Site Inspection Report Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect Wenatchee National Forest

FINAL

SITE INSPECTION REPORT COPPER CITY MILL AND GRANITE LAKE PROSPECT WENATCHEE NATIONAL FOREST

February 2010

Prepared for: USDA Forest Service

Prepared by:

111 SW Columbia, Suite 1500 Portland, Oregon 97201-5850 25696996 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... v SITE INSPECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET...... vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES...... 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION...... 1 2.1 Location ...... 1 2.2 Operational History...... 3 2.3 Waste Characteristics...... 4 2.4 Site Descriptions...... 5 2.4.1 Topography and Climate ...... 5 2.4.2 Ecological Setting...... 6 2.4.3 Sensitive Environments...... 8 2.4.4 Threatened, Endangered and Special Status Species ...... 9 2.4.5 Population and Land Use ...... 10 3.0 PATHWAY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT ...... 10 3.1 Groundwater Exposure Pathway...... 11 3.1.1 Targets ...... 11 3.1.2 Geologic Setting...... 11 3.1.3 Hydrogeology...... 12 3.1.4 Groundwater Pathway Summary...... 13 3.2 Surface Water Exposure Pathway...... 13 3.2.1 Targets ...... 13 3.2.2 Aquatic Invertebrate Survey Results...... 15 3.2.3 Hydrologic Setting ...... 16 3.2.4 Analytical Results for Surface Water...... 17 3.2.5 Surface Water Pathway Summary ...... 18 3.2.6 Sediment Exposure Pathway...... 19 3.2.6.1 Targets...... 19 3.2.6.2 Analytical Results for Sediment...... 20 3.2.6.3 Sediment Pathway Summary ...... 21 3.3 Soil Exposure Pathway ...... 21 3.3.1 Targets ...... 21 3.3.2 Previous Investigations...... 21 3.3.3 Analytical Results for Soil...... 22 3.3.4 Soil Pathway Summary ...... 25 3.4 Air Exposure Pathway ...... 26 3.4.1 Targets ...... 26 3.4.2 Air Exposure Pathway Summary ...... 26 4.0 STREAMLINED RISK ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION...... 26 4.1 Streamlined Human Health Risk Assessment...... 26 4.1.1 Risk and Hazard Estimates...... 27 4.1.2 Determination of Hotspots...... 27 4.1.3 Determination of Clean-up Level ...... 28 4.1.4 Summary ...... 29 4.2 Streamlined Ecological Risk Assessment and Evaluation...... 29

i TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE 4.2.1 Conceptual Ecological Exposure Model ...... 30 4.2.2 Risk and Hazard Estimates...... 30 4.2.3 Determination of Clean-up Level ...... 31 4.2.4 Summary ...... 32 4.3 Streamlined Risk Assessment Conclusions and Recommendation ...... 32 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 33 5.1 Conclusions...... 33 5.2 Recommendations...... 34 6.0 FOREST SERVICE DISCLAIMER...... 34 7.0 REFERENCES...... 35

TABLES Table 1 Surface Water Data Summary and Screening – Copper City Mill Table 2 Arsenic and Chromium Speciation Results Table 3 Surface Water Data Summary and Screening – Granite Lake Prospect Table 4 Sediment Data Summary and Screening – Copper City Mill Table 5 Waste Rock / Soil and Sediment Data and Screening – Granite Lake Prospect Table 6 Waste Rock / Soil Data and Screening – Copper City Mill Table 7 Background Soil Data Table 8 Waste Rock, Soil and Sediment Grain Size Data Table 9 Waste Rock ABA Data Table 10 TCLP and SPLP Results FIGURES Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map Figure 2 Vicinity Map Figure 3 Elevation Contours - Copper City Mill Figure 4 Elevation Contours - Granite Lake Prospect Figure 5 Wetlands - Copper City Mill Figure 6 Wetlands - Granite Lake Prospect Figure 7 Conceptual Site Model - Copper City Mill Figure 8 Conceptual Site Model - Granite Lake Prospect Figure 9 Sample Locations - Copper City Mill Figure 10 Sample Locations - Granite Lake Prospect Figure 11 Well Locations Figure 12 Surface Water Rights APPENDICES Appendix A Photographic Log Appendix B Waste Rock Volume Calculations and Cross Sections Appendix C Streamlined Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Appendix D Invertebrate Analysis Report Appendix E Analytical Laboratory Reports & QC Report

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ABA acid-base accounting AGP acid generating potential AMD acid mine drainage amsl above mean sea level ANP acid neutralization potential APA abbreviated preliminary assessment bcy bank cubic yards BLM Bureau of Land Management CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System CHU critical habitat unit COC chemical of concern COI chemical of interest COPC chemical of potential concern CPEC chemical of potential ecological concern CSM conceptual site model CTE central tendency exposure DEQ Department of Environmental Quality Ecology Washington Department of Ecology EE/CA engineering evaluation/cost analysis EPC exposure point concentration GPS global positioning system HHRA human health risk assessment MCL maximum contaminant level MDC maximum detected concentration MDL method detection limit MTCA Model Toxics Control Act NFS National Forest System NNP net neutralization potential NPR neutralization potential ratio OECA/FFEO Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance / Federal Facilities Enforcement Office PAG potentially acid generating PEMC palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded PEMF palustrine, emergent, semipermanentaly flooded PEMG palustrine, emergent, intermittently exposed PFOA palustrine, forested, temporarily flooded PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal PUBH palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded QA/QC quality assurance/quality control RME reasonable maximum exposure RSL Regional Screening Level SAP sampling and analysis plan SI Site inspection SPLP synthetic precipitation leaching procedure T&E threatened and endangered TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure TEC consensus-based threshold effect concentration

iii

TIC total inorganic carbon UCL Upper Confidence Limit URS URS Corporation USDI United States Department of the Interior USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGS United Sates Geological Survey WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDGER Washington Department of Geology and Earth Resources WPSAP Work Plan and Sampling Analysis Plan XRF X-Ray Fluorescence

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

URS Corporation (URS) completed a Site Inspection (SI) at the Copper City Mill Site and the Granite Lake Prospect Site located within the Naches Ranger District of the Wenatchee National Forest, in central Washington State. The Copper City Mill Site encompasses the former mill’s foundation and waste rock. The Granite Lake Prospect Site encompasses inactive workings, including a collapsed adit and an associated waste rock pile. The two Sites are located approximately 30 miles west of the town of Naches, Washington (Figure 1) and approximately 2 miles from each other. The objectives of the Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect SI are to: • Characterize Site-related chemicals (metals1) in surface water, sediment, soil, and mine wastes. • Assess the potential risks that mine wastes pose to human health and/or the environment. • Determine whether further action is warranted to address the risk to human and/or ecological receptors from exposure to Site-related chemicals. The results of the SI are summarized below for exposure pathways of concern: Surface Water Pathway • The surface water pathway (unnamed Deep Creek tributary at Copper City Mill, and Granite Lake at the Granite Lake Prospect) is complete for both humans and ecological receptors. • At Copper City Mill

o Arsenic concentrations in surface water create potentially unacceptable human health risks for recreational users.

o Barium, copper, and lead in surface water create potentially unacceptable ecological risk for aquatic receptors. • At Granite Lake Prospect, detected concentrations of chemicals of interest (COIs) in surface water do not appear to result in unacceptable risk to either human or ecological receptors. • Sediment

o Recreational users are unlikely to be exposed to the small amount of sediment in the unnamed tributary at Copper City Mil. The sediment pathway is considered an insignificant pathway for humans but potentially significant for aquatic life ecological receptors. Arsenic and copper in sediment create potentially unacceptable ecological risk to populations of benthic organisms.

o At Granite Lake Prospect, human and ecological receptors could be exposed to submerged waste rock, acting as a sediment pathway, which is complete for both human and ecological receptors. Arsenic in submerged waste rock causes potential unacceptable risks to child and adult recreational users. Arsenic in submerged waste rock causes potential unacceptable risk to populations of benthic organisms. Soil Pathway • The soil pathway is complete for both human and ecological receptors at both the Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect.

o Arsenic in Copper City Mill waste rock and processed ore (459 bank cubic yards [(bcy]) results in unacceptable human health risk for adult and child recreational users.

1 In this report, the term “metals” is used to refer collectively to elements that are true metals as well as other elements that do not exhibit all the properties of true metals such as arsenic, antimony, and selenium.

o Arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc in waste rock and processed ore results in unacceptable ecological risk for populations of terrestrial ecological receptors. • At Granite Lake Prospect, arsenic in waste rock (33 bcy) results in unacceptable human health risk for child recreational users and potential unacceptable ecological risk for populations of ecological receptors. Waste Rock Leaching Potential • The acid-base accounting (ABA) test results for the Granite Lake Prospect waste rock sample indicate the waste rock is not acid generating. • ABA test results for the Copper City Mill waste rock indicate it is potentially acid generating. Recommendations URS recommends the following actions based on the SI: • The Forest Service should consider measures to reduce human and ecological exposure to waste rock and processed ore at Copper City Mill and waste rock at Granite Lake Prospect. • At Copper City Mill, potential measures could include the following:

o Excavation and off-Site disposal of the waste rock and processed ore at a permitted disposal facility.

o Excavation, consolidation on-Site, and capping of the waste rock and processed ore. • At Granite Lake, consider capping waste rock with clean soil obtained from on-Site to prevent direct exposure. • The Forest Service should consider completing an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) to further assess potential removal action alternatives to address human and ecological risks associated with mine wastes at the Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect.

SITE INSPECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET Project Name: Copper City Mill Project Location: Sections PB40 and 41, Township 15 North, Range 12 East of the Willamette Meridian Latitude: 46.77° N Longitude: 121.35° W Nearest Surface Water Body: Unnamed Tributary, 0 feet; Deep Creek, 600 feet Area of Disturbance: Approximately 12,000 square feet

SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL/DOCUMENTED CONTAMINATION Media Sample Location Flow Rate / Volume Contaminant Highest Concentration Lowest Criterion Background Concentration (µg/L – Surface Water) (µg/L or mg/kg) (90th Percentile) (cfs or bcy) (mg/kg – Sediment/Waste Rock/Ore) (human health or ecological) (µg/L or mg/kg)

Arsenic 136 0.058 - HH 1.59b Surface Water - 5 samples - Barium 27.1 4.0 - Eco 5.74b 2 on-Site samples, Mill tributary, Wet Meadow and Varies a b 3 downstream samples Deep Creek Copper 26.5 12 - Eco 0.27 U Lead 2.05 0.0032a - Eco 0.22 Ub

Sediment - 4 samples - Arsenic 545 1.6 - HH 39.5b 1 on-Site sample, Mill tributary and Negligible 3 downstream samples Deep Creek Copper 2,210 31.6 - Eco 13.2b

Arsenic 13,200 1.6 - HH 63.7 Cadmium 6.90 J 0.36 - Eco 0.386 Cobalt 476 13 - Eco 8.82 Copper 13,400 28 - Eco 28.8 10 samples- Waste Rock / Lead 374 11 - Eco 20.1 Waste rock from Mill foundation and 459 bcy Processed Ore processed ore Manganese 1,630 220 - Eco 572 Mercury 0.814 0.1 - Eco 0.105 Selenium 3.30 0.3 - Eco 0.381 Silver 34.6 2 - Eco 0.521 Zinc 903 46 - Eco 131

Notes: This table only lists contaminants considered the major driving risk at the Site. Total metal concentrations are presented for surface water. Background waste rock concentrations are the 90th percentile of 10 samples with an assumed lognormal distribution. cfs = cubic feet per second bcy = bank cubic yards mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram µg/L = micrograms per liter U = The analyte was analyzed for but not detected at or above the method reporting limit (MRL). J = The result is an estimated quantity. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample. a = hardness-dependent criterion normalized to a hardness of 100 (not site-specific). b = Site background value taken from location CC-28, in Mill tributary upstream of Mill Site.

vii

Project Name: Granite Lake Prospect Project Location: Section 9, Township 15 North, Range 12 East of the Willamette Meridian Latitude: 46.81° N Longitude: 121.35° W Nearest Surface Water Body: Granite Lake, adjacent Area of Disturbance: Approximately 775 square feet

SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL/DOCUMENTED CONTAMINATION Media Sample Location Volume Contaminant Highest Concentration Lowest Criterion Background Concentration (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (bcy) (human health or ecological)

Waste Rock Pile - Included with Waste Sediment Arsenic 25.9 9.79 - Eco 0.22 J Underwater portion Rock

Waste Rock Pile - Waste Rock 33 bcy Arsenic 108 J 1.6 - HH 0.22 J Abovewater portion

Notes: This table only lists contaminants considered the major driving risk at the Site. bcy = bank cubic yards mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram J = The result is an estimated quantity. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample.

viii

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

URS has prepared this SI to evaluate the potential risks to human health and the environment stemming from issues identified in the Abbreviated Preliminary Assessment (APA) (Forest Service, 2005) conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) at the Copper City Mill and Miners Ridge Workings (including the Granite Lake Prospect Site) in southwestern Washington (Figure 1). • The SI field activities at the Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Sites included sampling and analysis of waste rock/crushed ore, background soil, surface water, sediment, and macroinvertebrates from the two Sites and their vicinities. Specifically, as outlined in the EPA CERCLA guidance document (EPA, 1992), “the sampling locations are strategically planned to identify the substances present, determine whether hazardous substances are being released to the environment, and determine whether hazardous substances have impacted specific targets.” • Additional SI field activities included assessing aquatic habitat, describing upland habitat, observing and documenting the physical conditions of the Sites for potential future removal actions, and surveying the Site topography, features, and sample locations. • This SI was performed in accordance with the work plan and sampling and analysis plan (WPSAP) prepared by URS (URS, 2009) and approved by the Forest Service. The WPSAP was developed based on the scope of work in Request 2 of the Forest Service Contract R6-27-06-113, and completed in accordance with United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance for conducting SIs (USEPA, 1992). • SI information was collected in general accordance with Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA) protocols and documentation requirements for assessments involving hazardous substances. The SI included the following objectives: • Characterization of potential Site-related chemicals (metals) in soil, waste rock/processed ore, surface water, and sediment. • Characterization of aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages and their potential response to water quality impairment stressors, particularly those related to metals sensitivity. • Assessment of the potential risk that the mill remains, waste rock, and processed or partially processed ore piles pose to human health and/or the environment. • Use of Site characterization and risk assessment results to determine whether a removal action is warranted.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Location The Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect Sites are located within the Wenatchee National Forest, in Yakima County, Washington. They are situated approximately 30 miles west of Naches, the nearest fully incorporated town. • The subjects are found on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7 ½ Minute Quadrangle Map – Bumping Lake (USGS, 1988). • The Copper City Mill Site is approximately 2 miles south of Granite Lake Prospect (Figure 2).

o From Bumping Lake Campground, Copper City Mill is accessed by driving south about 8 miles on National Forest Roads 1800 and 1808. Portions of both roads are currently closed to motorized access.

o From Bumping Lake Campground, Granite Lake Prospect is accessed by driving south about 2.3 miles on National Forest Road 1800, then 4.2 miles southwest on National Forest Road 1809. • The nearest seasonal residents live along the north shore of Bumping Lake, and the nearest permanent residents live in the community of Goose Prairie.

o Residences along Bumping Lake are greater than 3 miles north of Granite Lake and more than 5 miles north of Copper City Mill.

o Goose Prairie is composed of approximately 20 dwellings, some of which are probably occupied seasonally, and others which may be permanently occupied. This community is approximately 6 to 8 miles northeast of the Sites. • Bumping Lake provides tent and recreational vehicle campsites, a camp store, potable water, and restroom facilities. The amenities are only available from May through September. • The Boy Scouts of America, Grand Columbia Council, operates a large recreational scout camp named Camp Fife within the community of Goose Prairie. There are several large buildings on site and camp attendees also hike and camp in the surrounding forest. • There are many other established, unmanaged, tent and horse campsites within the forest near the Sites. Copper City Mill The Copper City Mill Site includes a collapsed building, the former mill’s foundations, waste rock piles, processed or partially processed ore, a loading ramp, and a clearing for the former town (Appendix A, Photos 2 through 4). Waste rock is present around the mill foundation, and ore (which may be processed or partially processed) was found down-slope to the east, where an apparent loading ramp still exists. The location and elevation for the Site is summarized below. • Copper City Mill is located in the southeast corner of Section PB2 40 and the northeast corner of Section PB 41 in unsurveyed Township 15 North and Range 12 East of the Willamette Meridian. • Copper City Mill (Appendix A, Photo 1),

o Latitude = 46.77 N Longitude = 121.35 W

o 4,120 feet above mean sea level (amsl) Figure 3 illustrates the mill remnants as well as the footprint and contoured elevations of the waste rock and the approximate footprint of processed ore. Background samples were collected upslope of the mill remnants, from across the width of the Site, and were collected from areas undisturbed by mining or mill-related activities. One background sample (CC- 05) was also collected from the former town Site, to assess if it may be impacted by mill activities. Background samples were distinguished from waste rock piles by the presence of organic matter and undisturbed O and A soil horizons. Granite Lake Prospect Granite Lake Prospect includes a collapsed adit and a small waste rock pile that extends into Granite Lake. An undeveloped campground (no water available) is located on the east side of the lake, about 800 feet by narrow footpath from the waste rock pile. At the time of the SI fieldwork, a Forest Service gate prevented vehicle access to the campground. The location and elevation of the Site are summarized below.

2 A complete Township typically includes 36 Sections. In the Site vicinity many Townships are truncated and do not include all 36 sections but rather, include partial sections, referred to as Partial Boundaries (PB), that are assigned section numbers greater than 36.

• Granite Lake is located in the central east side of Section 9 in Township 15 North and Range 12 East of the Willamette Meridian. • Granite Lake (Appendix A, Photo 5),

o Latitude = 46.81 N Longitude = 121.35 W

o 5,040 feet amsl The waste rock pile at Granite Lake covers approximately 775 square feet. Areas disturbed by mining- related activities include the single collapsed adit and its associated waste rock pile. Figure 4 illustrates the waste rock pile with contoured elevations. Background samples were collected from undisturbed locations immediately upslope of the adit. Additional photographs of Granite Lake are included in Appendix A (Photos 6 and 7). A discussion of Site geology is presented in Section 3.1.2.

2.2 Operational History Copper City Mill No operational history of the Copper City Mill could be located beyond that previously presented in the APA (Forest Service, 2005). This information is summarized below: • The Miners Ridge vicinity was explored and developed by the Copper City Mining Company. By 1906, this company had 42 claims in the area. • Mining efforts near Copper City Mill focused on five mineralized shear zones within monzonite/granodiorite bedrock cut by rhyodacite dikes. • Primary ore minerals from the Copper City area included chalcopyrite, scheelite, and molybdenite. Gauge minerals included pyrite, arsenopyrite, quartz, calcite, and tourmaline. • Commodities produced at the mill mainly included gold, silver, copper, and tungsten. • United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Records (LR2000, 10-2-09) show two active and many closed mining claim case files in the area of the two Sites.

o Two active lode claims exist at the top of Miners Ridge, between the two Sites. These claims are owned by the same company, and have been active since 2008.

o Many inactive lode and placer claims exist in the area of the Sites, including those discussed in the APA (Forest Service, 2005). • The Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect Sites are currently unclaimed and inactive. • The available operational history and this SI suggest that ore processing included crushing, grinding, and probable gravity concentration. Concentrates were transported off-Site for further processing. o Some processed or partially processed ore appears to be present at the lower end of the mill structure and near an apparent loading ramp. • The primary sources of contamination identified at the Site are the waste rock and processed or partially processed ore piles. Granite Lake No operational history of the Granite Lake Prospect could be located beyond that previously presented in the APA (Forest Service, 2005). Exploration history and mineralogy in the vicinity of Granite Lake Prospect is similar to that of Copper City Mill. Information specific for the Granite Lake area is summarized below:

• The APA notes two adits near Granite Lake: the 17th of Ireland Ridge Adit and 17th of Ireland Lake Adit. Only the second adit, closest to the Granite Lake shore, is the target of this SI (Appendix A, Photo 6). The Ridge adit lies outside the Granite Lake basin. • The adit near the shore of Granite Lake is collapsed, and no evidence of seasonal water discharge was observed. The adit’s associated waste rock pile extends about 10 feet into the lake (Appendix A, Photo 7).

2.3 Waste Characteristics The waste characteristics associated with the Sites are summarized below. The Copper City Mill Site consists of the former mill area and associated waste rock and partially processed ore piles. The Granite Lake Prospect Site consists of a collapsed adit directly adjacent to a small waste rock pile, partially submerged in Granite Lake. Physical hazards associated with each Site are also described. Copper City Mill • The remnants of the Copper City Mill consist of a multi-tiered, wood-post foundation structure, oriented parallel to the slope. • Waste rock, raw or partially processed ore, metal cable, and other metal debris are present within and adjacent to the structure. • The waste rock and raw or partially processed ore decreases in size from cobble-sized material at the top of the mill structure to sand-sized material near an apparent loading ramp just below the lowest tier of the mill. This pattern likely corresponds to the progressive milling and processing of the ore, beginning at the upslope end of the mill and terminating at the downslope end. • The waste rock piles are tiered in the same manner as the foundation structure and are generally elevated above the surrounding topography. • Below the lowest tier of the mill is a relatively flat, grass-covered area. Waste material at this area consists of fine-grained material overlying native soil. The fine-grained material is assumed to be processed or partially processed ore. The material forms a deposit overlying native soil that averages about one foot in thickness and is topographically indistinct from adjacent areas. • The volume of the waste rock piles associated with Copper City Mill foundation was estimated as follows:

o A topographic survey was completed for the portion of the mill where the waste rock piles are elevated above and distinct from the surrounding topography. Using a prismoidal formula, the volume of the elevated waste piles is 126 bcy. Volume calculations for the elevated waste rock piles are provided in Appendix B.

o Within the mill structure are additional areas covered with waste rock that do not rise above the surrounding topography. The waste rock within these areas is estimated to be about one foot thick and cover approximately 5,000 square feet. The estimated waste rock volume in these areas is 185 bcy.

o The raw or partially processed ore covers an area of about 4,000 square feet. Assuming the material averages one foot in thickness, the total volume is about 148 bcy.

o The total estimated volume of waste rock and partially processed ore is 459 bcy. • Southeast of the mill is a feature that appears to be a loading ramp, with the loading edge facing east (Appendix A, Photo 4). The ramp was covered with the fine-grained material that is assumed to be processed or partially processed ore. A sample of the ramp material (CC-22) was collected.

o Fine-grained processed ore has accumulated between the loading ramp and the mill tributary. A sample (CC-23) was collected from this area for comparison with other Site

waste rock. The soil profile (Appendix A, Photo 8) at this location revealed that the processed ore was only a few inches thick. • The mill tributary to Deep Creek flows over and through the mill remnants, crossing them from the northwest to the southeast side. The mill tributary discharges to Deep Creek about 600 feet east of the Site. Granite Lake • The Granite Lake Prospect adit, now collapsed and inaccessible, sits on the southwestern edge of Granite Lake. An associated waste rock pile extends from the collapsed adit into the lake. The waste pile is partially covered with trees and the remains of a campfire.

o The volume of rock associated with the Granite Lake Prospect waste rock pile is estimated (using prismoidal formula) to be 33 bcy. The waste rock pile is poorly sorted and composed of sand- to cobble-sized fragments.

o Mining-related disturbance is limited to the adit and waste rock pile.

o During the July 2009 Site visit, no seepage or acid mine drainage (AMD) was observed at the adit. There was also no evidence of staining, indicating that discharge does not occur at other times of the year.

2.4 Site Descriptions The Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect are situated approximately 2 miles apart, on the same ridge. Due to the proximity of the two features, general descriptions of climate, ecology and habitat are similar. This section describes both Sites together.

2.4.1 Topography and Climate The Miners Ridge area is located along the eastern margin of the Cascade Range, about 20 miles east of Mount Rainier, in southwestern Washington. The area is characterized by rugged and steep mountains and ridges, and deep, glaciated canyons. Miners Ridge is oriented north-south, and Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect are located on the eastern side of the ridge.

• Copper City Mill is situated near the base of Miners Ridge, on a gently eastward sloping section of cleared forest. The town site has several old home sites that remain recognizable, though no buildings are currently standing. The mill foundation is at an approximate elevation of 4,120 feet amsl. • Granite Lake is a cirque lake situated near the northeast edge of Miners Ridge, at an elevation of 5,040 feet amsl. The lake has a steep, forested slope along the north and west edges. The southeast edge slopes gently into a drainage, which flows north toward Bumping Lake. • The climate of the area is temperate, characterized by warm to hot summers and cold winters. Winter precipitation falls predominantly as snow. • A summary of the climate indicators is provided below. Climate data are available between 1926 and 2008 from the Western Regional Climate Center’s Desert Research Institute (WRCC DRI, 2009) for Ohanapecosh, Washington. Ohanapecosh is located about 10 miles west of Copper City Mill, at an elevation of 1,950 feet amsl.

o Since this weather station is 2,100 to 3,100 feet lower in elevation than the Sites, its average temperatures are likely to be higher and its snowfall lower than actual conditions at the Sites.

o The mean annual precipitation is 74.08 inches.

o The maximum average monthly temperature of 76.2° Fahrenheit (F) occurs in July and August.

o The minimum average monthly temperature of 25.8°F occurs in January.

o The average maximum snowfall is 47.7 inches, which occurs in January.

2.4.2 Ecological Setting The United States has been classified into ecoregions at four different levels. This classification system goes from broadest to narrowest definitions, corresponding to Levels I to IV, respectively.

• Both Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect are located within the Cascade Mixed Forest- Coniferous Forest-Alpine Meadow Province (Level II) of the Humid Temperate Domain (Level I) (Bailey, 1995). • Within this province, ecoregions have been further subdivided so that the subjects lie in the Western Cascades Montane Highlands (Level IV) of the Cascades (Level III) (Pater et al., 2001)

o This Level IV ecoregion is composed of glaciated mountains cut by high-velocity streams, and characterized by deep annual snow pack.

o Forests mainly consist of Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and noble fir (Abies procera). Copper City Mill Copper City Mill is located in an open meadow surrounded by forests of mountain hemlock, silver fir, and Alaskan yellow cedar (Cupressus nootkatensis). The meadow measures approximately 1 acre, and is composed primarily of native grasses. Willow (Salix spp.) and coniferous saplings occupy the interface between the meadow and forest habitats. • A small, shallow, tributary (mill tributary) crosses the south side of the Site and measures approximately 2 to 4 inches in depth. At the time of sampling, the wetted channel occupied less than ¼ of the stream channel. • The mill tributary is characterized by gravel-dominated substrate and patches of horsetail (Equisitum arvense). Within the Copper City Mill Site, in-stream wood loading is primarily residual wood from old structures. • The mill tributary flows east through a wet meadow, where it connects with another unnamed tributary to the south, crosses Forest Service Road 1808 via a culvert, and drains to Deep Creek. The mill tributary’s confluence with Deep Creek is approximately 950 feet downstream of the mill Site. As the mill tributary travels through the forest toward Deep Creek, the channel becomes more incised and natural wood loading from the surrounding forest increases. Deep Creek is a perennial stream that drains to Bumping Lake approximately 7 miles north of the Site. • The creek is characterized by narrow meanders, braiding, high wood loading (log jams), and a gravelly substrate. Under present conditions the streambanks appear stable due to being heavily vegetated. Patches of bedrock (especially near upriver sample Sites) and small pools are present in the channel. • The creek shows evidence of recent torrent flows. On November 6 and 7, 2006, the Mt. Rainier National Park received almost 18 inches of rainfall in 36 hours. Rivers and streams in the region overwhelmed their channels, as water levels exceeded anything recorded in the park’s 108-year history.

o Substrates in Deep Creek are largely devoid of organic fines and small-particle sized constituents, being comprised largely of cobbles and large gravels. Extensive cobble fields have been deposited in lower gradient sections of the stream and do not show evidence of being redistributed to higher gradient areas.

o Areas of the streambank shows extensive evidence of mass wasting associated with highly erosional flows, including channel migration into new configurations and the recruitment of new large wood sources. • The creek is devoid of aquatic vegetation, and organic material is limited. Most habitat is favorable to epifaunal colonization and provides areas suitable for fish cover. • Upland vegetation consists of mountain hemlock and silver fir growing to the waters edge. Understory species are dominated by forbs, primarily vanilla leaf (Achlys triphylla) • Amphibian species observed included tailed frog (Ascaphus trueii) and Cascade frog (Rana cascada). • Fish species observed were limited to sculpin (Cottus sp.). Granite Lake Prospect Granite Lake is a 7.5 acre, high-elevation cirque lake. • The north and west portions of the lake are bordered by steep slopes with dense mountain hemlock and silver fir forest patches and talus. Alaskan yellow cedar (Cupressus nootkatensis) is common on the north side of the lake. • The south and east sides of the lake are characterized by a flat bench dominated by mountain hemlock. Primary understory species include mountain heath (Phyllodoce empetriformis) and white rhododendron (Rhododendron albiflorum). • Cascade frogs, western toads (Bufo boreas), and rough skin newts (Taricha granulosa) were observed in the littoral zone (the area extending from the high water mark to permanently submerged shoreline areas) surrounding the deposition site. • Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and/or dolly varden (Salvelinus malma miyabei) were observed swimming in deeper water. The waste rock pile measures approximately 30 feet across at the land/water interface. • The waste rock pile area is characterized by sand/gravel dominated riparian habitat with moderate amounts of wood loading. • Vegetation is sparse; limited to bryophytes, liverworts, and isolated patches of sedges (Carex spp.) and false hellebore (Veratrum viride). • The littoral zone is devoid of aquatic vegetation.

o An approximately 5-foot wide bench is formed from deposition material (waste rock), after which the slope steepens precipitously into deeper water.

o The substrate in the littoral zone is dominated by gravel with an evident layer of inorganic fines deposited over most areas.

o Wood loading in the littoral zone is limited to two branches. Riparian and littoral habitat located adjacent to the waste rock pile differ considerably from that present at the waste rock pile. • To the northwest, a small cove measuring approximately 70 feet is present. • The riparian zone in this area is restricted in width by steep slopes that border the lake. The narrow riparian zone is characterized by contiguous bryophytes and sedges (Carex spp.). • The littoral zone is described as a shallow cove with heavy wood loading in the form of large logs (>10 inches diameter at breast height) and branches. Substrate is dominated by organic material and sand, with no aquatic vegetation present.

• The littoral zone of the shoreline extending over 100 yards to the south is extremely narrow, measuring on average 2 feet wide. The substrate is dominated by sand and aquatic vegetation is absent. A discrete riparian zone is not apparent in this area, and upland habitats dominated by mountain hemlock, silver fir, and serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) rise steeply from the water’s edge. A spring is located in the riparian zone approximately 65 feet south of the waste rock pile. The Granite Lake outflow is characterized by an approximately 70-foot littoral zone that is heavily loaded with logs and branches. • Substrates are dominated by sand and organics. • Vegetation is primarily composed of sedges. • The riparian zone is also characterized by high wood loading, with vegetation dominated by dense willow (Salix sitchensis), alder (Alnus sitchensis), and sedges.

2.4.3 Sensitive Environments Sensitive environments (as defined in WAC 173-340-200) include: • wetlands • critical habitat for endangered or threatened species • national or state wildlife refuge • critical habitat, breeding, or feeding area for fish or shellfish • wild or scenic river • rookery • riparian area • big game winter range Copper City Mill may be characterized as a sensitive environment due to wetlands and riparian habitat associated with the mill tributary on-Site. • National Wetland Inventory wetlands are located approximately 0.5 miles upgradient and 0.5 miles downgradient of the Site on Deep Creek (Figure 5).

o Upstream along Deep Creek is a palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded (PEMC) wetland and a palustrine, emergent, semipermanentaly flooded (PEMF) wetland.

o Downstream along Deep Creek are palustrine, forested, temporarily flooded (PFOA) wetlands; PEMC wetlands; and palustrine, emergent, intermittently exposed (PEMG) wetlands. • URS submitted a request to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for a search of any known occurrences of special status species and priority habitat, but received no reply as of the time of this report. • URS used the Deep Creek Flood Repair Environmental Analysis (Forest Service, 2008) to obtain preliminary information on threatened and endangered (T&E) and special status species. URS also obtained a list of T&E and special status species from the Forest Service’s Region 6 website (Forest Service, 2010). • Deep Creek, upper Bumping River, and Bumping Lake are designated as Essential Fish Habitat for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Coho salmon (Oncorhychus kisutch). This habitat is not currently occupied due to complete barrier (dam) to upstream migration at Bumping Lake.

• Bull trout have been recorded spawning in Deep Creek from mile 5.2 (waterfall) to Bumping Lake. Deep Creek is not considered to be critical habitat for bull trout. Granite Lake Prospect may be characterized as a sensitive environment due to its riparian habitat and critical habitat. • National Wetland Inventory wetlands include Granite Lake itself, as a palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded (PUBH) wetland (Figure 6). • URS requested a search by the WDFW of any known occurrences of special status species and priority habitat, but received no reply. • Granite Creek is a perennial fish bearing stream from its mouth to Granite Lake. Bull trout are known to occur throughout the length of this creek.

2.4.4 Threatened, Endangered and Special Status Species The Deep Creek Road Flood Environmental Assessment examined impacts to threatened, endangered, and special status species in the vicinity of the Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect Sites. The assessment identified the following T&E species: • One federally endangered species where potential habitat is present: gray wolf (Canus lupis). Currently wolves have been documented in north-central and northeast Washington. Although they may be present in the Site vicinity, there have been no verified dens or rendezvous sites on the Naches Ranger District. This species is now delisted. • Three federally threatened species: grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus).

o No confirmed or unconfirmed sightings of grizzly bear have occurred in the project area. The Site area is not within the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone.

o Lynx have not been documented in the project vicinity, but could be present.

o The bull trout is known to inhabit Bumping Lake, Deep Creek up to mile 5.4, and Granite Creek. • Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) within the Bumping critical habitat unit (CHU) (WA-15). In addition to these species, the Forest Service Region 6 T&E list (Forest Service, 2010) identified the following T&E species as present within the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. • Two fish species: the federally threatened or endangered (depending on the reach) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and the federally endangered Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). These two fish are unlikely to be affected by site contaminants due to the fish passage barrier at Bumping Lake dam, more than 7 miles downstream of the mill tributary’s confluence with Deep Creek. • Four vascular plants: the federally endangered showy stickseed (Hackelia venusta) and Wenatchee Mountains checker-mallow (Sidalcea oregana var. calva), and the federally threatened water howellia (Howellia aquatilis) and Ute ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). o The showy stickseed is documented within the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and is the rarest in Washington. It is found only at a single 2.5-acre site within 330 feet of a major state highway in Chelan County. o The Wenatchee Mountains checker-mallow is documented within the Okanogan- Wenatchee National Forest. It is found only on approximately 125 acres of habitat in Chelan County. o The water howellia is suspected to be present within the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, and is documented within Spokane, Clark, and Pierce counties. This plant is

generally found in small pothole pond or orphaned river oxbows that are bordered by broadleaf trees at elevations below 4,420 feet. These habitats are not present at the Sites. o Ute ladies’ tresses is suspected to be present within the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. This plant inhabits silty loam alluvial soils associated with wetlands or floodplains of perennial streams in intermontane valleys. Silty loam soils and floodplain landscapes are not present at the Sites. With over 4 million acres, the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest spans Washington State from the Canadian border to the north, south to Yakima, Washington. Although these T&E species were identified as within the forest, they are very unlikely to be affected by the Sites given their distributions.

2.4.5 Population and Land Use Located within the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, the Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Sites are surrounded by forest lands. • Vehicle access to both Sites is restricted by gates placed in response to the November 2006 flood damage to National Forest roads. The distance by road from the nearest gate to Granite Lake is 4.5 miles. Following road repair and gate removal, both Sites may be accessible by vehicle. • The roads are used to access the adjacent William O. Douglas Wilderness, which is bordered to the west by Mt. Rainier National Park. • Human land use of both Sites is consistent with National Forest recreational uses and may include camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, skiing, wood cutting, mountain biking, and horseback riding. • The nearest seasonal residences observed during the SI were along the north side of Bumping Lake, approximately 3 to 5 miles north of the two Sites. • The nearest potentially permanent residences observed during the SI were at Goose Prairie, approximately 6 to 8 miles north of the two Sites. • Fishing of lakes and streams is allowed within Wenatchee National Forest, and it is reasonable to believe humans may occasionally fish in the lower reaches of Deep Creek or in Granite Lake. • Indications of human uses on or near the Sites included:

o Horseback riders observed near Copper City Mill.

o Horse trailers, camper vehicles, and a trail maintenance crew parked along Forest Road 1800, approximately 4 miles north of Copper City Mill.

o Established, undeveloped campsites at Granite Lake and near Copper City with intact fire circles.

o Dispersed campsites and fire circles observed at the old Copper City town clearing.

3.0 PATHWAY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT

This section describes plausible chemical migration pathways, exposure routes, potentially exposed receptor populations, and analytical data. • Conceptual Site Models (CSMs) illustrating the complete and incomplete pathways, and their significance for each receptor, are provided in Figure 7 (Copper City Mill) and Figure 8 (Granite Lake Prospect). • Sample locations are illustrated on Figure 9 (Copper City Mill) and Figure 10 (Granite Lake Prospect). • Concentrations of COIs in each media were screened against background concentrations and applicable screening criteria.

th o Background concentrations were considered to be the 90 percentile UCL concentration if more than five samples were available (e.g., soil at Copper City Mill), or the maximum background concentration where fewer than five samples were available (e.g., surface water, sediment, soil, and speciation analysis at Granite Lake Prospect). • COIs that exceeded both background concentrations and screening criteria protective of human became COPCs. • COIs that exceeded both background concentrations and screening criteria protective of ecological receptors became Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern (CPECs). • Screening COIs against background concentrations and generic criteria is further addressed in the Streamlined Risk Assessment, provided in Appendix C. • Section 4.0 discusses the COPCs and CPECs identified in this section and addresses the magnitude of risk due to each chemical.

3.1 Groundwater Exposure Pathway Although groundwater was not sampled at either Site, its completeness as an exposure pathway was considered. Due to the limitations of this pathway, the completeness of the groundwater pathway for both Sites are discussed together below.

3.1.1 Targets • According to the Washington Department of Ecology's (Ecology’s) Water Resources Program Well Log records, there is one water well located within the target distance of 4 miles of Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect. This well is identified on Figure 11.

o The well is a Forest Service well located at the Fish Lake Way Trailhead campsite. This campsite is located more than 2 miles north of Granite Lake, on the northwest edge of Miners Ridge at an elevation of 3,870 feet amsl. Campsite amenities include non-potable water, a toilet, and horse facilities.

o Based on the well’s location and elevation, and the likely groundwater flow direction at the Sites (see Section 3.1.3 below), this well is not downgradient of the Sites and is unlikely to be affected by Site-related contaminants. • Due to the distance between the well and the Sites and since the water is designated as non- potable, human receptors are not likely to be exposed to Site-related COPCs in groundwater through ingestion or dermal exposure. • Groundwater is considered to be an insignificant exposure media for ecological receptors since it does not daylight in concentrated form, such as a spring. To the degree that some amount of precipitation infiltrates waste rock piles, commingles with regional groundwater, and discharges to surface water, aquatic life in surface water may be affected. This contribution is expected to be insignificant.

3.1.2 Geologic Setting The Sites are located along Miners Ridge within the Cascade Mountains. The geologic setting includes the following elements: • The Cascade region of Washington is dominated by volcanic rocks overlying metamorphic, intrusive, and sedimentary rocks. These volcanic rocks include lavas and pyroclastic material of different ages and from different sources. • Miners Ridge is located east of the main axis of Quaternary volcanisms within the Cascades.

• The geology of Miners Ridge consists of quartz monzonite and granodiorite bedrock. Mineralization occurs in these rocks where they are cut by younger rhyodacite dikes (Forest Service, 2005). • Quaternary glaciation has produced the steep and rugged terrain characteristic of the Miners Ridge area. • Post-glacial surface processes in the vicinity of the Sites are generally limited to colluvial processes on hill slopes (formation and downslope mass wasting/transport of talus and colluvium), and alluvial processes along creeks and rivers (stream aggradation or incision, deposition of alluvium, etc.). • The Copper City Mill Site lies near the bottom of the east slope of Miners Ridge. The Site area is underlain by unconsolidated colluvium. To the east of the Site, the valley bottom of Deep Creek is underlain by unconsolidated Quaternary alluvium (Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources [WDGER], 1987). The granitic bedrock that underlies the Site is exposed in the channel of Deep Creek. • Granite Lake Prospect lies in the bottom of a glacial cirque near the northeast end of Miners Ridge, and about 1,000 feet below the ridge crest. The Site area is underlain by quartz monzonite and granodiorite bedrock, however the majority of the hill slopes above Granite Lake are mantled with colluvium and talus. The adit and waste rock pile are located along the shore of Granite Lake.

