg/L (ig/L ng/L ug/L M9"- M9A- HflA. ug/L ug/L jig/L ng/L (ig/L (ig/L ug/L ug/L mg/L ^S NTU ml/L degC
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent O'
Effluent D'
Upmixing
Upmixing
Background
Background
Faith Creek -
Downstream
Downstream
Upmixing
Upmixing
Effluent
Effluent
Background
Background
Faith Creek -
Downstream
Downstream
Ellluent
Effluent
Upmixing
Upmixing
Background
Background
Faith Creek -
Downstream
Downstream
Effluent
Effluent
Upmixing
Upmixing
Background
Background
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
lot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
Round 4
tot ree
diss
tot rec
diss
lot rec
diss
lot rec
diss
Round 5
to! rec
diss
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
Round 6
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
lot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
72.2
77.1
72.8
77.8
33.9
35.1
24
24.6
35.7
36
36.3
36.8
61.5
50.8
26,7
26.3
33.8
33.S
59.7
50.6
34.1
33.8
23.5
23.8
26.8
27.6
53.3
47.8
27.9
281
25.6
26.3
"j
2
2
2
2.2
2.2
2
2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
243
243
2.1
2.1
17.9
17.9
249
249
19.6
19,6
2
2
20.2
20.2
171
171
16
1
2.1
2.1
56.8
28.4
49.3
28.5
58
19.6
31
22,6
52.3
17.4
65,7
16,7
9520
23,3
29.1
24,7
186
21.2
6380
21,8
205
21.3
44.6
26.7
180
257
4390
26.7
197
29.9
70.6
33.2"
0.5
0.5
0.92
0,5
2.9
2.9
0,5
0.5
2.9
3
2.8
2.B
5.57
2.3
0.5
0,5
2.7
2.4
8.51
2.4
2.6
2.2
0.5
0.6
2
O.S
9.84
2.2
2
1.4
0.5
0,5
2
1.7
1.9
1.8
2
1.4
0.53
0.55
1.6
1,4
1.9
1.3
48.3
1.2
0.58
0.59
4.1
1.2
51
1.4
4.1
1.3
0.54
O.S7
4,1
0.57
485
1.7
3.6,
1.2
0.93
0.5
0,076
0.054
0,073
0.059
0.04
0.04
0.04
0,04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.54
0,04
0.04
0.04
0.055
0.04
0.39
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.43
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
21700
23700
21900
23900
10500
11100
8130
8380
11400
11500
11600
11700
16700|
15100
9190
8910
10800
10600
16400
15000
10900
10700
8060
8070
8360
8620
15000
14000
8750
8930
8280
8520
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12.7|
1
1
1
1
1
9.16J
1
I
6I
1
1
1
1
2.3
1.6
2.2
1.9
0.76
0.85
0.5
0.62
07
1
0.73
0.73
47.4J
0.94
0.76
0.68
vs[
0.71
27.e|
0.79
1.4[
0.71
0.5
0.56
1.S[
0.66
21 9|
O.B9
1 5[
0,86
1
077
0.1
0.1
0.3
0,1
0.22
0.1
0,1
0.1
0.24
0.1
0,43
0.1
40.5|
0.31
o.i a
0.1
TIT!
~oT
327J
0.36
Tos]
0.1
0.16
0.1
~n7i
0.1
43S|
0.75
"ass]
0.26
0.1
4370
4350
4410
4410
1860
1790
891
893
1750
1780
1790
1830
4820r
3170
920
987
1660
1710
4550f
3200
16BO
1720
820
883
1440
1470
3850^
3130"
1470
1420
1190
1210
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
34]
10
10
10
10
10
26-6[
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
23.2[
10
10
10
10
10
5.93
6.33
5.92
6.72
0.75
1.85
0.6
1.56
0.77
1.83
0.76
1.85
45
2.2
0.48
1.95
1.24
1.06
22.4
1.64
1.28
1.15
0.7
1.14
1.88
2
17.5
1.11
1.75
1.25
1.2
1.46
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1|
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0,03
0.28|
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
051|
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0,03
1.04|
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0,03
7.5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
66|
4
4
• !
4
53|
4
4
4
4
4
4
47I
4
4.8
4
4
4
7J2
7.12
7.35
7.35
7.68
7.68
7.64
7.64
7.8
7.8
7.73
7.73
7.29
7.29
7.69
7.69
7.49
7.49
6.9
6.9
7.03
7.03
6.43
6.43
7.05
7.05
7
7
7.33
7.33
72
7.2
8.98
8.98
10.81
1061
11.2
11.2
10.8
10.8
10.34
10.34
8.13
8.13
10.B1
10.81
11.33
11,33
7.5
7.5
1088
10.88
11.05
11.05
11 89
11.89
8.62
8.62
12.2
12.2
12.17
12,17
158
158
159
159
76
76
58
58
74
74
76
76
103
103
59
59
70
;o
103
103
73
73
48
48
57
57
103
103
62
82
58
58
3.2
3.2
3.03
3,03
1.65
1.65
0.05
0.05
7 39
1.39
2,73
2.73
798
798
027
0,27
4.61
4.61
564
564
5,5
5.5
0.46
0.46
7.5
75
372
372
6.67
6.67
1.83
1.83
0 10.6
0 10.6
0 10.4
0 10.4
0 9.3
0 9.3
0 9,1
0 9,1
0 8.2
0 8,2
0 8.8
0 8.8
0 9.4
0 9.4
0 8.3
0 8.3
0 6.7
0 6.7
0 8.8
o e.e
0 6.9
0 6.9
0 64
0 64
0
-------
Table 3 List of Analytical data. Shading indicates detection limit values. Outlines indicate exceedances of aquatic criteria for Alaska.
Stream Type Hardne:TSS Alurnini. Antimo ArseniiCadmiuCalciu
mg/L mg/L ug/L |ig/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
Faith Creek- Round 7
Downstream tot fee
Downstream diss
Discharge tot rec
Discharge diss
Upmixing tot rec
Upmixing diss
Background tot rec
Background diss
Effluent tot fee
Effluent diss
Faith Creek - Round 8
Downstream tot rec 31.3
Downstream diss 32
Background tot rec 24.3
Background diss 25
Downstream tot rec 36.6
Ketchem Creek - Round 1
Downstream tot rec
Downstream diss
Upmixing lot rec
Upmixing diss
Effluent tot rec
Effluent diss
Chroi Coppe Lead Magnesi Mercur Nickel Seleni Silve Zinc
^g/L jjg/L jig/L (jg/L ng/L ug/L ug/L ug>L jjg/L
pH DO Cond Turbid Set, So Temp
mg/L MS NTU ml/L degC
Background tot rec
Background diss
Ketchem Creek • Round 2
17.6
15.2
15.7
13.7
37.2
31.2
9.96
8
Downstream
Downslream
Upmixing
Upmixing
Ellluenl
Effluent
Effluent C
Effluent D
Background
Background
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
27.9
24.3
19.8
19.9
72.2
37.4
70.3
37.8
10.02
9.64
2.2 38.1
2.2 20.3
2.1 29
2.1 24
936
46.8 2150
46.8 635
36.8 1830
36.8 680
58.7 7110
58,7 181
58.8 1870
58.8 758
47.5 4170
47.5 373
19,4 1500
19,4 487
673 28900
673 147
624 27300
624 132•
4 724
4 589
2
1.9
0.5
0.5
3.9
1.5
1.1
0.48
0.47
15,7
0.04
0.04
0.46
1,044
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.18
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.12
9320
9660
13400
11400
9130
9550
7670
7930
15000
15100
9840
10200
8210
8530
11200
1
1
3,73|
1
1
1
1
1
25I
1
t
1
1
1.9[
0.67
23.3J
1,3
0.83
0.64
0.57
0.7
12.9|
0.9
0.67
0.69
0.84
0.5
5.61J
1 .671
0.1
31 .SJ
0.9
0.38
0.1
O.t
14|
0.23
0,19
0.1
0,18
0,1
5.99|
1610
1470
3740[
2180
1470
1440
861
833
3420[
2900"
1630
1590
923
901
2100
10 18
10 0.76
"HJBJ 20.5
10 2.08
10 0.96
10 1,02
10 076
10 1,04
12JJ 8.6'
TO 1.41
10 0.83
10 1.15
10 1,65
1D 1.01
10.2 437
1450
1060
1300
990
3200
1940
945
640
39.7
46.6
§55
46.1
38.3
19.3
43.4
28
3.51
3.4
3.24
3.34
9,03
3.41
5,19
2.87
1 0.03
1 0.03
5
4
1| 0.4| 49|
1 0,03
1 0.03
1 0.03
1 0.03
1 0,03
1 0.1
1 0.03
1 0.03
1 0.03
1 0.03
1 0.03
1 0.04
1 0,05
1 0.03
1 0.05
1 0 03
1| Q.261
1 003
1 0.04
1 0,03
lfTTn
1 0.03
1 0.05
1 0.03
1 1| 1,12|
1 0.03
1 1[ 1.051
1 0.03
1 0.03
1 0.03
4
4,4
4
4
4
IB
4
4
4
4
4
77
14
E
12
7.3
40
4
19
6.2
24
4
8.6
4
160|
4
)5i|
4
6.1
5.2
7,13
7.13
7.46
7.46
7,24
7.24
7.19
7 19
6.84
6.84
67
6.7
6.71
6.71
5.69
5,69
6.97
6.97
6.95
6,95
6.57
6.57
6.57
6.57
6,2
14.11
14.11
12.6
12.6
14,75
14.75
14.17
14.17
6ft
65
85
»f,
'if
67
55
55
19.1
19.1
1050
1050
4,01
4.01
0.38
0.38
6,87 14.89
6.87 14.89
7.09 13.91
7.09 13.91
8.7
8.7
9,11
9.11
B
8
13.03
13.03
10.3
103
13.6
13,6
10.15
10.15
9.75
9.75
12.6
18.6
72 0.66
72 066
60 0.35
60 035
38
38
33
33
87
R7
,:'l>
20
62
62
49
49
108
108
111
111
30
30
54.4
54.4
31,9
31.9
251
251
16.4
164
170
170
34
34
1800
ISOO
1600
1600
5.7
57
D
0
1.2
1.2
0
0
0
0
01
0 1
o i
0.1
0
0
01
0 i
4.8
4,8
7
7
5
5
5
5
6.97 8.72 106 384 0.2 7 1
6.97 8.72 106 384 02 7.1
3.8
3,8
3.8
3.8
6,9
6,9
5,7
5.7
17
17
27
2,7
10.9
10.9
107
10.7
16.6
16.6
16.9
169
4.6
4.6
.73
-------
Table 3 List of Analytical data. Shading indicates detection limit values. Outlines indicate exceedances of aquatic criteria for Alaska.
Stream Type Hardne TSS Alumint Antimo Arsenic Cadtniu Caiciu Chrot Goppe Lead Magnesi Mercur Nickel Seleni Silve Zirtc pH
mg/L mg/L yg/L jjg/L |.ig/L (ig/L ^ig/L jig/L jig/L jig/L yg/L ng/L tioA jig/L ng'L jig/I.
OO Cond Turbid SBI.
mg/L jiS NTU ml/L degC
KetcKem Creek - Round 3
Downstream
Downstream
Effluent
Effluent
Upmixing
Upmixing
Background
Background
lol rec
diss
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
32.1
25.9
73.5
32.1
23.4
22,4
12
11.2
'.,7
57
680
680
16-4
16.4
2,2
2,2
5910
309
30700
(59
1770
397
588
494
0.5£
0.5
056J
0,5
0,5
0.5
0.5
0.5
543]
6.8
202]
504
17.4
6.83
0.71
0,66
0.26
0.11
1 .341
015
0,15
0.11
0.1
01
Kelchem Creek - Round 4
Downstream
Downstream
Downstrea D'
Downstrea 0*
Upmixing
Upmixing
Effluent
Effluent
Background
Background
tot rec
diss
lol rec
diss
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
28,6
28.8
29.2
25
21.8
22.3
86.7
37,2
12.3
1 1,9
36.1
36.1
50.8
50.8
4
4
922
922
4
4
3480
410-
3780
419
1030
441
34100
149
626
524
0.5
0.5
0-5
0,5
0.5
0.5
0.56J
0.5
QS
OJS
35.3
6.34
34.5
6.46
10.6
5.26
201 [
4.6
0.71
0.69
0,22
0.15
0.23
0,13
0,12
0.11
1.81]
0,15
0.099
0.13
Ketchem Creek - Round S
Downstream
Downstream
Upmixing
Upmixing
Effluent
Effluent
Background
Background
lot rec
diss
lol rec
diss
tol rec
diss
tot rec
diss
21,8
19,8
16,7
16.9
69,2
36,3
9.99
10.3
19.6
19.6
17.1
17.1
379
379
24.4
24.4
2160
637
1260
653
23200
255
1020
701
0,5
03
OS
O.S
0.5]
0.5
0.5
OJ
16.2
4.2
6.12
3.2
156]
6.66
0.93
0.6
0,17
0.13
0,12
0.12
1.6 1]
0.15
0.12
0.11
Ketchem Creek - Round 6
Downstream
Downstream
Downslrea D"
Downstrea D*
EMIuenl
EHIuenl
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
tol rec
31.9
24.6
32.4
24.6
68.9
27.7
53.5
53.5
62.3
62.3
620
620
5290
463
5150
451
26300
261
0.5
O.S
0.5
0.5
0.5
41,2
5.63
41.9
566
182|
7 13
0,3
0.14
0.32
0.13
t 47]
0.17
7770 5.39
8190 1
7900 5.46
7340 1
6220 1.5
6390 1
7,94
5.4
8.1
3.8
4.3
3.6
19300^49.4J 51.6
10900 1
3410 1
3320 t
4.4
4.3
3.6
11.8
1.3
12.2
1.55
2.63
0.71
122
1.35
0.34
0.12
6120 3.2
5660 1.2
4630 1.9
4770 1.1
16500^35/1
10600 t
2630 4.6
2790 1.2
5.91
3.9
47
638
34.9
3.9
4.2
3.5
5.54
0.87
2.51
0.5
80.7
2.21
2.51
0.14
2770
1670
8450
2120
1730
1500
882
816
2240
2020
2300
1630
1520
1550
9360
2430
915
879
1590
1370
1260
1210
6790
2390
830
815
36.7
29.6
804
17 1
24.9
30.8
28
41.4
31.6
184
31.1
21.4
25.7
21.4
152
811
3,13
36,6
3,66
3.29
3,13
1.71
2.84
5.57
3.09
5.85
3.28
2,61
2,86
40.6
10.6 3.53
32.8] 1,74
25.81 2.71
36.1
22. 3
33.8
26.6
89.2
3.52
2.71
2.46
2.46
27,8
503 3.97
38.51 3.41
^9.4| 2,18
1| 0.1 8|
1 0.03
1 2[ 1.13|
1 0.03
1 0.05
1 0.03
1 0.03
1 0.03
1 0.03
1 0^03
1 0.03
1 0,03
1 3| 1.33]
1 0,03
1 0.03
1 0.03
1 0.05
1 0.03
1 0.03
T 0.03
1| 071|
1 0,03
t 0.03
1 0.03
34
4
184]
4
11
4
5,5
-------
Table 3 List of Analytical data. Shading indicates detection limit values. Outlines indicate exceedances of aquatic criteria for Alaska.
Stream Type Hafdna TSS Alumim. Antimo ArseniiCadmiuCalciu Chroi Coppe Lead Magnesi Mercur Nickel Seleni Silve Zinc
mg/L mg/L (jg/l ug/L Mg/L \i&L ^g/L jig/L ng/L (ig/L jigl ng/L ng/L \ig/L ^g/L jjg/L
pH DO Cond Turbid Set. So Temp
mg/L pS NTU ml/L degC
Upmixing tot rec 20.8 4.4 1020 0.5 8.73 0.11
Upmixing diss 20 4.4 481 0.5 4.31 0.12
Background tot rac 11 2 632 0,5 0.63 0.11
Background diss 11 2 608 0,5 0.6 0.12
Ketchem Creek - Round 7
5970 1.6
5810 1
3010 1.2
3010 1.1
7.95
4.6
3.4
3.5
^^^^^m
2.19
0.71
0.45
0.11
Downstream
Downstream
Eftluenl
Ellluenl
Upmixing
Upmixing
Background
Background
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
27.5 16.9 1310
27.3 16.9 385
45.5 28.4 5950
39.8 28.4 157
26.6 66 2810
24.5 66 351
9.71 2 619
10.2
Ketchem Creek - Round 8
Downstream
Downstream
EHIuem
Upmixing
Upmixing
Background
Background
tot rec
diss
lot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
tot rec
diss
0.5
0-5
0.5
0.5
0.5|
0.5
0,5
05
49.2
5.77
32.1
2.7
79.4]
6.25
0.51
0.35
0.42
0,13
0.36
0.24
0.65]
0.14
0.099
0.11
639 0.5 0.51 0.091 2820 1 3.3 0.1
1850
1730
3340
2400
2050
1590
762
776
21
19.4
26.8
10
26.6
21.8
24.8
32.2
3.35
2.42
8.44
2.97
4.6
2.5
2.75
2.15
0.03 6.8
0.03 86
0.03 6.1
0.03 5.4
0.048 9.9
6.93 14.32
693 14,32
6.06 15.47
6.06 15.47
51
51
27
27
14.5
14 5
1 44
1.44
58
59
3
i
0 58
0 58
0 101
0 10.1
0 7
0 7
0 27
2.7
4.4
4.4
64
6.4
5.C
5.6
1.5
) S
75
-------
Table 4. Summary .statistics of data hy mine and by sampling site-
Faith Creek
Total
Dissol.
Ketehem Creek
Total
Dissul.
Eldorado Creek
Total
Dissol
Ester Creek
Total
Dissol.
Aluminum (ug/L)
Overall
Baekcround
Upstream
Effluent
Downstream
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Sid Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max
Min.
Sid. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Meats
Max.
Min.
Sid, Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
972
14$
9520
29
2280
43.3
39.9
76.6
29
19.4
119
100
205
42.9
71.8
321
832
9520
50
3700
147
107
435
38.1
131
15.4
26,0
58.2
16.7
9.36
30.9
29,5
58.2
22.6
5.77
23.1
22.9
29.9
16.7
4.64
26.4
25.7
33.7
18.6
5.52
25.5
24.0
55
17.4
12,1
6K40
2960
M ! 00
588
9920
H44
776
1X70
5HX
437
2700
1910
10400
1020
3 1 60
1 2000
15100
34100
3660
1 2400
3830
3400
6130
1.310
1850
427
379
75 H
143
189
615
617
75 X
494
K6.3
466
447
6gQ
239
147
1S2
178
261
143
48.6
447
433
637
309
124
Sl.O
57.2
4-40
20.1
96.0
37.4
35.5
62.9
20.1
14.4
96.8
66. 1
369
31.4
114
91.8
74.1
2,53
39.9
72.6
98.0
61.7
440
30.3
139
IS K
1X5
27,9
12. K
3.49
18.4
IK. 2
23.0
15.2
2.75
17,5
17.4
19.7
12.S
6.64
20.0
19,5
27.9
13,9
5.50
19,4
19.1
24,5
17.2
2.64
103
5R.9
440
29
134
116
79.4
440
20.2
129
N/A
N/A
86.5
40.7
418
19.7
147
41.3
29.1
171
10
41,9
59.9
45.7
171
10.0
48.5
N/A
N/A
17.5
16.2
37.5
10.6
9.01
Antimony (ug/L)
Overall
Backgroud
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Sid. Dev.
2.6
1.76
0.73
0.5
2.30
0.50
0.50
0,50
0,50
0
1.71
1.36
3.2
0.5
0.98
0,50
0,50
OJO
0,50
0
0.51
0.51
9,84
0.5
0,04
0,50
030
0.50
0,50
o
0.50
0.50
0.50
0,50
0
0,50
0.50
0,50
0,50
0
0.80
0.61
5.5
0.5
1. 01
1.18
0,74
5.50
0,50
1,75
0.53
0.52
1.3
0,5
0,14
0.50
0,50
0.50
0.50
0
1.04
0,88
2
03
0.59
0.59
0.56
1.30
0,50
0.27
0.96
0.82
1,9
0.5
0.55
0.58
0,55
1.20
0.50
0.23
/ b
-------
Table 4 (com.) Summary statistics of data by mine and by sampling site.
Upstream
Effluent
Downstream
Arilhmeiit Mean
Geometric Me, in
Max
Mm.
Sul. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Sid. Dev
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Sul. Dcv.
Faith Creek
Total
2.00
2.51
3.20
2.00
0.45
4.65
2.82
9.84
0,50
3.70
2.50
2.45
3.20
1.70
0,56
Dissol
2.34
2.23
3.20
1 .40
0.67
1.77
1.48
2.40
0.50
0.88
2.15
1.91
3.10
0,50
0.88
Keichcm Creek
Total
0.50
0.50
0 50
0.50
0
0.55
0.54
0 73
0.50
0.08
0.50
a. so
0,50
0.50
0
Dissol.
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0,50
0
0.50
0.50
0,50
0,50
0
Eldorado Creek
Total
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0
1,01
0.74
3.10
0.50
0.99
0,50
0.50
0.50
0,50
0
Dissol
0.60
0.56
] .30
0.50
0.2K
050
0.50
0.50
0.50
0
0.50
0,50
0.50
0.50
0
Ester Creek
Total
N/A
N/A
1.61
1.58
2.00
1.30
0.29
Dissol.
N/A
N/A
1,44
1.35
1.90
0.50
0.45
Arsenic (ug/L)
Overall
Background
Upstream
Effluent
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Sid. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max..
Min.
Std. Dev.
8,87
2.8
53.6
0.43
16.4
0.59
1.74
0.93
0.43
0.15
2.74
2.51
4.10
1.40
1.15
25.4
11.2
51.0
1.80
23.5
1.14
1.04
2.8
0.44
0.49
0.55
0.55
0,66
0.44
0.08
1.29
1.28
1.50
1. 10
0.13
1 .40
1.38
1.70
0.91
031
46,7
12.9
202
0.51
64.8
0.72
0.69
1.10
0.51
0.20
20.3
13.8
79.4
5.42
24.5
134
no
202
32.1
74.7
3. 87
3.81
7.13
0.35
2.25
0.58
0.56
0.69
0.35
0.11
4.82
4.68
6.R3
2.70
1.42
4.85
4 68
7.13
2.70
1 45
0.91
0.84
2.5
0.6
0.47
0.76
0.76
1.00
0.65
0.11
0.96
0.85
2.30
0.60
0.58
0.97
0.89
1.90
0.60
0.45
1.39
0.71
24,7
0.53
4.25
0.68
0.68
0.74
0.65
0.03
3.63
0,98
24.7
0.57
0.28
0.61
0.60
0.68
0.57
004
14.08
9.50
33.5
3.4
11.3
7,10
4,79
33,5
3.40
9.90
N/A
N/A
9.52
6.03
24.9
0.63
8.65
5.72
4.17
24.9
2.50
7.20
N/A
N/A
-------
Table 4 (conl.) Summary statistics of data by mine and by sampling .site
Downstream
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Mix.
Mm.
Sid. Dev,
Failh Creek
Total
3.14
2.82
5.93
1.50
1.5H
Dissol.
1.17
1 15
1 40
0,57
0,26
Keiehem Creek
Total
320
26.3
54.5
8 6
17,5
Dissol,
5.23
5.08
6 SO
3,00
1,26
Eldorado Creek
Total
0,96
O.R5
2.50
O.M
0.64
Dissi.l
0.64
0,65
0.6X
0.53
0.05
Ester Creek
Total
23.1
22.9
31.4
17.2
4,70
Dissol.
14.4
9,77
24. S
0.63
8.29
Cadmium (ug/L)
Overall
Background
Upstrream
Efflueni
Downstream
Arithmetic Moan
Geometric Mean
Max.
Mill.
Slcl. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
MM.
Mm.
Sid. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
0.10
0.06
0.54
0.04
0.14
0,04
0,04
0.07
0.04
0.01
0,04
0.04
0,04
0,M
0
0.25
0.1?
0.54
0,04
0.20
0.05
0,04
0.07
0,04
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.05
0,04
0
0,04
0,04
0,04
0.04
0
0.04
-0.04
0,04
0.04
0
0,04
0.04
0.05
0,04
<0.01
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0
0,39
0.25
1.81
0.1
0.46
Oil
0.69
0.14
0.10
0.15
0.21
13. S
0.65
0.1!
0,18
1-01
110
1.81
0.36
0.54
0.24
26.3
0.42
0.16
0.09
0. 1 3
0.13
0.24
0.09
0.03
0.11
0.11
0.13
0.09
0.01
0.12
0.12
0.14
0,11
0.01
0,16
0.16
0.24
0.12
0,04
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.11
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.04
<0.01
0,04
0.04
0.06
0.04
-------
Table 4 (com.) Summary statistics ol'data by mine and by sampling sue.
Background
Upstream
Effluent
Downstream
Arithmetic Mc;in
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. [)cv.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric' Mean
Max,
Min
Std Dcv.
Arithmetic Mean
Gcomciric Mean
MM.
Min.
Sid. Dcv.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Chromium (ug/L)
Overall
Backgroud
Upstream
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dcv.
Faith Creek
Total
S110
X I 30
9! 90
7100
590
10100
10000
1 1 600
8750
991
1 7400
17000
22700
14000
3440
9930
9770
11400
8360
1090
2.07
1.35
12.7
1.00
2.86
1.00
LOO
1.00
1.00
0
1,00
1.00
1,00
1.00.
0
Dissol.
8290
8320
Ryio
7450
453
10500
1 0500
1 1 700
X930
939
17400
17000
23800
14000
4330
10300
10200
11500
8620
1060
1.00
1.00
1,00
1.00
0
LOO
1.00
1,00
LOO
0
1.00
1,00
LOO
1.00
0
Kctchcm Creek
Total
2X|0
2750
3410
2230
42.3
6330
ft 170
1 0300
4160
1 H90
1 4900
14800
19300
9610
2850
7390
7240
8660
4660
1350
10.3
4.63
49.4
1,00
14.8
1.76
1.48
4.60
1 00
1.33
3.86
2.S2
14.6
1.50
4.41
Dissol.
2760
2730
"20
2150
424
59SO
5H60
7490
3S60
1 200
1 0700
10600
1 4600
ROOO
2000
6930
6800
8190
4320
1310
1 .03
1 .03
1 20
i 00
0.06
1.06
1,06
1,20
1.00
0.07
1 .03
t .02
1.10
1.00
0,05
Eldorado Creek
Total
25400
25100
36500
1 HOOO
6000
28000
25100
39500
20200
6300
35600
35500
45200
28000
5300
28200
27500
39700
20200
6340
1.01
1.01
1.30
1.00
0.05
LOO
LOO
LOO
LOO
0
LOO
LOO
LOO
LOO
0
Dissol
26400
25700
37H«)
! 9200
5990
2K600
2X200
39900
21400
6140
36400
36300
46300
30000
5 1 70
28700
28200
39800
21500
6110
1.03
1.02
1.70
LOO
0.13
LOO
1.00
1.00
LOO
0
1.09
1.07
1.70
\m
0.25
Ester Creek
Total
20600
195(10
M600
10SOO
6640
N/A
N/A
29000
28800
34400
19900
5130
1 .03
1 .03
1.30
1.00
0.09
1.02
1.02
1.20
1.00
0.07
N/A
Dis^.l.
2 1 600
20400
36500
1 I 100
72200
N/A
N/A
29900
29500
36900
19900
5820
1 .06
1.05
1.50
LOO
0.16
1.06
1.05
i .50
LOO
0. 1 7
N/A
79
-------
Table 4 (com.) Summary statistics ot'daia hy mine and by .sampling silo.
Efflucm
Downstream
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Mm.
Std. Dev,
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Ski. Dcv.
Faith Creek
Total
4.77
2.88
12.7
1.00
4.68
1.00
1,00
1.00
1,00
0
Dissd.
1.00
1. 00
1 .00
1.00
0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0
Ketchcin Creek
Total
29.7
22.3
4 1) ,4
5.22
18.7
561
5.01
8.68
2.00
2.63
Dissol.
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
1 .05
1 .05
1 ,20
1.00
0.08
Eldorado Creek
To! ill
1.00
1.00
1.00
1 00
0
1,04
1 .02
1.30
1 .00
0.11
Dissol
1.01
1.02
I 10
1 00
0.04
1.01
! .02
1 1(1
i .00
0.04
Ester Creek
Total
N/A
1.04
1 .0.5
1,30
1 .00
0. i 1
Dissol.
N/A
1.06
1.05
1,40
LOO
0.15
Copper (ug/L)
Overall
Background
Upstream
Effluent
Downstream
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Mm.
Std. Dev.
529
1.87
47.4
0.5
10.4
0.72
0.69
1.10
0,?0
0.24
1.20
1.15
1.80
0.73
0.42
16.8
9.55
47.4
2.30
16.8
1.41
1.32
1.90
0.67
0.47
0. 97
0.90
2.3
0.5
0.42
0.69
0.68
1.00
0.50
0,15
O.S3
1.70
1.10
0.64
0.15
1.23
1.17
1.80
0.79
0.-14
1.01
0.91
2.30
0.66
0,55
13.4
8.84
51.6
3.4
14.9
4.07
3.98
5.86
3.40
0.80
7.78
6.92
20.0
4.70
5.09
32.9
26.9
51.6
8,74
18.8
8.80
8.32
14.0
4.80
3.19
4.01
3.95
6.38
3.1
0.73
3.58
3.57
3.80
3.30
0.18
4.25
4.17
6.38
3.30
0.95
3.91
3.89
4.60
3.10
0.49
4.30
4.22
5.87
3,20
0.90
1 .08
0.89
3.6
0.5
0.80
0.95
0.72
3.60
0.50
1.07
1.13
0.9.3
2,50
0.50
0.76
1.10
0,95
2.10
0.52
0.58
1.17
0.95
3.00
0.50
O.X7
0.72
0.61
3.7
0.5
0.66
0.60
0.59
0.92
0.50
0.17
0.7R
0.64
2.60
0.50
0.74
0.54
0.54
0.65
0.50
0,06
0.96
0.70
3,70
0.50
1 12
2.65
2.37
5.22
1.2
1.26
1.79
1.66
3.20
1.20
0.74
N/A
N/A
3.76
3.72
5,22
3.00
O.K4
2.13
1.90
3,7
0.5
0.94
1.79
1.66
3.50
1.10
0.76
N/A
N/A
2.57
2.24
3.70
0.50
1 .02
Lead (ug/L
80
-------
Table 4 (cont.) Summary statistics ol data hy mine and hy .sampling site.
Overall
Background
Upslrream
Effluent
Downstream
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
.Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Mm.
Sal. Dcv.
Arilhmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max,
Min.
Sid. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Faith Creek
Total
5.67
0.82
43.2
0.1
12.4
0 20
0. 1 7
0.50
0.10
0. i 3
0,67
1.15
1.19
0.22
0.38
IS. 9
4.57
43.2
1.00
19.5
1.32
0.74
4.88
0.17
1.56
Dissol
0. 1 6
0 1 1
1) 9
0.10
t.fts
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0
0.10
0,10
0.10
O.JO
0
0.2X
0.21
0.75
0,10
0.23
o.io
0.10
0,10
0,10
0
Ketchem Creek
Tola!
23, (t
6. 1 9
122
0.27
36.2
O.X7
0 59
2.51
0,27
0.91
9.31
5.24
35.6
2.19
12.0
70.7
51.3
122.0
11.7
45.8
11.2
9.12
20.4
3.14
6.63
Dissol.
0.85
0 59
2.26
0.10
0.61
0 13
0.13
0.19
0.10
0,03
0 82
0,74
1.68
0.36
0.41
1.37
1.25
2.26
0.54
0.60
i.08
1.01
1.45
0.46
0,39
Eldorado Creek
Total
0.37
0.11
0.73
0,1
0.19
0.33
0.26
0.57
0.10
0.21
0.42
0.39
0.73
0.19
0,17
0.42.
0.38
0.64
0.15
0.16
0.31
0.24
0.67
0.10
0.22
Dissol
0.10
0 10
0,10
O.iO
0
0.10
o.io
0.10
0.10
0
OfO
0.10
O.IO
0.10
0
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0
Ester Creek
T.rtal
0.39
0.2K
1,44
0.1
0.36
042
0.28
1,44
0,10
0,44
N/A
N/A
0.36
0.2K
0.76
0.10
0,26
Dissol.
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0
N/A
N/A,
0,10
0.10
0.10
0,10
0
Magnesium (ug/L)
Overall
Background
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max,
Min.
Std. Dev.
2080
1790
4820
820
1220
923
1000
1190
820
114
1900
1700
4530
830
950
935
1000
1210
830
123
2750
2020
9360
680
2460
828
832
945
680
89.0
1500
1380
2580
640
581
769
764
879
640
88.9
14300
14000
22800
9,260
3430
13700
13200
21000
9260
3780
14200
13800
21SOO
9040
3240
13800
1 32,00
20300
9040
3710
1 1 500
11000
16500
4800
3540
9740
9330
16500
4800
3360
11600
11100
16800
5080
3560
9840
9330
16600
5080
,3360
81
-------
Fable 4 (cunt.) Summary suttisiics ol' data by mine and by sampling silo.
Upstream
F.fflucnt
Downstream
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Mm.
Sid. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Faith Creek
Total
1 680
1590
1 860
1470
157
3990
3980
4820
24SO
812
1660
1590
1X70
1440
157
Dissol
1 680
2510
1 830
1420
173
3390
3160
45 30
2480
757
1 A50
1 590
1920
1450
182
Ketchcm Creek
Total
1R10
1 700
374(1
1260
822
62 i 0
5620
9360
3200
2560
2165
2089
2770
1450
489
Dissol
1400
13HO
1 690
990
230
2260
2250
2580
1870
254
1570
1 540
2020
1060
278
Eldorado Creek
Tola!