3.1.3 Hydrogeology Groundwater was not investigated as part of this SI, and therefore specific details regarding the occurrence, depth, or direction of flow of groundwater are not known. Based on the geologic setting, however, the hydrogeology in the vicinity is anticipated to consist of a shallow, perched aquifer within unconsolidated colluvial/alluvial deposits, and a deeper bedrock aquifer. Elements of both aquifers are described below. Unconsolidated Aquifer • Precipitation that falls on the ridge and does not run off as surface water infiltrates into the unconsolidated colluvial hill slope or alluvial valley bottom soils. • The bedrock underlying the soils likely inhibits infiltration resulting in the development of a shallow, perched aquifer within the soils. • The perched groundwater flows downslope within the soils and discharges as base flow to Deep Creek or its higher-elevation tributaries and hill slope drainages. • Precipitation that infiltrates through the waste rock at both Sites would be expected to commingle with perched groundwater and then flow to the nearest downslope surface water feature. • Evidence for the unconsolidated aquifer at the Copper City Mill Site includes the following:

o The Site is underlain by unconsolidated colluvial soils.

o Downslope of the Site, National Forest Road 1808 is excavated into colluvium. Seeps were observed in the colluvium exposed in the road cuts.

o Wetlands on-Site and above the road cut are likely manifestations and discharge points for groundwater in the unconsolidated aquifer. • Evidence for the unconsolidated aquifer at the Granite Lake Prospect includes the following:

o Hill slopes above the lake are underlain by unconsolidated colluvial deposits.

o A spring is located in the riparian zone of the lake approximately 65 feet south of the waste rock pile.

o Granite Lake is likely the base level for perched groundwater in unconsolidated deposits immediately upslope of the lake. Bedrock Aquifer • Some precipitation that infiltrates into the unconsolidated deposits or that falls directly on bedrock may infiltrate into the bedrock to recharge a deeper and more regionally extensive bedrock aquifer. • The direction of groundwater flow within this regional aquifer would be expected to follow the topography, from higher elevation recharge areas to lower elevation areas, although bedrock structures and discontinuities may also locally affect the direction of groundwater flow. • The bedrock aquifer likely discharges as base flow to surface water bodies, such as Deep Creek, and other tributaries where bedrock is exposed in the channel. • At the Copper City Mill, a component of the perched groundwater may have the potential to enter underlying bedrock. If so, the groundwater would be expected to flow toward, and discharge to Deep Creek, on a course parallel to that for the perched aquifer. • As a result of its proximity to Granite Lake, the majority of the perched groundwater at or near the Granite Lake Prospect likely discharges to Granite Lake.

3.1.4 Groundwater Pathway Summary • Human exposure to groundwater now or in the foreseeable future is unlikely at both Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect. • Groundwater is considered to be an insignificant exposure media for ecological receptors at both Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect since it does not daylight in a concentrated form, such as a spring at either Site. To the degree that some amount of precipitation infiltrates waste rock piles, commingles with groundwater, and discharges to surface water features, aquatic life in surface water may be affected. This contribution is expected to be insignificant.

3.2 Surface Water Exposure Pathway • The mill tributary flows through the Copper City Mill Site before joining another unnamed tributary approximately 300 feet downslope from the mill foundation. From there, this tributary drains to Deep Creek, approximately 600 feet downslope of the Site. • Granite Lake Prospect is located on 7.5-acre Granite Lake. This lake is approximately 3 to 10 feet deep. • Both Sites are drained by tributaries that flow into Bumping Lake. Granite Lake is approximately 3 river miles upstream from Bumping Lake, and Copper City Mill is approximately 7 river miles upstream. • There are no surface water rights or new applications for rights between either of the Sites and Bumping Lake (Figure 12). All surface water rights within 15 river miles exist downstream from the confluence of the tributaries and the lake, and therefore both Sites share the same potential targets. • There are several unnamed tributaries to Deep Creek that flow east off the slopes of Miners Ridge. These tributaries often combine to form larger tributaries further downhill. The mill tributary running through the Copper City Mill Site does this, joining another unnamed tributary to the south before flowing east and merging with Deep Creek.

3.2.1 Targets Surface water rights exist on the northern side of Bumping Lake and further downstream. Figure 12 shows the locations of water rights downstream, and all sections searched. Human exposure to surface

13 water downstream is likely, although COPCs are expected to be minimal, making surface water an insignificant or unquantifiable pathway.

o Surface water rights were identified within 15 miles downstream of Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect. The Ecology Central Regional Office in Yakima conducted a search for surface water rights in the following areas: Sections 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 20, 21, and 29 of Township 15 North, Range 12 East. Sections 12, 13, 14, 22, 23, 27, 28, 33, and 34 of Township 16 North, Range 12 East. Sections 32, 33, and 34 of Township 17 North, Range 13 East. Sections PB41, PB42, and PB43 of Township 16 North, Range 13 East.

o This search identified 11 surface water right applications or amendments in the sections specified. Five surface water rights are located on Webb Spring, which could not be located. Based on the township, range and section, however, this spring is a tributary to Bumping River and is not hydrologically downstream of either Site. Three surface water rights are located on an unnamed stream in the same township, range and section as Webb Spring. Based on the location and geography, this stream is a tributary to Bumping River and is not hydrologically downstream of either Site. One surface water right is located on an unnamed stream northeast of Bumping Lake. Based on the location and geography, this stream is a tributary to Bumping River and is not hydrologically downstream of either Site. Two surface water rights are located on an unnamed stream on the north side of Bumping Lake. Based on the geography, this stream is a tributary to Bumping Lake and is not hydrologically downstream of either Site.

o The downstream surface water rights fall under a variety of uses, including single family residential use, multiple family residential use, and hydropower. Copper City Mill • Human exposure to surface water at Copper City Mill is limited on the Site to ingestion while camping. • Human exposure may also occur at Deep Creek via wading. Due to the type and size of fish available upstream of the waterfall at river mile 5.2, fishing is likely to occur only downstream of the barrier, approximately 1.6 miles below the confluence of the mill tributary with Deep Creek. • Ecological receptors are directly exposed to Copper City Mill surface water through ingestion, dermal contact, and food web exposure. All of these are complete pathways. Granite Lake Prospect • Human exposure to Granite Lake Prospect surface water reflects recreational uses such as swimming, fishing, and ingestion while camping.

o Swimming would expose recreational users to surface water through incidental ingestion of water and dermal contact.

o Ingestion of surface water may occur while people are camping near the lake, but there are no permanent drinking water intakes from the surface water along the lake.

o Surface water rights do exist further downstream, but human exposure to surface water due to downstream surface water rights is expected to be a minor, insignificant or unquantifiable pathway. • Ecological receptors are directly exposed to Granite Lake surface water through ingestion, dermal contact, and food web exposure. All of these are complete pathways.

3.2.2 Aquatic Invertebrate Survey Results Populations of aquatic macroinvertebrates in the benthic assemblage respond to a wide array of stressors in different ways so that it is often possible to determine the type of stress that has affected a macroinvertebrate assemblage (e.g., Klemm et al., 1990). Because many macroinvertebrates have relatively long life cycles of a year or more and are relatively immobile, the structure and function of the macroinvertebrate assemblage is a response to exposure of present or past conditions. Three levels of spatial comparisons were employed to evaluate potential contaminants impacts to the benthic macroinvertebrate communities of Deep Creek and Granite Lake: 1. Compare metrics from a Site-specific control station on Deep Creek and in the littoral zone of Granite Lake to stations potentially impacted by mine waste and runoff. 2. Reference stream Sites with minimal human impact from upper glacial valleys in near-by national park and wilderness areas to determine if the benthic communities in upper Deep Creek differ substantially, possibly due to chronic exposure to heavy metals. 3. Place upper Deep Creek benthic communities in a broader context by looking at both the high- energy reference sites found in the upper glacial valleys of this region and lower energy sites located further down valley in these same reference basins. Appendix D of this document contains the complete analysis of the aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling conducted. Deep Creek Deep Creek is the receiving water for the unnamed tributary that drains through the Copper City Mill Site. Three sample stations were collected in Deep Creek, in accordance with the USEPA’s Wadeable Streams Assessment methods (USEPA, 2004). Stations include: • Immediately downstream from the confluence of the mill tributary and Deep Creek. • Approximately 0.25-mile downstream from the confluence of the mill tributary and Deep Creek. • Approximately 500-feet upstream of the confluence of the mill tributary and Deep Creek. This station was defined as the background or control station for assessing affects that the Site may be having on Deep Creek macroinvertebrate communities. The results from the 2009 sampling indicate the following: • Natural forces in this high-energy system overwhelm any impacts discernable by potential chronic exposure to heavy metals or other water quality contaminants that might be occurring downstream of the Site. • Macroinvertebrate taxa and species that have been documented to be the most sensitive to heavy metals super-dominate the community at all three stations, providing evidence that metals toxicity is not resulting in affects to taxa structure. • The benthic communities at Deep Creek and the upper glacial valley reference Sites have a high degree of taxa similarity (Appendix D, Taxa List and Reference Sites), have similar taxa richness and abundance, are dominated by mayflies, and have a high proportion of cold water biota present. Benthic Index of Biological Integrity (B-IBI) scores are similar. • Benthic communities in unstable, high-energy stream systems in upper glacial valleys of the Cascades typically display high structural variation both in space (between Sites) and in time

(year-to-year) as they respond to substrate resorting and scouring events. Upper Deep Creek appears not to be significantly different from reference Sites found in nearby upper glacial valleys. • The macroinvertebrate community that has formed in upper Deep Creek is responding to cold water temperatures, low nutrients, and substrates subject to annual scouring and resorting events. The control station appears to be an even more stressful habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates than the downstream stations, probably because substrates are less stable and scouring is more severe, as indicated by the sub-dominance by bedrock. Granite Lake Prospect Two sample stations were collected in Granite Lake, also in accordance with the USEPA’s Wadeable Streams Assessment methods (USEPA, 2004). Stations include: • At the lake outlet, defined as the control location. • At the waste rock pile Spatial comparisons for the Granite Lake Prospect Site are limited at this time to a single Site-specific control Site located on the opposite shore of the lake, at the lake outlet. • Though macroinvertebrate samples from potential reference lakes in the Mt. Rainier and North Cascades National Parks have been collected and processed in recent years, this data has not progressed to the stage to allow comparisons with Granite Lake (Wisseman, 2009). • Whether the macroinvertebrate fauna found in Granite Lake is typical for lakes in the area can be subjectively commented on, since Aquatic Biology Associates has been the contractor identifying the macroinvertebrates from the Mt. Rainier and North Cascades National Parks. • The USEPA is currently conducting a National Lakes Assessment that includes an evaluation of littoral macroinvertebrate communities.

o The State of Washington has been an active participant in this program, however data synthesis and possible development of indices of biological integrity are several years away (Wisseman, 2009). The results from the 2009 sampling indicate the following: • Direct evaluation of potential impacts from any heavy metal contamination that might be present in the mine wastes in the lake littoral is not possible with the current control Site, because of differences in substrate type (soft versus hard bottom). However, the simple presence of a more diverse community on the mine wastes versus the control, along with this community containing a high proportion and diverse array of metals intolerant taxa suggests that the old mine wastes on the shore of the lake are having little impact on the lake biota. • From extensive experience by Aquatic Biology Associates with the macroinvertebrate fauna of lakes in Mt.Rainier and North Cascades National Parks, the taxa encountered at Granite Lake were found to be similar to other Cascades lakes.

3.2.3 Hydrologic Setting • Copper City Mill is located at the base of the steep, east slope of Miners Ridge. To the east of the Site the ground slopes more gently toward Deep Creek. • In the vicinity of Copper City Mill, the east slope of Miners Ridge is drained by many small and generally parallel tributaries of Deep Creek. • The mill tributary at Copper City Mill combines with another unnamed tributary east of the Site before discharging to Deep Creek.

• The waste rock pile at Granite Lake Prospect lies adjacent to and within the lake. Direct precipitation on the waste rock pile could also result in surface runoff and erosion of the waste rock material into the lake.

3.2.4 Analytical Results for Surface Water This section presents the surface water analytical results. Copper City Mill Seven surface water samples were collected at Copper City Mill as shown on Figure 9: • Two surface water samples were collected from upstream locations expected to be unaffected by the Site. Sample location CC-28 is from the mill tributary upstream of the mill. Sample location CC-04 is from Deep Creek about 20 feet upstream of the confluence of the mill tributary and Deep Creek. These two upstream locations comprise the background locations for the purpose of screening analytical data. • Two surface water samples were collected from the mill Site. CC-27 was collected from a seep in the middle of the mill that discharges to the mill tributary. CC-29 was collected from standing surface water in a wet meadow downslope of the mill. URS excavated several shallow test pits at this location. The test pits filled with groundwater indicating the wet meadow is a point groundwater discharge from the unconsolidated aquifer. Soils in the test pit appeared representative of native soil observed elsewhere in the Site vicinity. Obvious mine wastes were not observed in the test pits. • Three surface water samples were collected from locations downstream of the Site. CC-26 was collected from the mill tributary downstream of the Site, CC-03 was collected from Deep Creek about 50 feet downstream of the confluence with the mill tributary, and CC-02 was collected from Deep Creek about 0.25 miles downstream of the mill tributary confluence. Surface water analytical results and parameters for Copper City Mill are presented on Tables 1A and 1B. Two of these samples were selected to undergo arsenic (As+3 and As+5) and chromium (Cr+6) speciation analysis. Speciation results are shown on Table 2. The laboratory analytical report and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) discussion is provided in Appendix E. The samples were collected in accordance with the WPSAP for this project (URS, 2009). • The field pH was measured with a YSI multi-parameter meter. The average field pH of all surface water samples was 6.5. With the exception of the pH of 4.93 at the mill seep (CC-27), all other pH readings ranged from 6.32 to 7.33.

• The hardness value of surface water was calculated as 30.8 mg CaCO3/L. See note e on Table 1A for a description of how hardness was calculated. • Of the 14 COIs analyzed in surface water, 11 COIs were present at detectable concentrations. Cadmium, selenium, and silver were not detected. • Site surface water maximum detected concentrations (MDCs) or method detection limits (MDLs) (for non-detected chemicals) were compared to the background MDC and screening criteria protective of human health.

o Arsenic and manganese in surface water exceeded both the background MDC and a screening criterion protective of human health (i.e., Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Level B Cleanup value for groundwater).

o Manganese only exceeded screening criteria protective of aesthetic effects (e.g., odor, taste), and not toxic effects. For this reason, manganese was not identified as a COPC.

o Arsenic in surface water exceeded both the background MDC and a screening criterion protective of human health and is considered a COPC.

• Site surface water MDCs (or MDLs for non-detected chemicals) were compared to the maximum detected background concentration and screening criteria protective of ecological receptors.

o Barium, copper, lead, manganese, and nickel were detected in surface water at concentrations that exceeded both background MDC and a screening criterion protective of ecological receptors. These metals are considered CPECs. Granite Lake Prospect The three Granite Lake Prospect surface water samples were collected from Granite Lake: near the waste rock pile (GL-01), the lake outlet (GL-06), and the largest inlet to the lake (GL-07). The inlet sample comprised the background location for the purpose of screening analytical data. Surface water analytical results for Granite Lake Prospect are presented on Tables 3A and 3B. Two of these samples were also selected to undergo arsenic (As+3 and As+5) and chromium (Cr+3 and Cr+6) speciation analysis, with speciation results shown on Table 2. The laboratory analytical report and QA/QC discussion is provided in Appendix E. The samples were collected in accordance with the WPSAP for this project (URS, 2009). • Due to a malfunction of the YSI multi-parameter meter, pH was measured only in Granite Lake at the waste rock pile, at a reading of 7.43.

• The hardness value of surface water was calculated as 6.10 mg CaCO3/L. See note f on Table 3A for a description of how hardness was calculated. • Of the 14 COIs analyzed in surface water, only four COIs, arsenic, barium, manganese, and mercury, were present at detectable concentrations. • Site surface water MDCs (or MDLs for non-detected chemicals) were compared to the background MDC and screening criteria protective of human health.

o Arsenic in surface water exceeded both the background MDC and a screening criterion protective of human health (i.e., MTCA Level B Cleanup value for groundwater), and is considered a COPC. • Site surface water MDCs (or MDLs for non-detected chemicals) were compared to the background MDC and screening criteria protective of ecological receptors.

o No detected COIs in surface water exceeded a screening criterion protective of ecological receptors.

o Cadmium and lead were not present in surface water at detectable concentrations, but their MDLs (0.065 μg/L and 0.22 μg/L, respectively) exceeded ecological screening criteria (NRWQC Freshwater Criterion Continuous Concentration of 0.035 μg/L for cadmium and ORNL PRG of 0.0032 μg/L for lead). Cadmium and lead were not detected in either the Site or background samples, so it is possible that the true Site concentrations of these chemicals are indistinguishable from background concentrations. Since the cadmium and lead MDLs exceed relevant screening criteria, however, it is also possible that they are present in surface water at concentrations below their MDLs but greater than their relevant screening criteria. Cadmium and lead were retained as a CPEC in surface water.

3.2.5 Surface Water Pathway Summary Human Health • At Copper City Mill recreational users may be exposed to surface water through ingestion while camping.

• At Granite Lake Prospect recreational users may be exposed to surface water through ingestion while camping, incidental ingestion while swimming, and dermal exposure. • Although there are surface water users downstream of Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect, the drinking water pathway for residents or occupational workers is considered to be insignificant due to the rapid decline of surface water concentrations downstream of the Sites, and the fact that the surface water users are far removed from the Site. • At both Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect COPCs in surface water are limited to arsenic. Ecological • Ecological receptors may be exposed to Site surface water through ingestion, dermal contact, and food web exposure. • At Copper City Mill, CPECs in surface water include barium, copper, lead, manganese, and nickel. • At Granite Lake Prospect, CPECs in surface water are cadmium and lead.

3.2.6 Sediment Exposure Pathway At Copper City Mill, sediment was assessed within Deep Creek and the mill tributary. Deep Creek • Do to the high stream velocity, deposition of fine-grained sediment is generally limited to the slower stretches of the creek and along the shoreline. • Coarser stream rock and sediment accumulates on bedrock shelves within the stream (Appendix A, Photo 10), and lines the stream bed in more tranquil stretches (Appendix A, Photo 11). Mill Tributary • Sediment is poorly sorted and consists of angular gravel, with cobbles and coarse sand. • Sediment upgradient and downgradient of the mill Site is similar in composition. • Sediment collected from the seep at Copper City Mill consists mostly of angular, large cobbles and gravel. The sediment in the tributary at the mill Site is similar in size and appearance to the waste rock located throughout the mill remains. At Granite Lake Prospect, sediment deposition appears to be limited. • Sediment on the lake bottom consists primarily of finer grained, organic material (Appendix A, Photo 12). The sediment contains very little mineral material. • The waste rock sample (GL-01) collected from below the water line is compared to sediment screening values, as this is the closest resemblance of actual lake sediment.

3.2.6.1 Targets • Human receptors at Copper City Mill are unlikely to be exposed to sediment in the mill tributary due to its scarcity and limited use of the shallow waterway. For these reasons, human contact with sediment at Copper City Mill is an insignificant pathway. • Ecological receptors may be exposed to sediment at Copper City Mill through dermal exposure, incidental ingestion, and food web exposure. The freshwater ecosystem is considered to be exposed to Site sediments. • Human receptors may contact submerged waste rock at Granite Lake Prospect while recreating on the pile.

• Ecological receptors may be exposed to submerged waste rock at Granite Lake Prospect through dermal exposure, incidental ingestion, and food web exposure. The freshwater ecosystem is considered to be exposed to Site sediments.

3.2.6.2 Analytical Results for Sediment This section presents the sediment analytical results. Copper City Mill Six sediment samples were collected at Copper City Mill as shown on Figure 9: • Two sediment samples were collected from upstream locations expected to be unaffected by the Site. Sample location CC-28 is from the mill tributary upstream of the mill. Sample location CC-04 is from Deep Creek about 20 feet upstream of the confluence of the mill tributary and Deep Creek. These two upstream locations comprise the background locations for the purpose of screening analytical data. • One sediment sample, CC-27, was collected from the seep in the middle of the mill that discharges to the mill tributary. • Three sediment samples were collected from locations downstream of the Site. CC-26 was collected from the mill tributary downstream of the Site, CC-03 was collected from Deep Creek about 20 feet downstream of the confluence with the mill tributary, and CC-02 was collected from Deep Creek about 0.25 miles downstream of the mill tributary confluence. Copper City Mill sediment analytical results are presented on Table 4. Two Copper City Mill sediment samples were also selected to undergo arsenic (As+3 and As+5) and chromium (Cr+3 and Cr+6) speciation analysis. Speciation results are shown on Table 2. Grain size analysis results for all sediment samples are presented on Table 8. • All 14 COIs analyzed were detected in Site sediments • There are no criteria specifically protective of humans exposed to sediment. • Since there are no beaches for sunbathing or playing in sediment, human health exposure to sediment on-Site is considered to be very low. • Site sediment COI concentrations were not compared to screening criteria protective of human exposure to soil because so little sediment is available on-Site. Site waste rock samples were screened against criteria protective of humans exposed to soil (Table 6). • The small amount of sediment available in the mill tributary, however, could be media of interest to ecological receptors with very small habitats, such as invertebrates. For this reason, Site sediment concentrations were compared to screening criteria protective of ecological receptors.

o Arsenic, cadmium, copper, silver, and zinc in sediment exceeded screening criteria protective of ecological receptors and were identified as CPECs in sediment. Granite Lake Prospect Two waste rock samples were collected at Granite Lake Prospect as shown on Figure 10. • Sample GL-02 was collected from above the waterline. • Sample GL-01 was collected from below the waterline. For the purpose of assessing human and ecological receptor exposure to the waste rock, this sample is considered to be acting as sediment. • Appendix A, Photos 13 and 14 show the waste rock pile at Granite Lake. Photo 13 is of location GL-02, post sampling. The underwater sample was collected just offshore of where the URS biologist sits in Photo 14. The waste rock analytical data are summarized on Table 5. Both samples also underwent arsenic (As+3 and As+5) and chromium (Cr+3 and Cr+6) speciation analysis (Table 2).

• All 14 COIs analyzed were detected in sample GL-01. • Since there are no criteria specifically protective of humans exposed to sediment, and the Site samples have already been screened against criteria protective of humans exposed to soil, no additional screening was performed on these samples.

o The COPCs identified for soil (Section 3.3.4) are the same as those for sediment. COPCs in sediment are limited to arsenic. • Site sediment concentrations were also compared to screening criteria protective of ecological receptors exposed to sediment.

o Arsenic and silver in sediment exceeded screening criteria protective of ecological receptors and were identified as CPECs in sediment.

3.2.6.3 Sediment Pathway Summary Human Health • At Copper City Mill, human exposure to sediment is considered to be insignificant due to the small amount of sediment available within the mill tributary. This is considered to be an insignificant pathway so no COPCs were identified in sediment. • At Granite Lake Prospect, recreational users may be potentially exposed to Site sediment through dermal contact or ingestion of impacted sediment. COPCs are limited to arsenic in sediment. Ecological • Freshwater aquatic life may be exposed to Site sediments through dermal exposure, incidental ingestion and food web exposure. • At Copper City Mill, CPECs include arsenic, cadmium, copper, silver, and zinc in sediment. • At Granite Lake Prospect, CPECs include arsenic and silver in sediment.

3.3 Soil Exposure Pathway

3.3.1 Targets • Human receptors potentially exposed to Site soils include adult and child recreational users. These human receptors may potentially be exposed to Site soil through dermal contact or ingestion of impacted surface soil or dust. Although most Site soils are vegetated, the waste piles and trails are not vegetated and are used frequently by visitors. • There are no residences present within a target distance of 200 feet, and no known resident, student, worker, or subsistence gatherer populations located within a target distance of 1 mile of the Site. • Ecological receptors may be exposed to Site soil through dust inhalation, dermal exposure, incidental ingestion, and food web exposure. Ecological receptors at the Site are considered to be plants, soil biota, birds, and mammals.

3.3.2 Previous Investigations • The only documented soil investigation at the Site was the APA completed in 2005 by the Forest Service. • During the APA investigation, the Forest Service collected and analyzed four samples of waste rock from the Copper City Mill and two waste rock samples from Granite Lake Prospect using a Niton X-ray fluorescence (XRF) model XL-722S and laboratory analysis. • Arsenic, chromium, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc exceeded either MTCA cleanup goals (Ecology, 2008) or Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs; USEPA, 2002).

Based on these results, the Forest Service recommended that an SI be performed on the Site (Forest Service, 2005).

3.3.3 Analytical Results for Soil Copper City Mill Ten background soil and ten waste rock samples were collected at the Copper City Mill Site. The locations are shown on Figure 9. • Site soil sample locations were selected to characterize the metals concentrations in waste rock and other areas that appeared to be disturbed by milling activities, such as the loading ramp and town site.

o Ten samples (CC-15 through CC-25) were collected from waste rock and processed ore.

o The samples were distributed fairly evenly to cover the entire mill area. • To establish background concentrations of COIs in soil, background soil samples were collected from locations that appeared to be unaffected by the mill.

o Nine background samples (CC-06 through CC-14) were collected in a heavily vegetated area upslope of the mill. One sample (CC-05) was collected from the former town site.

o The soil profile was observed at each background location to verify that the soil profile appeared to consist of native soil material and not mill-related waste. • Waste rock, processed ore, and background soil samples were analyzed for 14 metals.

o Waste rock and processed ore sample analytical results are summarized on Table 6.

o Background soil sample results are summarized on Table 7. • A subset of these samples were also selected to undergo arsenic (As+3 and As+5) and chromium (Cr+3 and Cr+6) speciation analysis. Speciation results are shown on Table 2. • Other analytical results are presented on the following tables:

o Grain size analysis results for selected waste rock and background samples are presented on Table 8.

o ABA data for waste rock sample CC-20 are presented on Table 9.

o TCLP and SPLP data for sample CC-20 are summarized on Table 10 • The 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean (95 percent UCL) concentrations were calculated for the ten waste rock samples using ProUCL Version 4.00.04 (USEPA, 2009). These concentrations were used for the soil screening. Background Soil Results • All 14 metals analyzed were detected above MDLs in all ten background samples. • The 90th percentile for each analyte, assuming lognormal distribution, was calculated using all ten available background soil samples. This value was used to screen Site concentrations of COIs in soils during the identification of COPCs and CPECs. Site Soil Results • Site soil 95 percent UCL concentrations (or MDCs if the 95 percent UCL exceeded the MDC) were compared to screening criteria protective of human health.

o Arsenic, cadmium and cobalt had 95% UCL values of 7,729, 3.71 and 352 mg/kg respectively, which exceeded at least one generic screening criterion protective of human health and were identified as COPCs. • Site soil concentrations were compared to screening criteria protective of ecological receptors.

o Arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc exceeded at least one generic screening criterion protective of protective of ecological receptors and were identified as CPECs. Detections of these CPECs ranged in value from below the most conservative screening criterion (barium, cobalt, mercury and silver) to 3.5 orders of magnitude greater than the screening values (arsenic). Section 4.2.2 provides more detail on the magnitude of screening criteria exceedances. Granite Lake Prospect Three background soil and two waste rock samples were collected from the Granite Lake Prospect. The locations are shown on Figure 10. • Two samples were collected from the waste rock pile: one sample (GL-02) from above the water line and one sample (GL-01) from below the water line. • Three background surface soil samples (GL-03 through GL-05) were collected from background areas, located upslope from the adit. • Waste rock and background soil samples were analyzed for 14 metals.

o The waste rock sample analytical results are summarized on Table 5.

o Background sample results are summarized on Table 7. • Both waste rock samples were analyzed for arsenic (As+3 and As+5) speciation and chromium (Cr+3 and Cr+6) speciation. Speciation results are shown on Table 2. • Other analytical results are presented on the following tables:

o Grain size analysis results for the waste rock and background samples are presented on Table 8.

o ABA data for waste rock sample GL-02 are presented on Table 9. Background Soil Results • All 14 metals analyzed were detected above MDLs in all three background samples. • Since the three background samples comprise too small of a sample size to calculate a 90th percentile assuming lognormal distribution, the maximum detected background concentration was considered representative of Site background concentration. This value was used to screen Site concentrations of COIs in soils during the identification of COPCs and CPECs. Site Soil Results • Since only two waste rock samples were collected, the data set is too small to calculate the 95 percent UCL concentrations. The MDC for the waste rock samples were compared to background concentrations and screening criteria protective of human health.

o Arsenic exceeded at least one generic screening criterion protective of human health and was identified as a COPC. • Site soil MDCs were compared to screening criteria protective of ecological receptors.

o Arsenic, lead, manganese, mercury, and silver exceeded at least one generic screening criterion protective of ecological receptors and were identified as CPECs. Although Site selenium concentrations did not exceed screening criteria, selenium was also considered a CPEC due to its potential to bioaccumulate in the environment. Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect Waste Rock ABA Results Two waste rock samples (GL-02 at Granite Lake and CC-20 at Copper City Mill) were submitted for ABA analysis to determine the relative balance of the waste rock acid generating potential (AGP) (i.e.,

23 sulfide minerals) versus acid neutralization potential (ANP) (i.e., readily soluble carbonate and silicate minerals), expressed as the Modified Sobek Neutralization Potential Ratio (NPR). The NPR is calculated as ANP divided by AGP. For screening and evaluation purposes, the following criteria (modified from USEPA, 1994) were applied: • Materials with a sulfide-sulfur content of 0.3 weight percent or less is considered non-acid generating; and • The NPR values of:

o Less than 1 are potentially acid generating (PAG) unless the sulfide minerals are non- reactive;

o Between 1 and 2 are likely PAG if the ANP is non-reactive or the depletion rate is faster than the sulfide mineral oxidation rate;

o Between 2 and 4 are possibly PAG if sulfide minerals are preferentially exposed and/or extremely reactive; and

o Greater than 4 are not PAG. The results are presented on Table 9, and a summary of key findings are as follows: • The whole rock NPR value for GL-02 was at least 16.0 (AGP was not detected above 0.1 kgCaCO3/tonne), indicating that the modified Sobek bulk ANP is higher than the modified Sobek AGP. Therefore based on these ABA results, this sample material is considered to be non-acid generating. • Whole rock NPR values for CC-20 was 1.6 indicating that the sample material is likely PAG. • Applying screening criteria of 0.3 weight percent sulfide-sulfur, only waste rock sample CC-20 had a sulfide-sulfur content greater at 0.43 weight percent. The associated AGP for this sample was 13 kg CaCO3/tonne. • The total inorganic carbon (TIC) content of sample CC-20 was 0.2 J weight percent, corresponding to a calculated carbonate-ANP of 17 kg CaCO3/tonne. The equivalent modified Sobek ANP for this sample 22 kg CaCO3/tonne. The slightly higher modified Sobek ANP values indicate that neutralization was available from other mineral sources in addition to carbonate minerals.

• The net neutralization potential (NNP) for CC-20 was 8.6 kg CaCO3/tonne, which does not clearly indicate whether the sample material could be acid producing or acid neutralizing under field conditions. • The sulfate-sulfur content of 0.08 weight percent in sample CC-20 indicates that some sulfide oxidation has occurred in the past. To further test the validity of these results, sample material from CC-20 was sorted through a No. 10 (2 mm) screen, and the fine fraction analyzed for the same ABA parameters as the crushed whole rock results described above. The testing on the fine sample was completed to determine if the crushed whole rock sample biased the results by exposing fresh surface area for oxidation or weathering and to assess what component of the AGP and ANP was contained within the minus 2 mm fraction. These results are presented on Table 9 and are also summarized below: • Approximately two-thirds (0.29 weight percent versus 0.43 weight percent) of the sulfide-sulfur is contained in the minus 2 mm fraction. • The modified Sobek ANP was approximately one-third higher in the fine fraction than the whole rock (31 kg CaCO3/tonne versus 22 kg CaCO3/tonne). • The NNP of the fine fraction of CC-20 was 21.9 kg CaCO3/tonne, which indicates the sample is possibly not PAG (USEPA, 1994).

• The NPR of the fine fraction of CC-20 was 3.4, which is significantly higher than the 1.6 value from the whole rock fraction. The fine fraction may still be considered PAG (USEPA, 1994). The metal leaching potential of waste rock sample CC-20 was assessed using the USEPA Method 1311 (TCLP) and USEPA Method 1312 (SPLP). These tests were designed to assess leachate from an unlined landfill containing municipal solid waste. The acetic acid solution in Method 1311 and the sulfuric/nitric acid solution in Method 1312 are designed to simulate the result of rainwater infiltrating the landfill, reacting with the municipal solid waste, and then leaching through the waste being tested. These test methods are not necessarily recommended for determination of readily soluble constituents from mine wastes and are typically more aggressive than leaching methods that use distilled water. However for this project, these methodologies were used to assess readily soluble constituents and to determine whether any waste rock/blast rock materials are classified as hazardous waste materials. Waste rock TCLP and SPLP results for sample CC-20 are summarized on Table 10. A summary of its key findings follows: • Sample CC-20 (Whole Rock Fraction): Beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and silver were not detected above the MDLs for both the TCLP and SPLP methods. Barium, cobalt, and zinc were only detected in the TCLP leachate (and at low concentrations), while selenium was detected at a low concentration in the SPLP leachate. Arsenic, copper, and manganese were detected at concentrations exceeding leachate screening criteria by one or more methods. • Sample CC-20 (< 2 mm Fine Fraction): Beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and silver were not detected above the MDLs for both the TCLP and SPLP methods. Barium, cobalt, and zinc were detected at low concentrations in the TCLP leachate, while nickel, selenium, and zinc were detected at low concentrations in the SPLP leachate. Arsenic, copper, and manganese were detected at concentrations exceeding leachate screening criteria by one or more methods. • The TCLP regulatory levels for arsenic, barium, and selenium were not exceeded by any of the CC-20 detections. Cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and silver were not detected in the TCLP analyses for either fraction. The waste rock is not a hazardous waste based on the TCLP data for metals. • Leachate test methods are intended to assess readily soluble constituents and not release rates. Kinetic test methods have been developed to provide an assessment of release rates. However, laboratory and field kinetic test methods typically yield soluble concentrations similar to or lower than concentrations from leachate extraction methods, such as those used for this assessment.

3.3.4 Soil Pathway Summary Human Health • Recreational users may be exposed to Site-related contaminants through inhalation, incidental ingestion, and dermal contact with soil. • At Copper City Mill, COPCs include arsenic, cadmium, and cobalt • At Granite Lake Prospect, COPCs are limited to arsenic. • The streamlined human health risk assessment assessed the magnitude of potential risk to human receptors from the COPCs in soil at Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect. Ecological • Ecological receptors may be exposed to Site soil through food web uptake of impacted food sources or direct exposure to Site soils. • At Copper City Mill, CPECs included arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc.

• At Granite Lake Prospect, CPECs included arsenic, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, and silver. • The streamlined ecological risk assessment assessed the magnitude of potential risk to ecological receptors from the CPECs in soil at Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect.

3.4 Air Exposure Pathway

3.4.1 Targets • The target distance for air has been defined as 4 miles from the Sites. • Dominant wind direction in this area was not considered during the SI. • Based on a review of well logs in the area, there are no residences located within 4 miles of the Sites (Figure 11). • Based on the forested nature of the Sites, the steep hills surrounding the Sites, and the distance of the nearest residences from the Sites, local residents are unlikely to be affected by the existing conditions at the Sites.

3.4.2 Air Exposure Pathway Summary • Air samples were not collected as part of the field activities. • Metals were likely released to the air during mining activities as dust and particulate matter. • The air pathway is complete for human recreational users and ecological receptors exposed to particulate matter by inhalation. • Since inhalation risk stems from particulates released from contaminated soil, this pathway was addressed in the risk assessment as part of the soil exposure pathway.

o In the risk assessment, risk from inhalation of contaminated soils was assessed indirectly by comparing Site soil concentrations to background concentrations and generic screening criteria. It was also assessed directly for COPCs in the Site-specific risk calculations (Appendix C, Attachment 1).

4.0 STREAMLINED RISK ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION

A summary of the streamlined risk assessment is presented in this section. Appendix C contains the detailed human health and ecological risk assessments.

4.1 Streamlined Human Health Risk Assessment A human health risk assessment is used to quantitatively evaluate carcinogenic risks and noncarcinogenic hazards to human health that are attributable to exposure to Site-related chemicals in exposure media. The following sections summarize the findings of the human health risk assessment. • The media of interest at Copper City Mill are surface water and soil, and at Granite Lake Prospect are surface water, sediment (submerged waste rock), and soil (waste rock above water). • Groundwater did not have a complete human health pathway at either Site. • To determine which metals should be evaluated further in the risk assessment, sample results were compared to background concentrations and generic screening criteria developed for industrial and unrestricted land uses.

o At Copper City Mill, three COIs (arsenic, cadmium, and cobalt) exceeded at least one health-based generic screening criterion.

Arsenic, cadmium, and cobalt in soil and water were evaluated further in the streamlined human health risk assessment.

o At Granite Lake Prospect, one COI (arsenic) exceeded at least one health-based generic screening criterion. Arsenic in soil, sediment, and water was evaluated further in the streamlined human health risk assessment.

4.1.1 Risk and Hazard Estimates • Given the Site location in a National Forest, the likelihood of high frequency, long-term exposure to Site contaminants by any human receptors is considered low. • Based on the locations and evidence of Site use, recreational users are the most likely human receptor populations to be exposed to Site media. • Carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic hazard were calculated for adult and child recreational users exposed to Site soils. Appendix C contains the receptor-specific exposure calculations used to estimate risk. • Human health risks are considered to be potentially unacceptable if the risk estimates for carcinogenic endpoints are greater than 1E-06.

o At both Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect, the carcinogenic risk estimate exceeded 1E-06. This finding indicates the presence of a potentially unacceptable carcinogenic risk to recreational users from dermal exposure, inhalation, and incidental ingestion pathways. • Human health risks are considered to be potentially unacceptable if the hazard quotients for noncarcinogenic endpoints are greater than 1.

o At Copper City Mill, the hazard quotient for non-carcinogenic endpoints exceeded 1. This finding indicates the presence of a potentially unacceptable non-carcinogenic risk to adult and child recreational users from dermal exposure, inhalation, and incidental ingestion pathways.

o At Granite Lake Prospect, the hazard quotient for non-carcinogenic endpoints for child recreational users exceeded 1. This finding indicates the presence of a potentially unacceptable non-carcinogenic risk to child recreational users from dermal exposure, inhalation, and incidental ingestion pathways.

4.1.2 Determination of Hotspots Hot spots are areas posing “principal threats” (National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR 300.430(a)(1)(iii)). These areas have highly toxic or highly mobile source materials that generally cannot be reliably contained, or would present a significant risk to human health or the environment should exposure occur. • Based on this qualitative definition and the unacceptable human health risks identified in this streamlined risk evaluation, the waste rock piles at Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect are identified as hot spots. • Hot spots were also identified using the quantitative definition provided by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ; DEQ, 1998). DEQ considers hot spots to be areas that cause risk at 1E-04 and noncarcinogenic hazard at 10.

o Hot spots were calculated by raising the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) soil concentrations at each Site until total carcinogenic risk reached 1E-04, while maintaining the same exposure parameters, formulas, toxicity values used to estimate potential Site risk. These hot spot concentrations were compared to individual waste rock and/or processed ore samples.

o At Copper City Mill, all Site soil (i.e., waste rock and processed ore) samples except CC-25 exceeded the hot spot concentration for arsenic of 412 mg/kg. This calculation supports the finding that all waste rock and processed ore at Copper City Mill can be considered a hot spot.

o At Granite Lake Prospect, neither of the two Site soil (i.e., waste rock) samples exceeded the hot spot concentration for arsenic of 412 mg/kg. Although this calculation does not support the finding that all waste rock at Granite Lake Prospect can be considered a hot spot, waste rock concentrations exceeded acceptable risk levels for adult and child recreational users.

4.1.3 Determination of Clean-up Level Cleanup goals were calculated by lowering the soil concentrations at each Site until total carcinogenic risk reached 1E-06, while maintaining the same exposure parameters, formulas, toxicity values used to estimate potential Site risk. Copper City Mill • Reducing the 95 percent UCL concentration of arsenic in waste rock and processed ore to 4.5 mg/kg or less would reduce carcinogenic risk to less than 1E-06 and noncarcinogenic hazard to less than 1.0. However, since the Site-specific arsenic background concentration is 63.7 mg/kg, the cleanup criteria should default to approximately background.

o While this would not reduce carcinogenic risk to 1E-06 or less, it would reduce excess Site carcinogenic risk to no more than background risk. • Unacceptable carcinogenic risk was also identified in surface water. The MDC at the Site was collected from the wet meadow, which had an arsenic concentration of 136 μg/L in sample CC- 29-SW. Recreational users would be more likely to collect water from the mill tributary (57.4 μg/L arsenic) or Deep Creek (0.64 μg/L) where the arsenic concentration is at background.

o Regardless, reducing arsenic concentrations in waste rock and processed or partially processed ore should result in a corresponding reduction in arsenic concentrations in surface water. • Since human health risk at Copper City Mill is driven by carcinogenic risk, reducing arsenic concentrations to address carcinogenic risk essentially eliminates noncarcinogenic hazards. Granite Lake Prospect • Reducing the Site 95 percent UCL concentration of arsenic in waste rock to 2.2 mg/kg or less would reduce RME carcinogenic risk to less than 1E-06 and noncarcinogenic hazard to less than 1.0.

o The cleanup level is lower at Granite Lake Prospect than at Copper City Mill because there are more complete pathways at Granite Lake Prospect (e.g., playing in sediment, swimming). If these criteria were implemented, maximum Site concentrations of arsenic in soil at both Sites would still exceed the USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for Industrial Soil (USEPA, 2009d) arsenic criterion of 1.6 mg/kg • The USEPA RSL screening criteria are higher than the proposed cleanup goals because of the conservative, default, non-Site-specific exposure parameters used to generate the screening criteria. This streamlined human health risk assessment used exposure parameters reasonable for recreational users at Forest Service Sites rather than those appropriate for industrial workers or unrestricted land use.

o For example, typical industrial workers are assumed to access a Site 250 days per year. In the recreational scenario used in this assessment, recreational users are assumed to access either Copper City Mill or Granite Lake Prospect only 7 to 14 days per year.

The results of the human health risk assessment (HHRA) suggest that waste rock, processed or partially processed ore, and surface water at Copper City Mill, and waste rock at Granite Lake Prospect pose unacceptable risk to recreational users.

4.1.4 Summary Copper City Mill • Initial screening of COI exposure point concentrations (EPCs) against background concentrations and generic screening criteria found that potentially significant human health risk was limited to arsenic, cadmium, and cobalt in surface water and soil. • Potential human health risk from arsenic, cadmium, and cobalt was then quantified using recreational user-specific models which identified potentially unacceptable carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic hazards to child and adult receptors potentially using the Site. • The findings of this receptor-specific recreational user model suggest that potentially unacceptable risks may occur from dermal exposure, inhalation, and incidental ingestion pathways under either the central tendency exposure (CTE) or RME scenarios. Calculated risk is predominately due to exposure to arsenic concentrations in waste rock and processed ore. • Arsenic was identified as a human health chemical of concern (COC). Granite Lake Prospect • Initial screening of COI EPCs against background concentrations and generic screening criteria found that potentially significant human health risk was limited to arsenic in surface water and waste rock (above and below the waterline). • Potential human health risk from arsenic was then quantified using recreational user-specific models which identified potentially unacceptable carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic hazards to child and adult receptors potentially using the Site. • The findings of this receptor-specific recreational user model suggest that potentially unacceptable risks may occur from dermal exposure, inhalation, and incidental ingestion pathways under either the CTE or RME scenarios. Calculated risk is predominately due to exposure to arsenic concentrations in submerged and above water waste rock. • Arsenic was identified as a human health COC.

4.2 Streamlined Ecological Risk Assessment and Evaluation • An ecological risk assessment is used to evaluate chemical concentrations in Site media with the potential to pose unacceptable risks to ecological receptors. • The following sections summarize the findings of the streamlined ecological risk assessment. • Surface water, sediment, and soil comprise the media of interest for ecological receptors for both the Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect. • To determine which metals should be evaluated further in the risk assessment, sample results were compared to background concentrations and generic screening criteria developed for terrestrial and aquatic ecological receptors. Copper City Mill • COIs with sample MDCs or MDLs that exceeded generic screening criteria became CPECs, summarized below:

o Five CPECs (barium, copper, lead, manganese, and nickel) were identified in Site surface water.

o Five CPECs (arsenic, cadmium, copper, silver, and zinc) were identified in Site sediment.

o Ten CPECs (arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc) were identified in waste rock. Granite Lake Prospect • COIs with sample EPCs that exceeded generic screening criteria became CPECs, summarized below:

o No detected CPECs were identified in Site surface water. Cadmium and lead were identified as CPECs in surface water, even though they were not detected, since their MDLs exceeded screening levels.

o Two CPECs (arsenic and silver) were identified in Site sediment.

o Five CPECs (arsenic, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, and silver) were identified in Site waste rock. Selenium was identified as a CPEC not because its Site concentrations exceeded generic screening criteria, but because of its potential to bioaccumulate in the environment.

4.2.1 Conceptual Ecological Exposure Model • At both Sites, potentially contaminated exposure media for ecological receptors include Site surface water, sediment, and surface soils. • Groundwater is considered to be an insignificant exposure media for ecological receptors because it does not provide aquatic habitat. Seep water observed at Copper City Mill was conservatively considered to be a surface water sample and was assessed under the surface water pathway. • A summary of the complete, incomplete, and insignificant pathways is depicted in the conceptual Site model (Figure 7).

o Potentially complete pathways for ecological receptors include inhalation of particulates, dermal contact, and food web exposure to Site surface water, sediment, and soil.

o Potentially complete pathways for immobile receptors (e.g., plants, soil biota, benthic communities) include direct exposure to Site mine wastes and sediment.

o Potentially complete pathways for mobile receptors (e.g., birds and mammals) include incidental ingestion of surface water, food web exposure to surface water, incidental ingestion of surface soil and mine wastes, and food web exposure to surface soil and mine waste.

4.2.2 Risk and Hazard Estimates The CPECs identified in the generic screening were further assessed through an evaluation of risk ratios. • The risk ratio is calculated by dividing the EPC by the screening criterion. For example, if the risk ratio is greater than 1, then the EPC exceeds the screening criterion. • Risk ratios greater than 1 indicate the potential presence of an unacceptable risk to threatened and endangered species, which are protected at the individual level. • Risk ratios greater than 5 indicate the potential presence of an unacceptable risk to populations of ecological receptors. This level of protection is considered most appropriate for non-threatened and endangered species. • Multiple risk ratios may occur for a single chemical when an EPC is compared to more than one generic screening criterion.

o The risk ratios presented in the streamlined risk evaluation were calculated using the lowest (most conservative) available screening criteria.

• Since inhalation risk to ecological receptors is usually not a driving risk pathway, there are no standard ecological screening criteria specific to the inhalation exposure. Instead, inhalation exposure to soil particulates is indirectly assessed using generic screening criteria for soil. Evaluation of Risk Ratios in Surface Water • At Copper City Mill, risk ratios for on-Site surface water exceeded 5 for barium (6.8), copper (7.2), and lead (641).

o CPECs with risk ratios between 1 and 5 included manganese (4.8) and nickel (4.3).

o Although surface water metals concentrations at Copper City Mill are elevated, concentrations within Deep Creek are indistinguishable from background concentrations measured upstream of the mill tributary and upstream of the mill tributary’s confluence with Deep Creek. • At Granite Lake Prospect, no detected COIs were identified as CPECs.

o Cadmium and lead were identified as CPECs because their MDLs were greater than applicable screening criteria. These CPECs represent a potential and uncertain ecological risk. MDLs were not used to calculate risk ratios. Evaluation of Risk Ratios in Sediment • At Copper City Mill, risk ratios for on-Site sediment exceeded 5 for arsenic (56) and copper (70).

o CPECs with risk ratios between 1 and 5 included cadmium (2.8), silver (1.3), and zinc (2.9).

o Although sediment concentrations at Copper City Mill are elevated, concentrations within Deep Creek are indistinguishable from background concentrations measured upstream of the mill tributary and upstream of the mill tributary’s confluence with Deep Creek. • At Granite Lake Prospect, risk ratios for submerged waste rock exceeded 5 for arsenic (11).

o Silver had a risk ratio less than 5 (2.3).

o Submerged sediment represents a very small portion of the total sediment habitat available in Granite Lake. Evaluation of Risk Ratios in Soil • At Copper City Mill, soil risk ratios were greater than 5 for arsenic (1,320), cadmium (10), cobalt (37), copper (289), lead (19), manganese (7.4), mercury (8.1), selenium (6.3), silver (17), and zinc (11).

o No CPECs were identified that had all risk ratios applicable to soil between 1 and 5. • At Granite Lake Prospect, soil risk ratios were greater than 5 for arsenic (11).

o CPECs with risk ratios between 1 and 5 were lead (3.1), manganese (1.6), mercury (1.7), and silver (2.3).

4.2.3 Determination of Clean-up Level At Copper City Mill, ecological risk from exposure to soil and sediment is driven by arsenic and risk from exposure to surface water is driven by lead concentrations. • Ecological cleanup criteria in soil should result in a 95 percent UCL concentration of 10 mg/kg. However, since the Site-specific arsenic background concentration is 63.7 mg/kg, the cleanup criteria should default to approximately background. At Granite Lake Prospect, ecological risk from exposure to waste rock is driven by exposure of arsenic. • Ecological cleanup criteria for waste rock should result in an arsenic concentration of 10 mg/kg or less, which is the MTCA screening level for plants (Ecology, 2007).

4.2.4 Summary Copper City Mill • Barium, copper, lead, manganese, and nickel concentrations in surface water exceed levels protective of populations of aquatic life. • Arsenic and copper concentrations in sediment exceed levels protective of populations of soil biota. • Arsenic, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, selenium, silver, and zinc concentrations in waste rock exceed levels protective of populations of terrestrial plants. • Arsenic, copper, mercury, and zinc concentrations in waste rock exceed levels protective of populations of soil biota. • Arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, selenium, silver, and zinc exceed concentrations in waste rock exceed protective of populations of wildlife (including avian and mammalian receptors). Granite Lake Prospect • No COI concentrations in surface water exceed levels protective of populations of aquatic life. However, bull trout observed in the lake could conceivably be adversely affected by undetected cadmium and lead concentrations that potentially exceed screening criteria. • Arsenic concentrations in sediment exceed levels protective of benthic populations. • Arsenic concentrations in waste soil exceed levels protective of populations of terrestrial plants.

4.3 Streamlined Risk Assessment Conclusions and Recommendation Copper City Mill The streamlined human health risk assessment found that Site arsenic concentrations exceed generic screening criteria and that these concentrations are significantly higher than background concentrations. • Excess human health risk exists from exposure to waste rock and processed or partially processed ore at the Copper City Mill Site. This risk is predominantly due to high concentrations of arsenic in waste rock and processed ore. • Reducing human exposure to mine wastes on-Site in the form of a barrier (e.g., soil cap) or mine waste removal could return excess, Site-related risk to background risk. The streamlined ecological risk assessment found that potential ecological risk may occur due to concentrations of ten CPECs. • The high concentrations of most of these CPECs correlate with high concentrations of arsenic. Addressing the high concentrations of arsenic would be likely to significantly reduce ecological risk from the other CPECs. Granite Lake Prospect The streamlined human health risk assessment found that Site arsenic concentrations exceed generic screening criteria and that these concentrations are significantly higher than background concentrations. • Excess human health risk exists predominantly from exposure to high concentrations of arsenic in submerged and above water waste rock at the Granite Lake Prospect Site. • Reducing human exposure to this waste pile in the form of a barrier (e.g., soil cap) or waste rock removal should reduce excess Site-related risk to background risk. The streamlined ecological risk assessment found that potential ecological risk may occur due to concentrations of seven CPECs. • Most ecological risk is related to arsenic in submerged and above water waste rock. Reducing exposure to arsenic concentrations in waste rock would reduce most Site-related ecological risk.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions Soil Pathway • The soil pathway is complete for both human and ecological receptors at both Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect. • Arsenic in waste rock and processed or partially processed ore at Copper City Mill and waste rock at Granite Lake Prospect results in risk above acceptable levels. • Excavation and off-Site disposal of the waste rock or capping of the waste rock with clean soil could potentially reduce recreational user risk to levels similar to background risk. Groundwater Pathway • Although URS did not sample groundwater at either Copper City Mill or Granite Lake Prospect, its completeness as an exposure pathway was considered. • The only well with 4 miles of either Site is a Forest Service well located at the Fish Lake Way Trailhead campsite. Campsite amenities include non-potable water, a toilet, and horse facilities. • Based on the hydrology and likely groundwater flow direction at the Sites, this well is unlikely to be affected by Site-related contaminants. For this reason, this pathway does not appear to be complete at either Site. Surface Water Pathway • The nearest surface waters (mill tributary and Granite Lake) are adjacent to mine wastes at both Sites. This pathway is complete for both humans and ecological receptors. • The investigation concluded that human and ecological exposure to Site surface water is unacceptable at Copper City Mill. At Granite Lake Prospect, surface water does not appear to results in unacceptable risk. • Reducing concentrations of arsenic in soil to address soil exposure, is expected to reduce arsenic concentrations in surface water. • Sediment

o At Copper City Mill, sediment is located only within the shallow mill tributary. Recreational users of this Site are unlikely to be exposed to the small amount of sediment in this tributary (no beaches or wading opportunities). For this reason, the sediment pathway is considered an insignificant pathway for humans but potentially significant pathway for ecological receptors.

o At Granite Lake Prospect, human and ecological receptors could be exposed to submerged waste rock and the sediment pathway is complete for both human and ecological receptors.

o At Granite Lake Prospect, COPC concentrations in sediment appear to be unacceptable for recreational users. Air Pathway • The air pathway is potentially complete for both human and ecological receptors. • Since inhalation risk stems from particulates released from contaminated soil, this pathway was indirectly assessed in the risk assessment by comparing Site soil concentrations to background soil concentrations and generic screening criteria for soil. • Inhalation risk to human health was directly assessed in the Site-specific human health calculations for COPCs, however, risk from this pathway was insignificant.

• The risk assessment concluded that Site soils pose an insignificant inhalation risk to ecological receptors. Waste Rock Volumes • The volume of mine wastes is about 459 bcy at Copper City Mill and 33 bcy at Granite Lake. Waste Rock Leaching Potential • The ABA test results for the Granite Lake Prospect waste rock sample indicate the waste rock is not acid generating. • ABA test results for the Copper City Mill waste rock sample indicate the waste rock is potentially acid generating.

o ABA results on the fine fraction (less than 2 mm) of waste rock from samples indicate that approximately two-thirds of the AGP and one-third of the ANP are contained in the fine fraction, which is considered to be the more reactive portion of the waste rock.

o Modified Sobek ANP values indicate that neutralization is available from other mineral sources in addition to carbonate minerals.

o The TCLP and SPLP leachate tests on whole rock and fine fraction samples of waste rock indicate that the metal leaching potential of the waste rock is very low. There were no exceedances of the regulatory criteria for TCLP metals.

5.2 Recommendations URS recommends the following actions based on the SI: • The Forest Service should consider measures to reduce human and ecological exposure to waste rock and processed or partially processed ore at Copper City Mill and waste rock at Granite Lake Prospect. • At Copper City Mill, potential measures could include the following:

o Excavation and off-Site disposal of the waste rock and processed ore at a permitted disposal facility.

o Excavation, consolidation on-Site, and capping of the waste rock and processed ore. • At Granite Lake, consider capping waste rock with clean soil obtained from on-Site to prevent direct exposure. • The Forest Service should consider completing an EE/CA to further assess potential removal action alternatives to address human and ecological risks associated with mine wastes at the Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect.

6.0 FOREST SERVICE DISCLAIMER

This abandoned mine/mill Site was created under the General Mining Law of 1872 and is located solely on National Forest System (NFS) lands administered by the USDA Forest Service. The United States has taken the position and courts have held that the United States is not liable as “owner” under CERCLA Section 107 for mine contamination left behind on NFS lands by miners operating under the 1872 Mining Law. Therefore, USDA Forest Service believes that this Site should not be considered a “federal facility” within the meaning of CERCLA Section 120 and should not be listed on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. Instead, this Site should be included on USEPA’s CERCLIS database. Consistent with the June 24, 2003 OECA/FFEO “Policy on Listing Mixed Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket,” we respectfully request that USEPA Regional Docket Coordinator consult with the Forest Service and USEPA Headquarters before making a determination to include this Site on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket.

7.0 REFERENCES

Bailey, Robert G, 1995. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States, 2d ed. Rev. and expanded (1st ed. 1980). Misc. Publ. No. 1391 (rev.), Washington DC: USDA Forest Service.

DEQ, 1998. Guidance for Identification of Hot Spots. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. April 23.

Ecology, 2007. Model Toxics Control Act Statute and Regulation – Model Toxics Control Act Chapter 70.105D RCW, Uniform Environmental Covenants Act Chapter 64.70 RCW, and MTCA Cleanup Regulation Chapter 173-340 WAC. Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program. Revised November 2007. Publication No. 94-06

Forest Service, 2005. Abbreviated Preliminary Assessment, Copper City Millsite and Miners Ridge Workings, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, U.S.D.I. Forest Service, Naches Ranger District, Yakima County, WA. February.

Forest Service, 2008. Deep Creek Flood Repair Environmental Analysis. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Naches Ranger District. Yakima County, Washington. September.

Forest Service, 2010. Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species and Sensitive Species List. Forest Service Region 6, Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSP). Accessed January 2010 online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/.

Klemm, D.J., P.A. Lewis, F. Fulk, and J.M. Lazorchak. 1990. Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface Waters. USEPA/600/4-90/030. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Pater et al., 2001. Ecoregion information obtained from Ecoregions of Western Washington and Oregon map. Accessed October 2009 online at ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/or_wa_id/. Project was funded in part by USEPA- Office of Research and Development- Regional Applied Research Effort (RARE) program.

USEPA, 1992. Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Directive 9345.1-05.

USEPA, 1994. Technical Document. Acid Mine Drainage Prediction. EPA530-R-94-036. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Special Waste Branch.

USEPA, 2002. Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency., Region XI. Accessed October 1, 2002.

USEPA, 2004. Wadeable Stream Assessment: Field Operations Manual. EPA841-B-04-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

USEPA, 2009. ProUCL Version 4.00.04 User Guide and Statistical Software Package. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. February. EPA/600/R-07/038

USGS, 1988. USGS 7 ½ Minute Quadrangle Map – Bumping Lake. United States Department of Interior Geological Survey.

URS, 2009. Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan, Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Sites, Summer 2009 Site Inspection. URS Corporation. Portland, Oregon. July.

WDGER, 1987. Geologic Map of the Mount Rainier Quadrangle, Washington. Washington Department of Geology and Earth Resources, Open File Report 87 – 16.

Wisseman, Robert W., 2009. Potential Impacts from Heavy Metals to the Macroinvertebrate Communities of upper Deep Creek and Granite Lake, Yakima County, Washington. Aquatic Biology Associates, Corvallis, OR.

WRCC DRI, 2009. Climate information obtained from Western Regional Climate Center, Desert Research Institute website. Accessed October 2009 online at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/index.html. The regional climate center program is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

TABLES

Table 1A. Surface Water Data Summary and Screening Copper City Mill, Yakima County, Washington. Page 1 of 2 - Metals Data

Metals (µg/L) Sample Sample ID Date Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium ChromiumCobalt Copper Lead ManganeseMercury Nickel Selenium Silver Zinc Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. On Site CC-27-SW (seep at mill) 7/23/2009 57.4 53.2 5.43 5.04 0.025 U0.025 U0.065 U 0.065 U 0.35 U 0.35 U 0.550 0.435 J 26.5 23.6 0.22 U 0.22 U 7.91 7.18 0.00340 J 0.00177 J 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.075 U 0.075 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 9.92 9.86 CC-29-SW (wet meadow) 7/23/2009 136 34.0 27.1 17.8 0.025 U0.025 U0.065 U 0.065 U 0.35 U 0.35 U 2.78 1.66 9.68 0.670 J 2.05 0.22 U 576 502 0.00614 J 0.00166 J 0.687 J 0.257 J 0.075 U 0.075 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 6.09 0.956 J Downstream CC-26-SW (below mill) 7/23/2009 14.3 13.3 5.70 5.44 0.025 U0.025 U0.065 U 0.065 U 0.35 U 0.35 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 8.91 7.90 0.22 U 0.22 U 2.00 U 1.32 J 0.00139 UJ 0.00103 J 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.075 U 0.075 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 2.98 J 1.97 J CC-03-SW (20 ft below trib.) 7/29/2009 0.640 J 0.355 J 5.19 4.81 0.025 U 0.050 J 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.35 U 0.35 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.27 U 0.272 J 0.22 U 0.22 U 1.05 J 0.561 J 0.00139 U 0.000949 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.075 U 0.075 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 1.58 J 1.18 J CC-02-SW (0.5 mi below trib.) 7/21/2009 0.661 J 0.18 U 4.57 4.15 0.025 U0.025 U0.065 U 0.065 U 0.367 J 0.35 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.378 J 0.290 J 0.22 U 0.22 U 2.00 U 0.572 J 0.00139 UJ 0.000949 UJ 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.075 U 0.075 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 1.34 J 0.893 J Max. Detect. Conc. 136 53.2 27.1 17.8 ND 0.050 ND ND 0.367 J ND 2.78 1.66 26.5 23.6 2.05 ND 576 502 0.00614 J 0.00177 J 0.687 J 0.257 J ND ND ND ND 9.92 9.86

Upstream CC-28-SW (above mill) 7/23/2009 1.59 1.08 5.74 5.40 0.025 U0.025 U0.065 U 0.065 U 0.35 U 0.35 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.27 U 0.27 U 0.22 U 0.22 U 2.00 U 0.33 U 0.00144 J 0.00100 J 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.075 U 0.075 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.7 U 0.7 U CC-04-SW (20 ft. above trib.) 7/23/2009 0.670 J 0.18 U 4.61 4.37 0.025 U0.025 U0.065 U 0.065 U 0.35 U 0.35 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.27 U 0.27 U 0.22 U 0.22 U 2.00 U 0.444 J 0.00139 UJ 0.000949 UJ 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.075 U 0.075 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.922 J 2.04 J

Human Health Water Screening Criteria Ecology Method A Cleanup Levels 5 ------5 -- 50 ------15 ------2 ------for Groundwater1 Ecology Method B Cleanup Levels 24,000 0.058 -- 3,200 -- 32 -- 8 ------592 ------2,240 -- 4.8 -- 320 -- 80 -- 80 -- 4,800 -- for Groundwater1 (Cr+3)

2 a a b b 5,000 WDOH MCLs 10 -- 2,000 -- 4 -- 5 -- 100 ------1,300 -- 15 -- 50 -- 2 -- 100 -- 50 -- 100 -- b -- 1,000 b USEPA Drinking Water MCLs 3 10 -- 2,000 -- 4 -- 5 -- 100 ------15 a -- 50 b -- 2 ------50 -- 100 b -- 5,000 b -- 1,300 a

Ecological Water Screening Criteria (µg/L) c Ecology Aquatic Life c 68 c c c c 4 -- 190 ------0.43 ------4.1 -- 0.68 -- -- 0.012 -- -- 58 5.0 ------39 (Table 240(3)) (Cr+3)

c AWQC Freshwater Criterion Continuous c 28 c c c c 5 -- 150 ------0.11 ------3.3 -- 0.68 ------0.77 -- 19 5.0 ------44 Concentration (CCC) (Cr+3)

210 d ORNL PRGs for Ecological Endpoints 6 -- -- 4.0 -- 0.66 -- 1.1 d -- -- 23 -- 12 d -- 0.0032 d -- 120 -- 1.3 -- 0.16 d -- 0.39 -- 0.36 -- 110 d -- (Cr+3) Notes: Sources: Detected or background concentration exceeds screening criterion 1 Ecology, 2007. Model Toxics Control Act Chapter 70.05D RCW and Cleanup Regulation Chapter 173-340 WAC. Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program. Screening criterion is exceeded by detected concentration. 2 WAC, 2008. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Washington Administrative Code 246-290-310. a = action level 3 USEPA, 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (drinking water MCLs). Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. b = secondary criteria 4 WAC, 2006. Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. Washington Administrative Code 173-201A-240. c = hardness-dependent criterion calculated using site-specific water hardness valuee. 5 USEPA, 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (AWQC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. d = hardness-dependent criterion normalized to a hardness of 100 (not site-specific). 6 Efroymson, R.A., G.W. Suter II, B.E. Sample, and D.S. Jones. 1997. Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological Endpoints. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. August. e Hardness = 30.8 mg CaCO3/L. Hardness was calculated as hardness = 2.497 (Ca, mg/L) + 4.118 (Mg, mg/L), ES/ER/TM-162/R2. using the average dissolved Ca and Mg conc. of all samples (Table 1B). µg/L = micrograms per liter water U = The analyte was analyzed for but not detected at or above the reported method detection limit (MDL). J = The reported concentration is an estimate. -- = no screening criterion was available for this analyte ND = Not detected, method detection limit shown above Table 1B. Surface Water Data Summary and Screening Copper City Mill, Yakima County, Washington. Page 2 of 2 - General Chemistry Parameters 3

Sample Sample (mg/L) (mg/L)

3 3

ID Date (mg/L) Calcium Calcium (mg/L) Magnesium (mg/L) Sodium (mg/L) C)

Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. o Total Dissolved Solids Dissolved Total (TDS) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity Alkalinity Total as CaCO Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO (mg/L) Alkalinity Hydroxide (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) Conductivity (mS/cm) Organic Dissolved (DOC) Carbon (mg/L) Oxygen Dissolved (mg/L) pH Reduction Oxidation Potential Temperature ( Carbonate Alkalinity Alkalinity Carbonate as CaCO

On Site CC-27-SW (seep at mill) 7/23/2009 36.6 0.32 U 36.6 0.32 U 14.7 14.3 0.50 U 0.563 0.623 1.83 1.81 4.71 0.076 0.831 J 8.60 4.93 433.5 10.62 60 4.83 0.480 CC-29-SW (wet meadow) 7/23/2009 45.0 0.32 U 45.0 0.32 U 16.7 15.6 0.69 U 0.896 0.732 1.86 1.82 0.092 4.80 2.03 6.70 316.0 30.19 70 Varied J Downstream CC-26-SW (below mill) 7/23/2009 34.4 0.32 U 34.4 0.32 U 13.3 12.6 0.50 U 0.636 0.640 1.78 1.80 3.90 0.078 1.07 9.33 6.83 319.0 11.08 60 5.07 0.370 CC-03-SW (20 ft below trib.) 7/29/2009 15.1 0.32 U 15.1 0.32 U 8.89 8.55 0.715 0.725 1.57 1.50 11.1 0.063 0.505 J 11.30 6.69 327.0 10.83 50 4.89 J CC-02-SW (0.5 mi below trib.) 7/21/2009 13.2 0.32 U 13.2 0.32 U 7.80 7.45 0.50 U 0.634 0.654 1.38 1.43 9.49 0.050 0.380 J 10.56 6.32 133.2 10.52 60 5.41

Upstream CC-28-SW (above mill) 7/23/2009 33.6 0.32 U 33.6 0.32 U 12.8 12.5 0.53 U 0.624 0.658 1.83 1.83 4.29 0.069 0.589 J 10.13 6.60 460.2 10.01 60 4.86 CC-04-SW (20 ft above trib.) 7/23/2009 13.6 0.32 U 13.6 0.32 U 7.96 7.60 0.50 U 0.660 0.689 1.42 1.47 10.4 0.051 0.317 U 11.59 7.33 360.0 10.71 50 4.61

Human Health Water Screening Criteria

Ecology Method A Cleanup Levels for Groundwater1 ------

Ecology Method B Cleanup Levels for Groundwater1 ------

species- AWQC Protective of Human Consumption of narrative ------dependent 250 a Organism Only 2 statement a criterion a species- AWQC Protective of Human Consumption of Water narrative ------5 to 9 a -- dependent -- and Organism 2 statement a criterion a WDOH MCLs 3 ------250 b -- -- 20 b -- 250 b 0.7 b ------500 b -- USEPA Drinking Water MCLs 4 ------250 b ------250 b ------6.5 to 8.5 b -- -- 500 b --

Ecological Water Screening Criteria Ecology Aquatic Life ------230 ------(Table 240(3)) 5 species- AWQC Freshwater Criterion Continuous narrative 20 a ------230 a ------6.5 to 9 a -- dependent -- Concentration (CCC) 2 statement a criterion a

ORNL PRGs for Ecological Endpoints 6 ------

Notes: Sources: Detected or background concentration exceeds screening criterion. 1 Ecology, 2007. Model Toxics Control Act Chapter 70.05D RCW and Cleanup Regulation Chapter 173-340 WAC. Washington State Department of Screening criterion is exceeded by detected concentration. Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program. Revised November 2007. Publication No. 94-06. mg/L = milligrams per liter water 2 USEPA, 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (AWQC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. -- = not analyzed 3 WAC, 2008. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Washington Administrative Code 246-290-310. a = non-priority pollutant 4 USEPA, 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (drinking water MCLs). Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. b = Secondary criterion, level of concern, or physical characteristic 5 WAC, 2006. Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. Washington Administrative Code 173-201A-240. NM = Not measured due to problems with pH probe in field 6 Efroymson, R.A., G.W. Suter II, B.E. Sample, and D.S. Jones. 1997. Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological Endpoints. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. August. ES/ER/TM-162/R2. Table 2. Arsenic and Chromium Speciation Results Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect, Yakima County, Washington.

Soil/Sediment (mg/kg) Sample ID Sample Date Arsenic Arsenic +3 Arsenic +5 Chromium +3 Chromium +6

Copper City Mill Sediment CC-04-SD (20 ft above trib.) 7/23/2009 13.6 0.065 J 13.5 11.4 0.020 U CC-03-SD (20 ft below trib.) 7/29/2009 4.81 0.03 U 4.81 9.35 0.015 U Soil CC-11-S 7/22/2009 25.7 0.439 25.3 6.56 0.029 U CC-20-WR 7/22/2009 2,680 0.229 2,680 1.85 0.014 U Granite Lake Prospect Waste Rock GL-01-WR 7/20/2009 23.2 1.62 21.6 0.752 0.017 U GL-02-WR 7/20/2009 145 0.201 145 0.861 0.015 U

Surface Water (µg/L)

Sample ID Sample Date Arsenic Arsenic +3 Arsenic +5 Chromium Chromium +6

Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. Copper City Mill CC-04-SW (20 ft above trib.) 7/23/2009 0.243 0.233 0.044 0.039 0.199 0.194 0.35 U 0.35 U 4.4 UJ 4.4 UJ CC-03-SW (20 ft below trib.) 7/29/2009 0.467 0.457 0.059 0.070 0.408 0.387 0.35 U 0.35 U 4.4 UJ 4.4 UJ Granite Lake Prospect GL-01-SW 7/20/2009 0.081 0.052 0.042 0.040 0.039 0.012 J 0.35 U 0.35 U 4.4 UJ 4.4 UJ GL-06-SW 7/20/2009 0.048 0.046 0.035 0.039 0.013 J 0.008 U 0.35 U 0.35 U 4.4 UJ 4.4 UJ

Notes: Total and Dissolved chromium by 6010 HEX Total by 7196A J = The reported concentration is an estimate. µg/L = micrograms per liter water mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram sediment dry weight U = The analyte was analyzed for but not detected at or above the reported method detection limit (MDL). Table 3A. Surface Water Data Summary and Screening Granite Lake Prospect, Yakima County, Washington. Page 1 of 2 - Metals Data

Max. Detect. Conc. 0.317 J ND 1.26 1.14 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.501 J 0.00171 J ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

GL-07-SW (inlet) 7/20/2009 0.18 U 0.18 U 1.67 1.42 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.35 U 0.35 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.27 U 0.27 U 0.22 U 0.22 U 0.810 J 0.33 U 0.00139 UJ 0.00101 J 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.075 U 0.075 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.7 U 0.7 U

AWQC Protective of Human 1,000c 5,000 c Consumption of Water and Organism -- 0.018 -- 1,000 ------50 c ------610 170 ------2 1,300 7,400

WDOH MCLs 3 10 -- 2,000 -- 4 -- 5 -- 100 ------1,300 a -- 15 a -- 50 b -- 2 -- 100 -- 50 -- 100 b -- 5,000 b -- 1,000 b USEPA Drinking Water MCLs 4 10 -- 2,000 -- 4 -- 5 -- 100 ------15 a -- 50 b -- 2 ------50 -- 100 b -- 5,000 b -- 1,300 a

Ecological Water Screening Criteria (µg/L) d Ecology Aquatic Life d 18 d d d d 5 -- 190 ------0.13 ------1.0 -- 0.11 -- -- 0.012 -- -- 15 5.0 ------10 (Table 240(3)) (Cr+3)

d NRWQC Freshwater Criterion d 7.5 d d d d 2 -- 150 ------0.035 ------0.82 -- 0.11 ------0.77 -- 4.9 5.0 ------11 Continuous Concentration (CCC) (Cr+3)

ORNL PRGs for Ecological e e 210 e e e e 6 -- -- 4.0 -- 0.66 -- 1.1 -- -- 23 -- 12 -- 0.0032 -- 120 -- 1.3 -- 0.16 -- 0.39 -- 0.36 -- 110 -- Endpoints (Cr+3)

Notes: Sources: 1 Detected or background concentration exceeds screening criterion. Ecology, 2007. Model Toxics Control Act Chapter 70.05D RCW and Cleanup Regulation Chapter 173-340 WAC. Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Screening criterion is exceeded by detected concentration. 2 USEPA, 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (AWQC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. a = action level 3 WAC, 2008. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Washington Administrative Code 246-290-310. b = secondary criteria 4 USEPA, 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (drinking water MCLs). Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. c = value based on organoleptic effects, not toxicity. 5 WAC, 2006. Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. Washington Administrative Code 173-201A-240. d = hardness-dependent criterion calculated using site-specific water hardness value f. 6 Efroymson, R.A., G.W. Suter II, B.E. Sample, and D.S. Jones. 1997. Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological Endpoints. Oak Ridge e = hardness-dependent criterion normalized to a hardness of 100 (not site-specific). National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. August. ES/ER/TM-162/R2. f Hardness = 6.10 mg CaCO3/L. Hardness was calculated as hardness = 2.497 (Ca, mg/L) + 4.118 (Mg, mg/L), using the average dissolved Ca and Mg conc. of all samples (Table 3B). µg/L = micrograms per liter water U = The analyte was analyzed for but not detected at or above the reported method detection limit (MDL). J = The reported concentration is an estimate. -- = no screening criterion was available for this analyte ND = Not detected, method detection limit shown above Table 3B. Surface Water Data Summary and Screening Granite Lake Prospect, Yakima County, Washington. Page 2 of 2 - General Chemistry Parameters

Sample Sample (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

ID Date 3 3 3 (mg/L) Calcium Calcium (mg/L) Magnesium (mg/L) Sodium (mg/L)

Total Dis. Total Dis. Total Dis. C) o Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO Total Alkalinity Alkalinity Total as CaCO Alkalinity Hydroxide (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) Conductivity (mS/cm) Organic Dissolved Carbon (DOC) (mg/L) Oxygen Dissolved (mg/L) pH Reduction Oxidation Potential Temperature ( Solids Dissolved Total (TDS) Turbidity (NTU)

GL-01-SW (waste pile) 7/20/2009 6.72 0.32 U 6.72 0.32 U 1.95 1.94 0.50 U 0.235 0.231 0.849 J 0.924 J 0.540 J 0.019 0.461 J 7.54 7.43 35.5 20.66 20 3.9 GL-06-SW (outlet) 7/20/2009 6.59 0.32 U 6.59 0.32 U 1.96 1.92 0.50 U 0.234 0.230 0.877 J 0.925 J 0.198 U 0.016 0.471 J 7.90 NM 148.0 20.74 20 4.23

GL-07-SW (inlet) 7/20/2009 8.87 0.32 U 8.87 0.32 U 2.36 2.24 0.50 U 0.288 0.281 1.11 1.20 0.198 U 0.018 0.317 U 12.31 NM 290.6 6.11 30 3.6

Human Health Water Screening Criteria Ecology Method A Cleanup Levels for ------Groundwater1 Ecology Method B Cleanup Levels for ------Groundwater1 AWQC Protective of Human species- narrative Consumption of Organism ------dependent 250 a statement a Only 2 criterion a species- AWQC Protective of Human narrative ------5 to 9 a -- dependent -- Consumption of Water and Organism 2 statement a criterion a WDOH MCLs 3 ------250 b -- -- 20 b -- 250 b 0.7 b ------500 b -- 4 USEPA Drinking Water MCLs ------250 b ------250 b ------6.5 to 8.5 b -- -- 500 b --

ORNL PRGs for Ecological Endpoints 6 ------

Notes: Sources: mg/L = milligrams per liter water 1 Ecology, 2007. Model Toxics Control Act Chapter 70.05D RCW and Cleanup Regulation Chapter 173-340 WAC. Washington State Department of a = non-priority pollutant Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program. Revised November 2007. Publication No. 94-06. b = Secondary criterion, level of concern, or physical characteristic 2 USEPA, 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (AWQC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. NM = Not measured due to problems with pH probe in field 3 WAC, 2008. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Washington Administrative Code 246-290-310. 4 U = The analyte was analyzed for but not detected at or above the reported method USEPA, 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (drinking water MCLs). Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. detection limit (MDL). 5 WAC, 2006. Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. Washington Administrative Code 173-201A-240. J = The reported concentration is an estimate. 6 Efroymson, R.A., G.W. Suter II, B.E. Sample, and D.S. Jones. 1997. Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological Endpoints. Oak Ridge National -- = no screening criterion was available for this analyte Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. August. ES/ER/TM-162/R2. Table 4. Sediment Data Summary and Screening Copper City Mill, Yakima County, Washington.

Metals (mg/kg)

Sample Sample ID Date Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Zinc

On-Site Sediment Samples

CC-27-SD (seep at mill) 7/23/2009 545 27.7 0.442 J 1.65 4.49 76.3 2,210 19.1 778 0.0181 3.31 0.312 J 2.66 349 Downstream Sediment Samples

CC-26-SD (below mill) 7/23/2009 141 50.4 0.495 J 0.824 J 13.5 8.79 521 22.9 181 0.0352 7.20 0.659 J 1.29 J 118

CC-03-SD (20 ft below trib.) 7/29/2009 7.07 25.4 0.251 J 0.262 J 9.35 6.59 30.0 16.3 399 0.00488 11.9 0.131 J 0.164 J 112

CC-02-SD (0.5 mi below trib.) 7/21/2009 16.1 J 31.9 0.273 J 0.362 J 6.93 J 5.81 33.2 33.3 J 436 0.00988 9.79 0.244 J 0.529 J 149 Max. Detect. Conc. 545 50.4 0.495 J 1.65 13.5 76.3 2,210 33.3 J 778 0.0352 11.9 0.659 J 2.66 349

Upstream Sediment Samples

CC-28-SD (above mill) 7/23/2009 39.5 42.2 0.194 J 0.529 J 26.8 6.28 13.2 5.89 559 0.00552 15.4 0.134 J 0.342 J 138

CC-04-SD (20 ft above trib.) 7/23/2009 17.1 43.4 0.339 J 0.505 J 11.4 8.82 39.8 44.6 711 0.0106 16.0 0.231 J 0.173 J 199 Yakima Basin Natural Background Soil 5.13 -- 1.57 0.93 38.27 -- 26.47 11.00 1,104.8 0.05 45.89 -- -- 78.71 Metals Conc.1

Human Health Soil Screening Criteria

Ecology MTCA Method A Industrial Soil 20 -- -- 2 ------1,000 -- 2 ------Cleanup Levels (Table 745-1) 2

Ecology MTCA A Soil Cleanup Levels for 20 -- -- 2 ------250 -- 2 ------Unrestricted Land Uses (Table 740-1) 2

USEPA Industrial Soil RSLs 3 1.6 190,000 2,000 800 1,400 300 41,000 800 23,000 24 20,000 5,100 5,100 310,000

Ecological Sediment Screening Criteria Probable Effect Concentration 33.0 -- -- 4.98 111 -- 149 128 -- 1.06 48.6 -- -- 459 (PEC) 4

Threshold Effect Concentration (TEC) 4 9.79 -- -- 0.99 43.4 -- 31.6 35.8 -- 0.18 22.7 -- -- 121

Ecology Sediment Quality Values 5 20 -- -- 0.6 95 -- 80 335 -- 0.50 60 -- 2.0 140

Notes: Trivalent chromium (Cr+3) is not measured, but is calculated using the measured concentrations of total chromium and hexavalent chromium. Detected or background concentration exceeds screening criterion. Screening criterion is exceeded by detected concentration. J = The result is an estimated quantity. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram sediment dry weight U = The analyte was analyzed for but not detected at or above the reported method detection limit (MDL). -- = no screening criterion was available for this analyte Sources: 1 Ecology, 1994. Natural Background Soil Metals Concentrations in Washington State (Yakima Basin), Toxics Cleanup Program. Department of Ecology. October. 2 Ecology, 2007. Model Toxics Control Act Chapter 70.05D RCW and Cleanup Regulation Chapter 173-340 WAC. Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program. Revised November 2007. Publication No. 94-06 3 USEPA, 2008. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed October 2008. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/index.htm 4 MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, and T. A. Berger, 2000. Development and Evaluation of Consensus-Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 39: 20-31. 5 Ecology, 2003. Development of Freshwater Sediment Quality Values for Use in Washington State. Phase II Report: Development and Recommendation of SQVs for Freshwater Sediments in Washington State. Washington Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program. Publication # 03-09-008. September 2003. Table 5. Waste Rock / Soil and Sediment Data and Screening Granite Lake Prospect, Yakima County, Washington.