15300
14X00
22X00
10700
3950
13100
1 2900
1 5400
1 0700
1530
15200
14800
22600
10500
3950
Dissol
15100
1 4HOO
21800
10500
3690
1 2900
1 2900
15200
10500
1450
1 5000
14800
21500
10500
3600
Ester Creek
Total
N/A
N/A
13X00
1 3800
16500
4800
2300
Dissol.
N/A
N/A
I 3900
1 3X00
16800
10200
2390
Mercury (ng/L)
Overall
Backgroud
Upstream
Effluent
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
M«tt.
Min.
Sid. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min,
Std. Dev.
12.5
11.5
34
10
6.72
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
0
10.0
10,0
10.0
10,0
0
18.1
15.9
34.0
10,0
9,8
10
10
10
10
0
10,0
10.0
10.0
10.0
0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
0
42.5
35.6
152
15.5
31.3
31.3
30.2
43.4
16.2
8.51
30.1
20.2
56.2
15.5
12.8
76.6
61.7
152
17.2
47,5
22.0
19,4
46.6
10.0
11.4
30.1
28.0
45.7
10.4
10.6
22.7
20. i
46.1
10.0
12.0
12.5
12.1
19.3
10.0
3.64
10
10
10
10
0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
0
10.3
10.2
18.6
10
1.52
10.0
1 0.0
10.0
10.0
0
100
10.0
10.0
10.0
0
10.0
10.0
10.0
1 0.0
0
11.9
11.7
16.8
10
2.69
12.7
12.3
16.8
10.0
2.73
N/A
N/A
11.3
11.0
18.5
10
2.68
12.3
12.0
18.5
10.0
3.31
N/A
N/A
82
-------
Table 4 (conu Summary statistics ul'data by mine and by samphns: site,
Downs ire ,irn
Ariihmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dcv.
Faith Creek
Total
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
0
Dissol.
1 0.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
0
Ketchein Creek
Total
31 .9
30.9
39.7
21.0
7.34
Dissol.
227
20.7
46,6
10.0
11,1
Eldorado Creek
Total
10.0
10.0
10.0
10,0
ft
Dissol
11.1
IO.H
IX. 6
10.0
3.13
Ester Creek
Total
10.9
107
16, ft
10.0
2.49
Dissol.
10.0
10.0
10,0
10.0
0
Nickel (ug/L)
( Jvtrall
Backeround
Upstream
Effluent
Downstream
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dcv.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dcv.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max,
Min.
Std. Dev,
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
4.8S
1.92
45
0.48
9.30
0.9
0.85
1.7
0.5
0,4
1.1
1.05
1.8
0.8
0,4
15.4
10.2
45.0
2.3
1.5
1,3
1.23
1.88
0.8
0.5
2,00
1,75
6.5
0,76
1.29
1.6
1.58
2.9
1.0
0.6
1.6
1.58
2.2
1.0
0,4
3,1
2,51
6.5
I.I
2,3
1.6
1.58
2.6
0.8
0,6
9.19
5.51
40,6
1.57
11 1
2.49
0,36
5.19
1.57
1.27
4,63
3.89
14,0
2,46
3,84
23.9
19,1
40.6
6.03
13.9
5,81
5.37
8,89
3,35
2.18
2.98
2.93
3.97
2,11
0.51
2,48
2.46
2,89
2.1!
0.37
2.98
2.95
3.60
2.46
0.42
3,41
3.38
3,97
2.51
0.48
3.04
3.02
3,40
2.42
0,33
1.65
1.53
3.91
0.92
0.75
1.30
1.25
1.71
1.00
0.29
1.69
1.55
3.50
0.92
0.86
1.89
1.78
3.30
1.30
0.72
1.71
1.55
3.91
1.05
0.95
1.19
1 14
3,48
0.8
0.46
1 .09
1 .07
1.47
o.so
0.25
1 .35
1.20
3.48
0.86
0,88
1.24
1.23
1,55
1 .09
0.15
1.08
1,07
1.4]
0.85
0.20
2,47
2.33
4.59
1.52
0.87
1.88
1,82
2.9S
1.52
0.63
N/A
N/A
3.21
3.16
4,59
2.72
0,49
2,86
2,77
3.8
1.38
0.72
2.60
2.57
3.80
1.88
0.54
N/A
N/A
3,20
3.09
3.75
1.38
0.83
Selenium (ug/L)
Overall
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min
Sid, Dev.
] ,00
1 00
1.1
1
0.02
1
i
1
i
0
1.03
1.02
1.3
1
0.07
1
1
1
I
0
1.15
1,14
1.8
i
0.22
1,18
I 17
1.7
1
0.17
1
1
1
I
0
1.03
1 .03
1,5
1
0.13
83
-------
Table 4 (corn.) Summary statistics ol'daia by mine and by sampling site.
Background
Ups dream
Effluent
Downstream
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Mstx
Mm.
Sid. Dev
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dcv.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Mean
Geometric mean
Max.
Miti.
Std. Dev.
Faith Creek
Trtal
1,0
1,0
1.0
1.0
0
1,0
1,0
1,0
1.0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
1.0
1,0
LQ
1,0
0
Dixsol.
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
1.0
1.0
1,0
1,0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
1.0
LO
1.0
1.0
0
Ketchem Creek
Ttrt a I
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
1,0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.30
0.12
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
Dissol.
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
1.0
1.0
LO
1.0
0
1.0
10
to
LO
0
LO
LO
LO
LO
0
Eldorado Creek
Total
1.19
1.17
1.80
1.00
0.26
1.16
1.15
1.70
LOO
0.28
1.18
1.17
1.50
1 .00
0.18
1.09
1,07
1.40
1.00
0.15
Dissol
1.24
1.23
1 70
1,00
0.22
1.13
1,12
1.30
LOO
0.13
1.16
1,15
1,30
LOO
0.19
1.20
1.17
1.50
1.00
0.19
Ester Creek
Total
1.0
1.0
LO
1.0
0
N/A
N/A
1.0
LO
LO
LO
0
Dissol.
LO
LO
1.0
1.0
0
N/A
N/A
1.10
1,07
1.50
1,0
0,19
Silver (ug/L)
Overall
Background
Upstream
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dcv.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Mm.
Sid. Dev.
0.10
0.05
1.04
0.03
0.20
0.03
0.03
0,03
0.03
0
0.04
0,03
0.07
0.03
0.02
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
G.03
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0
0.025
0.10
1.33
0.03
0.38
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
<0.01
0.09
0.06
0.42
0.03
0. 1 3
0,03
0.03
0.03
0,03
0
0.03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0
0.03
0,03
0,03
0.03
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0,03
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0
0:03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0
0.03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0
6.03
0.03
0,03
0.03
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0
0,03
0.03
OMB
6.03
0
N/A
0,03
0.03
0.03
0,03
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0
N/A
84
-------
Table 4 (com.) Summary statistics u! data by mine and by sampling site
Kf fluent
Downstream
Anlhmt'tic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Mm.
Sid. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Faith Creek
Total
0.30
0.15
1.04
0.03
0.37
0.04
0,03
o.ox
0.03
0.02
Dissol
0.03
0 03
0.03
0.03
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
(I
Kelchcm Creek
Total
0.74
0 ^6
1J3
0. 1 3
0.48
0.12
0 10
0.25
0.05
0.07
Dissol.
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0
0.03
0,03
0.03
0.03
(J
Eldorado Creek
Tixijl
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0,03
0
DlS.M.I
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0
0.03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0
Ester Creek
Total
N/A
0.03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0
Dissol.
N/A
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0
Zinc (ug/L)
Overall
Backgroud
Upstream
Effluent
Down strewn
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Sid. Dtv,
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Sid. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Mm.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
1 0.9
6. II
66
4
16.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
4'.0
0
4.6
5.01
7.20
4.0
1.2
28.5
15.9
66,0
4.0
2.6
4.1
3.98
5.0
4.0
0.4
4
4
4
4
0
4,0
4.0
4.0
4.0
0
4
4
4
4
0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
0
4.0
4.0
4.U
4.0
0
42.3
20,5
215
5.5
59.5
K.36
7.41
19.0
5.5
4.9S
16.8
12.0
64.0
6.10
19.3
1 20.6
93,3
215
25,0
75.3
23.4
21.4
38.0
9.9
10.3
5.05
4.88
8.6
4.0
1.47
5.50
5.37
7.20
4.0
1.18
5.49
5.20
8.60
4.0
2,00
4.16
4.15
4.90
4.0
0.33
5.06
4.87
8.40
4.0
1.64
4.62
4.42
12
4
1.76
4.0
3.98
4.0
4.0
0
4.01
3.99
4.10
4.0
0.04
5.54
5.13
12.0
4,0
2.77
4,94
4,68
9.70
4.0
2.02
5.50
4.79
25
4
4.31
5.63
5.01
1 3.0
4.00
3.29
4.09
4.07
4.70
4.00
0.24
7.39
5,59
2.5
4
7. S3
5.25
4.68
14.0
4.00
3.53
4.01
4.01
4.1
4
0.03
4.00
4.00
4,00
4:00
0
N/A
N/A
4.01
3.98
4.10
4.00
0.04
4,26
4.18
8,2
4
1 .05
4.00
4.00
4;
-------
Table 4 (com.) Summary statistics of data by mine and by sampling site.
Overall
Background
Upstream
Effluent
Downstream
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max,
Min.
•Sid. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max,
Min.
Std, Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Faith Creek
Total
37,0
34.7
74,9
21,2
14.4
24.1
1.38
26.7
21.2
1.68
32.2
1.51
36.3
27.9
2.99
59.8
1.77
74,9
45,2
10.9
31.6
1.50
35,7
26,8
3.28
Dissol.
36.7
34.7
78.1
22
13.7
24.6
1.38
26.3
22
1.49
33.1
1.51
36.S
28.1
3.05
57.5
1.77
78.1
47.8
13.8
32,5
1.50
36
27.6
3,33
Ketchem Creek
Total
30.9
24.7
86.7
8.37
21.8
10.4
i.oi
12.3
8.37
f.29
23.2
1.35
41.1
15.7
8.02
62.7
1.78
H6.7
37.2
16.9
27.4
1.43
32.1
17.6
5.19
Dissol.
22.6
20,3
47.1
8
10.3
10.0
1.0
11.9
8
1.41
20,7
1.31
25,7
13.7
3.95
36.1
1.55
47,,!
27.7
5.95
23. g
1.37
28.8
15.2
4.35
Eldorado Creek
Total
132
129
193
83.1
28.7
120
2.07
178
83.1
30.6
133
2.11
193
94.5
32.1
143
2.15
174
114
18.8
133
2.11
192
93.7
32.0
Dissol
133
131
189
85.2
27.3
123
2,08
176
85.2
30.2
134
2.12
189
96.7
30.3
144
2.16
174
118
18.0
133
2.12
188
96.9
30.1
Esier Creek
Total
108
103
154
46.7
32.6
91.5
1.94
156
46.7
30.3
N/A
N/A
129
2.11
156
90,8
22.3
Dissol.
Ill
106
161
48.6
33.S
94.4
1.95
159
48.6
31.8
N/A
N/A
132
2.11
161
91.7
24.2
Total Suspended Solids
Overall
Background
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
62.7
8 4(1
876
T
1*7
2.29
2 22
4
"?
0,69
127
29,9
922
?
240
12.6
5.40
58.X
i
20, 1
11.0
5.56
105
1
20.2
3.93
3.60
8.2
1
1.92
4.52
3.36
24.3
2
5.36
5.49
3 72
24.3
1
51 0
86
-------
Table 4 (com.) Summary statistics ot'duia by mine and by sampling site.
Upstream
Effluent
Downstream
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min,
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
MM.
Min.
Sid. Dev,
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
9.72
6.98
19.6
2.1
7.18
137
37.2
283
2
129
10,4
6.21
25,5
2
9.66
31.7
19.5
89,5
4
30.8
425
222
922
28.4
350
37.8
,34.5
57
16.9
15.8
22 2
8,47
105
2
36.3
7.79
5.80
17.8
2
5.97
10.2
5.40
51.4
•>
S6.8
N/A
N/A
3,72
2.95
6.6
2
2.99
Turbidity
Overall
Background
Upstream
Effluent
Downstream
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Mm,
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min,
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
MM.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max,
Min.
Sid. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max,
Min.
Sid, Dev
103
4.76
1050
0,05
0.60
0.40
1.83
0.05
0.57
3.82
3.19
6.67
0.97
2,12
306
71,6
798
2.4
312
5,63
3.20
19.1
0.66
6,25
335
52,9
2180
0.85
4.78
3,04
16,4
11
30.9
60.8
34.5
278
33
22,7
1 150
724
2180
30
13.5
125
102
210
36
21.5
3.94
2.34
19.3
0.43
4.91
1,15
097
1
0.43
0.67
3,74
2.67
12,4
1.2
3.99
6,21
4.28
19.3
1.5
6.45
3.85
2.10
16
0.6
54S
6.51
4.31
25.4
1.85
406
3.41
8,96
1,85
2,83
NA
NA
9.65
5.82
25.4
2,3
10.8
PH
87
-------
Table 4 (com.) Summary statistics of data by mine and by sampling site.
Overall
Background
Upstream
Effluent
Downstream
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Sid. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Sid. Dev,
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std, Dev.
7.34
7.33
7.8
6.43
0.33
7.28
7.27
7.69
6.43
0.41
7.48
7.47
7.78
7.03
0,28
7.13
7.13
7.58
6.9
0.23
7.42
7.89
7.8
6.87
0.35
6.63
6.62
7.14
5.69
0.39
6.06
6.06
6.23
5.69
0.20
6.96
6.96
7.14
6.7
0.15
6.67
6.67
6.78
6.57
O.OR
6.84
6.84
7.09
6.52
0.20
7.47
746
8.05
6.67
0.38
7,76
7.76
S.05
7.47
0.22
7.10
7.40
7.91
6.77
0,34
7.27
7.26
7.93
6.67
0.38
7.50
7.49
S.01
6.77
0.42
7.20
7.20
7.63
6.77
0.28
7,2.9
7.29
7.63
6.94
0.31
NA
NA
7.09
7.08
7.32
6.77
0.19
Temperature
Overall
Background
Upstream
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std Dev
.Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
3rd. Dev.
.Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Ski. Dev.
75
/ .2
11.5
3.8
T 1
6.69
6.36
9.9
3.S
2.21
7.49
7 20
9.9
4.5
2.10
7.2
6.3
17
1.5
3.7
3.2
3.05
4.6
1.5
097
72
6.99
10.7
5.6
1.96
7.9
7.8
11
6
1.4
7.75
7.62
11
6
1.58
7.5
7.37
to
h
1.51
5.9
5.5
9.6
2.8
2 2
4,34
4.12
7,3
2.S
1.55
NA
88
-------
Table 4 (com.) Summary statistics of data by mine and by sampling site.
Effluent
Downstream
Conductivity
Overall
Background
Upstream
Effluent
Downstream
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Mm.
Sid. Dev,
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Mm.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std, Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
M«.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Min.
Std. Dev.
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Max.
Mm.
Std. Dev.
9.14
9.01
11.5
7
1.68
6.6
6.26
9.4
' 3.8
2.18
79.1
75.5
162
48
27.0
55.9
55.7
60
48
4.52
71.6
71.4
76
62
5.38
120
118
162
103
27.4
69.4
69.0
7H
57
7.44
11.3
10.8
17
6.4
3.82
7,15
6.87
10.9
4,4
2.18
60.9
53.1
135
20
30,9
25.5
25.3
30
20
3.25
52
50.7
70
33
12,3
105
104
135
87
15.1
60.9
59,7
72
38
12.0
8
7.94
10
7
1.07
8.25
8.14
10
6
1.39
188
184
270
126
38.0
172
168
248
126
40.0
185
ISO
264
138
43.2
205
203
26!
iso
26,7
190
186
270
139
41,2
NA
8
7.94
9.6
6.7
1.03
196
185
306
88
64.0
158
151
221
88
47.9
NA
NA
244
239
306
1RO
51.8
89
-------
Table 5. Alaska Water Quality Criteria. Values used for comparison with measurements are t'oi
chronic effects to aquatic life except where noted.
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (+6)
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
No criterion used for comparison.
Lowest Observed Effect Concentration (LOEC): 610 ng/L
Alaska criterion for public water supplies: 50 (ig/L
exp(0.7852*ln(hardness) - 3.490) study range 0. 16
- 1 .90 ng/L
No criterion used for comparison.
1 1 .0 fig/L
exp(0.8545*ln( hardness) - 1 .465) study range 1 ,37
exp( 1 .266*ln(hardness) - 4.661 ) study range 0. 13 -
- 32.90 Mg/L
7.40 ^g/L
No criterion used for comparison.
12ng/L(0.012Mg/L)
exp(0. 76*ln( hardness) 4- 1.06) study range 14.02-
157.5ng/L
Sug/L
0. 1 2 jjg/L
47.0 ng/L
-------
"fable 6. Linear correlation coefficients for comparison of measurement parameters.
Metal
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Ziru.
H ardness
Correlation Coefficients (r)
Total vs. Dissolved
0.14
n = 112
0.48
n = 29
0.24
n = 112
0.39
n = 36
0.99
n= 112
-0.24
n= 17
0.36
n = 95
0.59
n= 3K
0.98
n= 112
-0.23
n = 34
0.33
n = 106
0,(iK
11 = 23
-0.22
n = 70
0.98
n = 1 I 2
Total vs. Turbidity
0.9634
n= 112
0.08
n = 38
0.946,
n= 1 ! 2
0,95
n = 53
-0.05,
n = 112
0.96
n = 40
0.95
n = 40
0.97
ri = 83
-0,02
n= 106
O.H7
n - 47
0.92
n = 9K
0.04
n = 24
--
0.97
n =54
-0,04
n= 106
Dissolved vs. Turbidity
0,0314
n = 112
0.25
n=31
0.079,
n- 112
0.24
n = 40
-0.182,
n= 112
-0.15
n = 29
0.28,
n=95
0.49
n = 40
-0.21
n= 106
0.36
11 = 36
0.25
n= 106
-0.12
n= 22
--
-0.24
11= 23
-0.20
n= 106
Turbidity vs. TSS: r = 0.95.11 = 106
91
-------
Appendices
A. Quality Assurance Project Plan
B. Field Reports
C, Description of placer mining districts, from Nokleberg and others (1996).
D. Laboratory Report of Data
92
-------
Appendix A
Quality Assurance Project Plan
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10,1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle WA 98101
FINAL
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
FOR THE
ALASKA PLACER MINING SURVEY
Project Code:
Account Code:
June 1997
TEC-311G
9798B10PFEX
Week of Sampling
August 18, 1997
August 25, 1997
Sample Numbers Assigned
97344550-4699, 97344300-4474
97354700-4999
Approvals: .
Project Officer:
QA Officer:
Organization Manager:
Date:.
Date:.
Date:
Prepared By The
Region 10 Quality Assurance & Data Unit
Office of Environmental Assessment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Organization and Responsibility 1
2 Project Description 1
Objective and Scope: 1
1997 Schedule of Sampling Tasks and Milestones 1
3 QA Objectives 2
3.1 Data Usage: 2
3.2 Monitoring network/sample collection design and rationale 3
3.3 Sample Types 4
Table 1: Analytical Methods, Containers, Preservation, Holding Time and
Detection Limits 4
4 Data Quality Objectives 6
Table 2: Quantitative Objectives for Precision and Accuracy 6
4.1 Precision and Accuracy 7
4.2 Data Representativeness 7
4.3 Data Comparability 7
4.4 Data Completeness 7
5 Sampling Procedures 8
*= »
5.1 Total Metals Sampling Procedures ; 8
5.2 Dissolved metals sampling procedures 8
5.2.1 Filtration method 9
5.3 General sampling procedures 9
6 Sample Custody Procedures 12
7 Calibration Procedures and Preventive Maintenance 12
8 A nalytical Methods 13
9 Documentation. Data Reduction, and Reporting 13
9.1 Documentation 13
9.2 Data Reduction and Reporting 14
9.3 Data Assessment/Analysis 14
10 Performance/System Audits 14
11 Corrective Action 14
Apendix A Alaska Placer Mining Survey
Apendix B Analytical Statement of Work
-------
Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP
Revision 1, August 12, 1997 Page 1 of 14
1.0 Project Organization and Responsibility
The following is a list of key project personnel and their responsibilities:
Organization Manager:
Project Officer:
Study Design:
QAPP Preparation:
QAPP Review:
Field Sampling:
Laboratory Arrangements:
Laboratory Operation:
Data Validation:
Data Assessment/Analysis:
Report Preparation:
Bob Robichaud
Phillip North
Phillip North, Carla Fisher, Data Assessment
Personnel and Patricia Cirone
Laura Castrilli
Donald Matheny
Jim Corpuz, Joseph Goulet and USGS and/or
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
personnel
Laura Castrilli
Gerald Muth, ESAT Deputy Project Officer
Jim Ross, Metals Chemist, Washington Department
of Ecology (WDOE)
Manchester Laboratory (TSS data), Quality
Assurance and Data Unit (QADU - metals data)
Joseph Goulet and David Frank
Joe Goulet and Carla Fisher
2 Project Description
Objective and Scope:
See the June 10, 1997, Placer Mining Survey document, attached - Appendix A, for a description
of the project and it's objectives. This Quality Assurance Project Plan is for the collection and
analysis of field samples during 1997 in support of the Placer Mining Survey. An addendum to
this plan will be prepared next year for the 1998 sampling season.
1997 Schedule of Sampling Tasks and Milestones:
Activity
Q A Plan Review
Summer of 1997
Field Sampling
Estimated beginning and ending dates
6/15-
6/29/97
X
8/18-
8/3 1/97
X
8/25-
10/17/97*
09/22 -
10/27/97*
10/27/97-
01/31/98
1/31/98
-------
Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP
Revision 1, August 12, 1997 Page 2 of 14
1997 Schedule of Sampling Tasks and Milestones:
Activity
Lab Analysis
Data Validation
Data Analysis
Report Preparation
Estimated beginning and ending dates
6/15-
6/29/97
8/18-
8/31/97
8/25-
10/17/97*
X
09/22 -
10/27/97*
X
10/27/97-
01/31/98
X
1/31/98
X
* Depending on the actual number of samples shipped, there will be between six and seven total
metals data packages and six and seven dissolved metals data packages. Starting Monday,
September 22, a minimum of two packages are to be delivered to the EPA QADU each Monday.
The last data packages are to be received by Monday, October 20. The schedule of at least two
data packages per week (more some weeks so that all packages are received by October 20)
needs to be maintained so that data validation can start in time for the data assessment/analysis to
be completed in time. TSS analyses will be validated by the EPA Manchester laboratory. All
validated TSS data must be delivered to Joe Goulet by October 27, 1997.
All field reports will be completed within one month of sample collection. Laboratory results and
interpretation (if necessary) will be appended.
3 QA Objectives
3.1 Data Usage:
The data from the Summer of 1997 (broad sampling of all active sites and half of the
inactive sites) will be used to see if a relationship between metals and other general
parameters such as TSS and/or settleable solids and/or hardness can be established for the
placer mining operations in Alaska. If a relationship can be established, an extensive
second round of sampling will occur in the summer of 1998. The data from the extensive
round of sampling will be used to determine temporal trends in the relationship between
metals and other general parameters.
-------
Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP Revision 1, August 12, 1997 Page 3 of 14
3.2 Monitoring network/sample collection design and rationale:
The sampling team will take chemical and physical measurements in August 1997, at
approximately 75 active mines in the Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Nome mining areas..
Remote mines on the Trinity Islands, Shumagan Islands and the lower Yukon River will
not be included in this survey. Where a mine is discharging waste water, four samples will
be taken, one from each of the following:
1) upstream of any disturbance (i.e., "natural background"),
2) immediately upstream of the discharge1,
3) the effluent,
4) downstream of the point of mixing (determined visually). If the state of Alaska
indicates the physical location of the edge of the mixing zone, EPA shall take samples at
the edge of the mixing zone. However, if the state indicates a dilution factor, EPA shall
sample the effluent and calculate the concentration after dilution (without taking a
downstream sample).
Where a mine is not discharging, samples will be collected upstream of any disturbance
and immediately upstream from the site.
EPA anticipates visiting approximately 40 to 50 mines that will have discharges. There are
likely to be another 50 that do not have a discharge. Samples will be collected at all mines
that have a discharge and approximately half those that don't, for a total of up to 250
sample locations (corresponding to 500 metals samples when total and dissolved metals
are counted).
Turbidity, temperature, pH, electrical conductivity, and settleable solids will be measured
in the field. All dissolved and total recoverable mercury and total suspended solids
analyses will be done by the EPA Region 10 Manchester Lab. A private or State lab will
be procured by EPA to do the remaining total and dissolved metals analyses.
Containers collected from a given sampling point will be assigned a common EPA lab
number which will be marked on the container cap and on the side of the container. Each
sampling point will receive a separate EPA lab number. Field duplicates and blanks will all
be assigned separate unique EPA lab numbers. In addition, dissolved (filtered) metals
aliquots will be assigned a separate unique EPA lab number as most labs cannot use the
*If there are no disturbances upstream from the discharge, only one upstream sample (the
"natural background" sample) will be taken.
-------
Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP
Revision 1, August 12, 1997 Page 4 of 14
same sample number to report two sets of similar data (in this case total vs. dissolved
metals).
The analytical parameter name or abbreviation will be marked on the cap and on the side
of the container. Abbreviations may include: TM for total metals; DM for dissolved
metals; Turb for turbidity; and Set Sol. for settleable solids.
Turbidity and settleable solids analysis will be performed in the field with a portable
turbidity meter (LaMotte Model 2008) and an ImhoffCone, respectively.
3.3 Sample Types:
Table 1: Analytical Methods, Containers, Preservation, Holding Time and Detection Limits
Media
Type
Analyte
Container
Method
Detection
Limit
(MS/L)*
Preservation
Holding
Time
Metals**
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
1 Quart
Cubitainer*
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
EPA 200.7
and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7
and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7
and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7
and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7
and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7
EPA 245.1
EPA 200.7
and/or 200.8
85.0
140.0
0.15
0.35
1000.0
50.0
3.5
0.5
1000.0
0.01
10.0
HNOjto
pH<2, Iceb
HNOjto
pH<2, Ice"
HNOjto
pH<2, Ice"
HNOjto
pH<2, Ice"
HNOjto
pH<2, Iceb
HNOjto
pH<2, Iceb
HNOjto
pH<2, Ice"
HNOjto
pH<2, Iceb
HNOjto
pH<2, Iceb
HNOjto
pH<2, Iceb
HNOjto
pH<2, Ice"
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
28 days
180 days
-------
Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP
Revision 1, August 12, 1997 Page 5 of 14
Table 1: Analytical Methods, Containers, Preservation, Holding Time and Detection Limits
Media
Water
Water
Water
Type
Grab
Grab
Grab
Analytc
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Container
a
a
a
Method
EPA 200.7
and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7
and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7
and/or 200.8
Detection
Limit
0
-------
Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP
Revision 1, August 12, 1997 Page 6 of 14
Media
Type
Analylc
Container
Method
Detection
Limit
Preservation
Holding
Time
Table I; Analytical Methods, Containers, Preservation, Holding Time and Detection Limits
a - All total metals will be collected in the same 1 quart cubitainer. For dissolved metals, a field
filtration procedure developed by Andy Hess at the EPA Manchester laboratory (consisting of
a disposable filter/two pieces of connective tubing and a 'tap' cap) will be used for dissolved
metals sample collection. See the section on sampling for further discussion of the sample
containers.
b - All water samples for metals analysis should be acidified, in the field when the sample is
collected, with nitric acid to a pH less than 2. Further, samples should be acidified for at least
16 hours prior to analysis. Icing of the metals samples is not required by CFR Part 136, Table
IB. However, if preservative cannot be immediately added to the samples, the samplers will be
icing the samples if they are to be preserved later in the day. Footnote 2 to Table IB allows for
preserving with ice 24 hour automatic composite samples when it is impossible to immediately
preserve each aliquot. The metals samples will be iced during shipment in the event TSS
aliquots are shipped in the same cooler. Dissolved metals samples will be filtered through a
0.45 um filter prior to acidification to a pH less than 2 with nitric acid. See the section on
sampling for a contingency discussion.
c - hardness will be measured as the sum of the calcium and magnesium as measured by
Method 200.7 (See notes in Table IB, 40 CFR Part 136).
* Metals detection limits (except for calcium and magnesium) have been set to the lowest level
aquatic life criteria based on a sample hardness of 25 mg/L.
** In the event of equipment failure or unavailability, 200 series Graphite Furnace Atomic
Ahsorntion Snectroscnnv procedures mav he substituted for ICP-MS method 200 8
Data Quality Objectives
Table 2: Quantitative Objectives for Precision and Accuracy
Analyte Group
Metals
Conventionals
Samples/Matrix*
262-264 total Water, 262-
264 dissolved Water
256 Water (no blanks)
RPD
±20
±20
% Recovery
75-125%
75-125%
-------
Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP Revision 1, August 12, 1997 Page 7 of 14
4.1 Precision and Accuracy:
Precision: Precision will be evaluated by the relative percent difference (RPD) between
matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples or between laboratory duplicate samples (or
between field duplicate analyses for field measurements). The precision required for the
analyses involved with.this project are in Table 1. The dispersion of these samples will
represent the various sampling areas identified in this plan (i.e., upstream, downstream and
effluent). In addition, the initial assessment of the field duplicates will be tied to those
areas (especially where divergent analyte concentration ranges are realized between
sub-groups of sample duplicates).
Accuracy: Accuracy will be evaluated by the use percent recovery (%R) of the target
analyte in spiked samples and/or laboratory control samples, where applicable. The
accuracy requirements are presented in Table 1.
4.2 Data Representativeness:
The samples will be grab samples. They do not represent temporal trends in the metals
concentrations around placer mining operations. This is an instantaneous representation
of water quality conditions around placer mining operations at the time of sampling.
4.3 Data Comparability:
Data will be reported according to established EPA Regional Laboratory protocols and to
the requirements specified in the contract laboratory statement of work (SOW) for metals
analysis (Appendix B).. Samples will be analyzed according to approved analytical
procedures. This set of data may be compared to other data. There should not be a
comparability problem for TSS as the EPA regional lab has analyzed a lot of the past
samples. For the contract lab metals analyses, comparison to past data may not be
possible. However, future metals .analyses will be conducted following the same SOW
(unless problems occur that require alteration of the SOW). This set of data will be
compared to the summer of 1998 sampling. Therefore, equivalent methods must be used
for both studies
4.4 Data Completeness:
All samples collected are to be analyzed with appropriate supportive documentation. Field
problems sometimes result in not all planned samples being collected. Laboratory
problems sometimes result in loss of samples or loss of data due to qualification. The
overall completeness goal for the summer of 1997 sampling is 80%. That is, a loss of
20% of .the planned data should not fatally impact the data usability for the 1997 sampling.
For each mining operation, the field completeness goal for sample collection is 100% (that
-------
Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP Revision 1, August 12, 1997 Page 8 of 14
is, effluent should not be collected/submitted if an adequate background sample cannot be
obtained).
Sampling Procedures
5.1 Total Metals Sampling Procedures:
To the extent possible, the samplers will attempt to follow sampling procedures in Method
1669: Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels.
Project specific QA procedures are specified in this QAPP. The limited budget may
preclude the use of some sampling precautions outlined in this method. However, the
collection of field and equipment blanks should document whether or not the sample
collection methods have biased the sample results.
Each mining operation potentially will have up to four samples collected around it. The
sampling will start at the sampling point the farthest down stream and will proceed in
order up to the farthest up-stream sample point so that silt stirred up by wading into the
stream will not end up in the sample containers and positively bias the data.
Cubitainers should be held by hand when collecting samples. Samples should be taken
from a well mixed location by pointing the neck of the cubitainer upstream and
downwards - submerging the neck below the surface of the water. The bottom of the
container should be pushed down under the water as the container fills. If sampling
requires the sampler to enter the stream, the sampler should be downstream of the sample
location. Should it be necessary to use a clean unused cubitainer as a 'scoop' to obtain
sufficient sample, it should be thoroughly rinsed with stream water and used only for
sample taking purposes at one location. To prevent sample cross-contamination due to
'dirty hands', disposable talc free gloves will be used at each sample collection point prior
to collection of metals samples. In accordance with Method 1669, containers (collection
chambers for filtration apparatus) will be pre-rinsed at least once with the sample and then
submerged and filled with sample. For un-filtered samples, the container cap will be
affixed while the container is still submerged (unless it is necessary to use successive
scoops of water from shallow streams to obtain sufficient volume).
5.2 Dissolved metals sampling procedures:
Prior to field work, the EPA samplers will make arrangements to visit the EPA laboratory
in Manchester, WA and will practice the filtration method that will be used in the field.
They will also practice the clean hands/dirty hands sampling technique.
-------
Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP Revision 1, August 12, 1997 Page 9 of 14
5.2.1 FiI/radon method:
A field filtration method developed at the EPA Manchester Laboratory is the
filtration method that will be used. This filtration procedure is simple to implement
but has not been fully tested for water quality criteria analyses. An initial analysis
of the filter cartridge and tubing has shown that metals (mercury was not analyzed)
were not present at levels above the required detection limits. Two clean
cubitainers are connected by two disposable short pieces of tubing with a
disposable 0.45 ym accordion folded filter cartridge in between the pieces of
tubing. The filter cartridge in this apparatus is unlikely to clog if there is some
paniculate in the samples as there is more surface area to the filter. The first
container is filled with unfiltered sample, a 'tap' cap is affixed to the filled
container and then connected via tubing to the filter cartridge (which is connected
by another piece of tubing to the receiving container) and then the water is forced
through the filter by squeezing the cubitainer. The filter cartridge, tubing, tap cap
and first collection container are all disposed of after collection is completed at one
location. No sample contact equipment is re-used at other sample locations.