Total Metals (mg/kg dry weight) Sample Sample ID Date Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Zinc

GL-01-WR 7/20/2009 25.9 21.7 0.713 0.154 J 0.752 1.79 7.58 33.8 41.7 0.0483 0.836 J 0.045 J 2.63 25.4

GL-02-WR 7/20/2009 108 J 40.3 0.882 0.267 J 0.861 8.29 16.0 16.4 362 0.172 1.67 0.155 J 4.60 44.5 Min. Detect. Conc. 25.9 21.7 0.713 0.154 0.752 1.79 7.58 16.4 41.7 0.0483 0.836 0.045 2.63 25.4 Ave. Detect. Conc. 67 31.0 0.798 0.211 0.807 5.04 11.8 25.1 202 0.110 1.25 0.100 3.62 35.0 Max. Detect. Conc. 108 J 40.3 0.882 0.267 J 0.861 8.29 16.0 33.8 362 0.172 1.67 0.155 J 4.60 44.5

Site-Specific Background Soil Conc. * 0.22 J 5.7 0.0244 J ND 4.4 2.11 11 3.08 39.5 0.0298 81.5 0.0338 J 0.0967 J 149 (range) (0.177-0.22) (4.11-5.7) (0.0171-0.0244) (3.78-4.4) (1.33-2.11) (3.09-11) (1.23-3.08) (S26-39.5) (0.0098-0.0298) (1.39-81.5) (0.0284-0.0338) (0.0367-0.0967) (9.06-149) Yakima Basin Natural Background 5.13 -- 2 0.9 38.3 -- 26.5 11.0 1,104.8 0.05 45.9 -- -- 78.7 Soil Metals Conc.1

Human Health Soil Screening Criteria

Ecology MTCA Method A Industrial 2,000 (Cr III) 20 -- -- 2 -- -- 1,000 -- 2 ------Soil Cleanup Levels (Table 745-1) 2 19 (Cr VI)

Ecology MTCA Method A Soil 2,000 (Cr III) Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land 20 -- -- 2 -- -- 250 -- 2 ------19 (Cr VI) Uses (Table 740-1) 2 USEPA Industrial Soil RSLs 3 1.6 190,000 2,000 800 1,400 300 41,000 800 23,000 24 20,000 5,100 5,100 310,000

Ecological Soil Screening Criteria Ecology MTCA Ecological Indicator Soil Concentrations for Protection of Terrestrial Plants and Animals (Table 749-3) 2 Plants 10 (As V) 500 10 4 42 a 20 100 50 1,100 a 0.3 30 1 2 86 a Soil biota 60 (As V) -- -- 20 42 a -- 50 500 -- 0.1 200 70 -- 200 132 (As V) Wildlife 102 -- 14 67 -- 217 118 1,500 5.5 980 0.3 -- 360 7 (As III) USEPA Eco-SSLs 4 Plants 18 -- -- 32 -- 13 70 120 220 -- 38 0.52 560 160 Soil Invertebrates -- 330 40 140 -- -- 80 1,700 450 -- 280 4.1 -- 120 Avian 43 -- -- 0.77 26 (Cr III) 120 28 11 4,300 -- 210 1.2 4.2 46 34 (Cr III) Mammalian 46 2,000 21 0.36 230 49 56 4,000 -- 130 0.63 14 79 130 (Cr VI)

Ecological Sediment Screening Criteria Probable Effect Concentration 33.0 -- -- 4.98 111 -- 149 128 -- 1.06 48.6 -- -- 459 (PEC) 5 Threshold Effect Concentration 9.79 -- -- 0.99 43.4 -- 31.6 35.8 -- 0.18 22.7 -- -- 121 (TEC) 5

Ecology Sediment Quality Standards 6 20 -- -- 0.6 95 -- 80 335 -- 0.5 60 -- 2.0 140

Notes: Detected or background concentration exceeds screening criterion. Screening criterion is exceeded by detected concentration. a = benchmark replaced by Washington State (state-wide) natural background concentration. J = The result is an estimated quantity. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram soil Sources: 1 Ecology, 1994. Natural Background Soil Metals Concentrations in Washington State (Yakima Basin), Toxics Cleanup Program. Department of Ecology. October. 2 Ecology, 2007. Model Toxics Control Act Chapter 70.05D RCW and Cleanup Regulation Chapter 173-340 WAC. Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program. Revised November 2007. 3 USEPA. 2009. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regions 3, 6, and 9. Accessed October 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/index.htm 4 USEPA, 2009. Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs). Accessed October 2008 online at http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/ 5 MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, and T. A. Berger, 2000. Development and Evaluation of Consensus-Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 39: 20-31. 6 Ecology, 2003. Development of Freshwater Sediment Quality Values for Use in Washington State. Phase II Report: Development and Recommendation of SQVs for Freshwater Sediments in Washington State. Washington Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program. Publication # 03-09-008. September 2003. Table 6. Waste Rock / Soil Data and Screening Copper City Mill, Yakima County, Washington.

Total Metals (mg/kg dry weight)

Sample Sample ID Date Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Zinc CC-15-WR 7/22/2009 1,500 36.4 0.492 J 1.69 J 1.89 38.5 3,780 180 567 0.814 1.37 J 1.15 16.6 214 CC-16-WR 7/22/2009 5,490 100 0.989 2.58 U 2.40 476 8,910 54.1 1,050 0.437 6.18 U 1.29 14.6 189 CC-17-WR 7/22/2009 5,740 35.1 0.930 6.90 J 1.20 271 13,400 374 1,630 0.442 6.13 U 1.92 34.3 903 CC-18-WR 7/22/2009 5,060 42.4 0.916 4.42 J 2.18 251 10,400 212 1,020 0.695 6.24 U 2.08 34.6 535 CC-19-WR 7/22/2009 1,090 44.3 0.410 J 1.40 J 5.70 51.5 2,730 38.7 554 0.0535 4.16 J 0.680 10.4 222 CC-20-WR 7/22/2009 13,200 103 1.01 J 2.68 1.85 373 9,660 92.8 J 758 J 0.257 3.30 3.30 24.7 J 259 CC-21-WR 7/22/2009 1,370 35.2 0.269 J 2.62 11.4 57.8 661 35.6 339 0.0883 7.47 J 0.790 2.13 103 CC-22-WR 7/22/2009 547 45.9 0.567 J 0.983 10.1 18.9 542 74.6 796 0.0553 8.37 0.378 J 2.32 183 CC-23-WR 7/22/2009 1,100 23.9 0.403 J 0.962 2.65 40.5 2,580 45.8 613 0.0195 1.76 J 0.665 6.52 140 CC-25-WR 7/22/2009 93.3 45.2 0.314 J 0.409 J 11.0 7.08 103 16.0 348 0.0294 6.64 0.302 J 0.451 J 81.9 Min. Detect. Conc. 93.3 23.9 0.269 J 0.409 J 1.20 7.08 103 16.0 339 0.0195 1.37 J 0.302 J 0.451 J 81.9 Ave. Detect. Conc. 3,519 51 0.63 2.45 5.0 159 5,277 112 768 0.289 4.72 1.26 14.7 283 Max. Detect. Conc. 13,200 103 1.01 J 6.90 J 11.4 476 13,400 374 1,630 0.814 8.37 3.30 34.6 903 95% UCL 7,729 71.2 0.803 3.71 >MAX 352 8,084 205 993 0.459 6.66 1.80 22.1 458

Site-Specific Background 63.7 64.2 0.515 0.386 20.9 8.82 28.8 20.1 572 0.105 15 0.381 0.521 131 (0.0111- (range) (14.2-67.6) (26.5-65.9) (0.197-0.515) (0.18-0.386) (6.56-20.9) (3.5-8.82) (14.8-28.8) (5.8-20.1) (104-600) (3.6-15.0) (0.158-0.399) (0.0984-0.521) (41.7-131) Conc. * 0.115)

Yakima Basin Natural 5.13 -- 2 0.9 38.3 -- 26.5 11.0 1,104.8 0.05 45.9 -- -- 78.7 Background Soil Metals Conc. 1

Human Health Soil Screening Criteria b Ecology MTCA Method A 2,000 (Cr III) Industrial Soil Cleanup Levels 20 -- -- 2 -- -- 1,000 -- 2 ------19 (Cr VI) (Table 745-1) 2 Ecology MTCA Method A Soil 2,000 (Cr III) Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted 20 -- -- 2 -- -- 250 -- 2 ------19 (Cr VI) Land Uses (Table 740-1) 2

USEPA Industrial Soil RSLs 3 1.6 190,000 2,000 800 1,400 300 41,000 800 23,000 24 20,000 5,100 5,100 310,000

Ecological Soil Screening Criteria c Ecology MTCA Ecological Indicator Soil Concentrations for Protection of Terrestrial Plants and Animals (Table 749-3) 2 Plants 10 (As V) 500 10 4 42 a 20 100 50 1,100 a 0.3 30 1 2 86 a Soil biota 60 (As V) -- -- 20 42 a -- 50 500 -- 0.1 200 70 -- 200

132 (As V) Wildlife 102 -- 14 67 -- 217 118 1,500 5.5 980 0.3 -- 360 7 (As III) USEPA Eco-SSLs 4 Plants 18 -- -- 32 -- 13 70 120 220 -- 38 0.52 560 160 Soil Invertebrates -- 330 40 140 -- -- 80 1,700 450 -- 280 4.1 -- 120 Avian 43 -- -- 0.77 26 (Cr III) 120 28 11 4,300 -- 210 1.2 4.2 46 34 (Cr III) Mammalian 46 2,000 21 0.36 230 49 56 4,000 -- 130 0.63 14 79 130 (Cr VI)

Notes: Detected or background concentration exceeds screening criterion. Screening criterion is exceeded by detected concentration. a = benchmark replaced by Washington State (state-wide) natural background concentration. b = criteria screened against 95% UCL c = criteria screened against 95% UCL for mobile receptors (wildlife), and against the maximum detected concentrations (MDCs) for immobile receptors (e.g., plants and soil biota). J = The result is an estimated quantity. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample. U = The analyte was analyzed for but not detected at or above the reported method detection limit (MDL). mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram soil >MAX = the 95 percent upper confidence limit on the mean (UCL) exceeded the MDC. The MDC was used as the exposure concentration for this analyte. * site-specific background concentration is the 90th percentile, unless the 90th percentile exceeds the MDC. In this case, the MDC is used. Sources: 1 Ecology, 1994. Natural Background Soil Metals Concentrations in Washington State (Yakima Basin), Toxics Cleanup Program. Department of Ecology. October. 2 Ecology, 2007. Model Toxics Control Act Chapter 70.05D RCW and Cleanup Regulation Chapter 173-340 WAC. Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program. Revised November 2007. Publication No. 94-06 3 USEPA. 2009. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regions 3, 6, and 9. Accessed October 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/index.htm 4 USEPA, 2009. Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs). Accessed October 2009 online at http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/ Table 7. Background Soil Data Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect, Yakima County, Washington.

Total Metals (mg/kg dry weight)

Sample Sample ID Date Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Zinc

COPPER CITY MILL CC-05-S 7/22/2009 34.6 65.9 0.438 J 0.306 J 15.7 8.22 28.2 16.9 491 0.0749 11.3 0.381 J 0.388 J 147 CC-06-S 7/22/2009 27.7 36.5 0.349 J 0.276 J 9.43 3.50 14.8 10.1 116 0.0752 6.20 0.337 J 0.472 J 53.8 CC-07-S 7/22/2009 28.1 48.8 0.288 J 0.277 J 10.1 5.78 18.4 10.2 392 0.0111 J 7.15 0.158 J 0.209 J 84.2 CC-08-S 7/22/2009 67.6 63.7 0.526 J 0.422 J 21.2 9.59 39.3 30.5 572 0.0621 J 15.7 0.364 J 0.617 J 158 CC-09-S 7/22/2009 28.3 26.5 0.276 J 0.357 J 8.60 3.54 16.2 9.97 104 0.0712 5.93 0.178 J 0.243 J 51.8 CC-10-S 7/22/2009 42.2 40.0 0.325 J 0.307 J 13.0 4.98 14.9 10.5 375 0.105 9.12 0.253 J 0.190 J 94.9 CC-11-S 7/22/2009 36.7 40.0 0.244 J 0.264 J 6.56 4.06 18.1 8.83 105 0.0555 3.60 0.352 J 0.293 J 41.7 CC-12-S 7/22/2009 43.4 49.0 0.312 J 0.180 J 17.3 5.95 16.3 9.64 257 0.0376 10.8 0.180 J 0.230 J 51.9 CC-13-S 7/22/2009 14.2 40.3 0.197 J 0.287 J 11.2 5.44 16.5 5.80 383 0.0585 8.42 0.197 J 0.0984 J 59.7 CC-14-S 7/22/2009 65.4 55.5 0.572 J 0.193 J 21.6 8.19 20.4 13.7 288 0.0359 14.1 0.310 J 0.283 J 61.9 Min. Detect. Conc. 14.2 26.5 0.197 J 0.180 J 6.56 3.50 14.8 5.80 104 0.0111 J 3.60 0.158 J 0.0984 J 41.7 Max. Detect. Conc. 67.6 65.9 0.572 J 0.422 J 21.6 9.59 39.3 30.5 572 0.105 15.7 0.381 J 0.617 J 158 90th Percentile 63.7 64.2 0.515 0.386 20.9 8.82 28.8 20.1 >MAX >MAX 15.0 >MAX 0.521 131

Copper City Mill Site-Specific Background 63.7 64.2 0.515 0.386 20.9 8.82 28.8 20.1 572 0.105 15.0 0.381 J 0.521 131 Concentration *

GRANITE LAKE PROSPECT GL-03-S 7/20/2009 0.182 J 5.70 0.0171 J 0.0569 U 3.78 1.33 3.09 3.08 26.0 0.0298 J 1.39 0.0284 J 0.0967 J 9.51 GL-04-S 7/20/2009 0.220 J 5.35 0.0225 J 0.0563 U 4.33 1.55 3.43 2.06 39.5 0.0142 1.64 0.0338 J 0.0563 J 9.06 GL-05-S 7/20/2009 0.177 J 4.11 0.0244 J 0.0611 U 4.40 2.11 11.0 1.23 33.2 0.00980 81.5 0.0306 J 0.0367 J 149 Minimum 0.177 J 4.11 0.0171 J -- 3.78 1.33 3.09 1.23 26.0 0.00980 1.39 0.0284 J 0.0367 J 9.06 Maximum 0.220 J 5.70 0.0244 J -- 4.40 2.11 11.0 3.08 39.5 0.0298 J 81.5 0.0338 J 0.0967 J 149 90th Percentile ------

Granite Lake Prospect Site-Specific Background 0.220 J 5.70 0.0244 J -- 4.40 2.11 11.0 3.08 39.5 0.0298 J 81.5 0.0338 J 0.0967 J 149 Concentration *

Note: 90th percentile calculated using natural log transformed data from all ten samples and the equation, 90th percentile = exp(mean+1.28* standard deviation). Not calculated when fewer than five samples were available. * site-specific background concentration is the 90th percentile, unless the 90th percentile exceeds the maximum detected concentration (MDC). In this case, the MDC is used. J = The result is an estimated quantity. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample. U = The analyte was analyzed for but not detected at or above the reported method detection limit (MDL). >MAX = the 90th percentile exceeded the MDC. The MDC was used as the site-specific background concentration for this analyte. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram soil -- = not analyzed or not calculated Table 8. Waste Rock, Soil and Sediment Grain Size Data Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect, Yakima County, Washington.

Total Grain Size Analysis (%) Sample Sample Organic ID Date Carbon (mg/kg) Clay Clay Silt Fine Sand Medium Sand Coarse Sand Gravel

COPPER CITY MILL SITE Background Soil CC-07-S 7/22/2009 41,000 22 6.0 40 22 6.6 4.2 CC-08-S 7/22/2009 24,000 90 0.3 2.7 2.1 1.1 3.3 CC-10-S 7/22/2009 45,000 22 10 40 21 5.4 0.5 CC-11-S 7/22/2009 100,000 22 13 31 12 14 7.6 CC-12-S 7/22/2009 24,000 8.2 5.3 24 26 15 22 Waste Rock / Soil CC-16-WR 7/22/2009 3,100 4.7 2.1 7.6 12 21 52 CC-17-WR 7/22/2009 5,900 3.4 2.5 5.5 9.0 12 67 CC-18-WR 7/22/2009 5,200 3.7 2.8 5.4 7.7 9.6 71 CC-20-WR 7/22/2009 2,000 5.9 5.9 14 22 30 22 CC-22-WR 7/22/2009 21,000 23 18 40 12 5.1 1.7 Deep Creek Sediment CC-03-SD (20 ft below trib.) 7/29/2009 2,100 6.6 U 1.0 38 36 18 CC-02-SD (0.5 mi below trib.) 7/21/2009 610 U 2.1 U 0.5 43 31 24 CC-04-SD (20 ft above trib.) 7/23/2009 2,700 2.1 U 12 22 25 39 Mill Tributary Sediment CC-26-SD (below mill) 7/23/2009 49,000 8.0 3.1 8.1 16 21 44 CC-27-SD (seep at mill) 7/23/2009 23,000 15 0.80 19 23 15 26 CC-28-SD (above mill) 7/23/2009 19,000 0.40 1.5 12 21 23 43

GRANITE LAKE PROSPECT Background Soil GL-03-S 7/20/2009 54,000 18 4.2 55 20 1.9 0.90 GL-04-S 7/20/2009 31,000 11 6.3 58 23 0.9 U GL-05-S 7/20/2009 38,000 13 8.4 59 16 1.4 2.0 Waste Rock / Soil GL-01-WR 7/20/2009 3,700 1.5 0.70 12 18 12 55 GL-02-WR 7/20/2009 2,900 6.0 5.0 9.8 11 15 53 Notes: U = The analyte was analyzed for but not detected at or above the reported method detection limit (MDL). Table 9. Waste Rock ABA Data Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect, Yakima County, Washington.

Carbon Analyses Sulfur Analyses al al i ) ) 5 on Potent on i er tonne er p per tonne) per tonne per tonne) per 3 3 3 3 1 3

Sample enerat 4 G d CaCO

Sample ID Date i g k Total Inorganic Carbon Carbon Inorganic Total (TIC) (%) Total Carbon (%) Carbon Organic Total (TOC) (%) Carbonate Acid Neutralization Potential (kg CaCO Modified Sobek Acid Neutralization Potential (kg CaCO Sulfur Organic Residual (%) Sulfur Pyritic Sulfide (%) Sulfur Sulfate (%) Total Sulfur (%) Total Sulfur minus Sulfate (%) Ac 2 (calc from Total Sulfur) ( Net Neutralization Potential (kg CaCO Modified Sobek Neutralization Potential Ratio Carbonate Neutralization Potential Ratio Percent Solids Saturated Paste pH

Analysis on Whole Sample GL-02-WR 7/20/2009 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 8.3 5 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.3 5.0 16 26.7 93.5 5.4 CC-20-WR 7/22/2009 0.2 J 0.2 J 0.1 U 17 22 1.19 0.43 0.08 J 1.70 0.43 13 8.6 1.6 1.2 95.3 7.1 Analysis on Fine Fraction (<2.0mm) of Sample CC-20-WR 7/22/2009 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 8.3 31 1.39 0.29 0.01 U 1.58 0.29 9.1 21.9 3.4 0.9 -- 7.0

Notes: J = The result is an estimated quantity. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample. U = The analyte was analyzed for but not detected at or above the reported method detection limit (MDL). -- = Not analyzed or calculated. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.

Acid Generating Potential (AGP) = kilograms CaCO3 equivalent per tonne of material.

Acid Neutralization Potential (ANP) = Modified Sobek Neutralization Potential in kilograms CaCO3 equivalent per tonne of material. (1) The Carb-ANP is calculated as follows: Carb-ANP (kg CaCO3/tonne) = Total Inorganic Carbon (TIC) (weight % C) x (100.09/12.01) x (10). (2) The AGP is calculated as follows: AGP = Total Sulfur x 31.25. (3) The Net Neutralization Potential (NNP) is calculated as follows: NNP = Modified Sobek ANP - AGP. (4) The Modified Sobek Neutralization Potential Ratio (NPR) is calculated as follows: NPR = Modified Sobek ANP / AGP. (5) The Carbonate NPR is calculated as follows: Carbonate NPR = Carb ANP / AGP. Table 10. TCLP and SPLP Results Copper City Mill, Yakima County, Washington.

Analysis of Metals (mg/L) Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadimum Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Zinc TCLP - Whole Fraction CC-20-WR 1.1 0.009 J 0.004 U 0.01 U 0.02 U 0.94 54.20 0.08 U 4.72 0.0002 UJ 0.02 U 0.1 U 0.02 U 1.32 TCLP - Fine Fraction (<2.0mm) CC-20-WR 0.6 0.092 0.004 U 0.01 U 0.02 U 1.43 58.50 0.08 U 5.04 0.0002 UJ 0.02 U 0.1 U 0.02 U 1.61 SPLP - Whole Fraction CC-20-WR 0.742 0.003 U 0.002 U 0.0001 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.04 J 0.0006 J 0.009 J 0.0002 U 0.01 U 0.0007 0.01 U 0.01 U SPLP - Fine Fraction (<2.0mm) CC-20-WR 0.657 J 0.003 U 0.002 U 0.0001 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.03 J 0.0007 J 0.007 J 0.0002 U 0.01 0.0005 0.01 U 0.01 J Max. Detect. Conc. MDC in TCLP Leachate 1.1 0.092 ND ND ND 1.43 58.50 ND 5.04 ND ND ND ND 1.61 MDC in SPLP Leachate 0.742 ND ND ND ND ND 0.04 J 0.007 J 0.009 J ND 0.01 0.0007 ND 0.01 J

a,1 TCLP Regulatory Levels 5 100 -- 15-- -- 5 -- 0.2 -- 15--

Leachate Screening Criteria WDOE Method A Cleanup Levels for Groundwater b,2 0.005 -- -- 0.05 0.05 -- -- 0.150 -- 0.002 ------(modified for comparison to leachate) WDOE Method B Cleanup Levels for Groundwater b,2 4.80E-03 3.2 0.032 0.08 24 (Cr3+) -- 0.592 -- 2.2 0.0048 0.32 0.08 0.08 48 (modified for comparison to leachate) WDOH MCLs 3 0.010 2 0.004 0.005 0.1 -- 1.3 c 0.015 c 0.05 d 0.002 0.1 0.05 0.1 d 5 d 4 EPA Drinking Water MCLs 0.010 2 0.004 0.005 0.1 -- 1 d 0.015 0.05 d 0.002 -- 0.05 0.1 d 5 d

Notes: Detected concentration exceeds screening criterion. Screening criterion is exceeded by detected concentration. Only MDCs of SPLP results were compared to leachate screening criteria. Ecological screening criteria for water are presented in Table 2. U = Analyte was not detected, the reported concentration is the method detection limit. J = The analyte was detected, the reported concentration is an estimate. UJ = The analyte was not detected, the reported method detection limit in an estimate. MDC = maximum detected concentration SPLP = Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure TCLP = Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure ND = Not detected, method detection limit shown above -- = no screening criterion was available for this analyte a = TCLP results exceeding TCLP Regulatory Levels suggest that the material is a hazardous waste due to its toxicity. b = Modification to WDOE screening criteria: cadimium, lead, and zinc concentrations were multiplied by 10 per WAC 173-340-747(7). c = action level d = secondary criteria

Sources: 1 40 CFR 261.24 Toxicity Characteristics. 2 WDOE. 2005. Model Toxics Control Act Chapter 70.05D RCW and Cleanup Regulation Chapter 173-340 WAC. Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program. Revised October 2005. Publication No. 94-06 3 WAC 2004. Washington Administrative Code 246-290-310. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) 4 EPA Drinking Water MCLs. EPA. 2006 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology.

FIGURES

Seattle Cle Elum

97 90

Ellensburg

Bumping Lake

Mount Rainier National Park Mount Rainier National Park GRANITE LAKE

Naches COPPER CITY MILL

YakimaYakima FiringFiring C

12 82

Yakima

PROJECT VICINITY MAP 0 5 10 Miles UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE NOVEMBER 2009 COPPER CITY MILL / GRANITE LAKE SITE INSPECTION 25696996 YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON

FIGURE 1 O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\GIS\MXD\Project Vicinity Map.mxd Vicinity Technical\GIS\MXD\Project Mill\5000 City Copper USFS O:\25696996 GRANITE LAKE PB38 S10 S12 S09

S15 PB39 S16 S13

T15-0N R11-0E T15-0N R12-0E

S22 PB40 S21 S24

COPPER CITY MILL

S28 S27 S25 PB41 SITE

Source: Bumping Lake, WA USGS Topographic 24k series map.

0 2,000 Feet VICINITY MAP UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE NOVEMBER 2009 COPPER CITY MILL / GRANITE LAKE SITE INSPECTION 25696996 YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON

FIGURE 2 O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\GIS\MXD\Vicinity Map.mxd Technical\GIS\MXD\Vicinity Mill\5000 City Copper USFS O:\25696996 Collapsed Building Jeep Trail Jeep Trail

Processed Ore

Waste Rock

FS Road 1808

4150

CC-16

4147 4149 4148 4146 4145 4143 4144 4142

4141 4140 CC-15 4139

4138 4137 4134 4136 4132 4130 4133 4135 4131 CC-18 CC-17 4129 4128 4127

4126 4125

4124 4123 4121 4118 4122

4120 4119 4117 4116 4115

4114 4113 4111 4112 4105 4110 4109 4108 4104 Seep CC-27 CC-19 4107 CC-20 Loading Ramp 4102 4101

4100

4099 4106 4103 CC-21 CC-22

Map Features 4090 Waste Rock Sample Location Trail Concrete CC-25 CC-23 Creek Wood Wall 1' Elevation Contour

Approximate 10' Elevation Contour

Waste Rock Processed Ore

Imagery Source: USGS 2005.

0 25 50 Feet ELEVATION CONTOURS - COPPER CITY MILL UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE NOVEMBER 2009 COPPER CITY MILL / GRANITE LAKE SITE INSPECTION 25696996 YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON FIGURE 3 O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\GIS\MXD\Elevation Contours_CCM.mxd Technical\GIS\MXD\Elevation Copper City Mill\5000 USFS O:\25696996 Granite Granite Creek Granite Lake Lake Waste Rock

FS Rd 1809

5034 5035 5036 5037 5038

5039

5040 GL-01

5041

5042

GL-02 5043

5044 5044 5045

5046

5050 Y Approximate Location of Caved Mine Adit

Map Features Waste Rock Sample Location 1' Elevation Contour Approximate 5' Elevation Contour Waste Rock

Imagery Source: USGS 2005.

0 10 20 Feet ELEVATION CONTOURS - GRANITE LAKE PROSPECT UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE NOVEMBER 2009 COPPER CITY MILL / GRANITE LAKE SITE INSPECTION 25696996 YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON

FIGURE 4 O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\GIS\MXD\Elevation Contours_GL.mxd Technical\GIS\MXD\Elevation Copper City Mill\5000 USFS O:\25696996 SITE PEMC PEMG

PEMC

PFOA

Copper City Mill Mine Site FS Road 1808

Deep Creek

PEMF Map Features PEMC Stream NWI Wetland

Source: USGS 2005.

0 500 1,000 Feet WETLANDS - COPPER CITY MILL UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE NOVEMBER 2009 COPPER CITY MILL / GRANITE LAKE SITE INSPECTION 25696996 YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON

FIGURE 5 O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\GIS\MXD\Wetlands_CCM.mxd Mill\5000 City Copper USFS O:\25696996 SITE

PUBH

Granite Lake Mine Adit

PEMC

Map Features

Stream NWI Wetland

Source: USGS 2005.

0 500 1,000 Feet WETLANDS - GRANITE LAKE PROSPECT UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE NOVEMBER 2009 COPPER CITY MILL / GRANITE LAKE SITE INSPECTION 25696996 YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON

FIGURE 6 O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\GIS\MXD\Wetlands_GL.mxd Mill\5000 City Copper USFS O:\25696996 Potential Human Health Potential Ecological Receptors

ReceptorsSu rfa Inv R A T Well Users Ma ecre a atic Life qu atic erre s ertebr a ce Wat Plants Us Bi rds mm als er s onal ti onal al tri al or er or PRIMARY SECONDARY RELEASE EXPOSURE te s SOURCE SOURCE MECHANISM MEDIUM EXPOSURE ROUTE

Dust Generation riA noitalahnI CI ANAN and Volatilization

Incidental Ingestion IC NA NA

Waste Pile Surface Soil Uptake/Dermal Contact IC NA

Food Web Ingestion IC IC NA NA

Past Mining Surface Soil noitsegnI latnedicnI noitsegnI CIAN Operations (including waste soil)

Waste Pile & tnemideS lamreD tcatnoC CIAN Erosion

noitsegnI beW dooF beW noitsegnI CIAN

Leaching Groundwater Ingestion IC IC NA IC

noitsegnI CI CIAN

Surface Water Uptake/Dermal Contact IC IC NA IC

Legend: Food Web Ingestion IC NA IC Potentially complete pathway Minor, insignificant or unquantifiable potentially complete pathway IC Incomplete pathway NA Exposure route not applicable for specific receptor group

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL - COPPER CITY MILL UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE NOVEMBER 2009 COPPER CITY MILL / GRANITE LAKE SITE INSPECTION 25696996 YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON

FIGURE 7 O:\25696996USFSCopper Mill\5000City Technical\GIS\MXD\Conceptual_Site_Model_CCM.mxd Potential Human Health Potential Ecological Receptors

ReceptorsSu rfa Inv R A T Well Users Ma ecre a atic Life qu atic erre s ertebr a Plants ce Wat Us Bi rds mm als er s onal ti onal al tri al or er or PRIMARY SECONDARY RELEASE EXPOSURE te s SOURCE SOURCE MECHANISM MEDIUM EXPOSURE ROUTE

Dust Generation riA noitalahnI CI ANAN and Volatilization

Incidental Ingestion IC NA NA

Waste Pile Surface Soil Uptake/Dermal Contact IC NA

Food Web Ingestion IC IC NA NA

Past Mining Surface Soil Incidental Ingestion IC NA IC Operations (including waste soil)

Waste Pile & Sediment Dermal Contact IC NA IC Erosion

Food Web Ingestion IC NA IC

Leaching Groundwater Ingestion IC IC NA IC

noitsegnI CI CIAN

Surface Water Uptake/Dermal Contact IC NA IC

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL - GRANITE LAKE PROSPECT UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE NOVEMBER 2009 COPPER CITY MILL / GRANITE LAKE SITE INSPECTION 25696996 YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON

FIGURE 8 O:\25696996USFSCopper Mill\5000City Technical\GIS\MXD\Conceptual_Site_Model_GL.mxd SITE

Jeep Trail

Collapsed CC-02 Building

CC-06

CC-08 CC-10 CC-07 FS Road 1808 CC-28 CC-11 CC-09 CC-05 CC-15 CC-16 CC-12 CC-18 Former Mill Structure CC-17 CC-19 CC-13 CC-27 CC-21 CC-22 CC-20 CC-14 CC-25 CC-29 CC-23

CC-26

Deep Creek

CC-03

CC-04 Map Features

Surface Water Sample Location Surface Water and Sediment Sample Location Background Soil Sample Location Waste Rock Sample Location Macroinvertebrate Sample Location Waste Rock Processed Ore

Source: USGS 2005.

0 100 200 Feet SAMPLE LOCATIONS - COPPER CITY MILL UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE NOVEMBER 2009 COPPER CITY MILL / GRANITE LAKE SITE INSPECTION 25696996 YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON

FIGURE 9 O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\GIS\MXD\Site Map_CCM.mxd Technical\GIS\MXD\Site Mill\5000 City Copper USFS O:\25696996 SITE

GL-07

Granite Creek

GL-06

Campsite GL-01 GL-02 Waste Rock Mine Adit Y GL-03 GL-05 GL-04

FS Rd 1809

Map Features

Surface Water Sample Location Waste Rock and Surface Water Sample Location Background Soil Sample Location Waste Rock Sample Location Macroinvertebrate Sample Location

Source: USGS 2005.

0 100 200 Feet SAMPLE LOCATIONS - GRANITE LAKE PROSPECT UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE NOVEMBER 2009 COPPER CITY MILL / GRANITE LAKE SITE INSPECTION 25696996 YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON

FIGURE 10 O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\GIS\MXD\Site Map_GL.mxd Technical\GIS\MXD\Site Mill\5000 City Copper USFS O:\25696996 S17 S16 S15 S14 S13

S21 S22 S24 S20 S23 S24 S19 S20 S21 S22 S23 T16N R12E SITE S27 S29 S28 S30 S25 S25 S26 T16N R13E S29 S28 S27 T16N R11E S26 S27 T16N R12E S28

PB43 S35 S36 S31 PB46 PB40 S33 S34 PB42 PB44 PB45

S02 S01 S06 S01 PB37 S04 S03 S05 S04 S03 S02 GRANITE LAKE

S11 S12 S07 S12 PB38 S10 S08 S09 S10 S11 S09

S13 S18 PB39 S16 S15 S14 S17 S16 S15 S14 S13 T15N R13E T15N R11E T15N R12E

S24 S19 PB40 S21 S22 S23 S20 S21 S22 S23 S24 COPPER CITY MILL

S25 S30 PB41 S28 S27 S26 S28 S27 S26 S25 S29

PB43 S35 S36 S31 S36 PB42 S33 S34 S32 S33 S34 S35

S01 S06 PB37 S04 S03 S02 PB41 PB40 PB39 PB38 PB37 Map Features T14N R11E T14N R12E T14N R13E Well Location S07 S09 S10 S11 S12 S08 S09 S10 S11 S12 S08 4 Mile Buffer Stream S17 S16 S15 S14 S13 S18

012Miles WELL LOCATIONS UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE NOVEMBER 2009 COPPER CITY MILL / GRANITE LAKE SITE INSPECTION 25696996 YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON

FIGURE 11 O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\GIS\MXD\Well Locations.mxd Technical\GIS\MXD\Well Mill\5000 City Copper USFS O:\25696996 S19 S20 S21 S22 S23 S24 S22 S23 S24 S22 S23 PB40

S29 S28 S27 S26 S25 SITE S30 S26 S25 S26 PB41 T17N R13E S27 T17N R11E S27 T17N R12E

S35 S36 S31 S32 S33 S34 PB42 S34 S35 S36 S34 S35 8 SURFACE WATER RIGHTS PB42 PB41 PB40 PB39 PB38 S04 S03 S03 S02 S01 S05 PB37

S11 S11 S10 PB38 PB43 S08 S09 S10 S12 S08 S09 S10 S11 T16N R12E PB39 1 SURFACE WATER RIGHT S17 S16 S15 S14 S15 S13 S18 S15 S14 S13 S17 S16 S14 T16N R13E 2 SURFACE S22 WATER RIGHTS T16N R11E S22 S23 S24 S19 S20 S21 S22 S23 S24 S23 S20 S21 S27 S29 S28 S27 S26 S26 S25 S30 S29 S28 S27 S26 S25 S27 S28

S34 S35 S35 S36 S31 S32 S33 PB45 PB46 PB40 S33 S34

S04 S03 S02 S02 S01 S06 S05 S02 S01 PB37 S04 S03 GRANITE LAKE

S08 S09 S10 S11 S10 S11 S12 S07 S10 S11 S12 PB38 x S09 S15 S14 S18 S17 T15N R13E T15N R11E PB39 S16 T15N R12E S13 S15 S16 S14 S13 S15 S14

S20 S21 S22 S23 S21 S22 S23 S24 S19 S22 S23 S24 PB40 Map Features COPPER CITY MILL x Surface Water Right S29 S28 StreamS27 S26 S27 S26 S25 PB41 S28 S27 S26 S25 S30 Sections Searched S34 S35

012Miles SURFACE WATER RIGHTS UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE NOVEMBER 2009 COPPER CITY MILL / GRANITE LAKE SITE INSPECTION 25696996 YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON

FIGURE 12 O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\GIS\MXD\Surface Water Rights.mxd Water Technical\GIS\MXD\Surface Mill\5000 City Copper USFS O:\25696996

APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client: Site Location: Project No. United States Forest Service Copper City Mill Yakima County, Washington 25696996

Photo No. Date: 1 7/22/2009 Direction Photo Taken:

West

Description:

Remains of the mill at Copper City.

Photo No. Date: 2 7/22/2009 Direction Photo Taken:

Southwest

Description:

Clearing at Copper City. Mill remains are visible across clearing.

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client: Site Location: Project No. United States Forest Service Copper City Mill Yakima County, Washington 25696996

Photo No. Date: 3 7/22/2009 Direction Photo Taken:

East

Description:

Copper City Mill remains, with waste rock piles around foundation. Unnamed tributary flowing through the site is visible on the right.

Photo No. Date: 4 7/22/2009 Direction Photo Taken:

East

Description:

Loading ramp, covered with fine grained, mill related soil/dust. Soil has been transported via wind and rain down-slope to the south (right). PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client: Site Location: Project No. United States Forest Service Copper City Mill Yakima County, Washington 25696996

Photo No. Date: 5 7/20/2009 Direction Photo Taken:

West

Description:

Broad view of Granite Lake. The collapsed adit and associated waste rock are not visible from this perspective.

Photo No. Date: 6 7/20/2009 Direction Photo Taken:

South

Description:

Current view of the collapsed adit at the edge of Granite Lake.

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client: Site Location: Project No. United States Forest Service Copper City Mill Yakima County, Washington 25696996

Photo No. Date: 7 7/20/2009 Direction Photo Taken:

East

Description:

The southwestern shore of Granite Lake. The waste rock pile is visible extending into the lake.

Photo No. Date: 8 7/22/2009 Direction Photo Taken:

South

Description:

Soil profile down slope of the loading ramp at Copper City. Mill related waste, covered by a layer of organic matter.

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client: Site Location: Project No. United States Forest Service Copper City Mill Yakima County, Washington 25696996

Photo No. Date: 9 7/23/2009 Direction Photo Taken:

West

Description:

An unnamed tributary flowing through the remains of Copper City Mill.

Photo No. Date: 10 7/21/2009 Direction Photo Taken:

Northeast

Description:

Sediment accumulated along the shore of Deep Creek (left). Bedrock stream bed is visible on the right side of the image, followed by small stream cascades. Photo is taken upstream of Deep Creek and tributary confluence (CC-04 location).

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client: Site Location: Project No. United States Forest Service Copper City Mill Yakima County, Washington 25696996

Photo No. Date: 11 7/30/2009 Direction Photo Taken:

West

Description:

Typical gravels in Deep Creek. Some sands visible below gravel.

Photo No. Date: 12 7/20/2009 Direction Photo Taken:

North

Description:

Logs and organic debris lining the bottom of Granite Lake (near the Lake’s outlet).

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client: Site Location: Project No. United States Forest Service Copper City Mill Yakima County, Washington 25696996

Photo No. Date: 13 7/20/2009 Direction Photo Taken:

South

Description:

Location of sample GL-02- WR. Waste rock sample collected from above the water line at Granite Lake. Field duplicate quality control sample containers are visible alongside the primary sample.

Photo No. Date: 14 7/20/2009 Direction Photo Taken:

East

Description:

A URS biologist rinses invertebrates collected from the waste rock pile below the water line. Waste rock (sediment), surface water and invertebrate samples were collocated here (GL-01).

APPENDIX B WASTE ROCK VOLUME CALCULATIONS AND CROSS SECTIONS

APPENDIX C STREAMLINED HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

LIST OF ACRONYMS iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 RISK ASSESSMENT DATA 1

3.0 STREAMLINED HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 3 3.1 Hazard Identification and Selection of COPCs ...... 4 3.1.1 Screening Criteria ...... 4 3.1.2 Screening Results and COPC Selection...... 5 3.2 Exposure Assessment ...... 6 3.2.1 Potentially Exposed Populations...... 7 3.2.2 Identification of Potential Exposure Pathways ...... 7 3.2.3 Current and Potential Future Receptors...... 9 3.2.4 Exposure Assumptions...... 9 3.2.5 Exposure Point Concentrations...... 9 3.3 Toxicity Assessment...... 9 3.3.1 Categorization of Chemicals as Noncarcinogens or Carcinogen...... 10 3.3.1.1 Potential Carcinogenic Effects...... 10 3.3.1.2 Potential Noncarcinogenic Effects...... 10 3.4 Risk and Hazard Estimates ...... 11 3.4.1 Excess Cancer Risk Assessment...... 11 3.4.2 Noncarcinogenic Hazard Assessment...... 12 3.4.3 Uncertainty Evaluation ...... 13 3.5 Determination of Potential Hot Spots...... 14 3.6 Calculation of Cleanup Levels...... 14 3.7 Summary of Potential Human Health Risks...... 15 4.0 STREAMLINED ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 16 4.1 Conceptual Ecological Risk Model ...... 16 4.1.1 Ecological Setting ...... 17 4.1.2 Ecological Conceptual Site Model...... 18 4.1.3 Ecological Assessment and Measurement Endpoints...... 18 4.1.3.1 Assessment Endpoints...... 18 4.1.3.2 Measurement Endpoints...... 19 4.2 Ecological Risk-Based Screening...... 19 4.2.1 Screening Criteria ...... 19 4.2.2 Screening Results and CPEC Selection ...... 20 4.3 Ecological Risk and Hazard Estimates ...... 22 4.3.1 Surface Water ...... 23 4.3.1.1 Sediment ...... 25 4.3.2 Soil...... 26 4.3.3 Uncertainty Analysis...... 28 4.3.4 Determination of Cleanup Level...... 29 4.4 Summary of Ecological Risks...... 29

i TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 30

6.0 FOREST SERVICE DISCLAIMER 32

7.0 REFERENCES 32

TABLES Table 3-1 Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs)...... 5 Table 3-2 Human Health Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs)...... 8 Table 3-3 Critical Toxicity Values for Carcinogenic COPCs...... 9 Table 3-4 Critical Toxcity Values for Noncarcinogenic COPCs...... 9 Table 3-5 Summary of Risk Estimates...... 10 Table 3-6 Summary of Hazard Quotient...... 11

Table 4-1 Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern (CPECs) ...... 17 Table 4-2 Ecological Risk Ratios for Surface Water ...... 20 Table 4-3 Ecological Risk Ratios for Sediment ...... 21 Table 4-4 Ecological Risk Ratios for Soil...... 23

ATTACHMENT 1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT TABLES Table 1 Exposure Parameters for Risk Assessment Calculations Table 2 Estimated Chemical Intake for Recreational Users – Copper City Mill Table 3 Human Health Risks from All Pathways – Copper City Mill Table 4 Estimated Chemical Intake for Recreational Users – Granite Lake Prospect Table 5 Human Health Risks from All Pathways – Granite Lake Prospect

ATTACHMENT 2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT TABLES Table 1 Risk Ratio Calculations for Surface Water and Sediment Table 2 Risk Ratio Calculations for Soil Table 3 Biotic Ligand Model Site-Specific Screening Criteria and Risk Ratios for Copper

ATTACHMENT 3 RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY Table 1 Protective Cleanup Levels for Arsenic

ii LIST OF ACRONYMS

ABA acid-base accounting AE assessment endpoint AWQC ambient water quality criteria BLM biotic-ligand model CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) CCC Criterion Continuous Concentration COC chemical of concern COI chemical of interest COPC chemical of potential concern CPEC chemical of potential ecological concern CTE central tendency exposure Eco-SSL USEPA ecological soil screening level Ecology Washington Department of Ecology EPC exposure point calculation ERA ecological risk assessment HHRA human health risk assessment HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient IRIS Integrated Risk Information System IRU inhalation risk units MCL maximum contaminant level MDC maximum detected concentration MDL method detection limit ME measurement endpoint mg/kg milligrams per kilogram MTCA Washington Model Toxics Control Act NFS National Forest System ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory PEC consensus-based probable effect concentration PECR potential excess cancer risk PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal QA/QC quality assurance/quality control RfC reference concentrations RfD reference dose RME reasonable maximum exposure RSL Regional Screening Level SF slope factor SI site inspection SACM Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model TEC consensus-based threshold effect concentration TRV toxicity reference value μg/L micrograms per liter UCL upper confidence limit of the mean USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency WAC Washington Administrative Code

iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

URS Corporation has prepared this Streamlined Risk Evaluation and Assessment to evaluate the potential risks to human health and the environment stemming from issues identified in the Abbreviated Preliminary Assessment (APA) (Forest Service, 2005) conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) at the Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect in south- central Washington (Site Inspection [SI] Report, Figures 1 through 3). Both Sites are inactive areas of former mining activities located in the Wenatchee-Okanogan National Forest, in Yakima County, Washington. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has developed the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to promote increased efficiency and shorter response times for remediation of contaminated sites (USEPA, 1992). The SACM approach requires a reduction of risk through removal actions or presumptive remedies. Since any actions are required to be driven by risk reduction, risk assessments under the SACM model need to be streamlined to support a removal action, if warranted. This Streamlined Risk Evaluation and Assessment serves this purpose by assessing risk qualitatively; utilizing Site-specific hazard and exposure information, incident reports, and health advisory data; and/or comparing Site soil, surface water, and waste rock results data to screening levels. This report is a scoping and screening level risk assessment that generally follows the framework set forth by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) (2007) and USEPA guidance (1989, 1992, 1997, and 1998). The benefit of streamlining the risk evaluation is that the process identifies potential high hazard areas and facilitates the completion of removal actions, if warranted.

2.0 RISK ASSESSMENT DATA

At the Copper City Mill Site, URS collected surface water, sediment, waste rock and crushed ore, and background soil samples (SI Report, Figure 9). Macroinvertebrates were also collected from Deep Creek up and downstream of the Site and analyzed for species abundance and diversity. Samples were collected from areas clearly impacted by milling activities (e.g., mine waste near the mill foundation and crushed ore near the loading ramp), and from background areas. The Copper City Mill Site is approximately 0.21 acres in size. At the Granite Lake Site, surface water, submerged and above water waste rock, and background soil samples were collected (SI Report, Figure 10). Macroinvertebrates were collected from two locations within the lake. The Granite Lake Prospect is approximately 0.018 acres (775 square feet) in size. • Although not random, this sampling methodology was selected to estimate the range of chemical concentrations present at each of the Sites, especially in potentially contaminated areas.

o Since it focuses on the impacted areas of the Site, this sample methodology creates a sample population that generally over-represents mining activity-affected areas in relation to the area of each Site as a whole.

o This conservative sampling methodology is appropriate for screening-level assessments where the gross level of contamination is the focus of interest, rather than a detailed understanding of extent. • Samples were collected from waste rock and crushed ore and analyzed as “soil.” The resulting concentrations were used to estimate exposure point concentrations (EPCs) in the human health and ecological risk assessments.

o The waste rock and crushed ore, while not true soils, are functionally soil-like with respect to how humans, plants, and animals interact with it.

o The analytical results of waste rock samples were used to determine exposure concentrations in the screening process, and were compared to the analytical results for background soil samples.

o Samples collected from the waste rock and crushed ore were also analyzed for leaching potential using acid-base accounting (ABA). ABA analysis is important for understanding the potential of waste rock to generate acid and cause leaching, but was not directly used in the risk assessment. • Samples were collected from surface water.

o At Copper City Mill, on-Site surface water was collected from a seep (CC-27), near the unnamed tributary (mill tributary), and from a pool at a wet meadow (CC-29).

o At Granite Lake Prospect, on-Site surface water was collected adjacent to the waste rock pile (GL-01), at the lake outlet (GL-06), and lake inlet (GL-07). • Site-specific background soil concentrations were estimated using 10 background soil samples for Copper City Mill. Three background soil samples were used to estimate Site-specific background soil concentration at Granite Lake Prospect.

o Background samples were collected from areas that appeared to be undisturbed by mine workings due to the presence of organic material, and intact O and A soil horizons. Background locations were upslope from areas where mining activities occurred at both Sites. • In addition to background soil samples, surface water and sediment samples were collected from “background” areas.

o At Copper City Mill, surface water and sediment were collected from two background locations: Location CC-28, where a sample was collected from the mill tributary at a reach above the mill area, and Location CC-04, where a sample was collected from Deep Creek, approximately 20 feet upstream of the confluence with the mill tributary flowing through the mill Site.

o At Granite Lake, surface water (but not sediment) was collected from one background location. o A surface water sample collected from an inlet to Granite Lake was considered background for surface water in the lake. o Background sediment was not collected because the substrate of this high elevation lake is likely to be filled with organic material rather than deposited sediment. • Based on the limited Site history available for Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect, the mill was used for crushing and concentrating ore, and the prospect was excavated in the search for copper and/or other metals. • The specific chemicals of interest (COIs) in this streamlined risk assessment were selected based on soil results presented in the Forest Service APA.

o A total of 14 COIs were selected: arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc.

1 o Sediment and soil samples were analyzed for total concentrations of metals . A few representative sediment and soil samples were further analyzed for arsenic and chromium speciation.

o Surface water samples were analyzed for total and dissolved metals concentrations. A few representative samples were further analyzed for arsenic and cadmium speciation.

o Water quality parameters were analyzed to determine water hardness and ionic concentrations for the biotic-ligand model (BLM) calculation. This allowed the calculation of Site-specific ecological screening criteria for copper in water. • URS conducted a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review (SI Report, Appendix E) for the analytical results which included an evaluation of representativeness, accuracy, field and analytical precision, comparability, and completeness as outlined in the Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan (WPSAP; URS, 2009).

o With the exception of J flags added to select sample results (indicating estimated concentrations), all laboratory quality control criteria were within laboratory control limits, indicating that the analytical system was able to produce credible analytical results.

o Once appropriate flags were applied, all reported concentrations (including J-flagged data) were considered suitable for risk assessment use. • Due to the small number of samples collected at the Site, upper confidence limits of the mean (UCL) concentrations were only calculated for chemicals having at least 10 analytical results (i.e., total metals in Site soil for Copper City Mill).

o ProUCL Version 4.00.004 (USEPA, 2009a) was used to calculate 95 percent UCL concentrations for each COI in Site soil (i.e., waste rock and crushed ore) samples. The 95 percent UCL is a value that is equal to or higher than the true mean of all concentrations on the Site, 95 percent of the time. • As specified in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), the Site-specific background soil concentration of each COI was generally defined as the 90th percentile of background soil samples concentrations assuming lognormal distribution (WAC 173-340-709).

o At Copper City Mill, this method was used on the 10 available background soil samples. In cases where the 90th percentile exceeded the maximum detected concentration (MDC), the MDC was used as the representative EPC for the Site-specific background soil concentration. 90th percentile concentrations were not calculated for background levels of metals in soil with fewer than 10 sample analytical results (i.e., arsenic and chromium speciation). th o At Granite Lake Prospect, the 90 percentile could not be calculated due to the small sample size. The MDC of the three background soil samples was used instead. • The background surface water and sediment concentration of each COI at Copper City Mill was defined as the MDC of the available surface water and sediment background concentrations, respectively.

3.0 STREAMLINED HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

A human health risk assessment (HHRA) is used to quantitatively evaluate carcinogenic risks and noncarcinogenic hazards to human health that are attributable to exposure to Site-related chemicals.

The purpose of the streamlined HHRA is to: • screen COI concentrations against background concentrations and generic screening criteria, • identify chemicals of potential concern (COPCs), and • evaluate human health risks due to COPCs.

3.1 Hazard Identification and Selection of COPCs The media of interest for human health are surface water, groundwater, sediment, and soil. Pathways for human health are described in the conceptual site model (SI Report, Figure 5).

o At Copper City Mill, recreational users were assumed to be potentially significantly exposed to Site soil (i.e., waste rock and crushed ore) and surface water.

o At Granite Lake Prospect, recreational users were assumed to be potentially significantly exposed to Site surface water, Site sediment (i.e., submerged waste rock), Site soil (i.e., above-water waste rock), and fish ingestion.

o Potentially complete and incomplete pathways are further discussed in Section 3.2.2. COIs were identified as COPCs if the COI both significantly exceeded background concentrations and exceeded conservative screening levels. • Background concentrations were defined as the 90th percentile of at least five background sample concentrations (e.g., soil at Copper City Mill) or the background MDC if fewer than five samples were analyzed (e.g., soil at Granite Lake Prospect, all surface water and all sediment). • Site sample concentrations were screened against background sample concentrations to identify COIs that may be causing risks substantially in excess of background risk. • Generic human health screening criteria developed for industrial and unrestricted land uses were compared to 95 percent UCL concentrations or to MDCs.

o The 95 percent UCL was used if there were at least five samples and the 95 percent UCL did not exceed the MDC.

o If the 95 percent UCL could not be used, the MDC was used.

o If a COI was not detected, the method detection limit (MDL) was compared with the generic human health screening criteria. • This screening is expected to be conservative since human exposure to chemicals at these Sites are recreational in nature, and are assumed to be less frequent than human exposures at industrial and/or unrestricted land use sites.

3.1.1 Screening Criteria Surface Water To conservatively assess risks to human receptors from exposure to Site surface water and groundwater, MDCs of COIs in surface water were screened against background concentrations and the following generic criteria: • Ecology Method A and Method B Cleanup Levels for Groundwater (Ecology, 2007), • Washington Department of Health maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) (WAC, 2009), and • USEPA drinking water MCLs (USEPA, 2009b). • At Granite Lake Prospect, Site surface water was also compared to Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC; USEPA, 2009c) protective of human consumption of organisms only, and human consumption of water and organisms (see Section 3.2.2). 4

Sediment Since there are no generic screening criteria developed to specifically assess risk to human receptors from exposure to sediment, screening criteria for soil were also applied to MDCs of COIs in sediment. This treatment is expected to be conservative since people generally have less exposure to sediment than soil. The soil screening criteria that will be used to screen sediment analytical results are listed below. Soil To conservatively assess risk to human receptors from exposure to soil (i.e., waste rock), 95 percent UCLs or MDCs of COIs in soil were screened against background concentrations and the following criteria: • MTCA Method A Industrial Soil Cleanup Levels (Table 745-1) (Ecology, 2007), • MTCA A Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Uses (Table 740-1) (Ecology, 2007), and • USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for Industrial Soil (USEPA, 2009d).

3.1.2 Screening Results and COPC Selection Copper City Mill • In surface water, two COIs (arsenic and manganese) exceeded the Site-specific background concentration and a screening criterion protective of human health (SI Report, Table 1A).

o The maximum total arsenic concentration of 136 micrograms per liter (μg/L) exceeded state and federal MCLs of 10 μg/L.

o Since manganese exceeded criteria based on organoleptic effects (e.g., taste, odor), rather than toxic effects, it was not identified as a COPC. Manganese is not further considered. • In sediment, one COI (arsenic) exceeded the Site-specific background concentration and a screening criterion protective of human health (SI Report, Table 4). The maximum concentration of arsenic of 545 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) exceeded the MTCA industrial and unrestricted land use criteria of 20 mg/kg and the USEPA industrial RSL of 1.6 mg/kg. • In soil, three COIs (arsenic, cadmium, and cobalt) exceeded the Site-specific background concentration and a screening criterion protective of human health (SI Report, Table 6).

o The 95 percent UCL arsenic concentration of 7,729 mg/kg exceeded the MTCA industrial and unrestricted land use criteria of 20 mg/kg and the USEPA industrial RSL of 1.6 mg/kg.

o The 95 percent UCL cadmium concentration of 3.71 mg/kg exceeded the MTCA industrial and unrestricted land use criteria of 2 mg/kg.

o The 95 percent UCL cobalt concentration of 351.9 mg/kg exceeded the USEPA industrial RSL of 300 mg/kg. Granite Lake Prospect • In surface water, one COI (arsenic) exceeded the Site-specific background concentration and a screening criterion protective of human health (SI Report, Table 3A).

o The MDC of total arsenic of 0.317 μg/L exceeded the MTCA Method B Cleanup level for groundwater of 0.058 μg/L.

o The MDL of dissolved arsenic of 0.18 μg/L exceeded the AWQC protective of consumption of organism only of 0.14 μg/L and the AWQC protective of consumption of water and organism if 0.018 μg/L.

Dissolved arsenic was not detected in either the Site or background samples, so it is possible that the true Site concentrations of arsenic are indistinguishable from background concentrations. Since the dissolved arsenic MDL exceeds relevant screening criteria, however, it is also possible that dissolved arsenic is present in surface water at concentrations below its MDLs but greater than relevant screening criteria. Arsenic was already identified as a COPC in surface water due to exceedances of total arsenic. The uncertainty associated with dissolved arsenic potential risk is further considered in the Uncertainty Section (Section 4.3.7). • In soil (i.e., waste rock), one COI (arsenic) exceeded the Site-specific background concentration, the Yakima Basin natural background soil concentration, and a screening criterion protective of human health (SI Report, Table 5).

o The MDC of arsenic of 108 mg/kg exceeded the MTCA industrial and unrestricted land use criteria of 20 mg/kg and the USEPA RSL of 1.6 mg/kg. Based on this screening, the human health COPCs identified are shown in the table below. Table 3-1. Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) Granite Lake Copper City Mill Prospect COPCs Bioaccumulative? Mine Surface Mine Surface Sediment Waste Water Waste Water Arsenic X X X X X Yes Barium

Notes:

3.2 Exposure Assessment The purpose of the exposure assessment is to: • identify likely current and future human receptors, • identify potentially complete exposure pathways, and • calculate exposure intake amounts related to both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic COPCs.

3.2.1 Potentially Exposed Populations The Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect Sites are within a National Forest, near undeveloped campgrounds. Mine waste piles are accessible by foot. Human land use in the vicinity of the Sites is primarily recreational in nature (e.g., camping, hiking, and hunting) with some potential for logging and cattle grazing/management. • Fire rings, campgrounds, and personal observations indicate current human use of the Site. • Deep Creek is specifically listed in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Sport Fishing Rules (WDFW, 2009), and fishing is prohibited from its mouth to the second bridge (at approximately river mile 4.7). Since Granite Creek and Granite Lake are not specifically listed in the Sport Fish Rules, however, fishing is allowed in Granite Creek between the first Saturday in June until October 31st, and in Granite Lake year-round. Fishing in Bumping Lake Reservoir is allowed year-round. Fishing for (Salvelinus confluentus) or dolly varden (Salvelinus malma miyabei) is prohibited in most of Washington State, including in the vicinity of the Sites.

o At Copper City Mill, the on-Site mill tributary is too small to support fish. Within Deep Creek, only sculpin were observed upstream of the natural fish passage barrier located 1.6 miles down Deep Creek from the confluence with the mill tributary. Fishing is assumed to not occur in the mill tributary since the tributary is unlikely to support game fish. Fishing is allowed in Deep Creek upstream of approximately river mile 4.7 from between the first Saturday in June until October 31st. The leaves 0.7 river miles of possible sports fishing available before the natural fish passage barrier. After the fish passage barrier, the sports fishing is likely to be poor and thus infrequent.

o At Granite Lake Prospect, bull trout or dolly varden were observed in Granite Lake. Although anglers were not directly observed by field personnel, periodic fishing is assumed to occur in Granite Lake. • Human use of the area is apparently periodic and consistent with recreational use. • No workers are routinely present at Copper City Mill or Granite Lake Prospect. • The nearest permanent or semi-permanent residents are located on the northern side of Bumping Lake and in Bumping River, approximately 6.5 miles from Copper City Mill and 4.0 miles from Granite Lake.

o The nearest water well is located about 2 miles north of Granite Lake at the Fish Lake Way Trailhead campsite. Campsite amenities include non-potable water, a toilet, and horse facilities. Although the area is used frequently for summer recreation, it would be less frequently visited in the winter. Human exposure to Site media during the winter months would be significantly reduced due to both a lower frequency of visitation and the presence of snow and ice, which would form a barrier between human receptors and Site media.

3.2.2 Identification of Potential Exposure Pathways The exposure assessment identifies potential exposure pathways. The following four components define a complete exposure pathway: 1. Source and mechanism of chemical release (e.g., accidental spills). 2. Retention or transport medium (e.g., contaminated soil). 3. Point of potential human contact with the contaminated medium, referred to as the exposure point (e.g., a Site worker in an excavation).

4. Exposure route (i.e., physiological mechanism of exposure such as dermal contact with contaminated soil). If any component is missing, the pathway is incomplete and no exposure or risk would be associated with the pathway. The HHRA exposure assessment is based on current and reasonably likely future use of land and water. Given the types of current and reasonably expected future Site uses, the likelihood of human receptors experiencing long-term exposure to Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect is low. At both Sites, the most potentially significant types of human exposure to Site-related contaminants are: • Ingestion of surface water while camping • Inhalation of soil dust by recreational users (e.g., hikers, sunbathers, anglers) • Incidental ingestion and dermal contact of surface soil (i.e., waste rock and/or crushed ore). In addition to these, the following potentially complete pathways apply to Granite Lake Prospect: • Incidental ingestion of surface water while swimming • Dermal contact with surface water while swimming • Incidental ingestion and dermal contact of sediment Potentially complete but insignificant pathways include: • Ingestion or contact with surface water by residents or occupational workers – The nearest permanent or semi-permanent surface water users are located on the northern side of Bumping Lake and in Bumping River. Since surface water COI concentrations return to background levels within approximately 970 feet downstream of Copper City Mill (by CC-03) and at the outlet of Granite Lake, potential residential or occupational exposure to surface water is considered an insignificant pathway. • Sediment exposure at Copper City Mill – small amounts of sediment are present in the shallow, mill tributary flowing through the mill Site. Due to the lack of beaches or wading opportunities, potential human exposure to sediment is considered to be insignificant. • Fish ingestion at Granite Lake Prospect – Although fish tissue concentrations could be estimated from the concentrations of COIs in Site abiotic media, this small lake is assumed to have a small population of fish that would represent only a very small fraction of an angler’s diet over the course of the year. Incomplete pathways include: • Fish ingestion at Copper City Mill – The on-Site, mill tributary is too small to support sports fish. Within Deep Creek, only sculpin were observed upstream of the natural fish passage barrier on Deep Creek, located 1.6 miles from the confluence with the mill tributary. Since surface water concentrations reach background (upstream) concentrations within 20 feet of the confluence of the mill tributary, fish consumed from the lower reaches of Deep Creek are unlikely to be adversely affected by Site-related COIs. • Ingestion or contact with groundwater by residents or occupational workers – Since there is no hydrological connection between contaminants at either Site and groundwater wells within 4 miles of the Copper City Mill and Granite Lake (SI Report, Section 3.1), groundwater exposure through ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact is incomplete. A summary of receptors, media, and exposure pathways for human receptors is presented in the conceptual site model for Copper City Mill (SI Report, Figure 7) and for Granite Lake Prospect (SI Report, Figure 8).

3.2.3 Current and Potential Future Receptors Based on its rural location within a National Forest, evidence of Site use, and road access, the most likely human receptor populations exposed to Site media are recreational users.

3.2.4 Exposure Assumptions Receptor-specific exposure calculations were used to more accurately estimate potential risk to adult and child recreational users stemming from on Site exposure to COPCs in soils than is possible using generic criteria. These carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic calculations use standard equations and established USEPA exposure parameters combined with exposure parameters specific to recreational users. Since the USEPA has no standard parameters for recreational receptors, professional judgment was used when standard parameters were unavailable. The exposure factors and risk equations for the human health risk assessment are presented in Attachment 1, Tables 1 to 5.

3.2.5 Exposure Point Concentrations An EPC represents the concentration of a chemical to which human receptors are reasonably likely to be exposed at a point of contact. Quantitative human health risk calculations use two types of exposure concentrations to quantify potential risk: the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) concentration, and the central tendency exposure (CTE) concentration. • RME is a higher, more conservative estimate of exposure and is typically represented by the 95 percent UCL of the mean of sample concentrations. • The CTE is the arithmetic mean of the sample concentrations and represents a more moderate exposure scenario. • In cases where samples sizes were insufficient to calculate 95 percent UCLs or means, MDCs were used as the CTE and/or the RME concentrations. • Human health risk calculated using RME and CTE exposure point concentrations yields a range of risk values relevant to a specific human receptor. The EPCs for Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect media under each scenario are presented below: Table 3-2. Human Health Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs) Copper City Mill Granite Lake Prospect Surface Surface Mine Waste Mine Waste Water Water COPCs (mg/kg) (μg/L) (mg/kg) (μg/L)

CTE RME MDC CTE MDC MDC

Arsenic 3,519 7,729 136 67 108 0.317 Cadmium 2.45 2.45 0.25 ------Cobalt 476 351.9 2.78 ------Notes: -- = not a COPC for this Site

3.3 Toxicity Assessment The toxicity assessment identifies toxicological information that is relevant to Site-related COPCs. This information is used to quantify the relationship between chemical exposure and adverse effects.

Carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic toxicity factors were obtained from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database (USEPA, 2009e) or from the RSLs table (USEPA, 2009d). Both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects were quantitatively evaluated.

3.3.1 Categorization of Chemicals as Noncarcinogens or Carcinogen Carcinogenic compounds can induce cancer, while noncarcinogenic compounds can have health effects that may damage organs or organ systems, but do not cause cancer. All chemicals are likely to have both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects to some degree, but only one set of effects may be documented. Some compounds, such as arsenic, have documented toxicity factors for both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects. In these cases, the compound will have both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks that can be quantified. The USEPA Carcinogen Assessment Group has developed weight-of-evidence categories for carcinogenic compounds by defining them as known, potential, or possible human carcinogens. • Available information is initially evaluated to determine whether or not a particular compound has any carcinogenic effects. Evidence of these effects is characterized for human studies and animal studies as sufficient, limited, inadequate, no data, or evidence of no effect. • The results from human and animal studies are used to assign a preliminary overall human carcinogenic weight-of-evidence classification to the compound, which may be modified as USEPA scientists review supporting information. • The weight-of-evidence classification for arsenic is A (human carcinogen) and cadmium is B1 (probable carcinogen). Cobalt is not classified under IRIS, but is designated as a noncarcinogen in the RSL table (USEPA, 2009d)

3.3.1.1 Potential Carcinogenic Effects Carcinogenic toxicity factors are referred to as slope factors (SFs) and inhalation risk units (IRUs). SFs and IRUs estimate the theoretical, upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to potential carcinogens. For a carcinogen, a higher SF or IRU indicates greater carcinogenic potency. Carcinogenic toxicity values for Site-related COPCs are listed in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3. Critical Toxicity Values for Carcinogenic COPCs

Slope Factor Inhalation Weight of Type CAS Risk Unit COPCs (mg/kg-day) Evidence of Number (μg/m3)-1 Classification Cancer Oral Dermal Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.5 1.5 0.0043 A Skin Cadmium 7440-43-9 -- -- 0.0042 B1 Lung Cobalt 7440-48-4 -- -- 0.009 Not Classified -- Notes: A = human carcinogen B1 = probable human carcinogen Source: (USEPA, 2009d and USEPA, 2009e)

3.3.1.2 Potential Noncarcinogenic Effects Noncarcinogenic toxicity factors are referred to as reference doses (RfDs) and reference concentrations (RfCs). For noncarcinogens, a lower RfD or RfC value indicates increased potency. Noncarcinogenic toxicity values for Site-related COPCs are listed in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4. Critical Toxicity Values for Noncarcinogenic COPCs Chronic RfD Reference CAS Confidence COPCs (mg/kg-day) Concentration Target Oran Number in RfD (μg/m3) Oral Dermal Skin, lungs, Arsenic 7440-38-2 0.0003 0.0003 0.015 Medium kidney Cadmium 7440-43-9 0.001 2.5E-05 0.01 High Lungs, kidney Not Heart, blood, Cobalt 7440-48-4 0.0003 0.0003 0.006 Classified kidney Notes: RfD = reference dose Source: (USEPA, 2009d and USEPA, 2009e)

3.4 Risk and Hazard Estimates USEPA defines the acceptable risk level for exposure of humans to individual carcinogens as a lifetime potential excess cancer risk (PECR) of one occurrence of cancer per one million (1E-06) people exposed; for exposure to multiple carcinogens, one occurrence of cancer per one hundred thousand (1E-05) people exposed. The acceptable risk level for exposure of humans to individual noncarcinogens is a hazard quotient (HQ) equal to or less than one (1) (USEPA, 1989). Although noncarcinogenic risk is also a concern, carcinogenic risk is usually the “driver” at a site. Site-specific carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks for both current and future scenarios can be calculated using values obtained in the exposure and toxicity assessments, resulting in unitless risk values for both. Typically, this process is a forward-calculation of risk in which chemical concentrations, chronic daily exposure intake values, and toxicity factors are used in risk formulas to calculate a particular Site- specific risk value for a particular chemical and receptor. In the case of noncarcinogenic risk, calculation of multiple-chemical risk is based on the summation of HQ values for individual noncarcinogens with the same target organ or critical effect. In other words, HQs of noncarcinogens that affect the liver would be added together to obtain a Hazard Index (HI) value, while HQs of noncarcinogens that affect the blood system would be summed separately from the HQs related to liver effects. This is consistent with USEPA recommendations (USEPA, 1989). Any COPC present at concentrations likely to produce unacceptable health risks is referred to as a chemical of concern (COC).

3.4.1 Excess Cancer Risk Assessment Table 3-5 summarizes the risk estimates for adult and child recreational users at the Copper City Mine and Granite Lake Prospect Sites. Human health risks are considered to be potentially unacceptable if the risk estimates for individual carcinogenic chemicals are greater than 1E-06 or risk estimates for multiple carcinogenic chemicals are greater than 1E-05.

Table 3-5. Summary of Risk Estimates Granite Lake Copper City Mill Prospect Receptor Group Arsenic Cadmium Cobalt Arsenic CTE RME CTE RME CTE RME CTE RME

Adult/Child 1.E-04 1.E-03 3.E-11 2.E-10 5.E-09 4.E-08 3.E-06 4.E-05 Recreational User Notes: CTE = Central Tendency Exposure, mean or MDC RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure, 95 percent UCL or MDC

Since the risk estimates for arsenic at both Sites exceed 1E-06, the findings of this receptor-specific recreational user model suggest that potentially unacceptable carcinogenic risks are likely to occur from dermal exposure, inhalation, and incidental ingestion pathways under both the CTE and RME scenarios.

• The majority of carcinogenic risk at both Sites stems from exposure to arsenic in mine wastes.

o At Cooper City Mill, risk due to exposure to arsenic in mine waste represents between 71 and 93 percent of the total risk for child and adult recreational users under the CTE and RME scenarios, with most of the remaining risk due to arsenic in surface water.

o At Granite Lake Prospect, risk due to exposure to arsenic in mine waste represents between 98 and 99 percent of the total risk for child and adult recreational users under the CTE and RME scenarios, with the remaining risk due to arsenic in surface water.

3.4.2 Noncarcinogenic Hazard Assessment Table 3-6 summarizes the HQs for adult and child recreational users at the Copper City Mine and Granite Lake Prospect Sites. Human health risks are considered to be potentially unacceptable if the HQs for noncarcinogenic endpoints are greater than 1.

Table 3-6 Summary of Hazard Quotients

Copper City Mill Granite Lake Prospect Receptor Group Arsenic Cadmium Cobalt Arsenic CTE RME CTE RME CTE RME CTE RME

Adult 0.3 2.3 1.E-04 5.E-04 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.05 Recreational User Child 2.0 28 6.E-04 5.E-03 0.007 0.5 0.1 0.8 Recreational User Notes: CTE = Central Tendency Exposure, mean concentration or MDC. RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure, 95 percent UCL concentration or MDC.

Since arsenic HQs for at Copper City Mill are greater than 1, this receptor-specific recreational user model suggests that potentially unacceptable noncarcinogenic risks are likely to occur from dermal exposure, inhalation, and incidental ingestion pathways.

• At Copper City Mill, only the HQ related to potential RME exposure of adult recreational users to arsenic in waste rock and crushed ore exceeds 1, while the HQs related to both CTE and RME for child recreational users exceed 1. These HQs indicate potentially unacceptable noncancer hazards to adults and children from exposure to arsenic in waste rock and crushed ore.

• At Granite Lake Prospect, the HQs related to exposure of adult and child recreational users to arsenic in mine waste do not exceed 1. These HQs indicate that noncancer hazards are unlikely to be present at unacceptable levels.

3.4.3 Uncertainty Evaluation Evaluating areas of uncertainty in a risk assessment is extremely important to understanding the overall reliability of the assessment’s conclusions. Areas of uncertainty are associated with data evaluation, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. These concerns do not invalidate the results of the risk assessment, but they should be taken into consideration in the overall context of how the results are used. The generic screening of Site chemical concentrations in surface water, sediment, and mine waste (Section 3.1) used screening criteria developed for frequently exposed receptors. Screening using such conservative criteria generally overestimates risk and is expected to be protective of human receptors with less frequent exposures, such as recreational users. Primary sources of uncertainty in the streamlined HHRA include: • The use of screening criteria developed for human receptors with frequent exposures throughout the year were used to initially screen 95 percent UCL concentrations or MDCs of COIs in surface water, sediment, and soil (Section 3.1) for human receptors with infrequent, seasonal exposure to the Site.

o Screening using such conservative criteria generally overestimates human health risk and is expected to be protective of human receptors with lower exposures, such as recreational users. • The selection of recreation-specific exposure parameters for the calculation of human health risk is a source of uncertainty since there is currently no standard source for exposure factors for recreational users. For this reason, conservative but reasonable assumptions were made to approximate Site-specific risk to human health. These assumptions included:

o Recreational users at both Sites were assumed to visit (have an exposure duration of) between 6 and 12 days each year. During each visit, the recreational users were assumed to camp at the Site and be exposed to Site soil and water.

o Exposure to Site soil and sediment through incidental ingestion and dermal contact were significant sources of risk at the Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Sites. These risks are driven by soil and sediment ingestion rates, and dermal exposure and absorption. Since recreational soil or sediment ingestion rates are not available, the soil ingestion rate was set to the residential rate of 50 to 100 mg/kg per day for adults and 100 to 200 mg/kg per day for children (USEPA, 1991; USEPA 1997). With no ingestion rate information available for sediment, the sediment ingestion rate was set equal to the soil rate. Adult recreational users were assumed to have their face, forearms, hands, and lower legs exposed to sediment and soil. Children were assumed to have their face, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet exposed to sediment and soil. This amount of skin exposure may overestimate actual exposure, especially for sediment.

o At both Sites, the risk calculations assumed that recreational users would consume unfiltered water directly adjacent to the waste rock on every day of their visit. This probably overestimates exposure since most recreational users are likely to use filters. In addition, recreational users at Copper City Mill are more likely to consume water from Deep Creek than from the mill tributary on Site. • At Granite Lake Prospect, the MDL of dissolved arsenic potentially present in surface water exceeded applicable generic screening criteria protective of human consumption of fish.

o It is possible that dissolved arsenic is not present in surface water and poses no potential ecological risk or that Site concentrations are indistinguishable from background concentrations.

o It is also possible, however, that dissolved arsenic is present at concentrations below the MDL but above the screening criteria and potentially pose unacceptable human health risk to anglers.

o Since Granite Lake is likely to support only a very small population of fish and no subsistence fishing populations are known to be present in the vicinity, human consumption of fish from Granite Lake is probably relatively infrequent. Fish consumed from the lake likely represents a very small proportion of an angler’s diet during a few seasons of the year.

o For these reasons, the exceedance of the dissolved arsenic MDL is unlikely to indicate significant human health risk. To the degree that these assumptions do not reflect actual Site conditions or recreational user behavior, calculated human health risk may be higher or lower than actual risk.

3.5 Determination of Potential Hot Spots Hot spots are areas posing “principal threats” (National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR 300.430(a)(1)(iii)). These areas have highly toxic or highly mobile source materials that generally cannot be reliably contained or would present a significant risk to human health or the environment should exposure occur. • Based on this qualitative definition and the unacceptable human health risks identified in this streamlined risk evaluation, the waste rock piles at Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect are identified as hot spots. • Hot spots were also identified using the quantitative definition provided by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ; DEQ, 1998). DEQ considers hot spots to be areas that cause risk at 1E-04 and noncarcinogenic hazard at 10.

o Concentrations to identify hot spots were calculated by raising the RME soil concentrations at each Site until total carcinogenic risk from all soil/sediment pathways reached 1E-04, while maintaining the same exposure parameters, formulas, toxicity values used to estimate potential Site risk. These hot spot concentrations were compared to individual waste rock and/or crushed ore samples.

o At Copper City Mill, all Site soil (i.e., waste rock and crushed ore) samples except CC-25 and CC-22 exceeded the hot spot concentration for arsenic of 560 mg/kg. This calculation supports the finding that essentially all waste rock and crushed ore at Copper City Mill can be considered a hot spot.

o At Granite Lake Prospect, neither of the two Site soil (i.e., waste rock) samples exceeded the hot spot concentration for arsenic of 278 mg/kg. Although this calculation does not support the finding that all waste rock at Granite Lake Prospect can be considered a hot spot, waste rock concentrations exceeded acceptable carcinogenic risk levels for adult and child recreational users.

3.6 Calculation of Cleanup Levels Cleanup goals were calculated by lowering the RME soil concentrations at each Site until total carcinogenic risk for all soil pathways reached 1E-06, while maintaining the same exposure parameters, formulas, toxicity values used to estimate potential Site risk. Copper City Mill • Reducing the 95 percent UCL concentration of arsenic in waste rock and crushed ore to 8.7 mg/kg or less would reduce RME carcinogenic risk to less than 1E-06 and noncarcinogenic 14

hazard to less than 1. However, since the Site-specific arsenic background concentration is 63.7 mg/kg, the cleanup criteria should default to approximately background.

o While this would not reduce carcinogenic risk to 1E-06 or less, it would reduce excess Site carcinogenic risk to no more than background risk. • Unacceptable carcinogenic risk was also identified in surface water. The MDC at the Site was collected from the wet meadow, which had an arsenic concentration of 136 μg/L. Recreational users would be more likely to collect water from the mill tributary (57.4 μg/L arsenic) or Deep Creek (0.64 μg/L) where the arsenic concentration is at background.

o Regardless, reducing arsenic concentrations in waste rock and crushed ore should result in a corresponding reduction in arsenic concentrations in surface water. For this reason, no Site- specific cleanup levels are needed for surface water. • Since human health risk at Copper City Mill is driven by carcinogenic risk, reducing arsenic concentrations to address carcinogenic risk essentially eliminates noncarcinogenic hazards. Granite Lake Prospect • Reducing the Site 95 percent UCL concentration of arsenic in waste rock to 4.3 mg/kg or less would reduce RME carcinogenic risk for all soil pathways to less than 1E-06 and noncarcinogenic hazard to less than 1.

o The cleanup level is lower at Granite Lake Prospect than at Copper City Mill because there are more complete pathways at Granite Lake Prospect (e.g., playing in sediment). If these criteria were implemented, maximum Site concentrations of arsenic in soil at both Sites would still exceed the USEPA RSLs for Industrial Soil (USEPA, 2009d) arsenic criterion of 1.6 mg/kg • The USEPA RSL screening criteria are lower than the proposed cleanup goals because of the conservative, default, non-Site-specific exposure parameters used to generate the screening criteria. This streamlined human health risk assessment used exposure parameters reasonable for recreational users at Forest Service Sites rather than those appropriate for industrial workers or unrestricted land use.

o For example, typical industrial workers are assumed to access a site 250 days per year. In the recreational scenario used in this assessment, recreational users are assumed to access either Copper City Mill or Granite Lake Prospect only 6 to 12 days per year. The results of the HHRA suggest that waste rock, crushed ore, and surface water at Copper City Mill, and waste rock at Granite Lake Prospect pose unacceptable risk to recreational users.