The tubing will be pre-cut and if possible attached to the filter, then will be
individually double bagged in zip lock bags and will be shipped to the samplers in
the field (or will be taken as excess baggage by the samplers into the field).
Potential problem/resolution: it is slightly possible that the filter will clog up on
very turbid samples. It is anticipated that only effluent samples will be turbid and
most likely only a sub-set of the effluent samples will be turbid. The cost per
filtration apparatus is around $15. It will not be economically possible to use
multiple apparatus on samples. If this occurs, a clean cubitainer will be used to
collect an un-filtered, un-preserved (but iced) sample aliquot that will then be
shipped to the lab for lab filtration and preservation.
It is understood that lab filtration and preservation will result in data that is not
quite dissolved metals data. The results will be of unknown bias. This is because
some dissolved metals may adsorb to the walls of the container and will not be put
through the filtration process (low bias). However, some metals adhering to the
• particulates in the sample may through bacterial action go into solution, possible
high bias in the dissolved metals data.
5.3 General sampling procedures:
All metals samples will be double bagged - the inner bag and container are only to be
touched by a clean hands sampler. All metals samples will be chemically preserved in a
-------
Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP Revision 1, August 12, 1997 Page 10 of 14
controlled manner. The two sampling teams will decide together, based on logistics, how
this will be achieved.
During preservation, the container should be kept within the bags - 'dirty hands' holding
open the outer bag while 'clean hands' touches the inner bag and container and preserves
the sample. 'Clean hands' will then re-cap each preserved sample and re-seal the inner bag
after which 'dirty hands' re-seals the outer bag and places the sample in a cooler for
shipment.
Sampling for analytes other than metals: the clean sampling techniques described above
are only necessary for the trace metals analyses. It is not necessary to double bag and
handle the TSS aliquots in this manner. The field crew may at their option take the same
precautions but should they find the precautions too onerous, they may opt to use normal
sampling procedures or chose not to take corrective action (re-gloving and/or re-
sampling) should the clean hands sampler accidentally 'contaminate' his gloves by
touching his clothes or a 'dirty' outer bag.
Example scenario:, at collection point one using normal sampling procedures, take field
measurements and the TSS sample. Then re-glove and follow clean sampling techniques
for metals collection. Proceed to the next sampling point, take field measurements and
TSS samples. Then re-glove and follow clean sampling techniques for metals collection.
All TSS and total metals sample containers will be supplied through the EPA Region 10
Lab. These will consist of quart/liter Cubitainers purchased as pre-cleaned containers.
The bottle supplier will be required to supply analytical data showing that the supply of
cubitainers, has been analyzed and shown to have no metals contamination above the
required detection limits before supplying the containers. Exception, the selenium
detection limit by the potential vendor (ESS) is 6 ug/L (1 ug/L above the required
detection limit). The EPA Region 10 Lab will provide each sampling team with four
individually double-bagged plastic rods (total of eight rods). The rods will be of suitable
diameter and length for the samplers to use them as a cubitainer expanding device
(cubitainers are supplied flattened and are difficult to open just with hands). The rods
should have smooth ends so that the cubitainers or sampler's hands will not be punctured.
Eight rods are needed in the event one or more is dropped and contaminated.
Each field crew will be responsible for double bagging individual un-used cubitainers for
use in the field for metals sample collection. Each evening, a sufficient supply of double
bagged containers needs to be placed in a 'clean' cooler for use the next day. During
initial bagging, both samplers will don clean gloves but only one person ('clean' hands)
will handle the containers, plastic rods and inner bags while the other person ('dirty'
hands) handles the outer bags and opening the outer containers of the large supply of
containers. When the cubitainer is placed in the inner bag, clean hands should then
remove a plastic rod from it's inner bag and use it to expand the cubitainer.
-------
Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP Revision 1, August 12, 1997 Page 11 of 14
Blank water will be suppled by the EPA or Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation laboratory in pre-cleaned 1 gallon cubitainers. Before the water is used, a
blank sample from each batch of blank water will be composited from the 1 gallon
cubitainers and submitted blind to the contract laboratory to determine if analyte levels
are below the detection limits required for this project. Also, the composite blank water
will be used to rinse the plastic rods to document whether any contamination was
introduced to the samples by using the rods to expand the cubitainers. The rod rinse
water will be preserved and submitted blind to the lab for analysis.
A total of six transfer (total) blank and six equipment (filtered) blanks will be obtained and
sent blind to the lab. These blanks are expected to reflect the range of different field
conditions encountered during sampling. All transfer and filtration blanks are to be
collected and preserved using procedures as close to actual sampling as possible.
However, it will be unfeasible to exactly imitate stream sampling with blank water.
Following the method 1669 blank collection procedure (submersing the container in
standing blank water) is not representative of stream sampling. Therefore, a transfer
blank will be collected. The six transfer blanks does not include the one blank water
sample and one plastic rod rinse blank sample that will also be collected, preserved and
submitted for analysis (discussed in the previous paragraph).
Like the samples, the blank container must first be rinsed with blank water. The clean
hands sampler will hold the transfer blank bottle while the second sampler (taking care not
to handle the blank water supply around the opening) pours blank water into the blank
container. So long as the blank water supply is never contaminated by handling around
the opening, it can be used for all blanks.
If a second cubitainer has to be used as a scoop during sample collection (or is used as
part of the filtration step), the blank water will be used to rinse one clean cubitainer
(representing the scoop or supply reservoir for the filter), the blank scoop (connected to
the filter apparatus for equipment blans) will be used to rinse and then fill a second
cubitainer (representing the field or filtration blank). If two methods for collection
(intermediate collection device versus direct container collection) are used, the samplers
will collect a total of 8 total and 8 filtered blanks (proportioning the blanks according to
the approximate frequency of method use).
Each sampling team will be responsible for collecting half of the blanks. Additional blanks
may need to be added if field procedures are materially altered, field conditions warrant
more blanks (e.g. windy/dusty/and/or rainy conditions) or if the blank water supply is
changed (i.e. they run out and have to request more blank water).
Depending upon the relative concentrations of contaminants observed, the data for each
type of blank may be pooled for the purpose of discerning relative degrees of
-------
Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP Revision 1, August 12, 1997 Page 12 of 14
contamination (e.g., between sample teams, as sampling progresses, etc.) and/or all blank
results may be pooled to provide an overall contamination estimate for the entire sample
set.
Six TSS, six total metals, and six dissolved metals field duplicate samples will be collected
and submitted blind to the lab. With the first shipment and at an overall frequency of one
per forty field samples, a laboratory QC sample will be designated. For dissolved metals,
this means an extra sample will need to be collected if the special filtration apparatus is
used as the sample container on the filtration apparatus is only 500 mL. No extra volume
for lab QC should be required for TSS or total metals. Field analyses will be conducted in
duplicate at six sample locations. Each field team will be responsible for collection of half
** of the field QC samples.
The dispersion of the duplicate samples will represent the various sampling areas identified
in this plan (i.e., upstream, downstream and effluent). In addition, the initial assessment of
the field duplicates will be tied to those areas (especially where divergent analyte
concentration ranges are realized between sub-groups of sample duplicates).
^
6 Sample Custody Procedures
The samples will be in the custody of EPA personnel at all times. EPA Region 10 chain of
custody forms and procedures will be used. Each cooler of samples shipped to the
"* laboratory must stand alone on the custody documentation (i.e. only samples in the cooler
are to be on the custody form).
Minimally, every sample taken in the field will be labeled and accompanied by a chain of
custody form when shipped to the laboratory for analysis. EPA Region 10 laboratory
** Analysis required forms for metals analyses will be completed (TSS can be hand-
written/requested on this form). These forms and/or labels will contain:
• Sample identification number
• Date and Time of sample collection
«, • Sample location identification number and/or description
• Sample matrix type
• Signatures of samplers, sample handlers, and recorders
• Type of analyses required
• Number of containers representing the sample
^ • Method of Shipment
• Signatures and dates indicating the transfer of sample custody
7 Calibration Procedures and Preventive Maintenance:
^ For all chemical analyses, calibration procedures, frequency and preventive maintenance
shall be performed in accordance with the analytical methods cited and/or instrument
-------
Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP Revision 1, August 12, 1997 Page 13 of 14
manufacturer's recommendations. Additional quality control parameters for water
chemistry are given in Tables 1 and 2. The turbidity meter will be calibrated before each
measurement in the field.
8 Analytical Methods:
Where possible, monitoring/analysis shall be conducted in accordance with 40CFR part
136.3 approved NPDES analytical procedures found in the following references:
• Standard Methods, 18th Edition, 1992
• EPA Methods for the Analysis of Water and Waste Water, EPA EMSL-Cincinnati,
EPA-600/4-79-020, Revised March 1983 and 1979 where applicable.
• Appendix C of part 136 (method 200.7)
• Region 10 Alternate Test Procedure for method 200.8 (revision 5.4 found in
Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples, Supplement
I, EPA, EMSL-Cincinnati, EPA/600/R-94/111, May 1994.
See Table 1 in the section on Sample Types for a list of specific method numbers. For
analyses to be conducted by the contract lab, see the attached statement of work
(Appendix B) and any pre-award alterations approved prior to award by EPA.
For analyses conducted by EPA and/or ESAT, standard reporting formats/deliverables/
approved method modifications routinely employed by the EPA Manchester laboratory are
acceptable so long as the DQO's specified in this QAPP are met. EPA Manchester
laboratory work assignment managers and/or the Deputy Project Officer will be
responsible for overseeing the ESAT contract costs/supplying technical direction to the
ESAT contractor in accordance with this QAPP. Just prior to field work, it was
anticipated that only EPA will support the TSS analyses to be conducted at the
Manchester Laboratory.
9 Documentation. Data Reduction, and Reporting
9.1 Documentation:
A field data form will be developed and copied onto 'write in the rain' paper. Field data
such as descriptive location information, global positioning satellite data, site observations
etc. will be recorded on field data forms for each mine location. The field data form will
also assist the samplers in completing the chain of custody and analysis required form
documentation. The EPA field sample data sheet/chain of custody form and analysis
required forms will be used to document the sampling activities. Optionally, dictation to a
-------
Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP Revision 1, August 12, 1997 Page 14 of 14
tape recorder and photos may be used to further document the sampling activities. There
is not a need for precise location description, however the samplers will be locating the
sample sites with GPS units.
9.2 Data Reduction and Reporting:
** The contract and EPA Regional labs will be responsible for entry into the laboratory data
management system. Electronic deliverables are requested for this project. The EPA QA
office will be responsible for metals data validation. The EPA Manchester laboratory will
be responsible for TSS data validation. The validation of the data will be based on the
criteria outlined in the National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review (02/94)
'""* and criteria outlined in this QAPP .
9.3 Data Assessment/Analysis:
Validated laboratory data will be provided to the Project Officer, Joe Goulet and David
"*» Frank. Joe Goulet and David Frank are primarily responsible for analysis and
interpretation of the data.
10 Performance/System Audits
™ Routine performance audits results for the Regional Lab are on record with the Regional
QA Officer. No system audit is planned for this investigation.
11 Corrective Action
^ Corrective action procedures that might be implemented from QA results or detection of
unacceptable data will be developed when and where required by the field operations
personnel.
Sample Alteration Forms will be completed (by field, QA and/or lab personnel) in the
** event it is necessary to document a change in field and/or laboratory analysis procedures.
Blank Corrective Action and Sample Alteration Forms are attached.
-------
Sample Alteration Form
Project Name and Number:
Material to be Sampled:
Measurement Parameter:
Standard Procedure for Field Collection & Laboratory Analysis
(cite reference):
Reason for Change in Field Procedure or Analysis Variation:
Variation from Field or Analytical Procedure:
Special Equipment, Materials or Personnel Required:
Initiators Name: Date:
Project Officer: Date:
QA Officer: Date:
-------
Corrective Action Form
Project Name and Number:
Sample Dates Involved:
Measurement Parameter:
Acceptable Data Range:
Problem Areas Requiring Corrective Action:
Measures Required to Correct Problem:
Means of Detecting Problems and Verifying Correction:
Initiators Name: Date:
Project Officer: Date:
QA Officer: Date:
-------
QAPP ADDENDUM - June 30, 1998 Revision 1.0
NOTE: this revision replaces the QAPP addendum for this project that was
dated June 19, 1998. This revision changes the digestion.procedure for
metals and adds a second attachment.
Title of parent QAPP: ALASKA PLACER MINING SURVEY
Author/revision date of parent QAPP: EPA/OADU (Laura Castrilli) Revision 1,
August 12. 1997 (date on cover page is June 1997)
Sampling dates: June 23; June 30; July 7; July 17; July 22; July 27 or 28;
August 5; August 11; August 19; August 25; and Sept 1 (1998).
Shipping dates:
same (or next) day of sampling.
Analyses required: This addendum is for samples to be collected each week
specified above by Cindy Godsey. See attachment 1 for DQOs and individual
analytes excerpted from the parent QAPP. For this part of the summer of
1998 sampling, four un-filtered samples will be collected each week of
sampling and submitted for total recoverable metals, and conventional
parameter analyses. Also, each un-filtered metals sample collected will
have a corresponding filtered sample that will be collected and submitted
for dissolved metals analyses (plus calculated hardness).
Clarification note for total recoverable metals analyses: the digestion
procedure for total recoverable metals analyses is required. This
procedure is the same as the total metals digestion procedure (for aqueous
samples to be analyzed by ICP) that is in the CLP ILM04.0 statement of work
for inorganic analyses. Change: the second acid (HCL) may be omitted from
the total recoverable metals digestion procedure. This change and it's
acceptance are discussed in attachment 2 (recent GroupWise memos) .
The summary of fixed lab analyses for all anticipated weeks of sampling by
Cindy Godsey is:
Parameter or group of
compounds
total recoverable metals
dissolved metals
Hardness (calculated)
TSS
# /MATRIX
S
W
44
44
88
44
Other
New sampling locations (if any): Tod Bauer Placer Mine on Eldorado Creek
near Talkeetna, Alaska (only location for Cindi's part of the project).
Data due date: Data should be analyzed in batches throughout the project
period with the last data analysis due by September 18.
Data validation due date: Data validation can occur throughout the project
period with the final validation due by October 6.
Organization responsible for data validation: Quality Assurance & Data Unit
-------
(Laura Castrilli) for metals, Manchester Laboratory for conventionals.
QADU can review the conventionals if necessary.
Initiator's Name: Laura Castrilli Date: June 30. 1998
Project Officer: Cindi Godsev Date: June 30. 1998
QA Officer: Bruce Woods Date: June 30. 1998
"* RSCC: Melody Walker Date: June 30. 1998
-------
ATTACHMENT 1 - June 30,1998 Addendum to the Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP Page 1 of 3
(NO CHANGES WERE MADE TO ATTACHMENT 1 SINCE THE JUNE 19, 1998 VERSION)
Table 1: Anal
Media
Type
Analyte
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Hardness
pH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
Set. Solids
Conductivity
Total
Suspended
Solids
Turbidity
ytical Methods, Containers, Preservation, Holding Time and Detection Limits
Container
1 Quart
Cubitainer"
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
•a
a
a
a
a
Field
Measurement
Held
Measurement
Field
Measurement
Field
Measurement
Field
Measurement
1 quart
Cubitainer
Field
MM Q 1 1 rpmpn I
Method
Metals**
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7
EPA 245.1
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
Conventional Parameters
c
EPA 150.1
EPA 170.1
EPA 360.1
160.5
EPA 120.1
EPA 160.2
EPA 180.1
Detection
Limit
(MS/L)*
85.0
140.0
0.15
0.35
1000.0
50.0
3.5
0.5
1000.0
0.01
10.0
5.0
0.35
30.0
Preservation
HNO3topH<2, Iceb
HNO3topH<2, Ice11
HNO3topH<2,Iceb
HNO,topH<2,Iceb
HNO,topH<2, Iceb
HNO, topH<2, Iceb
HNO,topH<2, Ice"
HNO,topH<2, Iceb
HNO,topH<2,Iceb
HNO,topH<2, Iceb
HNO,topH<2,Iceb
HNO,topH<2,Iceb
HNO,topH<2,Iceb
HNO,topH<2,Iceb
Holding
Time
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
28 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
10,000
1 unit
0°C
50.0
0.2ml/l/hr
1*/S
4,000-
5,000
<1NTU
HNO,topH<2, Ice"
none
none
none
ice if not
immediately
analyzed
ice if not
immediately
analyzed
ice
ice
180 days
immediate
immediate
immediate
48 hours
28 days
7 days
48 hours
-------
ATTACHMENT 1 - June 30, 1998 Addendum to the Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP Page 2 of 3
(NO CHANGES WERE MADE TO ATTACHMENT 1 SINCE THE JUNE 19, 1998 VERSION)
Table 1: Anal
Media
Type
Analyte
ytical Methods, Containers, Preservation, Holding Time and Detection Limits
Container
Method
Detection
Limit
(Mp/L)*
Preservation
Holding
Time
a - All total metals will be collected in the same 1 quart cubitainer. For dissolved metals, a field filtration
procedure developed by Andy Hess at the EPA Manchester laboratory (consisting of a disposable filter/two
pieces of connective tubing and a 'tap' cap) will be used for dissolved metals sample collection. See the
section on sampling for further discussion of the sample containers.
b - All water samples for metals analysis should be acidified, in the field when the sample is collected, with
nitric acid to a pH less than 2. Further, samples should be acidified for at least 16 hours prior to analysis.