3.7 Summary of Potential Human Health Risks Copper City Mill • Arsenic, cadmium, and cobalt were identified as COPCs in waste rock and crushed ore. No COPCs were identified in sediment. Arsenic was identified as a COPC in surface water collected on Site (from the seep, wet meadow, and mill tributary).

o COPCs were not identified in sediments or surface water in Deep Creek. In Deep Creek, detected concentrations of COIs are similar to background concentrations measured upstream and in other tributaries. • Carcinogenic risk to adult and child recreational users exceeded 1E-06 under both CTE and RME exposure scenarios, primarily due to soil (i.e., waste rock and crushed ore) exposure. • Noncarcinogenic hazard to adult and child recreational users exceeded an HQ of 1 under RME exposure scenarios (and under CTE exposure scenarios for children), primarily due to soil (i.e., waste rock and crushed ore) exposure.

• After estimating carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk using Site-specific calculations and exposure parameters appropriate for recreational users, arsenic was identified as a COC in on-Site soil (i.e., waste rock and crushed ore) and surface water. All waste rock and crushed ore areas at Copper City Mill were identified as hot spots (Section 3.5). A cleanup criterion of approximately 63.7 mg/kg (based on Site-specific arsenic background) is recommended for protection of human recreational users potentially exposed to Site soils (i.e., waste rock and crushed ore) on the Copper City Mill Site. Granite Lake Prospect Arsenic was identified as a COPC in mine waste (above and below the water line) and in surface water. • Carcinogenic risk to adult and child recreational users exceeded 1E-06 under both CTE and RME exposure scenarios, primarily due to soil and sediment exposure. • Noncarcinogenic hazard did not exceed 1 and was not deemed to pose unacceptable risks to adult and child recreational users. • After estimating carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk using Site-specific calculations and exposure parameters appropriate for recreational users, arsenic was identified as a COC in waste rock. • Essentially all of the human health risk stems from arsenic in the waste rock pile, rather than arsenic in surface water. The waste rock pile adjacent to and within the Granite Lake was identified as a hot spot. A protective cleanup level for human health of 4.3 mg/kg arsenic is recommended for protection of recreational users potentially exposed to Site soils (i.e., waste rock) at Granite Lake Prospect.

4.0 STREAMLINED ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

The purpose of an ecological risk assessment (ERA) is to determine if chemical concentrations in site media cause potentially unacceptable risks to ecological receptors. This streamlined ERA compares Site concentrations in surface water, sediment, and soil (i.e., waste rock and crushed ore) to background concentrations and generic screening criteria to characterize potential ecological risk.

4.1 Conceptual Ecological Risk Model The ERA screening process initiates the problem formulation step of an ERA, as described in more detail in USEPA guidance (USEPA, 1997 and USEPA, 1998). Problem formulation involves identifying and understanding the relationships between: • site characteristics and habitat, • ecologically important receptors, • potentially complete exposure pathways, • the toxic effects of site-related chemicals, and • ecological assessment endpoints. The streamlined ERA results in the identification of chemicals of potential ecological concern (CPECs), and describes whether or not the CPECs are likely to cause adverse effects to ecological receptors under existing Site conditions.

4.1.1 Ecological Setting Both Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect are located within the Cascade Mixed Forest- Coniferous Forest-Alpine Meadow Province (Level II) of the Humid Temperate Domain (Level I) (Bailey, 1995). • The area is characterized by glaciated mountains cut by high-velocity streams, and characterized by deep annual snow pack. • Forests mainly consist of Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and noble fir (Abies procera). • As discussed in the SI report, the Deep Creek Flood Environmental Analysis (Forest Service, 2008) indicated the potential presence of three federally-listed threatened species: grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), the lynx (Lynx Canadensis), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus).

o Of these three threatened species, only the bull trout had been documented near the Site. Bull trout are known to inhabit Deep Creek from Bumping Lake up to river mile 5.4 where a natural barrier (waterfall) prevents further upstream migration. Located at approximately mile 7.0, the confluence of the mill tributary draining Copper City Mill is about 1.6 river miles from the uppermost reach of the bull trout habitat. • A review of the Forest Service’s Region 6 Threatened and Endangered Species List for the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (Forest Service, 2010) did not identify additional federally-listed threatened and endangered species reasonably likely to be present in the vicinity of the Sites. This review is further discussed in the SI Report, Section 2.4.4. Copper City Mill Copper City Mill is located in an open meadow surrounded by forests of mountain hemlock, silver fir, and Alaskan yellow cedar (Cupressus nootkatensis). The meadow measures approximately 1 acre, and is composed primarily of native grasses. Willow (Salix spp.) and coniferous saplings occupy the interface between the meadow and forest habitats. • The small, shallow, mill tributary crosses the south side of the Site and measures approximately 2 to 4 inches in depth. At the time of sampling, the wetted channel occupied less than ¼ of the stream channel. • The mill tributary flows east through a wet meadow, where it connects with another tributary to the south, crosses Forest Service Road 1808 via a culvert, and drains to Deep Creek. The mill tributary’s confluence with Deep Creek is approximately 950 feet downstream of the mill Site. As the tributary travels through the forest toward Deep Creek, the channel becomes more incised and natural wood loading from the surrounding forest increases. Deep Creek is a perennial stream that drains to Bumping Lake, approximately 7 river miles north of the Site. • Deep Creek is characterized by broad bends, braiding, high wood loading (log jams), and a gravelly substrate. The streambank is stable, and patches of bedrock (especially near upriver sample Sites) and small pools are present in the channel. • The creek is devoid of aquatic vegetation, and organic material is limited. Most habitat is favorable to epifaunal colonization and provides areas suitable for fish cover. • Upland vegetation consists of mountain hemlock and silver fir growing to the waters edge. Understory species are dominated by forbs, primarily vanilla leaf (Achlys triphylla). • Amphibian species observed included tailed frog (Ascaphus trueii) and Cascades frog (Rana cascada). Fish species observed were limited to sculpin.

Granite Lake Prospect Granite Lake is a 7.5 acre, high-elevation cirque lake. • The north and west portions of the lake are bordered by steep slopes with dense mountain hemlock and silver fir forest patches and talus. Alaskan yellow cedar (Cupressus nootkatensis) is common on the north side of the lake. • The south and east sides of the lake are characterized by a flat bench dominated by mountain hemlock. Primary understory species include mountain heath (Phyllodoce empetriformis) and white rhododendron (Rhododendron albiflorum). • Cascades frogs, western toads (Bufo boreas), and rough skin newts (Taricha granulosa) were observed in the littoral zone (the area extending from the high water mark to permanently submerged shoreline areas) surrounding the deposition Site. • Bull trout or dolly varden were observed swimming in deeper water. • Upland habitats are dominated by mountain hemlock, silver fir, and serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia).

4.1.2 Ecological Conceptual Site Model • At Copper City Mill, potentially contaminated exposure media for ecological receptors include surface water and mine waste. • At Granite Lake Prospect, potentially contaminated exposure media for ecological receptors include surface water and waste rock (above and below water). • Potentially complete pathways for immobile receptors (e.g., plants and soil biota) include direct exposure to Site sediments and mine wastes. • Potentially complete pathways for mobile receptors (e.g., birds and mammals) include incidental ingestion of surface water, food web exposure to surface water, incidental ingestion of surface soil and mine wastes, and food web exposure to surface soil and mine waste. • A summary of the complete, incomplete, and insignificant pathways is depicted in the conceptual site model for Copper City Mill (SI Report, Figure 7) and Granite Lake Prospect (SI Report, Figure 8).

4.1.3 Ecological Assessment and Measurement Endpoints Generally, assessment endpoints are used in ERA to emphasize the protection of specific characteristics of species which are most relevant to the area being assessed (e.g., reproductive success of piscivorous birds). Measurement endpoints provide a way to interpret whether or not these characteristics are being adversely impacted by exposure to chemicals (typically through use of ecological benchmark values).

4.1.3.1 Assessment Endpoints USEPA defines an assessment endpoint (AE) as an “explicit expression of an environmental value to be protected” (USEPA, 1997). AEs define both the valued ecological entity at the site and a characteristic of the entity to protect, such as individual survival, population success, production per unit area, or changes in species distribution in an ecosystem community. Generally, each AE includes a guild or a functional group within an ecosystem, rather than one particular species. In a streamlined ERA, assessment endpoints are generalized to reflect the risk-based screening process and protective ecological risk-based screening concentrations. The assessment endpoint for both the Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect ERAs is: • Protection of the reproduction and survival of aquatic life, plants, soil biota, and wildlife that may be exposed to COIs in Site surface water, sediment, and soil. 18

4.1.3.2 Measurement Endpoints USEPA defines a measurement endpoint (ME) as “a measurable ecological characteristic that is related to the valued characteristic chosen as the AE and is a measure of biological effects (e.g., mortality, reproduction, growth)” (USEPA, 1997). MEs can include measures of exposure or effect and are frequently quantified observations (e.g., EPCs) that can be compared statistically to a control such as a reference site or scientific study to predict adverse responses to site-specific CPECs. Within the past few years in particular, ecological benchmark values have been used and referred to as measurement endpoints. The measurement endpoints for the Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect ERAs include: • Measured MDCs of COIs in Site surface water compared to ecological risk-based screening criteria protective of aquatic life. • Measured MDCs of COIs in Site sediment compared to ecological risk-based sediment screening criteria protective of freshwater benthic communities. • Measured MDCs or 95 percent UCL concentrations of COIs in Site soil compared to ecological risk-based soil screening criteria protective of plants, soil biota, and wildlife.

4.2 Ecological Risk-Based Screening The MDCs or 95 percent UCL concentrations for COIs in various Site media were screened against background concentrations and generic screening (benchmark) criteria protective of ecological receptors. • Exceedances of these criteria do not necessarily mean that a significant ecological risk is present, only that additional Site-specific analysis would be necessary to determine the actual presence and potential magnitude of ecological risk at Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect. • COIs were identified as CPECs if the COI both significantly exceeded background concentrations and exceeded conservative screening levels.

4.2.1 Screening Criteria Exposure concentrations of Site surface water, sediment, and waste soil were compared to relevant screening criteria for ecological receptors. • The MDC was used as the EPC for comparison with criteria protective of immobile ecological receptors (plants and soil biota) or for Site media with few samples (i.e., sediment and surface water; soil at Granite Lake Prospect). • The 95 percent UCL concentration was used as the EPC for comparison with criteria protective of mobile ecological receptors (birds and mammals) for media with sufficient sample sizes (i.e., soil at Copper City Mill). Surface Water To conservatively assess risks to ecological receptors exposed to surface water, chemical concentrations in surface water were compared to background concentrations and screening criteria protective of aquatic life. • The MDCs of COIs in surface water were initially screened against Ecology Aquatic Life criteria found in WAC Table 240(3) (WAC, 2006). • AWQC Freshwater Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) (USEPA, 2009c) and • Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) (Efroymson et al., 1997).

Sediment To conservatively assess risks to ecological receptors exposed to sediment, chemical concentrations in sediment were compared to background concentrations and screening criteria protective of freshwater ecosystems. • The MDCs of COIs in sediment were initially screened against threshold effect concentrations (TECs) and probable effect concentrations (PECs) (MacDonald et al., 2000).

o TECs are lower than PECs. Below TECs, adverse effects are not expected to occur. Above PECs, adverse effects are expected to occur more often than not. • In addition, the recommended Washington Sediment Quality Standards (Ecology, 2003) were considered. These criteria, however, have not yet been finalized and adopted by Washington state. Soil To conservatively assess risks to ecological receptors exposed to soil (i.e., waste rock and crushed ore), chemical concentrations in soil were compared to background concentrations and screening criteria protective of terrestrial ecological receptors (i.e., plants, soil biota, wildlife). • The MDCs of COIs in soil were screened against MTCA Table 749-3 criteria (Ecology, 2007) and Ecological Soil Screening Level (Eco-SSL) criteria (USEPA, 2009f) protective of immobile receptors (plants, soil biota). • The 95 percent UCL concentrations (at Copper City Mill) or MDCs (at Granite Lake Prospect) of COIs in soil were screened against MTCA Table 749-3 (Ecology, 2007) criteria and Ecological Soil Screening Level (Eco-SSL) criteria (USEPA, 2009f) protective of mobile receptors (wildlife, avian receptors, and/or mammalian).

4.2.2 Screening Results and CPEC Selection Ecological COIs in surface water, sediment, and soil were identified as CPECs if they either a) exceeded both the background concentration and generic screening criteria, or b) were not detected in Site samples but had MDLs that exceeded generic criteria (SI Report, Tables 1 and 3 through 6). These CPECs are listed in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern (CPECs) Granite Lake Copper City Mill Prospect CPECs Bioaccumulative? Surface Mine Surface Mine Sediment Water Waste Water Waste Arsenic

Notes: a = selenium was retained as a CPEC due to its potential to bioaccumulate in the environment.

Some CPECs (i.e., arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and selenium) have the potential to bioaccumulate in the environment. • Bioaccumulation is defined as the accumulation of substances in an organism through the biological sequestering of substances that enter the organism through respiration, food intake, skin contact, and/or other means. • Generally, the more hydrophobic/lipophilic a chemical is, the more likely it is to bioaccumulate in the tissues of organisms. • The potential for bioaccumulation is not specifically addressed by screening criteria. Uncertainty associated with bioaccumulation potential is further discussed in Section 4.3.3. Copper City Mill A total of 13 COIs exceeded the Site-specific background concentration and at least one screening criterion in surface water, sediment, or mine waste at Copper City Mill. • In surface water, five COIs (barium, copper, lead, manganese, and nickel) exceeded screening criteria protective of ecological receptors exposed to surface water. • In sediment, six COIs (arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, silver, and zinc) exceeded screening criteria protective ecological receptors exposed to sediment. • In mine waste, 10 COIs (arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc) exceeded screening criteria protective of ecological receptors exposed to soil. Granite Lake Prospect Six COIs exceeded ecological screening criteria in Granite Lake Prospect surface water, sediment, or soil.

• In surface water, no COIs exceeded screening criteria protective of ecological receptors exposed to surface water. • In submerged waste rock, two COIs (arsenic and silver) exceeded screening criteria protective ecological receptors exposed to sediment. • In waste rock above the waterline, five COIs (arsenic, lead, manganese, mercury, and silver) exceeded screening criteria protective of ecological receptors exposed to soil.

4.3 Ecological Risk and Hazard Estimates The CPECs identified by the generic screening were further assessed by estimating the magnitude of risk through the calculation of ecological risk ratios. • Risk ratios are calculated by dividing EPCs by relevant screening criteria. Ecological hazard quotients (HQs) are created by dividing EPCs by No Observable Adverse Effect (NOAELs) or by Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Levels (LOAELs) and would more specifically quantify risk to receptors of interest at the Site. Ecological HQs are not calculated in this streamlined ERA, but could be calculated in a later assessment if a more precise understanding of ecological risk became necessary.

o If the risk ratio is greater than 1, then the EPC exceeds the screening criterion, which indicates the potential for unacceptable ecological risk on the Site. Since screening levels are generally conservative, a risk ratio greater than 1 does not necessarily mean that there is risk, only that there may be.

o Risk ratios can be helpful in prioritizing which chemicals pose the most risk on Site to particular groups of ecological receptors (e.g., plants, birds, mammals, etc.). They cannot be used to quantify risks to specific species (e.g., steelhead).

o Multiple risk ratios may be calculated for a single chemical by comparing an EPC to multiple applicable screening criteria.

o The EPCs and screening criteria used to calculate risk ratios are presented in Attachment 2, Table 1 and Table 2. • For most species (i.e, non-protected species), an ecological risk is acceptable if it does not pose a threat to the continued success of populations of ecological receptors. Population-level risks include those that affect species diversity, population growth rate, or age structure of the population.

o Since ecological populations may compensate for the loss of individuals (e.g., physiological and genetic adaptation, biological compensation, etc.), there is a great degree of uncertainty in determining unacceptable risk ratios to populations of ecological receptors (i.e., those that occur to non-protected species). Keeping in mind this uncertainty, risk ratios greater than 5.0 were considered to potentially pose unacceptable risks to ecological populations.

o Although determining risk to ecological populations is uncertain, chemicals with limited spatial distributions and low risk ratios are unlikely to pose significant risks to ecological populations. Conversely, broadly distributed chemicals with higher magnitudes of exceedance generally have greater potential for posing population-level risks. • Threatened or endangered species are protected more conservatively, at the level of the individual.

o For threatened and endangered species, risk ratios greater than 1 suggest that chemical concentrations pose potentially unacceptable risks to individual members of a species. Adverse environmental effects are not expected to occur due to chemicals with risk ratios below 1.

• As described in the SI (URS, 2009), the only threatened or endangered species reasonably likely to be present in the vicinity of the Sites are Canada lynx (threatened), and bull trout (threatened). For the remaining ecological receptors at the Site, population-level protection of ecological receptors is most appropriate. • Bioaccumulative metals (arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury, and selenium) were retained as CPECs since available screening criteria do not fully assess bioaccumulation potential.

4.3.1 Surface Water Copper City Mill Five COIs (barium, copper, lead, manganese and nickel) detected in surface water exceeded screening criteria protective of ecological receptors exposed to surface water. A summary of the risk ratios for Site CPECs in surface water is presented in Table 4-2. • Barium, copper, and lead in surface water have risk ratios greater than 5 (6.8, 7.2, and 641, respectively).

o The copper MDC in surface water of 23.6 μg/L exceeded the Ecology Aquatic Life hardness adjusted criterion of 4.1 μg/L.

o URS ran the BLM (HydroQual, 2007) to calculate Site-specific screening criteria for copper. This model was run for each sample to calculate Site-specific acute and chronic values that are analogous to the AWQC values (Attachment 2, Table 3). Risk ratios were calculated using the Site-specific chronic screening criteria for copper. The seep sample (CC-27) had the highest risk ratio (395). Other samples greater than 1 included, CC-26 (9.1) collected immediately below the mill, and CC-28 (1.9) above the mill. Although copper concentrations in surface water are unacceptably high at and immediately below the mill, the surface water collected from Deep Creek after its confluence with the mill tributary (CC-03) had an acceptable risk ratio of 0.44. This risk ratio is even slightly lower than that of the sample collected from Deep Creek above the mill tributary confluence (CC-04), which had a risk ratio of 0.59.

o The BLM model indicates that Site copper concentrations are unacceptably high, but that the mill tributary does not adversely affect water quality within Deep Creek.

o The total lead MDC in surface water of 2.05 μg/L exceeded the ORNL PRG of 0.0032 μg/L. Dissolved lead was not detected in on-Site surface water samples, and the MDL did not exceed available screening criteria.

o Barium collected from the wet meadow has a concentration of 27.1 μg/L which results in a risk ratio of 6.8. This concentration is significantly higher than the concentration in the mill tributary (5.43 μg/L) and background samples (4.61 to 5.74 μg/L). For these reasons, it seems unlikely that the high barium concentrations observed in the wet meadow are related to waste rock and crushed ore found on the Site. • Manganese and nickel in surface water have risk ratios greater than 1 and less than 5.

o Manganese was detected in the sample collected from the wet meadow (CC-29) at a concentration (576 μg/L) that exceeded the ORNL PRG (0.16 μg/L). This sample concentration was substantially higher than both the seep sample (CC-27) and upstream concentrations. All three samples collected downstream of the mill, however, had manganese concentrations that were indistinguishable from upstream sample concentrations.

The low risk ratio and rapid return to background concentrations downstream of the mill make manganese unlikely to cause significant adverse effects to populations of ecological receptors.

o Nickel was detected in the sample collected from the wet meadow above the MDL of 0.15 μg/L at an estimated concentration of 0.687 μg/L. This estimated concentration exceeds the ORNL PRG of 0.16 μg/L. Nickel was not detected in any of the downstream or background surface water samples. Granite Lake Prospect No chemicals detected in surface water at Granite Lake Prospect were identified as CPECs. A summary of the risk ratios for Site CPECs in surface water based on comparison of criteria to MDLs is presented in Table 4-2. Two chemicals (i.e., cadmium and lead) were not present in surface water at detectable concentrations, but their MDLs exceeded relevant screening criteria. • Cadmium and lead were not detected in either the Site or background samples, so it is possible that the true Site concentrations of these chemicals are indistinguishable from background concentrations. • Since the cadmium and lead MDLs exceed relevant screening criteria, however, it is also possible that they are present in surface water at concentrations below their MDLs but greater than their relevant screening criteria. • Cadmium and lead were retained as a CPEC in surface water and are further considered in the Uncertainty Section (Section 4.3.3). Table 4-2. Ecological Risk Ratios for Surface Water

Copper City Granite Lake CPECs Mill Prospect

Arsenic 0.35 2.1E-03 Barium 6.8 0.32 Cadmium ND MDL, B Copper 7.2 ND Lead 641 MDL, B Manganese 4.8 4.2E-03 Mercury 0.51 0.14 Nickel 4.3 ND Selenium ND ND

Notes: MDL = method detection limit exceeds criteria. ND = COI not detected in any Site samples and MDL below screening criteria. B = bioaccumulative chemical. Bold numeric values indicate risk ratios > 1 (protective cut-off for special status species). Underlined numeric values indicate risk ratios > 5 (protective cut-off for non-special status populations).

4.3.1.1 Sediment Copper City Mill Five COIs (arsenic, cadmium, copper, silver, and zinc) detected in sediment exceeded screening criteria protective of ecological receptors exposed to sediment. A summary of the risk ratios for Site CPECs in sediment is presented in Table 4-3. • Arsenic and copper had risk ratios greater than 5 with risk ratios of 56 and 70, respectively.

o These chemicals exceeded the lowest available sediment criterion, the TEC of 9.79 mg/kg for arsenic and 31.6 mg/kg for copper. These concentrations indicate the potential to adversely affect populations of ecological receptors exposed to Site sediment. • Cadmium, silver, and zinc have risk ratios greater than 1 and less than 5 with risk ratios of 2.8., 1.3, and 2.9 respectively. These risk ratios are unlikely to adversely affect populations of ecological receptors exposed to sediment. • COI exceedances of generic screening criteria for sediment occurred in sediments collected from the seep at Copper City Mill. Sediment collected from Deep Creek below the confluence with the mill tributary had concentrations of COIs that were similar to background concentrations (upstream of the mill tributary and upstream of its confluence with Deep Creek).

o These concentrations suggest that elevated CPEC concentrations in sediment are limited to the Copper City Mill Site itself. Granite Lake Prospect Two COIs detected in “sediment” collected from the submerged portion of the waste rock pile at Granite Lake Prospect exceeded screening criteria protective of ecological receptors exposed to sediment. A summary of the risk ratios for Site CPECs in sediment is presented in Table 4-3. • The MDC of arsenic detected (108 mg/kg) in the submerged waste rock exceeded the TEC of 9.79 mg/kg with a risk ratio of 11. This risk ratio suggests that arsenic has the potential to adversely affect populations of ecological receptors exposed to sediment. • The MDC of silver (4.6 mg/kg) in the submerged waste rock exceeded Ecology Sediment Quality Values screening criteria of 2 mg/kg with a risk ratio of 2.3. This risk ratio suggests that silver has the potential to adversely affect individual ecological receptors exposed to sediment. Table 4-3. Ecological Risk Ratios for Sediment Copper Granite Lake CPECs City Prospect Mill Arsenic 56 11 Cadmium 2.8 0.45 Copper 70 0.51 Lead 0.93 0.94 Mercury 0.20 0.96 Selenium NC NC Silver 1.3 2.3 Zinc 2.9 0.37

Notes: NC = No criteria. Bold numeric values indicate risk ratios > 1 (protective cut-off for special status species). Underlined numeric values indicate risk ratios > 5 (protective cut-off for non-special status populations).

4.3.2 Soil Copper City Mill A total of 10 chemicals detected in soil had at least one risk ratio greater than 1 or were bioaccumulative, and were identified as CPECs in soil. These chemicals had risk ratios ranging from below 1 to 1,320, with the largest risk ratios associated with arsenic and copper concentrations. A summary of the risk ratios for Site CPECs in soil is presented in Table 4-4. • Arsenic risk ratios exceeded 1 for terrestrial plants (1,320), soil biota (220) and avian receptors (180). All Site soil (i.e., waste rock and crushed ore) concentrations exceeded at least one screening criterion. Based on these risk ratios, Site arsenic concentrations may adversely affect populations of ecological receptors. • Cadmium risk ratios exceeded 1 for terrestrial plants (1.7), and avian and mammalian receptors (5 and 10, respectively). While only two soil samples (CC-17 and CC-18) exceeded MTCA screening criteria protective of plants, all the remaining samples exceeded Eco-SSL criteria protective of avian and mammalian receptors.

o For this reason, Site cadmium concentrations have the potential to adversely affect populations of avian and mammalian receptors. • Cobalt risk ratios exceeded 1 for terrestrial plants (37), avian and mammalian receptors (2.9 and 1.5, respectively). All but one Site sample (CC-22) exceeded Eco-SSL screening criteria for cobalt. Four samples exceeded the Eco-SSL criteria protective of avian and mammalian receptors.

o Based on this risk ratio, cobalt concentrations have the potential to adversely affect populations of terrestrial plants. • Copper risk ratios exceeded 1 for terrestrial plants (191), soil biota (268), and avian and mammalian receptors (289 and 165, respectively). High concentrations of copper are present throughout the mine waste samples and all samples exceed at least one screening criterion. Site copper concentrations may adversely affect populations of ecological receptors. • Lead risk ratios exceeded 1 for terrestrial plants (7.5), and avian and mammalian receptors (19 and 4, respectively). All Site samples exceeded the Eco-SSL criterion protective of avian receptors. Lead concentrations may adversely affect populations of terrestrial plants and avian receptors. • Manganese risk ratios exceeded 1 for terrestrial plants (7.4) and soil biota (3.6). Eco-SSL criteria protective of plants (220 mg/kg) and soil invertebrates (450 mg/kg) were lower than the Site- specific background concentration (of 572 mg/kg). For this reason Site manganese concentrations are unlikely to significantly adversely affect populations of terrestrial plants. • Mercury risk ratios exceeded 1 for terrestrial plants (2.7) and soil biota (8.1). Based on the risk ratios, mercury concentrations may adversely affect populations of soil biota. • Selenium risk ratios exceeded 1 for terrestrial plants (6.3) and wildlife (6.0). While the background concentration of selenium is slightly greater than the MTCA screening criterion protective of wildlife, Site selenium concentrations are substantially greater than background. Based on the risk ratios, selenium concentrations may adversely affect populations of terrestrial plants and wildlife. • Silver risk ratios exceeded 1 for terrestrial plants (17), and avian and mammalian receptors (5.3 and 1.6, respectively). Site silver concentrations range from 0.451 to 34.6 mg/kg, significantly greater the Site-specific background concentration (0.521 mg/kg). Based on the risk ratio, silver concentrations on the Site may adversely affect populations of terrestrial plants and avian receptors.

• Zinc risk ratios exceeded 1 for terrestrial plants (11), soil biota (7.5), and avian and mammalian receptors (10 and 6, respectively). Based on these risk ratios, Site zinc concentrations may adversely affect populations of ecological receptors. Granite Lake Prospect Four CPECs (arsenic, manganese, mercury, and silver) were detected in soil with at least one risk ratio greater than 1. Risk ratios ranged from below 1 to 11, with the largest risk ratios associated with arsenic concentrations. A summary of the risk ratios for Site CPECs in soil is presented in Table 4-4. • Arsenic risk ratios exceeded 1 for terrestrial plants (11), soil biota (1.8), and avian and mammalian receptors (2.5 and 2.3, respectively). The two waste rock samples, GL-01 and GL- 02, had very different arsenic concentrations, of 25.9 and 108 mg/kg, respectively. Based on this range, risk ratios for terrestrial plants range between 3 and 11. Based on the MDC risk ratio, however, Site arsenic concentrations may adversely affect populations of terrestrial plants. • Lead risk ratios exceeded 1 for avian receptors (3.1). Both Site samples exceeded the Eco-SSL protective of birds. Based on this risk ratio, Site lead concentrations are unlikely to adversely affect populations of avian receptors. • Manganese risk ratios exceeded 1 for terrestrial plants (1.6). Only one of the two samples exceeded the Eco-SSL screening criterion protective of terrestrial plants. Based on this risk ratio, however, Site manganese concentrations are unlikely to adversely affect populations of terrestrial plants. • Mercury risk ratios exceeded 1 for soil biota (1.7). Only one of the two samples exceeded the MTCA screening criterion protective of soil biota. Based on this risk ratio, however, Site mercury concentrations are unlikely to adversely affect populations of ecological receptors. • Silver risk ratios exceeded 1 for terrestrial plants (2.3) and avian receptors (1.1). Both samples exceeded the MTCA screening criterion protective of plants, and one sample exceeded the Eco- SSL protective of avian receptors. Based on this risk ratio, Site silver concentrations are unlikely to adversely affect populations of ecological receptors. • Although risk ratios for selenium did not exceed one for ecological receptors, selenium was retained as a CPEC due to its potential for bioaccumulation. Table 4-4. Ecological Risk Ratios for Soil

Copper City Mill Granite Lake Prospect

CPECs Terrestrial Soil Mobile Terrestrial Soil Mobile Plants Biota Receptors Plants Biota Receptors

Arsenic 1,320 220 180 11 1.8 2.5 Cadmium 1.7 0.35 10 0.067 0.013 0.74 Cobalt 37 NC 2.9 0.41 NC 0.069 Copper 191 268 289 0.23 0.32 0.57 Lead 7.5 0.75 19 0.7 0.1 3.1 Manganese 7.4 3.6 0.7 1.6 0.8 0.2 Mercury 2.7 8.1 0.1 0.57 1.7 0.031 Selenium 6.3 0.80 6.0 0.30 0.038 0.5 Silver 17 NC 5.3 2.3 NC 1.1 Zinc 11 7.5 10 0.52 0.37 0.97

Notes: NC = no criteria. Risk ratio = EPC/lowest screening criterion. For immobile receptors, EPC = MDC. For mobile receptors, EPC = 95 percent UCL concentrations. 27

Bold numeric values indicate risk ratios > 1 (protective cut-off for special status species). Underlined numeric values indicate risk ratios > 5 (protective cut-off for non-special status populations).

4.3.3 Uncertainty Analysis Evaluating areas of uncertainty in a risk assessment is essential in understanding the overall reliability and utility of its conclusions. Areas of uncertainty are associated with data evaluation and risk characterization using generic criteria. These concerns do not invalidate the results of the risk assessment, but they should be taken into consideration in the overall context of how the results are used. The primary sources of uncertainty in the streamlined ERA are described below. Generic ecological screening criteria were compared to Site concentrations of metals in surface water, sediment, and soil. This comparison is a source of uncertainty because: • Site-specific exposure parameters and toxicity reference values (TRVs) were not used. The use of Site-specific parameters and TRVs for target ecological receptors may be more or less stringent than generic criteria. • Site-specific ecological exposure modeling, however, is generally not used at the screening level, but is typically part of more in-depth ERAs. • The bioavailability of metals in the media was not determined. If metals were tested for bioavailability, ecological risk might decline significantly. This streamlined ERA assumed that all receptors would inhabit and forage exclusively within the Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect Sites (area use factor assumed to be 1). • This is a conservative assumption that would tend to overestimate risks to ecological receptors. Even for immobile species or species with small home ranges (e.g., plants, invertebrates, small mammals) it is very unlikely that entire populations of these species would reside exclusively within the 0.2-acre Copper City Mill Site or 775-square-foot Granite Lake Prospect Site. • The only threatened or endangered species reasonably likely to be present at the Site are the threatened Canada lynx and bull trout. These species are unlikely to be adversely affected by Site contaminants for the following reasons: The lynx has a large foraging range of which either Site would form a very small fraction. The lynx is very unlikely to consume a significant portion of prey affected by either Site. Bull trout do inhabit Deep Creek up to river mile 5.4, which is approximately 1.6 miles downstream of the mill tributary draining Copper City Mill. Bull trout are not physically present in Site-affected surface water. At Granite Lake Prospect, the spatial extent of the waste rock pile is a very small proportion (1.5 percent) of the lake substrate. Most aquatic life would be expected to be exposed to larger areas of the lake substrate, where higher quality habitat is available. Although only a limited number of Site samples at each Site were collected, the surface water, sediment, and soil samples are thought to be reasonably representative of Site conditions at Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect. At Granite Lake Prospect, lead potentially present in surface water was included as a CPEC solely because its MDL exceeded applicable generic screening criteria. • It is possible that lead is not present in surface water and poses no potential ecological risk or that Site concentrations are indistinguishable from background concentrations. • It is also possible, however, that lead is present at concentrations below the MDL but above the screening criteria and potentially pose unacceptable ecological risk.

At both Sites, five CPECs (arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury, and selenium) were identified as having the potential to bioaccumulate in the food web. • Lower trophic level organisms (e.g., plants and soil biota) typically experience few adverse effects due to the toxicity associated with bioaccumulative compounds. • Upper trophic level receptors, however, such as foxes and hawks, will be more vulnerable to these chemicals as they continue to be exposed through the food web. • Since there is no streamlined method to quantify the effects of bioaccumulation to upper trophic level receptors, bioaccumulation remains an uncertainty in the risk assessment. • A more detailed, site-specific risk assessment would help reduce the uncertainty associated with bioaccumulation potential.

4.3.4 Determination of Cleanup Level At Copper City Mill, ecological risk from exposure to soil and sediment is driven by arsenic concentrations, and risk from exposure to surface water is driven by lead concentrations. • Ecological cleanup criteria in soil should result in a 95 percent UCL concentration of 10 mg/kg. This concentration represents the lowest ecological screening criterion for arsenic, the MTCA criterion protective of terrestrial plants. Since the Site-specific arsenic background concentration is 63.7 mg/kg, however, the cleanup criteria should default to approximately background. At Granite Lake Prospect, ecological risk from exposure to waste rock is driven by exposure of arsenic. • Ecological cleanup criteria for waste rock should result in an arsenic concentration of 10 mg/kg or less. This concentration represents the lowest ecological screening criterion for arsenic, the MTCA criterion protective of terrestrial plants.

4.4 Summary of Ecological Risks CPECs with risk ratios suggesting the presence of possible adverse affects to populations of ecological receptors are: Copper City Mill • In surface water, barium, copper, and lead concentrations exceed levels protective of populations of aquatic life. • In sediment, arsenic and copper concentrations exceed levels protective of populations of soil biota. • In waste rock: Arsenic, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, selenium, silver, and zinc concentrations exceed levels protective of populations of terrestrial plants. Arsenic, copper, mercury, and zinc concentrations exceed levels protective of populations of soil biota. Arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, selenium, silver, and zinc concentrations exceed levels protective of populations of wildlife. • All waste rock and crushed ore were identified as hot spots. Cleanup criteria protective of ecological receptors is recommended at approximately the background arsenic concentration (63.7 mg/kg) for Site soils at Copper City Mill. Granite Lake Prospect • In surface water, no detected COI concentrations exceeded levels protective of populations of aquatic life. 29

• In sediment, arsenic concentrations exceed levels protective of populations of freshwater benthic communities. • In waste rock, arsenic concentrations exceed levels protective of populations of terrestrial plants. • The waste rock pile adjacent to and within Granite Lake was identified as a hot spot. Cleanup criteria protective of ecological receptors is recommended at 10 mg/kg arsenic for Site soils at Granite Lake Prospect. CPECs with risk ratios greater than 1 may adversely affect individual members of ecological receptor populations. Protection at the individual level is appropriate for threatened and endangered species. • Based on the Deep Creek Flood Repair Environmental Analysis (Forest Service, 2008), threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the Sites included the threatened Canada lynx and bull trout.

o At Copper City Mill: Risk ratios that are both applicable to the lynx and greater than 1 include arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, selenium, silver, and zinc. Since the home range of the lynx is so much greater than the 0.2 acre Site, it is unlikely that these concentrations will significantly adversely affect individuals or populations of the lynx. Risk ratios that are both applicable to the bull trout and greater than 1 include arsenic copper, and lead. However, concentration of these chemicals in surface water and sediment in Deep Creek are no higher than those of background samples. Since bull trout inhabit Deep Creek (in reaches greater than 1.6 miles downstream of the confluence of the mill tributary) and not the Site, Site concentrations are unlikely to adversely affect bull trout.

o At Granite Lake Prospect: Risk ratios in Site media did not indicate the potential for adverse risks to the lynx. Cadmium and lead are present at concentrations below the MDL but above screening criteria may conceivably adversely affect bull trout. These concentrations remain a source of uncertainty.

o Other special status species (e.g., candidate, monitored, sensitive, etc.) have been documented in the vicinity of the Sites (Forest Service, 2008; Forest Service, 2010). If these species were protected at the individual level, all CPECs with risk ratios greater than 1 would suggest a potentially unacceptable risk to individuals.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• The combination of collected surface water, sediment, and soil samples provided reasonably good coverage and characterization of the Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect Sites. th o At Copper City Mill, Site-specific background concentrations were calculated as the 90 percentiles as specified by WAC 173-340-709 using the 10 background soil samples

o At Granite Lake Prospect, the MDC of the three background samples was used as the Site- specific background concentrations. The concentrations of these three samples did not vary widely. • At both Sites, five bioaccumulative chemicals (arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury, and selenium) were identified among the CPECs.

o These chemicals may cause adverse effects to ecological receptors as they accumulate in the food web. The ecological risk posed by bioaccumulative chemicals can be further defined in a Site-specific risk assessment and through modeling using bioaccumulation factors. 30

• No bioavailability assessment was performed on the CPECs. The completion of a bioavailability assessment may reduce the potential for human health and ecological risk.

Copper City Mill Human Health Risk Evaluation • Site-related human health risk is predominantly due to arsenic in waste rock and crushed ore on the Site. These risks are potentially unacceptable based on the exposure parameters used for adult and child recreational users. Ecological Risk Evaluation • The aquatic invertebrate survey results (SI Report, Section 3.2.2) indicated that natural forces (e.g., scouring, heavy flows) overwhelmed discernable adverse impacts from potential chronic exposure to heavy metals or other water quality contaminants. The survey also documented the presence of macroinvertebrate taxa and species that are highly sensitive to heavy metals super- dominate the community at all three stations. This survey provides evidence that metals toxicity is not significantly adversely affecting aquatic invertebrates within Deep Creek. • Comparing COI concentrations to screening criteria suggests that ecological risk to populations of ecological receptors may occur for:

o Aquatic life exposed to barium, copper, and lead in mill tributary surface water.

o Benthic communities exposed to arsenic and copper in mill tributary sediment.

o Terrestrial plants exposed to arsenic, cobalt, copper, and lead in soil.

o Soil biota exposed to arsenic, copper, mercury, and zinc in soil.

o Wildlife (including avian and mammalian receptors) exposed to arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, selenium, silver, and zinc in soil. • The only threatened or endangered species likely to be in the Site vicinity are the Canada lynx and bull trout. The waste rock at Copper City Mill represents a very small proportion of the home range of the lynx (100 km2 or more). The nearest bull trout habitat is located 1.6 miles downstream of the confluence of the mill tributary, a distance at which Site-influence can not be distinguished from background. For these reasons, CPECs in waste rock are unlikely to significantly adversely affect lynx and bull trout. Recommendation Cleanup of waste rock and crushed ore at Copper City Mill to the background arsenic concentrations (63.7 mg/kg) should reduce Site-related human health and ecological risk to levels that do not exceed background (Attachment 3, Table 1). Since addressing contamination in waste rock and crushed ore is expected to result in a corresponding reduction in arsenic concentrations in surface water, no specific cleanup level is recommended for surface water. Granite Lake Prospect Human Health Risk Evaluation • Site-related human health risk is predominantly due to arsenic in waste rock in front of the collapsed adit. These risks are potentially unacceptable based on the exposure parameters used for adult and child recreational users. Ecological Risk Evaluation • Comparing COI concentrations to screening criteria suggests that ecological risk to populations of ecological receptors may occur for:

o Benthic communities exposed to arsenic in sediment (submerged waste rock).

o Terrestrial plants exposed to arsenic in waste rock.

o The only threatened or endangered species likely to be in the Site vicinity are the Canada lynx and bull trout. The waste rock at Granite Lake Prospect represents a very small proportion of the home range of the lynx (100 km2 or more) and only a small fraction (about 1.5 percent) of the lakeshore. In addition, water concentrations in the lake do not exceed those protective of aquatic life. For these reasons, CPECs in waste rock are unlikely to significantly adversely affect lynx and bull trout. Recommendation Cleanup of waste rock at Granite Lake Prospect to 4.3 mg/kg arsenic should reduce Site-related human health and ecological risk to protective levels (Attachment 3, Table 1). • The protective cleanup level of 4.3 mg/kg arsenic reduces RME carcinogenic risk for all soil pathways to less than 1E-06 and noncarcinogenic hazard to less than 1. • While the proposed protective cleanup level is higher than the Site-specific background arsenic concentration of 0.22 mg/kg, it is protective of human health and ecological health, and is only a little higher than the Yakima Basin background arsenic concentration of 5.17 mg/kg.

6.0 FOREST SERVICE DISCLAIMER

This abandoned mine/mill site was created under the General Mining Law of 1872 and is located solely on National Forest System (NFS) lands administered by the USDA Forest Service. The United States has taken the position and courts have held that the United States is not liable as “owner” under CERLA Section 107 for mine contamination left behind on NFS lands by miners operating under the 1872 Mining Law. Therefore, USDA Forest Service believes that this site should not be considered a “federal facility” within the meaning of CERCLA Section 120 and should not be listed on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. Instead, this site should be included on USEPA’s CERCLIS database. Consistent with the June 24, 2003 OECA/FFEO “Policy on Listing Mixed Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket,” we respectfully request that USEPA Regional Docket Coordinator consult with the Forest Service and USEPA Headquarters before making a determination to include this site on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket.

7.0 REFERENCES

Bailey, Robert G., 1995. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States, 2d ed. Rev. and expanded (1st ed. 1980). Misc. Publ. No. 1391 (rev.), Washington DC: USDA Forest Service.

DEQ, 1998. Guidance for Identification of Hot Spots. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. April 23.

Ecology, 2003. Development of Freshwater Sediment Quality Values for Use in Washington State. Phase II Report: Development and Recommendation of SQVs for Freshwater Sediments in Washington State. Washington Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program. Publication # 03-09-008. September.

Efroymson, R.A., G.W. Suter II, B.E. Sample, and D.S. Jones, 1997. Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological Endpoints. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. August. ES/ER/TM-162/R2 32

Forest Service, 2005. Abbreviated Preliminary Assessment, Copper City Millsite and Miners Ridge Workings, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, Naches Ranger District, Yakima County, WA. February.

Forest Service, 2008. Deep Creek Flood Repair Environmental Analysis. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Naches Ranger District. Yakima County, Washington. September.

HydroQual, 2007. Biotic Ligand Model 2.2.3 User Guide and Reference Manual and Software Package. HydroQual, Inc. Manwah, New Jersey. June

MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, and T. A. Berger, 2000. Development and Evaluation of Consensus- Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39, 20-31.

USEPA, 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response: OSWER Directive: 9285.6-03

USEPA, 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook Volume I - General Factors. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa Washington, DC.

USEPA, 2009a. ProUCL Version 4.00.04 User Guide and Statistical Software Package. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. February. EPA/600/R-07/038

USEPA, 2009b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA-819-F-09-004 Accessed online October 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html#mcls

USEPA, 2009c. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Accessed online October 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable/nrwqc-2009.pdf

USEPA, 2009d. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed October 2009 online at http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/index.htm

USEPA, 2009e. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed October 2009 at www.epa.gov/iris/

USEPA, 2009f. Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs). Accessed October 2009 online at http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/

USEPA, 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington D.C., EPA/630/R095/002F.

USEPA, 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim Final. Environmental Response Team. June.

USEPA, 1992. Guidance on Implementation of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), under CERCLA and the NCP. OWSER Directive 9203.1-03. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July.

USEPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/540/1-89/002. December.

URS, 2009. Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan, Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Sites, Summer 2009 Site Inspection. URS Corporation. Portland, Oregon. July.

WAC, 2006. Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-201A-240. Table 240(3). Washington State Legislature. Accessed online at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/

WAC, 2009. Washington Administrative Code 246-290-310, Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs). Washington State Legislature. Accessed September 2009 online at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/

WDFW, 2009. Fishing in Washington, Sports Fishing Rules, 2009/2010 pamphlet edition. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. May 1.

ATTACHMENT 1

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT TABLES

Attachment 1, Table 1. Exposure Parameters for Risk Assessment Calculations Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect Yakima County, Washington

Value Symbol Exposure Factors Unit Source CTE RME Chemical Concentrations Arsenic conc. in soil 3,519 7,729 mg/kg Site-Specific Data

Cs Cadmium conc. in soil 2.45 3.71 mg/kg Site-Specific Data Cobalt conc. in soil 159 351.9 mg/kg Site-Specific Data Arsenic conc. in water - MDC0.136 mg/L Site-Specific Data

Cw Cadmium conc. in water - MDC0.00025 mg/L Site-Specific Data

Copper City Mill Copper Cobalt conc. in water - MDC0.00278 mg/L Site-Specific Data

Cs Arsenic conc. in soil 67 108 mg/kg Site-Specific Data

Csd Arsenic conc. in sediment - MDC 108. mg/kg Site-Specific Data Prospect Cw Arsenic conc. water - MDC 3.17E-04 mg/L Site-Specific Data Granite Lake Lake Granite Parameter Values

ATc Averaging time for carcinogens 25,550 days USEPA 1989 Averaging time for non-carcinogens - adult 3,285 8,760 days ED x 365 days, USEPA 1989 ATn Averaging time for non-carcinogens - child 2,190 days ED x 365 days, USEPA 1989 Body weight - adult 70 kg USEPA 1991 BW Body weight - child 15 kg USEPA 1991 Exposure duration - adult 9 24 years USEPA 1991 General ED Exposure duration - child 6 years USEPA 1991

EF Exposure Frequency 6 12 days/year Professional ET Exposure Time 1 2 hours/event Professional USEPA 2002 (Based on 0.5 acre size PEF Particulate emission factor 1.06E+09 m3/kg and meteorological conditons similar to Air Salem, OR) Soil ingestion rate - adult 50 100 mg/day USEPA 1991 IRs Soil ingestion rate - child 100 200 mg/day USEPA 1997 Soil/sediment to skin adherence - adult 0.07 0.3 mg/cm2 USEPA 2004 (gardeners) Ms Soil/sediment to skin adherence - child 0.2 3.3 mg/cm2 USEPA 2004 (playing in wet soil) Soil Skin surface area for soil/sediment contact - adult 5,700 cm2/day USEPA 2004 SAs Skin surface area for soil/sediment contact - child 2,800 cm2/day USEPA 2004

Fs Fraction of contacted soil from site 1 -- Professional USEPA 2000 (residential soil ingestion Sediment ingestion rate - adult 50 100 mg/day rate) IR sd USEPA 2000 (residential soil ingestion Sediment ingestion rate - child 100 200 mg/day Sediment rate) Water ingestion rate - adult 1.4 2 liters/day USEPA 1989

IRw Water ingestion rate -child 1 1 liters/day USEPA RSL 2009 Water ingestion rate while swimming 0.050 liters/hour USEPA 1989 Skin surface area for surface water contact - adult 18,000 cm2/day USEPA 2004 Water SAw Skin surface area for surface water contact - child 6,600 cm2/day USEPA 2004

Fw Fraction of contacted surface water from site 1 unitless Professional Chemical-Specific Reference Values Dermal absorption fraction - arsenic 0.03 unitless USEPA 2004 DAF Dermal absorption fraction - cadmium 0.001 unitless USEPA 2004 Dermal absorption fraction - cobalt -- unitless USEPA 2004 Gastrointestinal Absorption - arsenic 1 unitless USEPA 2004 GI ABS Gastrointestinal Absorption - cadmium (diet) 0.025 unitless USEPA 2004 Gastrointestinal Absorption - cobalt 1 unitless USEPA 2004 PC Permeability coefficient - arsenic 0.001 cm/hr USEPA 2004 Attachment 1, Table 1. Exposure Parameters for Risk Assessment Calculations Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect Yakima County, Washington

Value Symbol Exposure Factors Unit Source CTE RME Slope factor - oral, arsenic 1.5 (mg/kg-day)-1 USEPA IRIS 2009 SF Slope factor - dermal absorbed, arsenic 1.5 (mg/kg-day)-1 USEPA 2004 Inhalation unit risk - arsenic0.0043 (ug/m3)-1 USEPA IRIS 2009 IUR Inhalation unit risk - cadmium0.0042 (ug/m3)-1 USEPA RSL 2009 Inhalation unit risk - cobalt0.0090 (ug/m3)-1 USEPA RSL 2009 Reference dose - oral, arsenic 0.0003 mg/kg-day USEPA IRIS 2009 RfDo Reference dose - oral (via food), cadmium 0.001 mg/kg-day USEPA IRIS 2009 Reference dose - oral, cobalt 0.0003 mg/kg-day USEPA RSL 2009 Reference dose - absorbed dermal, arsenic 0.0003 mg/kg-day USEPA 2004 RfDd Reference dose - absorbed dermal, cadmium 2.5E-05 mg/kg-day USEPA 2004 Reference dose - absorbed dermal, cobalt 0.0003 mg/kg-day USEPA 2004 Reference concentration - inhalation, arsenic0.000015 mg/m3 USEPA RSL 2009 RfC Reference concentration - inhalation, cadmium0.00001 mg/m3 USEPA RSL 2009 Reference concentration - inhalation, cobalt0.000006 mg/m3 USEPA RSL 2009

Notes: Child = 6 0 to 6 years old CTE = central tendency exposure, mean concentraction Adult = 2more the 6 years old RME = reasonable maximum exposure, maxium concentration Sources: USEPA IRIS, 2009. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed October 2009 online at www.epa.gov/iris/ USEPA, 2009. Regional Screening Level Tables (RSL). This source uses the EPA reccommended hierarchy for toxcity value sources. United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/Generic_Tables/index.htm

USEPA, 2008. Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Envirionmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-06/096F September.

USEPA, 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). Final. EPA/540/R/99/005. July. USEPA, 2002. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. OSWER 9355.4-24. December. USEPA, 2000. EPA Region 10 Supplemental Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance, Office of Environmental Assessment, Soil Ingestion Rates. January 25. Cited in Drafted Remedial Investigation Report, Appendix F, Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment. Prepared by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants for The Lower Willamette Group. September 23, 2009.

USEPA, 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook Volume I - General Factors. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa Washington, DC. USEPA, 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response: OSWER Directive: 9285.6-03 USEPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/540/1-89/002. December. Attachment 1, Table 2. Estimated Chemical Intake for Recreational Users Copper City Mill Yakima County, Washington

AB C DEF 1 Soil Pathways Carcinogens Non-Carcinogens 32 Inhalation of Soil Particles 3 3 3 4 CDI (ug/m ) = Cs * EF * (EDc + EDa) * 10 E (mg/m ) = Cs * EF * ED 5 AT * PEF AT * PEF 6 c n 7 Soil Receptor CTE CDI RME CDI CTE E RME E 8 Child/Adult Adult 9 Arsenic 1.17E-05 1.03E-04 Arsenic 5.48E-08 2.41E-07 10 Cadmium 8.18E-09 4.95E-08 Cadmium 3.82E-11 1.16E-10 11 Cobalt 5.31E-07 4.70E-06 Cobalt 2.48E-09 1.10E-08 12 Child 13 Arsenic 5.48E-08 2.41E-07 14 Cadmium 3.82E-11 1.16E-10 1516 Cobalt 2.48E-09 1.10E-08 1817 Ingestion of Soil -6 -6 19 CDI (mg/kg-day) = Cs*Fs*EF*10 *(IRs-c*EDc/BWc+IRs-a*EDa/BWa) E (mg/kg-day) = Cs*Fs*IRs*EF*ED*10 20 AT BW * AT 21 c n 22 Soil Receptor CTE CDI RME CDI CTE E RME E 23 Child/Adult Adult 24 Arsenic 3.84E-05 4.15E-04 Arsenic 4.13E-05 3.63E-04 25 Cadmium 2.88E-08 1.74E-07 26 Cobalt 1.87E-06 1.65E-05 27 Child 28 Arsenic 3.86E-04 3.39E-03 29 Cadmium 2.68E-07 1.63E-06 30 Cobalt 1.74E-05 1.54E-04 3231 3433 Dermal Contact with Soil -6 -6 35 CDI (mg/kg-day) = Cs*F*DAF*EF*10 *(SAc*Mc*EDc/BWc+SAa*Ma*EDa/BWa) E (mg/kg-day) = Cs*F*SA*M*DAF*EF*ED*10 36 AT BW * AT 37 c n 38 Soil Receptor CTE CDI RME CDI CTE E RME E 39 Child/Adult Adult 40 Arsenic 6.83E-06 4.66E-04 Arsenic 9.89E-06 1.86E-04 41 Cadmium 2.30E-10 2.98E-09 42 Cobalt -- -- 43 Child 44 Arsenic 6.48E-05 4.70E-03 45 Cadmium 1.50E-09 7.51E-08 4746 Cobalt -- -- 48 Surface Water Pathway Carcinogens Non-Carcinogens 5049 Ingestion as Drinking Water

51 CDI (mg/kg-day) = Cw * EF * (IRwc * EDc/BWc + IRwa * EDa/BWa) E (mg/kg-day) = Cw*IRw*EF*ED 52 AT BW * AT 53 c n 54 Receptor CTE CDI RME CDI CTE E RME E 55 Child/Adult Adult 56 Arsenic 1.85E-05 6.93E-05 Arsenic 4.47E-05 1.28E-04 57 Cadmium 8.22E-08 2.35E-07 58 Cobalt 9.14E-07 2.61E-06 59 Child 60 Arsenic 1.49E-04 2.98E-04 61 Cadmium 2.74E-07 5.48E-07 62 Cobalt 3.05E-06 6.09E-06 6463 65 Notes: 66 Equation variables are defined in Table 1. CTE = central tendency exposure, mean concentraction 67 -- = not calculated, only one sample available. E = Exposure level 68 CDI = Chronic daily intake RME = reasonable maximum exposure, maxium concentration Attachment 1, Table 3. Human Health Risks from All Pathways Copper City Mill Yakima County, Washington

Recreational User Risk Calculations

Individual Pathway Risks Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogen Risk PECR = CDI * SF (or IUR) HQ = E

RfDo (or RfC) Child/Adult CTE PECR RME PECR % of total risk Adult CTE HQ RME HQ As Cd Co As Cd Co for RME As Cd Co As Cd Co Inhalation of Soil Particles 5E-08 3E-11 5E-09 4E-07 2E-10 4E-08 0% 0.0037 0.0000038 0.00041 0.016 0.000012 0.0018 Ingestion of Soil 6E-05 -- -- 6E-04 -- -- 44% 0.14 0.000029 0.0062 1.2 0.00017 0.055 Dermal Contact with Soil 1E-05 -- -- 7E-04 -- -- 49% 0.033 0.000009 -- 0.62 0.00012 -- Ingestion of Surface Water 3E-05 -- -- 1E-04 -- -- 7% 0.15 0.000082 0.0030 0.43 0.00023 0.009

Child CTE HQ RME HQ As Cd Co As Cd Co Inhalation of Soil Particles 0.0037 0.0000038 0.00041 0.016 0.000012 0.0018 Ingestion of Soil 1.3 0.00027 0.06 11 0.0016 0.51 Dermal Contact with Soil 0.22 0.000060 -- 16 0.0030 -- Ingestion of Surface Water 0.50 0.00027 0.010 1.0 0.00055 0.020

Total Multiple Pathway Risks Carcinogenic Non-Carcinogenic CTE RME CTE RME As Cd Co As Cd Co As Cd Co As Cd Co Child/Adult 1E-04 3E-11 5E-09 1E-03 2E-10 4E-08 Adult 0.3 1.E-04 0.01 2.3 5.E-04 0.07 Child 2.0 6.E-04 0.07 28 5.E-03 0.5

Notes: -- = risk could not be calculated, no reference value. CDI = chronic daily intake E = exposure level HQ = Hazard Quotient, unitless PECR = Potential Excess Cancer Risk, unitless

RFDo = Oral reference dose SF = Slope Factor Attachment 1, Table 4. Estimated Chemical Intake for Recreational Users Granite Lake Prospect Yakima County, Washington ABCDEF 1 Soil & Sediment Pathways Carcinogens Non-Carcinogens 32 Inhalation of Soil Particles 3 3 3 4 CDI (ug/m ) = Cs * EF * (EDc + EDa) * 10 E (mg/m ) = Cs * EF * ED 5 AT * PEF AT * PEF 6 c n 7 Soil Receptor CTE CDI RME CDI CTE E RME E 8 Child/Adult 2.24E-07 1.44E-06 Adult 1.04E-09 3.37E-09 109 Child 1.04E-09 3.37E-09 1211 Ingestion of Soil and Sediment -6 -6 13 CDI (mg/kg-day) = Cs*F*EF*10 *(IRs-c*EDc/BWc+IRs-a*EDa/BWa) E (mg/kg-day) = Cs*F*IRs*EF*ED*10 14 AT BW * AT 15 c n 1716 Soil Receptor CTE CDI RME CDI CTE E RME E 18 Child/Adult 7.31E-07 5.80E-06 Adult 7.87E-07 5.07E-06 19 Child 7.34E-06 4.73E-05 20 2221 Sediment Receptor CTE CDI RME CDI CTE E RME E 23 Child/Adult 1.18E-06 5.80E-06 Adult 1.27E-06 5.07E-06 24 Child 1.18E-05 4.73E-05 25 2726 Dermal Contact with Soil and Sediment -6 -6 28 CDI (mg/kg-day) = Cs*F*DAF*EF*10 *(SAc*Mc*EDc/BWc+SAa*Ma*EDa/BWa) E (mg/kg-day) = Cs*F*SA*M*DAF*EF*ED*10 29 AT BW * AT 30 c n 3231 Soil Receptor CTE CDI RME CDI CTE E RME E 33 Child/Adult 1.30E-07 6.52E-06 Adult 1.88E-07 2.60E-06 34 Child 1.23E-06 6.56E-05 35 3736 Sediment Receptor CTE CDI RME CDI CTE E RME E 38 Child/Adult 2.09E-07 6.52E-06 Adult 3.04E-07 2.60E-06 39 Child 1.99E-06 6.56E-05 40 41 Surface Water Pathway Carcinogens Non-Carcinogens 4342 Ingestion as Drinking Water

44 CDI (mg/kg-day) = Cw * EF * (IRwc * EDc/BWc + IRwa * EDa/BWa) E (mg/kg-day) = Cw*IRw*EF*ED 45 AT BW * AT 46 c n 47 Receptor CTE CDI RME CDI CTE E RME E 48 Child/Adult 4.32E-08 1.62E-07 Adult 1.04E-07 2.98E-07 49 Child 3.47E-07 6.95E-07 50 5251 Ingestion While Swimming

53 CDI (mg/kg-day) = Cw * IR * ET * EF * (EDc/BWc + EDa/BWa) E (mg/kg-day) = Cw*IRw*EF*ED*ET 54 AT BW * AT 55 c n 5756 Receptor CTE E RME E CTE E RME E 58 Child/Adult 1.97E-09 1.11E-08 Adult 3.72E-09 1.49E-08 59 Child 1.74E-08 6.95E-08 60 6261 Dermal Contact with Surface Water While Swimming -3 -3 63 CDI (mg/kg-day) = Cw*PC*ET*EF*10 *(SAc*EDc/BWc+SAa*EDa/BWa) E (mg/kg-day) = Cw*PC*ET*EF*10 *SA*ED 64 AT BW * AT 65 c n 6766 Soil Receptor CTE CDI RME CDI CTE E RME E 68 Child/Adult 3.69E-10 2.62E-09 Adult 1.34E-09 5.36E-09 69 Child 2.29E-09 9.17E-09 70 71 Notes: 72 Equation variables are defined in Table 1. CTE = central tendency exposure, mean concentraction 73 -- = not calculated, only one sample available. E = Exposure level 74 CDI = Chronic daily intake RME = reasonable maximum exposure, maxium concentration Attachment 1, Table 5. Human Health Risks from All Pathways Granite Lake Prospect Yakima County, Washington

Recreational User Risk Calculations

Individual Pathway Risks Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogen Risk PECR = CDI * SF (or IUR) HQ = E

RfDo (or RfC) Child/Adult - Arsenic CTE PECR RME PECR % of total risk Adult CTE HQ RME HQ % of total risk for RME for RME

Inhalation of Soil Particles 1E-09 6E-09 0% 0.000070 0.00022 0% Ingestion of Soil 1E-06 9E-06 23% 0.0026 0.017 32% Ingestion of Sediment 2E-06 9E-06 23% 0.0042 0.017 32% Dermal Contact with Soil 2E-07 1E-05 26% 0.00063 0.009 17% Dermal Contact with Sediment 3E-07 1E-05 26% 0.0010 0.009 16.5% Ingestion of Surface Water 6E-08 2E-07 1% 0.00035 0.0010 2% Ingestion of Surface Water While Swimming 3E-09 2E-08 0% 0.000012 0.000050 0% Dermal Contact with Surface Water 6E-10 4E-09 0% 0.0000045 0.000018 0% While Swimming Child CTE HQ RME HQ % of total risk for RME Inhalation of Soil Particles 0.000070 0.00022 0% Ingestion of Soil 0.024 0.16 21% Ingestion of Sediment 0.039 0.16 21% Dermal Contact with Soil 0.0041 0.22 28.9% Dermal Contact with Sediment 0.0066 0.22 29% Ingestion of Surface Water 0.0012 0.0023 0% Ingestion of Surface Water While Swimming 0.000058 0.00023 0% Dermal Contact with Surface Water 0.0000076 0.000031 0% While Swimming

Total Multiple Pathway Risks Carcinogenic Non-Carcinogenic CTE RME CTE RME Child/Adult 3E-06 4E-05 Adult 0.01 0.05 Child 0.1 0.8

Notes: -- = risk could not be calculated, no reference value. CDI = chronic daily intake Bold risk numbers indicate that total risk exceeds a PECR of 1E-6 for a single chemical or the HI exceed 1. E = exposure level HQ = Hazard Quotient, unitless PECR = Potential Excess Cancer Risk, unitless RFD = Reference dose SF = Slope Factor

ATTACHMENT 2

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT TABLES

Attachment 2, Table 1. Risk Ratio Calculations for Surface Water and Sediment Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect Yakima County, Washington

Exposure Point Lowest Risk Ratios * Concentration Criteria CPECs Units Screening Copper City Granite Source Copper City Criterion Granite Lake Mill Lake Mill Surface Water Arsenic µg/L 53.2 0.317 J 150 WAC 5 0.35 2.1E-03 Barium µg/L 27.1 1.26 4.0 PRG 2 6.8 0.32 Cadmium µg/L 0.065 U 0.065 U 0.11/0.035 a AWQC 4 ND MDL, B Copper µg/L 23.6 0.27 U 3.3/0.82 a AWQC 4 7.2 ND Lead µg/L 2.05 0.22 U 0.0032/0.11 a PRG 2 641 MDL, B Manganese µg/L 576 0.501 J 120 PRG 2 4.8 4.2E-03 Mercury µg/L 0.00614 J 0.00171 J 0.012 WAC 5 0.51 0.14 Nickel µg/L 0.687 J 0.15 U 0.16 PRG 2 4.3 ND Selenium µg/L 0.075 U 0.075 U 0.39 PRG 2 ND ND Sediment Arsenic mg/kg 545 108 J 9.79 TEC 3 56 11 Cadmium mg/kg 1.65 0.267 J 0.6 SQS 5 2.8 0.45 Copper mg/kg 2,210 16.0 31.6 TEC 3 70 0.51 Lead mg/kg 33.3 J 33.8 35.8 TEC 3 0.93 0.94 Mercury mg/kg 0.0352 0.172 0.18 TEC 3 0.20 0.96 Selenium mg/kg 0.659 J 0.155 J NC NC NC NC Silver mg/kg 2.66 4.60 2 SQS 1 1.3 2.3 Zinc mg/kg 349 44.5 121 TEC 3 2.9 0.37

Notes: µg/L = micrograms per liter water a = hardness dependent criterion, calculated seperately for each site. See SI Table 1 and SI Table 3 notes for calculation. * Risk ratio = exposure point concentration divided by lowest screening criterion. Bold numeric values indicate hazard quotients > 1.0 (protective cut-off for special status species). Underlined numeric values indicate hazard quotients > 5 (protective cut-off for non-special status populations). B = bioaccumulative chemical CPECs = chemicals of potential ecological concern J = The reported concentration is an estimate. MDL = maximium detected limit mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram NC = no criteria available ND = not detected U = The analyte was analyzed for but not detected at or above the reported method detection limit (MDL).

Sources: 1 Ecology, 2003. Development of Freshwater Sediment Quality Values for Use in Washington State. Phase II Report: Development and Recommendation of SQVs for Freshwater Sediments in Washington State. Washington Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program. Publication # 03-09-008. September 2003. 2 Efroymson, R.A., G.W. Suter II, B.E. Sample, and D.S. Jones. 1997. Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for Ecological Endpoints. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. August. ES/ER/TM-162/R2. 3 MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, and T. A. Berger, 2000. Development and Evaluation of Consensus-Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 39: 20-31. 4 USEPA, 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (AWQC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 5 WAC, 2006. Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. Washington Administrative Code 173-201A-240. Attachment 2, Table 2. Risk Ratio Calculations for Soil Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect Yakima County, Washington

Lowest Screening Exposure Point Concentration Risk Ratio ** Criterion * (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Copper City Mill Granite Lake Prospect CPECs Granite Copper City Mill Terrestrial Soil Mobile Terrestrial Soil Mobile Terrestrial Soil Mobile Lake Plants Biota Receptors Plants Biota Receptors Plants Biota Receptors MDC 95% UCL MDC Arsenic 13,200 7,729 108 J10 60 43 a 1,320 220 180 11 1.8 2.5 Cadmium 6.90 J 3.71 0.267 J 4 20 0.36 b 1.7 0.35 10 0.067 0.013 0.74 Cobalt 476 352 8.29 20 120 a 230 b 37 NC 2.9 0.41 NC 0.069 Copper 13,400 8,084 16.0 70 c 50 28 a 191 268 289 0.23 0.32 0.57 Lead 374 205 33.8 50 500 11 a 7.5 0.75 19 0.7 0.1 3.1 Manganese 1,630 993 362 220 c 450 d 1,500 7.4 3.6 0.7 1.6 0.8 0.2 Mercury 0.814 0.459 0.172 0.3 0.1 5.5 2.7 8.1 0.1 0.57 1.7 0.031 Selenium 3.30 1.80 0.155 J 0.52 c 4.1 d 0.3 6.3 0.80 6.0 0.30 0.038 0.5 Silver 34.6 22.1 4.60 2 NC 4.2 a 17 NC 5.3 2.3 NC 1.1 Zinc 903 458 44.5 86 e 120 d 46 a 11 7.5 10 0.52 0.37 0.97

Notes: a = based on Eco-SSL for avian receptors MDL = maximium detected limit b = based on Eco-SSL for mammalian receptors mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram c = based on Eco-SSL for plants Mobile receptors include wildlife, avian, or mammal designations. d = based on Eco-SSL for soil invertebrates NC = no criteria available e = MTCA criterion represents Washington natural background concentration U = The analyte was analyzed for but not detected at or above the * Screening criteria are MTCA levels unless otherwise indicated method detection limit (MDL). ** Risk ratio = exposure point concentration (EPC) divided by lowest screening criterion. Bold numeric values indicate hazard quotients > 1.0 (protective cut-off for special status species). Underlined numeric values indicate hazard quotients > 5 (protective cut-off for non-special status populations). 95% UCL = 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean, used as EPC for mobile receptors CPECs = chemicals of potential ecological concern J = The reported concentration is an estimate. MDC = maximum detected concentration, used as EPC for immobile receptors (i.e., plants & soil biota) or for mobile receptors if 95% UCL cannot be calculated.

Sources: Ecology, 2007. Model Toxics Control Act Chapter 70.05D RCW and Cleanup Regulation Chapter 173-340 WAC. Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program. Revised November 2007. Publication No. 94-06 USEPA, 2009. Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs). Accessed October 2009 online at http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/ Attachment 2, Table 3. Biotic Ligand Model Site Specific Screening Criteria and Risk Ratios for Copper Copper City Mill Yakima County, Washington

Dissolved CMC CCC Acute Chronic Sample ID Copper Risk Ratio Risk Ratio (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) CC-27-SW 23.6 0.096 0.060 245 395 CC-29-SW 0.67 5.2 3.23 0.13 0.21 CC-26-SW 7.9 1.4 0.87 5.6 9.1 CC-03-SW 0.272 1.0 0.62 0.27 0.44 CC-02-SW 0.29 0.45 0.28 0.64 1.0 CC-28-SW 1 0.87 0.54 1.2 1.9 CC-04-SW 1 2.7 1.7 0.37 0.59

Notes: The CMC and CCC criteria presented in this table are site-specific criteria generated using the Biotic Ligand Model (HydroQual, 2007), analogous to the generic criteria provided by the USEPA National Reccomended Water Quality Criteria. CCC = Criterion Continuous Concentration, an esimate of the highest concentration of a material in surface water to which an aquatic community can be exposed indefinitely wihtou resulting in an unacceptable effect. CMC = Criteria Maximum Concentration, an esiatme of the highest concentration of a material in surface water to which an aquatic community can be exposed briefly without resulting in an unacceptable effect.

Source: HydroQual, 2007. Biotic Ligand Model 2.2.3 User Guide and Reference Manual and Software Package. HydroQual, Inc. Manwah, New Jersey. June

ATTACHMENT 3

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

Attachment 3, Table 1. Protective Cleanup Levels for Arsenic Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Prospect Yakima County, Washington

Concentration Site-Specific Protective of Site Cleanup Rationale for Site Media Units Background Concentration Level Cleanup Level Concentration Human Ecological Health1 Receptors2 Background Soil mg/kg 7,729 (95% UCL) 63.7 8.7 10 63.7 concentration Copper Background City Mill concentration for soil, Sediment mg/kg 545 (95% UCL) (39.5)3 NR 9.79 63.7 primary contributor to sediment Concentration protective Soil mg/kg 108 J (MAX) 0.22 4.3 10 4.3 Granite of human health Lake Prospect Concentration protective Sediment mg/kg 108 J (MAX) NA 4.3 9.79 4.3 of human health

Notes: 1 = Concentration represents a calculated, site-specific, risk-based concentration 2 = Concentration represents the lowest, applicable screening criterion. 3 = Concentration based on an upstream sediment sample. Background 90th percentile not calculated. Site sediment is essentially site soil. 95% = 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean. d = dissolved concentration J = The reported concentration is an estimate. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram MAX = maximum sample concentration used NA = Not available, field observations suggested that the Granite Lake substrate is primarily organic material. NR = Not Relevant, Human exposure to sediment is insignificant due to the tiny amount of sediment present on Site. U = The analyte was analyzed for but not detected at or above the reported method detection limit (MDL). ug/L = micrograms per liter

APPENDIX D INVERTEBRATE ANALYSIS REPORT

Technical Memorandum

August 31, 2009

To: URS Corporation, Portland, OR From: Robert W. Wisseman, Aquatic Biology Associates, Corvallis, OR

Subject: Potential Impacts from Heavy Metals to the Macroinvertebrate Communities of Upper Deep Creek and Granite Lake, Yakima County, Washington.

Introduction Sites sampled in July 2009 on upper Deep Creek and Granite Lake are located about 10 miles east of the boundary of Mount Rainier National Park in the Eastern Cascades of Washington. Upper Deep Creek is located in a glacial carved U-shaped valley. A mine and mill operated between about 1900 and 1940 on a small tributary to Deep Creek at about 4000 feet elevation. Deep Creek has experienced high flows in recent years with stream substrates experiencing considerable bed- load movement, resorting and scouring.

Granite Lake is located in a glacial cirque at 5,000 feet elevation. Here there is a small mine adit near the lakeshore and a small waste rock pile (about 20 cubic yards) that extends from the adit into the lake. The objective of this pilot study is to determine if heavy metals in mine wastes in and near Granite Lake and being eroded from the mill tributary into Deep Creek are potentially impacted the macroinvertebrate communities present. Preliminary studies indicate that metals that may be of concern are copper, zinc and arsenic.

Methods Macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted by URS Corporation from July 20 to 29, 2009. Stations sampled are as follows: Deep Creek (control) immediately upstream of potential mine run-off contributing tributary, cobble substrate dominant, bedrock subdominant Deep Creek immediately downstream of confluence with potential mine run-off tributary, gravel substrate dominant, cobble subdominant. Deep Creek about 0.25 miles downstream of confluence with potential mine run-off tributary, cobble substrate dominant, gravel subdominant. Granite Lake littoral on waste rock pile from adit works on the SW side of the lake, cobble dominant substrate, fine sediment subdominant. Granite Lake littoral sample (control) located on the E side of the lake, opposite the mine adit and near the lake outlet, fine sediments dominant substrate.

Stream sites were sampled with a D-frame net (500 micron mesh). Five randomly selected points were sampled at each station, and the D-frame net was operated like a Surber sampler. Substrates in a one square foot area immediately upstream of the net were scrubbed and stirred to dislodge macroinvertebrates into the net. A total of five square feet was sampled at each stream station. Samples were preserved in alcohol and transported to Aquatic Biology Associates. Lake sites were qualitatively sampled with a D-frame net. At the mine waste rock site a combination of three jabs along the bottom and limited rock scrubbing was conducted. At the control site three jabs along the finer littoral substrates was used.

All samples were sorted in their entirety at 6-12 times magnification. Since the sample matrix from the stream samples consisted of only 10-20 cc of coarse coniferous detritus, sorting efficacy

1 for the entire sample was evaluated. Sorting efficacy was determined to be 100% for the three stream samples. The lake samples contained more fine detritus. A 20% aliquot of the sorted residue was checked to determine sorting efficacy. A sorting efficacy of 100% for the lake samples was determined.

Macroinvertebrate were identified by Robert Wisseman (general taxonomy) and James DiGiulio (Chironomidae) of Aquatic Biology Associates, and by Daye Piotrowski (Oligochaeta) of Rhithron Associates. Taxonomic qualifications of the personnel involved are available at aquaticbio.com and rhithron.com. A standard level of taxonomic effort consistent with EPA EMAP and WA Department of Ecology was maintained. URS Corporation requested that the Oligochaeta worms be identified to the lowest practical level, because species indicative of heavy metal contamination may be present.

Aquatic Biology Associates propriety software was utilized to analyze the data and compute metrics. For this project, software was altered to compute the draft form of the Montana Metals Index (McGuire 1993, 1998).

Three levels of spatial comparisons to evaluate potential heavy metal impacts to the benthic macroinvertebrate communities of Deep Creek and Granite Lake: 1. Compare metrics from a site-specific control station on Deep Creek and in the littoral zone of Granite Lake to stations potentially impacted by heavy metals. 2. Reference stream sites with minimal human impact from upper glacial valleys in near-by national park and wilderness areas are used to determine if the benthic communities in upper Deep Creek differ substantially, possibly due to chronic exposure to heavy metals. 3. Upper Deep Creek benthic communities are placed in a broader context by looking at both the high-energy reference sites found in the upper glacial valleys of this region and lower energy sites located further down valley in these same reference basins.

Upper Deep Creek is a high-energy, cold stream reach located in the headwall region of a U- shaped glacial valley. It is an atypical type stream system not represented in indices and models developed by the Washington Department of Ecology for the Cascade Ecoregion of Washington. For this reason, reference site data from previous projects conducted by Aquatic Biology Associates was re-analyzed to compare with the Deep Creek sites. Minimally impacted reference sites from Mount Rainier National Park and from a wilderness area in the headwaters of Lake Creek just to the south of the park were chosen for comparison. These near-by reference sites are similar to Deep Creek. All are high-energy, cold streams located in U-shaped glacial valleys at elevations of 3000-6000 feet. Spatial comparisons for the Granite Lake mine waste site are limited at this time to a single site- specific control site located on the opposite shore of the lake. Though macroinvertebrate samples from potential reference lakes in Mount Rainier and North Cascades National Parks have been collected and processed in recent years, this data has not progressed to the stage to allow comparisons with Granite Lake (Rawhouser, personal communication). Whether the macroinvertebrate fauna found in Granite Lake is typical for lakes in the area can be subjectively commented on since Aquatic Biology Associates has been the contractor identifying the macroinvertebrates from these parks.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently conducting a National Lakes Assessment that includes an evaluation of littoral macroinvertebrate communities. The State of Washington has been an active participant in this program, however data synthesis and possible development of indices of biological integrity are several years away (National Lake Assessment web site).

2 Metrics and indices The Karr Benthic Index of Biological Integrity (BIBI) is a multi-metric index that scores 10 metrics rating different aspects of the benthic macroinvertebrate community and sums these scores to provide a general evaluation of biological integrity (Karr 2006, 2008). The Karr BIBI is used extensively throughout the U.S. in general and in western Washington in particular (Puget Sound Stream Benthos web site). Metrics used, scoring criteria and application can be seen at the Puget Sound Stream Benthos web site, or refer to the attached document from Fore (personal communication). The Karr BIBI was designed to have broad application across North America to place stream sites into a generalized biological condition category and to track trends through time and across the landscape. It has been used for point source studies on individual water bodies, but because of its general nature it is not sensitive except to demonstrate impacts of acute pollution. Biological condition categories based on the total score (range 10-50) are: 50-46 Healthy 44-36 Compromised 34-28 Impaired 26-18 Highly impaired 16-10 Critically impaired

Impairment to benthic communities may be derived from human impacts to water and habitat quality, but may also be derived from natural constraints imposed by a watersheds geology, hydrology, vegetation, etc.

The Montana Metals Index is calculated for the Deep Creek, Granite Lake and reference stream sites. This index was developed by the State of Montana to evaluate recovery trends in the benthic macroinvertebrate community of the Clark Fork River and tributaries (McGuire 1993, 1998). Montane streams and rivers in the coniferous biome of western North America have a high degree of similarity in benthic macroinvertebrate taxa, with the upper Clark Fork River tributaries having many of the same species as found in Deep Creek and near-by reference sites. The Montana Metals Index assigns a metals tolerance value to each taxon, from 0 (highly intolerant of metals) to 10 (highly tolerant). Taxa with tolerance values of 0-2 are considered to be intolerant indicators of heavy metals pollution, while taxa with tolerance vales of 8-10 are considered to be heavy metals tolerant indicators. The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index equation is used to calculate an average tolerance for all taxa found in a benthic community, weighted by taxa abundance. The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index equation is:

Sum (abundance of each taxa X tolerance value of each taxa) total number of invertebrates

Selected benthic macroinvertebrate community metrics are used in addition to the above indices to examine potential heavy metal impacts and to place the Deep Creek and Granite Lake benthic communities in a broader regional context. These metrics are listed below with citations for studies where the metric was found to be significant for assessing impacts of heavy metals, and their response to heavy metal impairment (decrease or increase).

Total taxa richness (decrease) Clements and Kiffney 1994, Clements 1994, LaPoint et al. 1984.

Total abundance (decrease) Clements and Kiffney 1994, LaPoint 1984, McGuire 1993

Ephemeroptera+Plecoptera+Trichoptera (EPT) taxa richness (decrease) McGuire 1993

3 Ephemeroptera, particularly Heptageniidae, abundance and taxa richness (decrease), Chadwick et al 1986, Clements and Kiffney 1994, Clements 1994, Hughes 1985, Leland et al. 1989, Moore 1991, Nelson and Roline 1993, Peckarsky and Cook 1981.

Tanytarsini midges (decrease), Clements et al. 1989.

Results and Discussion Macroinvertebrate taxa encountered in the July 2009 sampling of Deep Creek and Granite Lake are listed in Table 1, along with various attributes for each taxon. Site-specific benthic macroinvertebrate data for the three Deep Creek stream sites and the two Granite Lake littoral sites are found in Tables 2 through 6. Tables 7 through 13 contain site-specific macroinvertebrate data from the reference sites.

Summary metrics, the Karr BIBI and metrics selected to evaluate potential impacts from heavy metals are found in the following tables: Tables 2, 3 and 4: Deep Creek stations upstream, immediately downstream of confluence, and 0.25-mile downstream of the tributary draining the mine/mill site. Table 5 and 6: Granite Lake littoral zone samples, mine waste site versus a control site. Tables 7, 8, 9, and 10: Reference sites from high energy, cold streams in near-by upper glacial valleys. Tables 11and 12: Reference sites from lower energy sites located downstream in the near-by glacial valleys.