Icing of the metals samples is not required by CFR Part 136, Table IB. However, if preservative cannot be
immediately added to the samples, the samplers will be icing the samples if they are to be preserved later in
the day. Footnote 2 to Table IB allows for preserving with ice 24 hour automatic composite samples when
it is impossible to immediately preserve each aliquot. The metals samples will be iced during shipment in
the event TSS aliquots are shipped in the same cooler. Dissolved metals samples will be filtered through a
0.45 um filter prior to acidification to a pH less than 2 with nitric acid. See the section on sampling for a
contingency discussion.
c - hardness will be measured as the sum of the calcium and magnesium as measured by Method 200.7 (See
notes in Table IB, 40 CFR Part 136).
* Metals detection limits (except for calcium and magnesium) have been set to the lowest level aquatic life
criteria based on a sample hardness of 25 mg/L.
** In the event of equipment failure or unavailability, 200 series Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption
Snectrosconv procedures mav he snhsHfntp.fi for TCP-MS method 200 8
1.0 Project Organization and Responsibility
The following is a list of key project personnel and their responsibilities:
Organization Manager:
Project Officer:
Study Design:
Addendum Preparation:
Addendum Review:
Field Sampling:
Laboratory Arrangements:
Laboratory Operation:
Data Validation:
Data Assessment/Analysis
Report Preparation:
Bob Robichaud
Cindi Godsey
Phillip North, Carla Fisher, Data Assessment Personnel and
Patricia Cirone
Cindi Godsey and Laura Castrilli
Bruce Woods
Cindi Godsey and other federal or state personnel
Laura Castrilli for Melody Walker
Gerald Dodo, ESAT Deputy Project Officer
Manchester Laboratory (TSS data), Quality Assurance and
Data Unit (QADU - metals data)
: Joseph Goulet and David Frank
Joe Goulet and Cindi Godsey
1.
Project Description
-------
ATTACHMENT 1 - June 30,1998 Addendum to the Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP Page 3 of 3
(NO CHANGES WERE MADE TO ATTACHMENT 1 SINCE THE JUNE 19, 1998 VERSION)
Objective and Scope:
This Quality Assurance Project Plan addendum is for the collection and analysis of field samples
during 1998 in support of the Placer Mining Survey. This addendum supports the work that will be
done in the field out of Anchorage. A second addendum will be prepared for ESAT sampling
conducted out of Fairbanks.
1998 Schedule of Sampling Tasks and Milestones:
Activity
Addendum
Review
Summer of 1998
Field Sampling
Lab Analysis
Dita Validation
Data Analysis
!
Final Report Due
Estimated beginning and ending dates
6/19/98
X
6/23-
9/1/98
X
7/20-
9/18/98*
X
7/27-
10/6/98*
X
9/1-
11/30/98
X
1/31/99
X
2. QA Objectives
a. Data Usage:
The data from the Summer of 1998 sampling will be used to determine temporal trends in the
relationship between metals and other general parameters. Sampling at one site will be done
for 10 or 11 weeks between the week of June 22 and August 31. The last samples should be
shipped no later than September 2.
-------
ATTACHMENT 2 - June 30, 1998 Addendum to the Alaska Placer Mining Survey QAPP Page 1 of 2
From: LAURA CASTRILLI
To: R10AOO.AOO.GODSEY-CINDI
Date: 6/24/98 2:58pm
Subject: Alaska Placer digestion 'issue1
I've talked to the metals 'gurus' at the lab (Katie and Isa) and in my unit (Don). After these
discussions, I've come to the conclusion that for water samples, the difference between total (hard
digestion) and total recoverable (soft digestion) is negligible unless a colorimetric method is used to
analyze the digestate. Since we are not using colorimetric methods, it should not matter whether one
or the other digestion procedure is used (i.e. the resulting data will be within the 20% relative percent
difference analytical precision of the method). An exception (not expected to occur that often) would
be if there is visible precipitate in the digestate, then obviously the digestion is incomplete.
Isa was under the impression the digestion procedure used in the statement of work (basically we
allowed for the use of nitric acid only on the soft digestion technique specified in the ICP-MS method)
was followed for the first set - she will be checking on this with Katie. Even if the hard digestion was
used, it shouldn't have made a significant difference in the data generated as a colorimetric method
wasn't used.
For this year's samples, if the HCL is required for the soft digestion, then be advised that:
1) the HCL's purpose is mainly to keep the silver and antimony in solution - if this isn't happening,
then the silver and antimony recoveries on the matrix spike and/or blank spike sample analyses will
tell us.
2) If HCL use is mandated, then the higher arsenic detection limit on ICP-AES (40 ug/L) will have to
suffice as the HCL interferes with the ICP-MS analysis. The current plan calls for a detection limit of
0.15 ug/L.
Please let me know as soon as possible if the soft digestion without the second acid - HCL (basically
the total recoverable metals digestion without HCL) will be acceptable. If that is the case, I'll need to
revise the addendum we did last week. CC: ROLAB.ADAMS-KATIE, MATHENY-DON,
ROLAB.CHAMBERLAIN-...
From: CINDI GOOSEY
To: R10SEA1 .ROHELENS(CASTRILLI-LAURA)
Date: 6/29/98 7:17pm
Subject: Alaska Placer digestion 'issue' -Reply
Laura,
It sounds like it will work so please do whatever revisions you deem necessary. Thanks for looking
into this issue for me.
-------
QAPP ADDENDUM - July 9, 1998 Revision 1.0
NOTE: this addendum is related to the QAPP addendum for this
project that was dated June 30, 1998. This addendum covers the'
samples that will be collected by the ESAT team. Attachment 1 is
similar to the June 30, 1998 addendum but has been updated to
cover the ESAT work. Attachment 2 is the same as the Attachment
2 for the June 30, 1998 addendum.
Title of parent QAPP: ALASKA PLACER MINING SURVEY
Author/revision date of parent QAPP: EPA/OADU (Laura Castrilli)
Revision 1. August 12. 1997 (date on cover page is June 1997)
Sampling dates: July 10; weeks of July 13, July 20, July 27,
August 3, August 10, August 17, August 24, and August 31 (1998).
Shipping dates: same (or next) day of sampling.
Analyses required: This addendum is for samples to be collected
each week specified above by ESAT. See attachment 1 for DQOs and
individual analytes excerpted from the parent QAPP. For this
part of the summer of 1998 sampling, 20 un-filtered samples will
be collected each week of sampling and submitted for total
recoverable metals, and conventional parameter analyses. Also,
each un-filtered metals sample collected will have a
corresponding filtered sample that will be collected and
submitted for dissolved metals analyses (plus calculated
hardness).
Clarification note for total recoverable metals analyses: the
digestion procedure for total recoverable metals analyses is
required. This procedure is the same as the total metals
digestion procedure (for aqueous samples to be analyzed by ICP)
that is in the CLP ILM04.0 statement of work for inorganic
analyses. Change: the second acid (HCL) may be omitted from the
total recoverable metals digestion procedure. This change and
it's acceptance are discussed in attachment 2 (recent GroupWise
memos) .
The summary of fixed lab analyses for all anticipated weeks of
sampling by ESAT is:
Parameter or group of
compounds
total recoverable metals
dissolved metals
Hardness (calculated)
# /MATRIX
S
W
160
160
320
Other
-------
TSS I 160 |
New sampling locations (if any): Five sampling locations will
be determined that are located in areas near Fairbanks, AK.
Data due date: Data should be analyzed in batches throughout the
project period with the last data analysis due by September 18.
Data validation due date: Data validation can occur throughout
the project period with the final validation due by October 6.
Organization responsible for data validation: Quality Assurance &
Data Unit
(Laura Castrilli) for metals, Manchester Laboratory for
conventionals. QADU can review the conventionals if necessary.
Initiator's Name: Gerald Dodo Date: July 9.
1998
Project Officer: Cindi Godsey Date: July 9.
1998
QA Officer: Bruce Woods Date: July
1998
RSCC; Melody Walker Date: July
1998
-------
Table 1: Analytical Methods, Containers, Preservation, Holding Time and Detection Limits
Media
Type
Analyte
Container
Method
Detection
Limit
(Hfi/L)*
Preservation
Holding
Time
Metals**
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Grab
Grab .
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
1 Quart
Cubitainera
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7
EPA 245.1
EPA 200,7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
EPA 200.7 and/or 200.8
85.0
140.0
0.15
0.35
1000.0
50.0
3.5
0.5
1000.0
0.01
10.0
5.0
0.35
30.0
HNO3 to pH<2, Iceb
HNO3 to pH<2, Iceb
HNO3 to pH<2, Iceb
HNO3 to pH<2, Iceb
HNO3 to pH<2, Iceb
HNO3 to pH<2, Iceb
HN03 to pH<2, Iceb
HNO3 to pH<2, Iceb
HNO3 to pH<2, Iceb
HNO3 to pH<2, Iceb
HNO3 to pH<2, Iceb
HNO3 to pH<2, Iceb
HN03 to pH<2, Iceb
HNO3 to pH<2, Iceb
1 80 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
28 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
180 days
Conventional Parameters
Water
Water
Water
Water .
Water
Water
Water
Water
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Hardness
PH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
Set. Solids
Conductivity
Total
Suspended
Solids
Turbidity
a
Field
Measurement
Field
Measurement
Field
Measurement
Field
Measurement
Field
Measurement
1 quart
Cubitainer
Field
Measurement
c
EPA 150.1
EPA 1 70.1
EPA 360.1
160.5
EPA 120.1
EPA 160.2
EPA 180.1
10,000
1 unit
0°C
50.0
0.2 ml/l/hr
1 MS
4,000-5,0
00
<1NTU
HNO3 to pH<2, Iceb
none
none
none
ice if not
immediately
analyzed
ice if not
immediately
analyzed
ice
ice
180 days
immediate
immediate
immediate
48 hours
28 days
7 days
48 hours
-------
a - All total metals will be collected in the same 1 quart cubitainer. For dissolved metals, a field filtration
procedure developed by Andy Hess at the EPA Manchester laboratory (consisting of a disposable filter/two
pieces of connective tubing and a 'tap' cap) will be used for dissolved metals sample collection. See the
section on sampling for further discussion of the sample containers.
b - All water samples for metals analysis should be acidified, in the field when the sample is collected, with
nitric acid to a pH less than 2. Further, samples should be acidified for at least 16 hours prior to analysis.
Icing of the metals samples is not required by CFR Part 136, Table IB. However, if preservative cannot be
immediately added to the samples, the samplers will be icing the samples if they are to be preserved later in
the day. Footnote 2 to Table IB allows for preserving with ice 24 hour automatic composite samples when
it is impossible to immediately preserve each aliquot. The metals samples will be iced during shipment in
the event TSS aliquots are shipped in the same cooler. Dissolved metals samples will be filtered through a
0.45 um filter prior to acidification to a pH less than 2 with nitric acid. See the section on sampling for a
contingency discussion.
c - hardness will be measured as the sum of the calcium and magnesium as measured by Method 200.7 (See
notes in Table IB, 40 CFR Part 136).
* Metals detection limits (except for calcium and magnesium) have been set to the lowest level aquatic life
criteria based on a sample hardness of 25 mg/L.
** In the event of equipment failure or unavailability, 200 series Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption
Spectroscopy procedures may be substituted for ICP-MS method 200.8.
1.0 Project Organization and Responsibility
The following is a list of key project personnel and their responsibilities:
Organization Manager: Bob Robichaud
Project Officer: Cindi Godsey
Study Design: Phillip North, Carla Fisher, Data Assessment
Personnel and Patricia Cirone
Addendum Preparation: Cindi Godsey and Gerald Dodo
Addendum Review: Bruce Woods
Field Sampling: ESAT
Laboratory Arrangements: Laura Castrilli for Melody Walker
Laboratory Operation: Gerald Dodo, ESAT Regional Project Officer
Isa Chamberlain, ESAT Work Assignment
Manager
Data Validation: Manchester Laboratory (TSS data), Quality
Assurance and Data Unit (QADU - metals data)
Data Assessment/Analysis: Joseph Goulet and David Frank
Report Preparation: Joe Goulet and Cindi Godsey
-------
1.
Project Description
Objective and Scope:
This Quality Assurance Project Plan addendum is for the collection and analysis of field
samples during 1998 in support of the Placer Mining Survey. This addendum supports
the work that will be done in the field out of Fairbanks, AK.
1998 Schedule of Sampling Tasks and Milestones:
Activity
Addendum
Review
Summer of 1998
Field Sampling
Lab Analysis
Data Validation
Data Analysis
Final Report Due
Estimated beginning and ending dates
7/07/98
X
7/10-
9/4/98
X
7/13-
9/18/98*
X
7/27
-10/6/98*
X
9/1-11/30
/98
X
1/31/99
X
2. QA Objectives
a. Data Usage:
The data from the Summer of 1998 sampling will be used to determine temporal
trends in the relationship between metals and other general parameters.
Sampling at five sites will be done for eight weeks between the week of July 13
and August 31. The last samples should be shipped no later than September 4.
-------
From: LAURA CASTRILLI
To: R10AOO.AOO.GODSEY-CINDI
Date: 6/24/98 2:58pm
Subject: Alaska Placer digestion 'issue'
I've talked to the metals 'gurus' at the lab (Katie and Isa) and in my unit (Don). After
these discussions, I've come to the conclusion that for water samples, the difference
between total (hard digestion) and total recoverable (soft digestion) is negligible unless
a colorimetric method is used to analyze the digestate. Since we are not using
colorimetric methods, it should not matter whether one or the other digestion procedure
is used (i.e. the resulting data will be within the 20% relative percent difference
analytical precision of the method). An exception (not expected to occur that often)
would be if there is visible precipitate in the digestate, then obviously the digestion is
incomplete.
Isa was under the impression the digestion procedure used in the statement of work
(basically we allowed for the use of nitric acid only on the spjLdigestion technique
specified in the ICP-MS method) was followed for the first set - she will be checking on
this with Katie. Even if the hard digestion was used, it shouldn't have made a significant
difference in the data generated as a colorimetric method wasn't used.
For this year's samples, if the HCL is required for the soft digestion, then be advised
that:
1) the HCL's purpose is mainly to keep the silver and antimony in solution - if this isn't
happening, then the silver and antimony recoveries on the matrix spike and/or blank
spike sample analyses will tell us.
2) If HCL use is mandated, then the higher arsenic detection limit on ICP-AES (40 ug/L)
will have to suffice as the HCL interferes with the ICP-MS analysis. The current plan
calls for a detection limit of 0.15 ug/L.
Please let me know as soon as possible if the soft digestion without the second acid -
HCL (basically the total recoverable metals digestion without HCL) will be acceptable. If
that is the case, I'll need to revise the addendum we did last week. CC:
ROLAB.ADAMS-KATIE, MATHENY-DON, ROLAB.CHAMBERLAIN-...
From: CINDI GOOSEY
To: R10SEA1.ROHELENS(CASTRILLI-LAURA)
Date: 6/29/98 7:17pm
Subject: Alaska Placer digestion 'issue1 -Reply
Laura,
It sounds like it will work so please do whatever revisions you deem necessary. Thanks
for looking into this issue for me.
-------
Appendix B
Field Reports
-------
*~
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
October 27, 1998
Reply To
Attn Of: AOO/A
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Alaska Placer Mining Survey Sampling Report
FROM: Cindi Godsey
Project Coordinator
TO: Robert R. Robichaud
Manager, NPDES Permits Unit
Alaska Placer Mining Survey
Sampling Trip Report
During the summer of 1998, EPA collected a total of 120 samples from four
different mine sites located near Talkeetna and Fairbanks, Alaska. These four sites
were:
Tod Bauer Eldorado Creek (near Talkeetna)
John McClain Ketchum Creek (near Central)
Sam Koppenberg Faith Creek (near Fairbanks)
Largen Claims Ester Creek (near Fairbanks)
(This site did not discharge during the course
of the study.,)
Sample collection for the Alaska Placer Mining Survey occurred between June
23 and September 2, see Attachment 1 for the Sampling Calendar. Sampling at the
Talkeetna mine, conducted by Cindi Godsey (EPA) with other EPA and Federal
government staff, began on June 23 and continued through September 1, Sampling
near Fairbanks was conducted by Lockheed Martin contractors (ESAT) and began the
week of July 13 and continued through the week of August 31.
The sampling plan was followed with some exceptions. Dissolved oxygen was
not measured at the Talkeetna mine due to limitations on time available in the field and
* PrtnAHf on Recycled Paper
-------
availability of field equipment, Turbidity was not measured during the first week due to
problems with calibrating the turbidimeter.
A total of 4 mines were sampled resulting in 120 samples including duplicates.
Attachment 2 contains the results of the field measurements for each week of sampling.
The only site which was granted a mixing zone was the mine on Ketchem Creek. The
downstream sampling point was set to coincide with the edge of the designated Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation mixing zone.
Bad weather resulted in the loss of a week of sampling in Talkeetna, A week
was also lost when the helicopter was being repaired. Heavy rainfall in the Fairbanks
area caused a washout of part of the Steese Highway during the first week of sampling.
Access to the Faith Creek mine was impeded on several occasions due to high water
but the sampling crew was able to return later in each week to conduct sampling.
EPA plans on completing a final written report analyzing the data by January 31,
1999.
-------
iD
98290339
98290335
98300377
98300373
98310443
983 1 0439
98320477
98320473
98330323
98330319
98340377
98340373
98350423
98350427
98350419
98360485
98360477
98360481
98290315
98290303
9829031 1
98290307
98290347
9829035)
98300393
98300381
98300385
98300389
98310435
98310419
98310423
98310427
98310444
9831043)
98320493
98320481
98320489
98320485
98330339
98330327
98330331
98330335
98340393
9834038 1
98340385
98340389
98350443
98350435
9835043 1
98350447
98350439
98360457
98360453
9829033 1
98290319
98290327
98290323
98300369
98300353
98300361
98300365
98300357
98310415
98310403
98310407
9831041 1
98320469
pH
7 53
7 31
7 36
7 12
763
732
7 63
730
725
707
694
709
700
741
6-95
7.08
677
6 79
7 44
7 70
758
761
7 78
765
7 54
7.67
708
757
764
761
7.12
735
7,71
768
769
7 30
7 29
7 73
6.43
7 49
6 90
703
720
705
7.00
733
7 19
7 46
7 13
697
? 24
709
6 *S7
569
6 8
-------
ID
•38320453
98320457
98320465
9832046 '
98330315
98330303
98330311
9833030?
98340369
98340353
98340357
98340361
98340365
98350415
98350403
98350407
983504H
98360473
9836046 1
96360465
98360469
98264950
98264952
98264954
98264956
98274958
98274960
98274962
98274964
98294966
98294968
98294974
98294970
98294972
98314976
98314978
98314980
98314982
98334984
98334986
98334988
98334990
98344950
98344952
98344954
98344956
98354960
98354962
98354964
98354966
98364970
98364972
98364968
98364S?4
98364976
pH
7 09
r or
6 68
704
S 8 1
6.77
657
679
606
666
676
670
693
620
6.82
677
701
6 17
6.52
6.78
7 14
755
734
727
778
801
793
791
8
781
7 62
6.77
8.05
7.9
7.22
766
7.84
7 13
667
7 27
7 47
7.56
705
7 37
76
577
7 12
7 37
724
7 21
7 6
7 59
DO
mg/L
106?
10 67
8 20
1098
1205
11 43
8.74
11 53
1547
13.89
1396
11 25
1432
1750
15 10
10.52
1330
5 72
14 16
9. 85
13.97
Cond
urnhos
6T
64
107
52
27
47
108
39
27
64
64
87
51
25
72
109
65
22
68
135
70
139
180
138
125 5
1652
1907
146.8
1382
213
223
208
199
164
1 94, 6
1473
140,8
1656
1885
168,5
159
1909
138
215
186
212
211
188
177
270
261
264
248
Turbidity
NTU
!42
138
I?1 R[)
16 7
757
535
1000
127
1 44
162
195
1642
145
085
28.8
179
659
1 41
177
139
278
0,6
1 5
1 75
1 5
1 5
28
2,4
2
1 4
25
1 2
<0,5
084
36
2.52
043
16
10.25
124
l 3
28
35
1 32
3 83
19 3
4 6
Set Sol
ml/I
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
T
T
T
y
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
0 1
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
0'
y
"I"
ids
clegG
37
83
12 i
78
32
56
97
56
30
59
6.1
77
58
2.7
58
10 1
70
1 5
4 4
64
5.6
3
7
7
7
10
10
10
11
10
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
a
3
7
6
8
6
7
9
7
6
6
y
7
f.
f
Temp
i creek i
Kelchem
Ketchem
Kelchem
Ketchern
Ketchem
Ketchefti
Ketchem
Kelchem
Ketchem
Ketchem
Ketchem
Ketchem
Ketchem
Ketchem
Katchem
Ketchem
Keteham
Ketchem
Ketchem
Ketchem
Ketehem
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Eldorado
Location Poi
Downstream
Downstream
Effluent
Upmixmg
Background
Downstream
Eflluenl
Upmixing
Background
Downstream
Downstream
Effluent
Upmixing
Background
Downstj earn
Effluent
Upmixing
Background
Downstream
Effluent
Upmixmg
Downstream
Effluent
Upstieam
Background
Downstream
Effluent
Upstream
Background
Downstream
Effluent
Effluent
Upstream
Background
Downstream
Effluent
Upstream
Background
Downstream
Effluent
Upstream
Background
Downstream
Effluent
Upstream
Background
Downstream
Effluent
Upstream
Background
0 own stt earn
Effluent
Effluent
Upstream
Background
Dup
T = Tiace- D' - Duplicate sent to lab for analysis
0* = actually no measure of settleable solids
Fairbanks team only differentiated between
measurable ana not thus designating
anythinq less than 0 1 as 0
-------
Summary of IVJ8 ESAT field work for ihe Alaska Placer Mines Project.
The ESAT .sampling team met with Cindi Godsey (US EPA-AOO) and Jim Corpuz (US EPA-
Seattle) to discuss site reconnaissance, during the week of July 5-10. ESAT and C. Godsey
conducted field reconnaissance of each mining site by helicopter. The ESAT sampling team was
directed to begin sampling each of three sites on a weekly basis. ESAT was directed by EPA to
take one field duplicate sample per week (beginning with the effluent, and/or based on a ram
event) and not to take field blanks throughout the study. Moreover, if any designated mixing
zones were obsei"ved (where effluent and creek water mix), the downstream sample was to be
taken at end of the zone. If there was no designated mixing zone, ESAT was instructed to
estimate the location of the downstream sample, If there is no effluent discharge into the creek.
the sampling team was directed to take a downstream and background sample, as well as a sample
at the point where the discharge would "normally" enter the creek
Alaska Placer Mining Study
July 13-19, 1998
Sampling Week #}
General Issues:
Vendor/supplier shipped nitric acid sample vials with no nitric acid in them. ESAT
logistics staff immediately notified the supplier and nitric acid was expedited to Fairbanks
immediately. The ESAT sampling team leased a cellular phone with voice mail to ensure all
outside communications were received,
Faith_Creek:
To get to the downstream sampling locale, ESAT was required to either walk across Faith
Creek, or drive the vehicle through the creek (no bridge was available). Since it is estimated that
two people crossing on foot is as disturbing as one vehicle, and lor safety reasons, the truck was
used to cross the creek
The downstream sample was to be secured below the rapids (as per overflight
reconnaissance), This location was sampled -751) feet downstream ot the effluent discharge
point,
ESAT erroneously sampled the mixing zone, not immediately upstream of the mixing zone
(referred to as upstream sample) on July 13, However, ESAT returned to Faith Creek on July 17
to locate ihe proper upstream location and took both a sample and a field duplicate All field
instruments requiring initial and/or weekly calibrations were calibrated at the site on July I 3
It was noted thai the effluent discharge stream forked and entered the creek at two
locutions -50 ft apart. ESAT chose the lower of the two forks to sample. It was at this site thai
the sampling team realized that the nitric acid (HNOj was missing from the sample vials. ESAT
-------
kept the samples on ice until Jim Corpuz (I'SEPA) provided ESAT with surplus acid lhai
evening. The samples were preserved prior to shipping to the laboratory.
The turbidity meter provided to IKS on the evening of July 16 by Alaska Department oJ
Environmental Conservation (ADEC) (via J. Corpuz) was used on the field duplicate upstream
sample pair collected on July 17. The meter had not been calibrated, but was accurate when
reading the 1.0 and 10.0 NTU standards. To ensure data confidence, additional I-quart cubitainer
samples were collected and shipped to the laboratory for turbidity measurements. Active mining
operations were underway during this sampling visit
Ketchem Creek:
There was no HNO, available to preserve the filtered and unfiltered metals fractions, so
extra ice was purchased and placed in double Ziploc bags to ensure the samples were kept at 4 "C
until received at the laboratory (the cubitainers. as well as the custody forms, indicated that acid
preservation was required. The sampling day was routine.
Ester Creek:
There was neither an effluent discharge coming from the last settling pond nor clear
evidence that the second to last settling pond was feeding the last pond (C. Godsey suggested this
be sampled if no effluent was discharging). Thus, only two sampling points were sampled this
day; background and downstream. Although maintenance operations were being performed, no
actual mining activities were being conducted during this visit.
The turbidity meter malfunctioned, so no field turbidity measurements were taken. Spare
cubitainers were tilled and labeled for turbidity analysis in the laboratory ESAT received HNO,,
and resumed the process of preserving all filtered and unfiltered metals fractions in the field.
Alti\ku Placer Mining Snulv
Jtii\ 20-26. /yy.v
Sampling Wt-ck #2
GeneralIssues:
None.
Kgichem Creek.
Spoke in John McClain (Jr.). who brought up the following issues: t I) he said il was not
a good day to sample, as they had just hit some dark, iron-like deposil and groundwater. causing
the water to turn murky; f 2) he was concerned (hat the discharge at Ketchem Creek, with its
relatively low llov.. would be compared to nunint' activities and effluent discharges at Faith
-------
Creek, where the volume of the water is much greater; (3) he .stated that mining activities were
currently going on above his mine, but ESAT did not observe this. The sampling team said that
his concerns would be documented, but that the samples were being collected as directed by the
EPA and would continue unless otherwise instructed or if factors such ax reductions or increases
in effluent or creek flows required these changes
The small diversion of Ketchem Creek water which was flowing into the effluent stream
had dried up. Although die effluent sample could now feasiblely be taken closer to where the
effluent discharges into Ketchem Creek, the original sampling point was not changed, as per
instructions from Cindi Godsey (USEPA Project Manager).
The effluent samples were extremely difficult to filter due to clogging of the tiller with
suspended solids. The effluent sample also had to be diluted 1:1 with distilled water in order to
get a turbidity measurement within the i 100 NTU range. Otherwise, field sampling and analysis
operations were routine. Weekly field duplicate samples were taken from the effluent .sample
locale.
Ester Creek:
The rain gauge read 1.3 inches. No effluent water was discharging from the last settling
pond, although effluent water was present. The next-to-last settling pond was dry and, therefore,
no effluent was flowing from the pipe into the last settling pond. As a result, only the
downstream and background samples were collected. The mine was not active when the creek
was sampled, but began operating as ESAT left the site.
Faith Creek:
The downstream sampling site appeared to be visibly more turbid and water appeared to
be higher up on the bank than the previous week. Effluent discharge flow was greatly reduced
from the previous sampling week. The effluent volume in the settling pond had lowered
.significantly and the discharge that had been flowing from a breach in the berm/earthen dam on
the downstream side of the pond had stopped, The effluent stream was relatively clear and the
flow appeared to be coming from water percolating from and collecting in a catchment below the
settling pond, as well as from contributions of runoff from the steep .slopes and marshy ureas
around it. The water level of the creek at the background site has lowered significantly (e.g..
during the previous week, the sampling team could not cross the creek wearing rubber boots, but
were able to this weeki. The mine was operating.
.4/f/.vto Placer Mining Snitl\
Juiv 27 - AUI;IIM <>2,
General Issues:
-------
None.
Ketchem Creek:
At the downstream sample location, the creek volume was much less than in previous
visits. As a result, ESAT moved the sample location downstream ~2 rt and in the center of the
creek channel in order to obtain a sample more representative of the Ketchem Creek flow.
Additionally, the effluent stream was more shallow and flowing slower. Again, the effluent
samples were difficult to filter and had to be diluted 1:1 in order to get a turbidity measurement
within the 1 K'KJ NTU range of the turbidimeter. The mine was operating at the lime the samples
were collected
Faith Creek:
The effluent stream flow was greatly reduced from the previous week. Although ESAT
was able to collect a sample, this sample may have been water seeping from the ground around
the marshy (wetland) area surrounding this sample point. The weekly field duplicate sample was
taken from this locale. The mine was not operating on the day of sampling.
The dissolved oxygen (DO) meter malfunctioned. An attempt was made at using the
backup Hach kit, but the results were unsatisfactory. Cubitainers were collected in the event this
analysis could be performed at a later date, but this was later deemed as inappropriate. The Orion
technical service staff was contacted and the malfunction was corrected. The sampling team
returned to Faith Creek on July 31 and collected DO (and pH and conductivity) measurements ui
all four sampling locations,
While at the site on July 31, the sampling team observed a "slug" of murky, turbid water in
Faith Creek. This occurred at 10:00 am and lasted approximately 45 minutes, This event took
place after the downstream measurements were taken, so the sampling team returned to the
downstream location; noticed that, although the creek bottom had been clearly visible prior to this
event, even the boulders near the surface of the water were now obfuscated. ESAT proceeded to
remeasure pH. DO, conductivity, turbidity, and collected a grab sample for total metals analysis,
in the event the EPA was interested in analyzing the sample. The event was over (i.e.. the creek
was once again clean before the sampling team reached the next sampling site.
Ester Creek:
No elflueni water discharge was observed. Only the downstream and background samples were
collected. No mining operations were noted during our site visit.
•\lii.\kn Phii ei Mining Sliul\
Att^'ltM 03 - III, / WA
Siiini>linii Wf'ck #-/
-------
General Issues:
The LaMotie turbidimeter was malfunctioning: so the Hach Tiirbiilimeier (burrowed from
ADEC) was used. ESAT decided to perform all turbidity measurements off sue upon return to
our lodging location, as the increasing rain events could compromise the data in the field.
Ketcjiem Creek:
Weekly duplicate sample collected from downstream location. Effluent samples continued
to be difficult to filter. Spoke with John McCluin Sr. (miner). He requested and was provided
with Cindi Godsey's telephone number, He disagreed with the logic of the .sampling points
selected. He said that the effluent being sampled wasn't from his operation. ESAT informed him
that we were directed by US EPA to sample these locations. The mine was operating at the time
the samples were collected
FaithCreek.
C. Godsey was informed on August 4 about the issues regarding the effluent stream's lack
of flow and the slug ofefflueni observed on July 31. She directed the sampling team to send the
metals sample collected during the effluent event to the laboratory for analysis. When informed of
the possibility that the effluent was now discharging from a settling pond ~ 1.5 miles farther
upstream from the current effluent sampling site, she directed the team to recon the site and
change the effluent, upstream, and downstream points if there is discharge from that pond; if not,
to continue sampling at the current points [see Faith Creek map).
ESAT performed the requested site reconnaissance. The settling pond adjacent to the
cabins exhibited a trickle of effluent discharging into Faith Creek which was clear in appearance.
Mining operations had relocated downstream and across the creek from its previous location. A
final settling pond was identified, which had effluent discharging into Fairh Creek from a seep
below the berm/dam of the final settling pond. Thus, ESAT relocated the downstream, upstream.
and effluent sampling locales (the background sampling point remained the same). The mine was
active on the day of sampling,
EstejiCreek".
As wiih the previous weeks, no olfluem water was discharging from the last settling pond.
Only the downstream and background samples were collected. Mining operations were not active
during the ESAT site visit. ESAT Continued lu experience calibration problems with the field
turbidimeler. In response, the Hach turbidimeter was used and quart cubitainers were collected
and sent to the laboratory for turbidity measurements,
Alti.fka PliJi'ri' Minnn; Snni\
August II - 17. /w,s
-------
g Week #5
Ketchem Creek:
The mine was operating when sampling was performed,
Ester Creek:
Site was very soggy and wet. More than 1.3" of rain fell in the last week, however no
effluent discharge was observed. Background and downstream samples were collected. Mining
operations were active, including earth moving equipment and sluice box processing.
Fait.h_Creek:
The weather is turning much colder, and rain events have been more frequent this week,
1.1 inches of rain fell at the background location. ESAT ordered a new pH triode as a backup
unit.
Alaska Placer Mining Simly
August 18-23, J998
Sampling Week #6
Ketchem Creek:
The Steese Highway is getting fairly rough with many chuckholes and lots of
washboarding. A duplicate sample was taken at the downstream sample point.. The weather was
cold, wet. and raining. The mine was in full operation. The ground Is .saturated with many seep
points some of which were rather turbid. None of these smaller flows were sampled. Several
hundred meters upstream of the background site someone had cleared about 1 acre with a tracked
excavator. It did not appear to affect the background sample as there was no continuous flow
from the cleared site to the background sample site.
Ester Creek:
The site was very we! and soggy, and ambient temperatures were near freezing. Stream
tlows had noticeably increased, and were more turbid. Both downstream and background
samples were secured. No effluent discharge was observed.
Faith Creek:
HSAT could not get to the sampling locations with vehicle. Failh Creek was too high and
swift to attempt a fording. HSAT hiked up the south side of Faith creek to get to the sampling
sites. The \vater at the downstream site was loo deep and swilt to solely get to the actual
-------
.sampling site. Anothei site in approximaiely the same area was selected, No stream depth was
taken at this site. The effluent, and upstream samples were taken in the same locations as in Week
5, Due to the walking distance upstream to the background site. ESAT decided to sample above
any current mining or road building activities, but at a point well downstream of the established
background sampling location. No rainfall measurement was taken this week.
Alaska Placer Mining Study
August 24-26, 1998
Sampling Week #7
Ketchem Creek:
The entire mining operation has been moved several hundred yards upstream. The creek
had been rerouted between the background sample location and the upstream sample locale.
Greater turbidity was noted in the upstream samples,
Ester Creek.
The mine was not in operation today, Secured the weekly duplicate sample at the
background location.
Faith Creek:
ESAT was able to safely cross the stream with the field vehicle. It was noted that the
stream channel had changed due to recent flooding conditions. While sampling the effluent
sample from the normal location a plume of turbidity was observed in the main channel. The
source of the turbid water was located and sampled. This necessitated the moving of the
upstream sample ahoui 150 feet upstream so that it was above the source of the turbid water.
Road maintenance activities were found 10 be the source of the "effluent" plume, ESAT collected
an effluent sample from the maintenance activity area, labeled "discharge."
Alaxkn Placer Mining Study
August M'Septemher 2, iWh
Sumi'ltHK Week #Af
Faitli Creek:
The stream levels were down from Week 1. Only 0.25" rain fell since.' die last sampling event.
The mine was not operating. No effluent was observed, so we did not lake an effluent or an
upstream sample.
-------
Ketchem Creek:
Mr. McClain (miner) informed ESAT that they were doing reclamation work today. The stream
was even more turbid than the effluent. The move to the upstream site appears to be complete.
Three new settling ponds had been constructed and no effluent was visible from any of them.
Most of the muddy water is flowing into the upper settling pond, however, some is escaping into
the creek.
Ester Creek:
The stream levels were down. Only 0.32" rain since last sampling event. Secured weekly
duplicate sample at downstream site. No mining operations were observed.
-------
Appendix C
Description of Placer Mining Districts, from Nokleberg and Others
(1996)
-------
Appendix C. Description of placer ruining districts, from Nokleherg and others (!4>%j,
No. 3- Valdez Creek District
Major commodities: Placer Au, Au, Cu, Pb
Summary Description:
Valdez Creek placers exhibit a complex Pleistocene history Gold produced from modem stream gravels and from
channels is ancestral to Valdez Creek and is buned by up to 60 m of till and glacio-ftuial deposits Main pay
channels considered to be Sangamon (mtd Pleistocene) in age. District mined by open pii and sluice methods.
Heavy minerals are gold, magnetite, pyrite, zircon, sphene, sillimanite, kyanite, galena, realgar, orpiment, hessite (a
silver tellunde). Gold in district probably derived from poiymetailic vein deposits associated with Cretaceous granitic
rocks. Extensive recent mining; currently the largest placer mine in Alaska. Other smaller placer mines in district
include White, Black, and Timberiine Creeks, and Lucky Gulch. Local bedrock is Late Jurassic or older
metasedimentary rocks, Mesozoic graywacke, and Cretaceous and early Tertiary granitic plutons.
References Chapin, 1918; Capps, 1919; Tuck, 1938; Smith, 1970; Cobb, 1973; Bressler and others (1985); Fechnerand
Herzog, 1990; Reger and Bundtzen, 1990; Bundtzen and others, 1996.
No, 27- Council District (Includes Solomon) Note: Cobb places the Solomon area in the adjacent Nome District
Major commodities Au W.Hg.Cu
Summary Descnption;
District contains beach, modern stream, and rare bench gold placers. Heavy minerals dominated by arsenopynte,
magnetite, and scheelile. Mined mainly by dredging and sluicing. Gold in district probably derived from Au-bearing
quartz vein deposits in metamorphic rocks of the Nome Group, such as the Big Hurrah Gold-Tungsten deposit.
Local bedrock is schist, marble, dolomite, and thin quartz veins.
References: Collier and others, 1908; Smith, 1910; Smith and Eakm, 1911; Cobb, 1973; Bundtzen and others, 1996,
No, 28- Fairhaven District (Includes Candle and Inmachuk)
Major commodities: Au, Pb, W, Pt, Ag
Summary Description:
District contains rich placer gold deposits on Candle Creek and Inmachuk River Major streams extensively
dredged; substantial resources remain unmined in buried drainages in northern part of district. Buried gold-nch
channel gravel occur in vicinity of Mud Creek. Most production on Candle Creek was from left limit bench
(paleo-Candle Creek) about 600 m wide and 6 km long. Placers at Kiwalik Flat occur at mouth of Paleo-Candle
Creek and were partially reworked by marine conditions. Auriferous bench deposits occcur 30 m above Inmachuk
River and are overlain by a 5.7 Ma basalt flow. Heavy minerals are galena, magnetite, scheelite, sphalerite, and
trace platinum metals. Gold probably derived from poiymetailic vein lode deposits associated with Cretaceous
granitic plutons or alternatively from Au-beanng quartz veins in metamorphic rocks, or alternatively from Au-bearing
quartz veins in metamorphic rocks. Local bedrock consists of schist, marble, granitic plutons, and Tertiary basalt
References. Henshaw, 1909; Cobb, 1973, T.K Bundtzen, written cotnmun., 1991; Bundtzen and others, 1996.
No 29- Kougarok District
Major commodities: Placet Au-Sn, Au. 5ft W
Summary Description:
District contains large gold resources iha> occur in Quaternary!'') glacial outwash gravels of the Tertiary and
Quaternary;9) Kougarok Gravels. Buried Tertiary gravels and conglomerates may be gold source Most mining by
dredging Heavy minerals are gold, pynle. magnetite, hematite, cassitente. scheelite, cinnabar, and lead sutfides.
Riches! areas in Iron and Taylor Creeks and near Coffee Dome. Placer gold derived mainly from low-sulfide
Au-beanng quartz veins in metamorphic rocks and from Sn (ode deposits associated with Cretaceous granitic
plutons. Local bedrock is schist, slate, marble, and granitic rocks.
References: Collier and others. 1908: Cobb, 1973: Eakins. 1981; Bundtzen ana others. 1996
No 33- Sepentine District
Nokleberg el al does not include a description of the Serpentine District.
No. 44- Bonnitield District
-------
MajOf commodities: Au, Ag. Hg, Pt, Sn W
Summary Description.
Placer gold occurs in sreams and a few benches Thick glaciofluvial deposiis and loess cover much of district
Heavy minerals include various suifides. scheeiite cassilente and cinnabar. PGE are found in Daniels Creek. Gold
in district probably derived from Cretaceous or early Tertiary Au-beanng quartz or pel/metallic vein (odes and middle
or older Kuroko massive sulfide deposits in Yukon-Tanana terrane, with probable recycling through Tertiary gravels.
Local bedrock is Paleozoic or older meiasedimentary and m eta volcanic rocks of She Yukon-Tanana terrane, and
Cretaceous granitic plulons.
References: Capps, 1912; Cobb, 1973, Gilbert and Bundtzen, 1979; Bundtzen and others. 1996.
No. 47- Circle District
Major commodities. Piacer Au. Au, Ag, Sn, Sb, W, Pb, REE, Mo, Hg
Summary Description;
Gold occurs in alluvial and colluwal deposits (2 to 5 m thick), frequently overlain by 1 to 2 m of muck.
Non-glaciated, broad upland of nearly accordant ndge crests. Large gold resource may occur in lower reaches of
Crooked and Birch Creeks, and in the topographic trough south ot Crazy Mountains. Largei deposits are at
Mammoth Creek. Deadwood Creek, Eagle Creek, and Coal Creek. Gold in district probably derived from Cretaceous or
early Tertiary Au-beanng quartz vein, polymetallic vein, skarn, porphyry lode, and volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits in
region in mid Paleozoic or older metamorphic rocks of Yukon-Tanana terrane, with recycling through Tertiary
conglomerates. Alluvial diamonds found in placer concentrates dunng the 1980's. Local bedrock consists of middle
Paleozoic or older metasedimentary rocks of Yukon-Tanana terrane, and Cretaceous granitic plutons.
References; Prindle, 1913; Mertie, 1938; Hemerand Wolff, 1968; Cobb, 1973; Yeend, 1982, 1987, 1991, Menzie and
others.
1983; Lasley, 1985; Bundtzen and others, 1996
No. 50- Fairbanks District
Major commodities: Placer Au, Au, Sb, W, Sn, Ag , Bi
Summary Description:
Placer deposits occur in streams that radially drain three mineralized areas in Fairbanks District, Ester Dome,
Cleary-Pedfo Dome, and Gilmore Dome, Nearly all placers consist of buned streams that were ancestral to Cleary,
Goldstream, Fairbanks, Engineer, Dome, Eldorado, Treasure. Little Eldorado, Ester, Cripple, Gilmore, and
Smallwood drainage basins. Largest placer deposits in Cleary, Fairbanks, Goldstream and Cripple Creek drainages.
Deposits are buned by thick sections of frozen loess and mud. Recent stratigraphic and radiometnc age studies
suggest lhat most bench deposits in district are Pliocene. Over 30 heavy minerals are identified and include
stibnite, scheelite, bismuthinite, native bismuth, and galena. Stibnite and scheelite have been commercially
recovered from placers. Placer gold derived from (1) sevetai hundred mineralized veins in Ester Dome
and in the Cleary Hill-Pedro Dome area; (2) Au skams in the Gilmore Dome area; and (3) polymetallic veins
associated with Cretaceous plutons at Melba Creek, and Pedro, Gilmore, and Ester Domes
References- Smith, I9l3a: Pnridle and Katz, 1913, Mertie 1918; Heiner and Wolff, 1968; Cobb, 1973, Light and others,
1987; Metz, 1987, 1991; Metz and Harrul, 1966. T.K.Bundtzen. written commun., 1991; Bundtzen and others, 1996,
No. 51-- Forty mile District
Major commodities Placet Au, Au, REE, Pb Sn. VV Hg
Summary Description.
District mostly contains stream and bench placer deposits. Most of area not giacialed. Loess mantles much of
area. A 1 71 kg nugget was recovered from Jack Wade Creek deposit. Gold 'meness ranges widely between
drainages Highest fineness is in Walker Fork and lowest fineness is in South Fork of Fortymile River. Lode souice
probably polyrrn?iallic qiiaru-pynte veins. Mining by hydraulic, drift, dredge, and open cut methods Gold derived
from s combination of Au quanz and polymetallic veins, that occur m metamorphic rocks near contacts with
Cretaceous or early Tertiary telsic pinions that intrude middle Paleozoic or older mefarriorphic recks of
Yukon-Tanana (enane Local btdiock consists oi mainly metasedimentary rocks, Cretaceous granitic plutons,
ultramalic and malic plutonic rocks, and Tertiary sedimentary racks
References Mert,e. i y'JM. Col.it\ i'47'3 riurvttz-n
No. 53-- Hot Springs District
-------
Major commodities Placer Au-Sn-Nb, Au, Sn, Cr, REE. Cu, Pt, Ag. Ni. Hg. W. Bi. Nb
Summary Description;
Nearly all placer deposits in district consist of buried bench gravels that occur on old terraces or buried stream
deposits derived ?rorn older bench gravels. Thick deposits of frozen silt conceal placer deposits and make
exploration difficult. Area not glaciated. Principal deposits explored were those on Sullivan Bench. Gold fineness
ranges from 740 to 875 At American Creek, gold occurs in lower 1.1 m of gravels and upper 1 rn of bedrock. Gold in
quartz-carbonate veins associated with east-west-trending shear zone. Gold in district possibly related to granitic plutons in
area. Ni-bearing columbite and aeschynite occurs in tailings of drift placer mines near Tofty. Local
bedrock consists of Cretaceous sedimentary rocks and Tertiary granitic plutons.
References: Mertie. 1934; Waytend, 1961, Heiner and Wolff, 1968; Cobb, 1973: Southworth, 1984; Warner, 1985; Warner
and Southworth, 1985; Warner and others. 1986; Bundtzen and others. 1996.
No. 55-- Iditarod District
Major commodities: Au, Hg, Sb, Sn, W, Cr, REE, Ag
Summary Descnption:
District contains gold placer deposits that occur in modern stream gravels, residual concentrations, and benches.
All mining occurs within 14 km of Flat, Heavy minerals are chromite, scheelite, cassiterite, arsenopynte,
ilmenorutile. and heavy concentrations of cinnabar. Gold fineness ranges from 830 to 905 and averages 870.
Extensive dredging, Nonglaciaied highlands are mantled by residual material, colluvium, and silt; lowlands are
covered by thick alluvium. Placer deposits on Flat, Chicken, Prince, Happy, Slate, and Willow Creeks are radially
distributed around Chicken Mountain. Gold derived from polymetallic vein lode deposits in Late Cretaceous
monzonitic stocks such as the Golden Horn and Chicken Mountain deposits, and from other mineralized contact
zones m sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Cretaceous Kuskokwim Group Local bedrock of Early Proterozoic
schist and metagranite, Mesozoic clastic and volcanic rocks, and Cretaceous granitic plutons.
References: Cobb, 1973; Bundtzen and others. 1985, 1988. 1992a; Miller and Bundtzen. 1993; Bundtzen and others, 1996
No. 56- Innoko District
Major commodities: Au, Ag, Hg, Pt, Sn, W
Summary Description:
Bulk of gold from Innoko district placers occurs on bedrock benches on easterly or northerly Ml slopes. Minor
platinum and about 1% of gold content recovered from Boob Creek. Some dredging. Major heavy minerals are
chromrfe, scheelite, and arsenopynte. Most of district not glaciated. Gold derived from mineralized rhyohte and
basalt dike swarms and small monzonite plutons intruding the Kuskokwim Group in the Yankee Creek, Ophir Creek,
and Spruce Creek areas. Largest dike swarm located along Ganes-Yankee Creek fault zone which parallels tditarod
Nixon Fault. Placer gold in Colorado. Cripple, and Bear Creeks derived from both granite porphyry and monzonite.
Local bedrock aiso includes Cretaceous metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks, chert, basalt, and felsic dikes.
References; Harrington. 1919; Meitie, 1936; Cobb, 1973; Bundtzen and Laird, 1980; Bundizen and others, 1985, 1987
1996,
No 59- Wiseman District (also known as Koyukuk district)
Major commodities: Au, Bi, Cu, W, pb
Summary Description.
Glaciation m pans of district has caused disarrangements of drainage, resulting in complex placer deposits.
Gold-rich gravels occur in modern streams, bench, and buried stream deposits on bedrock Large nuggels include
4.29 kg nugget on Hammond River and 1.28 kg on Nolan Cieek. Large nuggets more common than elsewhere in
Alaska, heavy minerals are gold, stibnite. native silver, native copper, native bismuth, scheelite, pynte,
chaicopyrtte cinnabar, futile, cassilenle. nionazite. andalusile. and kyanite. Larger deposits at Hammond River and
Nolan Creek
References' Maddren. 1913' I.M.Reed, written cornrnun.. 193P' Brosgt- and Reiser. I3f-:(l; Cobb 197:1. Dillon, 198?
Bundtzen and othec- 1996.
No 63-- Ruby District
-------
Summary Description;
District displays a complex geomorphic history, Vetn quartz, chert and other resistant rocks are common in
placers. Several cycles of erosion and deposition are interpreted. Placer deposits are generally buried and are
mined with shafts and drifts. Region not glaciated. Heavy minerals are gold, cassiferite, platinum, scheelite,
allanite. and native bismuth. Largest deposit on Long Creek produced nearly half o1 the district gold through 1993.
Bedrock consists of quartz veins in schisi in or near granite. District also contains minor ptacer Sn deposits, Gold
in district probably derived from polymetallic vein and skarn deposits associated with Cretaceous hypabyssal
granitic plutons. Local bedrock consists of limestone, schisi. volcanic rocks, and granitic plutons.
References: Eakin, 1918; Mertie and Harrington, 1924: Cass. 1959; Chapman and others. 1963: Cobb, 1973; Bundtzen
and
others, 1996.
------- |