Deep Creek control and potentially impacted stations Taking all three stations sampled collectively the benthic macroinvertebrate community in upper Deep Creek can be summarized as follows (Table 1): Low total taxa richness (16-27 taxa). Cascade streams with more stable substrates typically have 50-70 taxa present. Low total invertebrate densities (464-550 per square meter). Cascade streams with more stable substrates typically have >1000 invertebrates per square meter. Mayflies are dominant (78-91%), and the mayflies are dominated by the metals intolerant family Heptageniidae (58-68%). Baetis mayflies tolerant of substrate disturbance are common (12-17%). Cold water biota have a high taxa richness (8-13 taxa) and comprise a significant proportion of the community (23-25%) Warm water biota are absent. Non-insects (including Oligochaeta worms) are rare (0.4-6.4%) Chironomidae midges are rare (0.5-3.9%) and Tantarsini midges are very rare (0-0.5%) The Montana Metals Index is very low at all stations (1.4-1.7), with 79-81% of the individuals present considered as metals intolerant. Metals tolerant taxa are rare (0-0.4%)

Table 1 compares metrics and indices of the control station on Deep Creek located immediately upstream of the mine/mill tributary with those found at stations downstream of the tributary. Most of the indices and metrics indicative of overall biological integrity or for potential metals impairment are lower at the upstream control station. Substantially fewer invertebrate taxa were found at the control station (16 versus 26 & 27 taxa) and in slightly lower abundance per square meter (464 versus 503 & 550). The Karr BIBI was lower at the control station.

4 The macroinvertebrate community that has formed in upper Deep Creek is responding to cold water temperatures, low nutrients, and substrates subject to annual scouring and resorting events. The control station appears to be an even more stressful habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates than the downstream stations, probably because substrates are less stable and scouring more severe, as indicated by the sub-dominance by bedrock.

The results indicate that natural forces in this high energy system overwhelm any impacts caused by potential chronic exposure to heavy metals that might be occurring. In addition, macroinvertebrate taxa and species that have been documented to be the most sensitive to heavy metals super-dominate the community at all three stations.

Deep Creek in relation to upper glacial valley reference sites Data from the North Mowich, Ohanapecosh and Nisqually Rivers on Mount Rainier, and from Lake Creek in a wilderness area just to the south of Mount Rainier are summarized in Tables 7 through 10. These rivers and streams are situated at a similar elevation in the Cascade Mountains, are within 10-20 miles of the Deep Creek Basin, and are all contained in U-shaped, glacial valleys. They are all high energy, cold streams in their upper valleys, similar to conditions found in upper Deep Creek. These form suitable reference sites for answering the question whether macroinvertebrate communities present in upper Deep Creek are typical for its stream type in the region.

Comparisons between the Deep Creek stations (Table 1, average of 3 stations) and the upper glacial reference sites (Table 7 through 10, average of 4 stations) are summarized as follows: Total number of taxa (23% versus 28 taxa) Total invertebrate abundance per square meter (506% versus 571) Cold water biota (24% versus 22%) Warm Water biota (0% versus 2%) Non-insects (3% versus 2%) All mayflies (85% versus 51%). Heptageniidae mayflies (63% versus 13%). Baetis mayflies (15% versus 34%). Chironomidae midges (2% versus 23%) Karr BIBI total score (33 versus 29), both an impaired rating due to habitat constraints Montana Metals Index (1.6 versus 4), elevated at the reference sites mostly from more tolerant Chironomidae midges Metals tolerant taxa (0.3% versus 15%), elevated at the reference sites mainly from the midge Diamesa, a cold adapted taxa that normally occurs in abundance in cold, montane streams Metals intolerant taxa (80% versus 39%)

The benthic communities at Deep Creek and the upper glacial valleys reference sites have a high degree of taxa similarity, similar taxa richness and abundance, are dominated by mayflies, and have a high proportion of cold water biota present. Karr BIBI scores are similar. They differ in that Chironomidae midges and Baetis mayflies are more prevalent at the reference sites. It is these taxa that elevate metals indices at the reference sites when compared with Deep Creek.

Benthic communities in unstable, high energy stream systems in upper glacial of the Cascades typically display high structural variation both in space (between sites) and in time (year-to-year) as they respond to substrate resorting and scouring events. Upper Deep Creek appears not to be significantly different from reference sites found in near-by upper glacial valleys.

5 Deep Creek in relation to lower glacial valley reference sites Tables 11 and 12 summarize data from stations located at slightly lower elevations in the glacial valleys of two of the reference basins (lower glacial basins). This exercise is meant to demonstrate that benthic communities present in high-energy regions of upper glacial valleys (e.g. the upper Deep Creek stations sampled here) are atypical and differ substantially in structure to the more “typical” Cascade stream site used for reference comparisons. The distance along the longitudinal axis of the stream that separates the upper and lower glacial valley stations used in this study is short, from about one half mile to a few miles. Though separated by a short distance the change in habitat quality and consequently the benthic community is dramatic. Substrate resorting and scour is less severe, substrate stability higher, stream water temperatures slightly higher, and energy/nutrient inputs from algae and detritus higher. Compared with upper glacial valley stations, including Deep Creek, the reference sites located lower in the glacial valleys display: Total taxa richness doubles, primarily due to a large increase in EPT taxa Cold water biota and long-lived taxa richness actually increase due to higher habitat stability and complexity Karr BIBI scores rise substantially Non-insects that are more sensitive to substrate disturbance gain traction, though the sites are still too cold, nutrient poor, and unstable for mollusks and crustaceans to gain a foothold.

Granite Lake Sampling of the macroinvertebrate communities in the littoral zone of Granite Lake was limited to two sites, the mine waste area and a control site located on the opposite shore as far away from the mine waste as possible. The mine waste provides coarser mineral substrates than is typical for the littoral zone of the lake. Most of the bottom substrate in the littoral zone is composed of fine gravel, sand and silt. Difference in substrate type will naturally influence macroinvertebrate communities.

From extensive experience by Aquatic Biology Associates with the macroinvertebrate fauna of lakes in Mount Rainier and North Cascades National Parks, the taxa encountered at Granite Lake were found to be similar to other Cascades Lakes. More warm water biota tolerant of fine sediment, higher water temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen are present versus the Deep Creek stream samples. Few cold-water biota taxa occur, except for lakes receiving snowmelt water throughout the summer.

Differences between the mine waste and control sites are summarized as follows (see Tables 5 and 6): The mine wastes support double the number of taxa than the control site (30 versus 15 taxa), undoubtedly due to the coarse substrates that the mine waste provides. The control site is super-dominated by Chironomidae midges (86%), a group that dominates soft sediments of most lakes. The mine waste site supports a more even distribution in abundance among a wider variety of insect and non-insect groups. Taxa classified as highly metals tolerant are absent from both sites. Metals intolerant taxa comprise a substantial proportion of the benthic community at both sites. Oligochaeta worms comprise a large proportion of the benthic community at only the mine waste site, and entirely absent at the control site. Since worms are a very common constituent of fine sediments in lakes in the Cascades, their absence from the control site is unusual.

6 A substantial proportion of the Oligochaeta worms present on the mine wastes are metals intolerant taxa. Mollusks (the freshwater limpet Ferrissia) are present in substantial numbers at the mine waste site (8.9%), but absent at the control. Ferrissia requires hard surfaces to scrape algae off of, which were not present at the control site. Copper is particularly toxic to mollusks (Harrison 1986). Tanytarsini midges, another taxa sensitive to heavy metals, is found at both sites, but much more prevalent at the control site (42% versus 7.1%). This is mostly due to the tanytarsine midge Cladotanytarsus being much more abundant at the control site. This midge prefers fine sediment.

Direct evaluation of potential impacts from any heavy metal contamination that might be present in the mine wastes in the lake littoral is not possible with the current control site, because of differences in substrate type (soft versus hard bottom). However, the simple presence of a more diverse community on the mine wastes versus the control, along with this community containing a high proportion and diverse array of metals intolerant taxa, suggests that the old mine wastes on the shore of the lake are having little impact on the lake biota.

References

Canfield, T.J., N.E. Kemble, W.G. Braumbaugh, F.J. Dwyer, C.G. Ingersoll and J.F. Fairchild 1995. Use of benthic invertebrate community structure and the sediment quality triad to evaluate metal-contaminated sediment in the upper Clark Fork River, Montana. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13: 1999-2012. Carlisle, D.M. and W.H. Clements 2003. Growth and secondary production of aquatic insects along a gradient of Zn contamination in Rocky Mountain streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 22: 582-597. Chadwick, J.W., S.P. Canton and R.L. Dent 1986. Recovery of benthic invertebrate communities in Silver Bow Creek, Montana, following improved metal mine wastewater treatment. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 28: 427-438. Clark, W.H. 1997. Macroinvertebrate temperature indicators for Idaho. Draft manuscript with citations. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Boise, Idaho. Clements, W.H., D.S. Cherry and J. Cairns, Jr. 1988. Impact of heavy metals on insect communities in streams: a comparison of observational and experimental results. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 45: 2017-2025. Clements, W.H., D.S. Cherry and J. Cairns, Jr. 1988. Structural alterations in aquatic insect communities exposed to copper in laboratory streams. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 7: 715-722. Clements, W.H., D.S. Cherry and J. Cairns, Jr. 1989. The influence of copper exposure on predator-prey interactions in aquatic insect communities. Freshwater Biology 21: 483- 488. Clements, W.H., J.L. Farris, D.S. Cherry and J. Cairns, Jr. 1989. The influence of water quality on macroinvertebrate community responses to copper in outdoor experimental streams. Aquatic Toxicology 14: 249-262. Clements, W.H., D.S. Cherry and J. Cairns, Jr. 1990. Macroinvertebrate community responses to copper in laboratory and field experimental streams. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 19: 361-365. Clements, W.H. 1994. Benthic invertebrate community responses to heavy metals in the upper Arkansas River Basin, Colorado. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13: 30-44

7 Clements, W.H. and P.M. Kiffney 1994. Integrated laboratory and field approach for assessing impacts of heavy metals at the Arkansas River, Colorado. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13: 397-404. Courtney, L.A. and W.H. Clements 2000. Sensitivity to acidic pH in benthic invertebrate assemblages with different histories of exposures to metals. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 112-127. Fore, L.S. (personal communication). Measuring the biological integrity of Puget Sound Lowland streams. Description and calculation of the benthic index of biological integrity. 3 pages. Harrison, F.L. 1986. The impact of increased copper concentrations on freshwater ecosystems. Pp. 117-190 In: Hodgson, E. (editor). Reviews in Environmental Toxicology 2, Elsevier Publishers, New York. Hilsenhoff, William L. 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. The Great Lakes Entomologist 20: 31- 39. Hughes, R.M. 1985. Use of watershed characteristics to select control streams for estimating effects of metal mining wastes on extensively disturbed streams. Environmental Management 9: 253-262. Karr, James R. 2006. Seven foundations of biological monitoring and assessment. Biologia Ambientale 20: 7-18. Karr, James R. 2008. Biological Integrity. Pages 408-412, In Jorgensen, S.E. and B.D. Fath (editors), Ecological Indicators, Volume 1 of Encyclopedia of Ecology, Elsevier Publishers, Oxford. Kiffney, P.M. and W.H. Clements 1994. Effects of heavy metals on a macroinvertebrate assemblage from a Rocky Mountain stream in experimental microcosms. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13: 511-523. LaPoint, T.W., S.M. Melancon and M.K. Morris 1984. Relationships among observed metal concentrations, criteria, and benthic community structural responses in 15 streams. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 56: 1030-1038.

Leland, H.V., S.V. Fend, T.L. Dudley and J.L. Carter 1989. Effects of copper on species composition of benthic insects in a Sierra Nevada, California, stream. Freshwater Biology 21: 163-179.

Lynch, T.R., C.J. Popp and G.Z. Jacobi 1988. Aquatic insects as environmental monitors of trace metal contamination, New Mexico. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 42: 19-31.

Mance, G. 1987. Pollution threat of heavy metals in aquatic environments. Elsevier Applied Science, New York.

Maret, T.R., D.J. Cain, D.E. MacCoy and T.M. Short 2003. Response of benthic invertebrate assemblages to metal exposure and bioaccumulation associated with hard-rock mining in northwestern streams, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 22: 598-620.

McGuire, D. 1993. Clark Fork River macroinvertebrate biointegrity 1986 through 1992. Report to the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Helena, Montana.

McGuire, D. cited in Bukantis, R. 1998. Rapid Bioassessment macroinvertebrate protocols: Sampling and sample analysis SOP’s. Working draft. Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Planning Prevention and Assistance Division. Helena, Montana.

8 Moore, J.N., S.N. Luoma and D. Peters 1991. Downstream effects of mine effluent on an intermontane riparian system. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 222-232. National Lakes Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/owow/lakes/lakessurvey/ Nelson, S.M. and R.A. Roline 1993. Selection of the mayfly Rhithrogena hageni as an indicator of metal pollution in the upper Arkansas River. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 8: 111- 119. Peckarsky, B.L. and K.Z. Cook 1981. Effect of Keystone Mine effluent on colonization of stream benthos. Environmental Entomology 10: 864-871. Prusha, B.A. and W.H. Clements 2004. Landscape attributes, dissolved organic C, and metal bioaccumulation in aquatic macroinvertebrates (Arkansas River Basin, Colorado). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23: 327-339. Puget Sound Stream Benthos http://www.pugetsoundstreambenthos.org/ Ramusino, M. and G. Pacchetti 1985. Cr6+ influence upon Ephemeroptera larvae in a prealpine torrent. Verh. Internat. Verien. Limnol. 22: 2383-2384. Rawhouser, Ashley (personal communication), North Cascades National Park, [email protected] Roline, R.A. 1988. The effects of heavy metals pollution of the upper Arkansas River on the distribution of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 160: 3-8. Smock, L.A. 1983. Relationship between metal concentration and organism size in aquatic insects. Freshwater Biology 13: 313-321. Smock, L.A. 1983. The influence of feeding habits on whole-body metal concentrations in aquatic insects. Freshwater Biology 13: 301-311. Waterhouse, J.C. and M.P. Farrell 1985. Identifying pollution related changes in chironomid communities as a function of taxonomic rank. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42: 406-413. Winner, R.W., M.W. Boesel and M.P. Farrell 1980. Insect community structure as an index of heavy metal pollution in lotic ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 647-655. Wiseman, Chad D. June 2003. Multi-metric index development for biological monitoring in Washington State streams. Publication No. 03-03-035, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, 28 pages and appendices. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0303035.html

9 Measuring the Biological Integrity of Puget Sound Lowland Streams Description and calculation of the benthic index of biological integrity (B-IBI) Leska S. Fore ([email protected])

The animals living in a stream provide the best indicators of that stream’s overall health and ecological condition. Human activities that alter a watershed and interfere with the natural processes of a stream have immediate as well as long-lasting effects on the animals that live in the stream. Invertebrates represent an enormous diversity of body shapes, survival strategies, and adaptations. Like salmonids, many invertebrates require clear, cool water, adequate oxygen, stable flows, and a steady source of food in order to complete their life cycles. Invertebrates are an important food source for fish, including salmonids, and many birds, such as herons and kingfishers. Biological metrics measure different aspects of stream biology including taxonomic richness and composition, tolerance and intolerance, habit, reproductive strategy, feeding ecology and population structure. The benthic index of biotic integrity, or B-IBI, is composed of ten biological metrics that formalize our scientific understanding of how human activities alter stream biology. Total taxa richness measures the variety and complexity of life forms present, or biodiversity. Taxa richness of mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies responds differently to different types of human disturbance. These three groups are often the preferred food of salmonids. The presence of intolerant invertebrates is measured in terms of taxa richness because they are often rare and less likely to be collected. In contrast, tolerant invertebrates are measured as percent abundance because they are typically common at all sites but dominate the assemblage as human disturbance increases. Long-lived taxa reflect the effects of disturbance through time. Clinger taxa richness focuses on a particular place in the stream, the spaces between rocks. The presence of predators and their relative abundance relate to the feeding ecology of a sensitive group. Each of the ten metrics tested and developed for the Pacific Northwest is described below.

Total taxa richness. The biodiversity of a stream declines as flow regimes are altered, habitat is lost, chemicals are introduced, energy cycles are disrupted, and alien taxa invade. Total taxa richness includes all the different invertebrates collected from a stream site: mayflies, caddisflies, stoneflies, true flies, midges, clams, snails, and worms. Mayfly (Ephemeroptera) taxa richness. The diversity of mayflies declines in response to most types of human influence. Many mayflies graze on algae and are particularly sensitive to chemical pollution (e.g., from mine tailings) that interferes with their food source. Mayflies may disappear when heavy metal concentrations are high while caddisflies and stoneflies are unaffected. In nutrient-poor streams, livestock feces and fertilizers from agriculture can increase the numbers and types of mayflies present. If many different taxa of mayflies are found while the variety of stoneflies and caddisflies is low, enrichment may be the cause.

1 Stonefly (Plecoptera) taxa richness. Stoneflies are the first to disappear from a stream as human disturbance increases. Many stoneflies are predators that stalk their prey and hide around and between rocks. Hiding places between rocks are lost as sediment washes into a stream. Many stoneflies are shredders and feed on leaf litter that drops from an overhanging tree canopy. Most stoneflies, like salmonids, require cool water temperatures and high oxygen to complete their life cycles. Caddisfly (Trichoptera) taxa richness. Different caddisfly species (or taxa) feed in a variety of ways: some spin nets to trap food, others collect or scrape food on top of exposed rocks. Many caddisflies build gravel or wood cases to protect them from predators; others are predators themselves. Even though they are very diverse in habit, taxa richness of caddisflies declines steadily as humans eliminate the variety and complexity of their stream habitat.

Intolerant taxa richness. Animals identified as intolerant are the most sensitive taxa; they represent approximately 5-10% of the taxa present in the region. These animals are the first to disappear as human disturbance increases. Chironomids are not included in this metric. Clinger taxa richness. Taxa defined as clingers have physical adaptations such as ventral suckers, dorsoventral flattening , well-developed tarsal claws, or construct retreats that they attach to the substrate; thus, they are able to “cling” to smooth substrates in fast water. These animals require open areas between rocks and cobble along the bottom of the stream; consequently, they are particularly sensitive to fine sediments that fill these spaces and eliminate the variety and complexity of small habitats. Clingers may use these areas to forage, escape from predators, or lay their eggs. Sediment also prevents clingers from moving down deeper into the stream bed, or hyporheos, of the channel. Chironomids are included in this metric. Long-lived (semi-voltine) taxa richness. These invertebrates require more than one year to complete their life cycles; thus, they are exposed to all the human activities that influence the stream throughout one or more years. If the stream is dry part of the year or subject to flooding, these animals may disappear. Loss of long-lived taxa may also indicate an on-going problem that repeatedly interrupts their life cycles. Percent tolerant. Tolerant animals are present at most stream sites, but as disturbance increases, they represent an increasingly large percentage of the assemblage. Invertebrates designated as tolerant represent the 5-10% most tolerant taxa in a region. In a sense, they occupy the opposite end of the spectrum from intolerant taxa. Chironomids are not included in this metric. Percent predator. Predator taxa represent the peak of the food web and depend on a reliable source of other invertebrates that they can eat. Predators may have adaptations such as large eyes and long legs for hunting and catching other animals. The percentage of animals that are obligate predators provides a measure of the trophic complexity supported by a site. Less disturbed sites support a greater diversity of prey items and a variety of habitats in which to find them.

2 Percent dominance (3 taxa). As diversity declines, a few taxa come to dominate the assemblage. Opportunistic species that are less particular about where they live replace species that require special foods or particular types of physical habitat. Dominance is calculated by adding the number of individuals in the three most abundant taxa and dividing by the total number of individuals collected in the sample. Table 1. Biological metrics for stream invertebrates, response to human disturbance, and scoring criteria used to integrate into the benthic index of biological integrity, B-IBI. Criteria are for species level identification of most insects, rhyacophilids to subgroup, and chironomids to genus. Square braces indicate the value next to the brace is included in the range; rounded parenthesis indicate the value is not included.

Scoring criteria Metric Response 1 3 5

Taxa richness and composition Total number of taxa Decrease [0, 20) [20, 40] > 40 Number of Ephemeroptera taxa Decrease [0, 4] (4, 8] > 8 Number of Plecoptera taxa Decrease [0, 3] (3, 7] > 7

Number of Trichoptera taxa Decrease [0, 5) [5, 10) ≥ 10 Number of long-lived taxa Decrease [0, 2] (2, 4] > 4 Tolerance Number of intolerant taxa Decrease [0, 2] (2, 3] > 3

% of individuals in tolerant taxa Increase ≥ 50 (19, 50) [0, 19] Feeding ecology

% of predator individuals Decrease [0, 10) [10, 20) ≥ 20 Number of clinger taxa Decrease [0, 10] (10, 20] > 20 Population attributes

% dominance (3 taxa) Increase ≥ 75 [50, 75) [0, 50)

Fore, L. S. (1999) Measuring the effects of urbanization on Bellevue streams. Final report to City of Bellevue Utilities Department, Bellevue, Washington. Fore, L. S., K. Paulsen, & K. O’Laughlin. (2001) Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshwater Biology, 46: 109-123. Karr, J. R. (1998) Rivers as sentinels: using the biology of rivers to guide landscape management. River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecosystem (eds. R. J. Naiman and R. E. Bilby), pp. 502-528. Springer, NY.

Karr, J. R. (1999) Defining and measuring river health. Freshwater Biology, 41, 221-234.

3 Appendix Adjustments to scoring criteria for family-level identification of chironomids Some metric values will change when chironomids are identified to the level of family rather than genus; other metrics will not be effected. Total taxa richness and number of clinger taxa are lower for samples without genus-level identification for chironomids and the scoring criteria are adjusted below (Table A-1). A few chironomids are predators and the values for this metric decline slightly; but differences are too small to change scoring criteria. Percent dominance increases because the family group of chironomids will be larger. Chironomids could be excluded from this metric, but are included because chironomids often dominate at disturbed sites. Taxa richness of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera do not change. There are no long-lived chironomids. Chironomids are not included in the percent tolerant or intolerant taxa richness metrics because I am not confident that their assignments are correct; I have seen many “intolerant” chironomids at extremely degraded sites. Thus these metrics do not change when chironomids are identified to the level of family. Table A-1. Biological metrics for which scoring criteria change when chironomids are identified at the family rather than genus level. Name of the metrics, response to human disturbance, and scoring criteria are listed. Criteria require species level identification for most insects. Square braces indicate the value next to the brace is included in the range; rounded parenthesis indicate the value is not included.

Scoring criteria Metric Response 1 3 5

Total number of taxa Decrease [0, 15) [15, 28] > 28 Number of clinger taxa Decrease [0, 8] (8, 18] > 18

% dominance (3 taxa) Increase ≥ 80 [60, 80) [0, 60)

4 Table 1 - Deep Creek and Granite Lake Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa List, July 2009 Sampling WA: Yakima County, near Copper City, 4000-5000' elevation. Montana Metals Tolerant (T) Metals Tolerant (T) Common name Phylum Class/Other Order Family Subfamily/tribe Intolerant (I) Index Intolerant (I)

Nematoda round worms Nematoda 5 Turbellaria flat worms Turbellaria 4 Enchytraeus segmented worms Annelida Oligochaeta Enchytraeidae 1 I Mesenchytraeus segmented worms Annelida Oligochaeta Enchytraeidae 1 I Nais segmented worms Annelida Oligochaeta Naididae 5 Nais communis segmented worms Annelida Oligochaeta Naididae 5 Pristina aequiseta segmented worms Annelida Oligochaeta Naididae 5 Slavina appendiculata segmented worms Annelida Oligochaeta Naididae 5 Tubificinae with capillary setae segmented worms Annelida Oligochaeta Naididae 6 Tubificinae without capillary setae segmented worms Annelida Oligochaeta Naididae 6 Lumbriculus segmented worms Annelida Oligochaeta Naididae 1 I Helobdella stagnalis leeches Annelida Hirudinea Glossiphoniidae T 4 Ferrissia limpet snails Mollusca Gastropoda Ancylidae T 1 I Acari mites Arthropoda Acari 5 Somatochlora dragonflies Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Corduliidae T 4 Coenagrion/Enallagma damselflies Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae T 4 Ameletus mayflies Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Ameletidae 1 I Baetis bicaudatus mayflies Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae I 4 Callibaetis mayflies Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae T 1 I Caudatella ?jacobi mayflies Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae I 0 I Drunella coloradensis mayflies Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae 0 I Drunella doddsi mayflies Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae I 0 I Cinygmula mayflies Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae 0 I Epeorus albertae mayflies Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae 0 I Epeorus grandis mayflies Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae I 0 I Rhithrogena mayflies Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae 2 I Capniidae stoneflies Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Capniidae 0 I Chloroperlidae stoneflies Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Chloroperlidae 2 I Alloperla stoneflies Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Chloroperlidae 2 I Visoka cataractae stoneflies Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae I 0 I Zapada columbiana stoneflies Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae I 1 I Doroneuria stoneflies Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae I 2 I Megarcys stoneflies Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Perlodidae I 1 I Yoraperla mariana stoneflies Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Peltoperlidae I 0 I Yoraperla nigrisoma stoneflies Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Peltoperlidae I 0 I Sialis alderflies Arthropoda Insecta Megaloptera Sialidae T 4 Parapsyche elsis caddisflies Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae I 1 I Mystacides caddisflies Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Leptoceridae 3 Ecclisocosmoecus scylla caddisflies Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Limnephilidae I 2 I Montana Metals Tolerant (T) Metals Tolerant (T) Common name Phylum Class/Other Order Family Subfamily/tribe Intolerant (I) Index Intolerant (I)

Ecclisomyia caddisflies Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Limnephilidae I 2 I Polycentropus caddisflies Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Polycentropodidae 1 I Rhyacophila Betteni Group caddisflies Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae 1 I Rhyacophila Brunnea/Vemna Group caddisflies Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae 1 I Rhyacophila Hyalinata Group caddisflies Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae 1 I Rhyacophila verrula caddisflies Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae I 1 I Rhyacophila Vofixa Group caddisflies Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae I 1 I Agathon net-winged midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Blephariceridae I 0 I Ceratopogoninae no-see-um midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Ceratopogonidae 4 Dasyhelea no-see-um midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Ceratopogonidae T 5 Dixa dixid midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Dixidae 4 Empididae dance flies Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Empididae 4 Oreogeton dance flies Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Empididae I 7 Hexatoma crane flies Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Tipulidae 2 I Chironomidae-pupae midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae 5 Ablabesmyia midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae T 3 Brillia midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae 4 Cladotanytarsus midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsini T 3 Cryptochironomus midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae T 4 Diamesa midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Diamesinae I 9 T Eukiefferiella Brehmi Group midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae 9 T Micropsectra midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsini 1 I Nilothauma midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 5 Orthocladius Complex midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae 5 Pagastiella midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 5 Parakiefferiella midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae 5 Procladius midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae T 5 Psectrocladius midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae 5 Rheocricotopus midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae 5 Stempellinella midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsini 2 I Thienemannimyia Complex midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 3 Tvetenia Bavarica Group midges Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae 4 Table 2 - Deep Cr., CC-04-IN, u/s mine run-off, July 29, 2009 WA:Yakima Co., Deep Creek basin near Copper City. For URS Corp. Benthic invertebrates, D-frame net, 5 square feet area, 500 micron mesh. Abundances are square m basis. Entire sample analyzed. FILE: 09URS02 IDENTIFICATION CODE 09URS02 CORRECTION FACTOR 2.15

Taxon Abundance % Turbellaria 9 1.85 Mesenchytraeus 6 1.39 TOTAL: NON INSECTS 15 3.24 Baetis bicaudatus 80 17.13 Drunella coloradensis 28 6.02 Drunella doddsi 4 0.93 Cinygmula 92 19.91 Epeorus albertae 77 16.67 Epeorus grandis 2 0.46 Rhithrogena 140 30.09 TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA 424 91.20 Alloperla 4 0.93 Megarcys 6 1.39 Yoraperla nigrisoma 2 0.46 Yoraperla mariana 4 0.93 TOTAL: PLECOPTERA 17 3.70 Parapsyche elsis 4 0.93 Rhyacophila Vofixa Group 2 0.46 TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA 6 1.39 Micropsectra 2 0.46 TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE 2 0.46 GRAND TOTAL 464 100.00 Table 3 - Deep Cr., CC-03-IN, d/s mine run-off, July 29, 2009 WA:Yakima Co., Deep Creek basin near Copper City. For URS Corp. Benthic invertebrates, D-frame net, 5 square feet area, 500 micron mesh. Abundances are square m basis. Entire sample analyzed. FILE: 09URS IDENTIFICATION CODE 09URS01 CORRECTION FACTOR 2.15

Taxon Abundance % Turbellaria 26 5.13 Oligochaeta 6 1.28 TOTAL: NON INSECTS 32 6.41 Ameletus 6 1.28 Baetis bicaudatus 60 11.97 Caudatella ?jacobi 2 0.43 Drunella coloradensis 19 3.85 Drunella doddsi 11 2.14 Cinygmula 80 15.81 Epeorus albertae 67 13.25 Rhithrogena 146 29.06 TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA 391 77.78 Capniidae 2 0.43 Visoka cataractae 2 0.43 Zapada columbiana 9 1.71 Megarcys 6 1.28 Yoraperla mariana 6 1.28 TOTAL: PLECOPTERA 26 5.13 Ecclisomyia 2 0.43 Rhyacophila Betteni Group 19 3.85 Rhyacophila Brunnea/Vemna Group 2 0.43 Rhyacophila verrula 2 0.43 Rhyacophila Vofixa Group 2 0.43 TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA 28 5.56 Agathon 4 0.85 Empididae 2 0.43 Oreogeton 6 1.28 TOTAL: DIPTERA 13 2.56 Diamesa 2 0.43 Rheocricotopus 2 0.43 Tvetenia Bavarica Group 9 1.71 TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE 13 2.56 GRAND TOTAL 503 100.00 Table 4 - Deep Cr., DC-DS01-IN, 0.25 mile d/s mine run-off, July 21, 2009 WA:Yakima Co., Deep Creek basin near Copper City. For URS Corp. Benthic invertebrates, D-frame net, 5 square feet area, 500 micron mesh. Abundances are square m basis. Entire sample analyzed. FILE: 09URS03 IDENTIFICATION CODE 09URS03 CORRECTION FACTOR 2.15

Taxon Abundance % Mesenchytraeus 2 0.39 TOTAL: NON INSECTS 2 0.39 Baetis bicaudatus 82 14.84 Caudatella ?jacobi 2 0.39 Drunella coloradensis 19 3.52 Drunella doddsi 24 4.30 Cinygmula 56 10.16 Epeorus albertae 99 17.97 Rhithrogena 194 35.16 TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA 475 86.33 Chloroperlidae 2 0.39 Visoka cataractae 2 0.39 Zapada columbiana 2 0.39 Megarcys 4 0.78 Yoraperla mariana 13 2.34 TOTAL: PLECOPTERA 24 4.30 Parapsyche elsis 2 0.39 Ecclisocosmoecus scylla 2 0.39 Rhyacophila Betteni Group 13 2.34 Rhyacophila Hyalinata Group 2 0.39 Rhyacophila Vofixa Group 2 0.39 TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA 22 3.91 Empididae 2 0.39 Oreogeton 2 0.39 Hexatoma 2 0.39 TOTAL: DIPTERA 6 1.17 Chironomidae-pupae 6 1.17 Brillia 2 0.39 Eukiefferiella Brehmi Group 2 0.39 Rheocricotopus 4 0.78 Stempellinella 2 0.39 Tvetenia Bavarica Group 4 0.78 TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE 22 3.91 GRAND TOTAL 550 100.00 Table 5 - Granite Lake littoral, mine waste sediment zone, July 20, 2009 WA:Yakima Co., Granite Lake littoral, Deep Creek basin. For URS Corp. Benthic invertebrates, D-frame net, qualitative jabs and brush, 500 micron mesh Relative abundance. Entire sample analyzed. FILE: 09URS04 IDENTIFICATION CODE 09URS04 CORRECTION FACTOR 1

Taxon Abundance % Enchytraeus 2 1.19 Nais 3 1.79 Nais communis 2 1.19 Pristina aequiseta 2 1.19 Slavina appendiculata 5 2.98 Tubificinae with capillary setae 14 8.33 Tubificinae without capillary setae 9 5.36 Lumbriculus 17 10.12 Helobdella stagnalis 6 3.57 Ferrissia 15 8.93 Acari 1 0.60 TOTAL: NON INSECTS 76 45.24 Somatochlora 1 0.60 Coenagrion/Enallagma 1 0.60 TOTAL: ODONATA 2 1.19 Callibaetis 1 0.60 Rhithrogena 1 0.60 TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA 2 1.19 Sialis 1 0.60 TOTAL: MEGALOPTERA 1 0.60 Mystacides 11 6.55 Polycentropus 5 2.98 TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA 16 9.52 Ceratopogoninae 22 13.10 TOTAL: DIPTERA 22 13.10 Chironomidae-pupae 19 11.31 Ablabesmyia 3 1.79 Cladotanytarsus 10 5.95 Cryptochironomus 1 0.60 Micropsectra 2 1.19 Orthocladius Complex 1 0.60 Pagastiella 5 2.98 Parakiefferiella 3 1.79 Procladius 1 0.60 Psectrocladius 3 1.79 Thienemannimyia Complex 1 0.60 TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE 49 29.17 GRAND TOTAL 168 100.00 Table 6 - Granite Lake, littoral, control area, July 20, 2009 WA:Yakima Co., Granite Lake littoral, Deep Creek basin. For URS Corp. Benthic invertebrates, D-frame net, qualitative jabs and brush, 500 micron mesh. Relative abundance. Entire sample analyzed. FILE: 09URS05 IDENTIFICATION CODE 09URS05 CORRECTION FACTOR 1

Taxon Abundance % Nematoda 1 0.45 Acari 2 0.90 TOTAL: NON INSECTS 3 1.35 Callibaetis 1 0.45 TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA 1 0.45 Sialis 7 3.15 TOTAL: MEGALOPTERA 7 3.15 Mystacides 3 1.35 TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA 3 1.35 Ceratopogoninae 3 1.35 Dasyhelea 14 6.31 TOTAL: DIPTERA 17 7.66 Chironomidae-pupae 10 4.50 Ablabesmyia 6 2.70 Cladotanytarsus 76 34.23 Micropsectra 17 7.66 Nilothauma 2 0.90 Pagastiella 49 22.07 Parakiefferiella 23 10.36 Procladius 8 3.60 TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE 191 86.04 GRAND TOTAL 222 100.00 Table 7 - Lake Creek, upper valley, October 12, 2005 WA: Mt. Rainier & vicinity, glacial valleys, 3000-6000' elev., reference sites. Benthic invertebrates, D-frame net, Quantitative samples, 500 micron mesh. Abundances adjusted to a square meter basis. FILE: 09URS11 IDENTIFICATION CODE 09URS11 CORRECTION FACTOR 1

Taxon Abundance % Nematoda 1 0.22 Acari 5 1.09 TOTAL: NON INSECTS 6 1.31 Ameletus 3 0.65 Baetis bicaudatus 5 1.09 Baetis tricaudatus 36 7.84 Caudatella hystrix 8 1.74 Drunella doddsi 3 0.65 Ephemerella dorothea 9 1.96 Cinygmula 22 4.79 Epeorus grandis 12 2.61 Rhithrogena 70 15.25 TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA 168 36.60 Sweltsa 1 0.22 Zapada cinctipes 1 0.22 Zapada Oregonensis Gr. 7 1.53 Isoperla 14 3.05 Megarcys 3 0.65 Taeniopterygidae 257 55.99 TOTAL: PLECOPTERA 283 61.66 Rhyacophila Brunnea/Vemna Group 1 0.22 TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA 1 0.22 Chironomidae-pupae 1 0.22 TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE 1 0.22 GRAND TOTAL 459 100.00 Table 8 - North Mowich River, upper valley, Aug. 10, 2005 WA: Mt. Rainier & vicinity, glacial valleys, 3000-6000' elev., reference sites. Benthic invertebrates, D-frame net, Quantitative samples, 500 micron mesh. Relative abundance. FILE: 09URS06 IDENTIFICATION CODE 09URS06 CORRECTION FACTOR 1

Taxon Abundance % Nematoda 1 0.21 Oligochaeta 2 0.41 Acari 2 0.41 TOTAL: NON INSECTS 5 1.04 Baetis bicaudatus 198 41.08 Epeorus grandis 25 5.19 Rhithrogena 39 8.09 TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA 262 54.36 Zapada columbiana 1 0.21 Zapada Oregonensis Gr. 7 1.45 Isoperla 7 1.45 Megarcys 1 0.21 Taeniopterygidae 41 8.51 TOTAL: PLECOPTERA 57 11.83 Limnephilidae 14 2.90 Psychoglypha 1 0.21 Rhyacophila Hyalinata Group 1 0.21 Rhyacophila rickeri 9 1.87 Neothremma 1 0.21 Oligophlebodes 1 0.21 TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA 27 5.60 Forcipomyiinae 1 0.21 Clinocera 7 1.45 Oreogeton 1 0.21 Prosimulium 3 0.62 Sciomyzidae 1 0.21 Dicranota 1 0.21 Dactylolabis 1 0.21 Gonomyodes 1 0.21 TOTAL: DIPTERA 16 3.32 Chironomidae-pupae 10 2.07 Brillia 1 0.21 Diamesa 69 14.32 Eukiefferiella 11 2.28 Orthocladius Complex 12 2.49 Pseudodiamesa 7 1.45 Tvetenia Bavarica Group 5 1.04 TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE 115 23.86 GRAND TOTAL 482 100.00 Table 9 - Nisqually River, upper valley, Sept. 10, 2005 WA: Mt. Rainier & vicinity, glacial valleys, 3000-6000' elev., reference sites. Benthic invertebrates, D-frame net, Quantitative samples, 500 micron mesh. Relative abundance. FILE: 09URS10 IDENTIFICATION CODE 09URS10 CORRECTION FACTOR 1

Taxon Abundance % Nematoda 1 0.12 Acari 36 4.17 TOTAL: NON INSECTS 37 4.28 Baetis bicaudatus 581 67.25 Caudatella hystrix 1 0.12 Drunella doddsi 43 4.98 Drunella grandis 1 0.12 Serratella tibialis 1 0.12 Epeorus grandis 2 0.23 TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA 629 72.80 Zapada columbiana 18 2.08 Zapada Oregonensis Gr. 1 0.12 Isoperla 1 0.12 Megarcys 16 1.85 TOTAL: PLECOPTERA 36 4.17 Ecclisomyia 1 0.12 Rhyacophila 1 0.12 Rhyacophila Brunnea/Vemna Group 1 0.12 Rhyacophila Hyalinata Group 20 2.31 Rhyacophila narvae 1 0.12 Oligophlebodes 2 0.23 TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA 26 3.01 Chelifera/Metachela 2 0.23 Clinocera 3 0.35 Mycetophilidae 1 0.12 Simulium 1 0.12 Dicranota 3 0.35 TOTAL: DIPTERA 10 1.16 Chironomidae-pupae 8 0.93 Diamesa 52 6.02 Eukiefferiella 30 3.47 Eukiefferiella Devonica Group 6 0.69 Orthocladius Complex 9 1.04 Orthocladius 16 1.85 Pagastia 5 0.58 TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE 126 14.58 GRAND TOTAL 864 100.00 Table 10 - Ohanapecosh River, upper valley, August 14, 2005 WA: Mt. Rainier & vicinity, glacial valleys, 3000-6000' elev., reference sites. Benthic invertebrates, D-frame net, Quantitative samples, 500 micron mesh. Relative abundance. FILE: 09URS08 IDENTIFICATION CODE 09URS08 CORRECTION FACTOR 1

Taxon Abundance % Oligochaeta 1 0.21 TOTAL: NON INSECTS 1 0.21 Baetis bicaudatus 93 19.46 Caudatella hystrix 1 0.21 Drunella doddsi 20 4.18 Epeorus albertae 1 0.21 Epeorus grandis 40 8.37 Rhithrogena 25 5.23 TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA 180 37.66 Sweltsa 1 0.21 Zapada columbiana 2 0.42 Perlodidae 2 0.42 Megarcys 1 0.21 Setvena 9 1.88 Taeniopterygidae 15 3.14 TOTAL: PLECOPTERA 30 6.28 Rhyacophila 1 0.21 Rhyacophila Hyalinata Group 4 0.84 Rhyacophila rickeri 2 0.42 TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA 7 1.46 Clinocera 7 1.46 Prosimulium 5 1.05 TOTAL: DIPTERA 12 2.51 Chironomidae-pupae 31 6.49 Boreochlus 1 0.21 Brillia 1 0.21 Diamesa 133 27.82 Eukiefferiella 12 2.51 Eukiefferiella Devonica Group 1 0.21 Orthocladius Complex 12 2.51 Orthocladius 4 0.84 Pagastia 19 3.97 Parorthocladius 17 3.56 Pseudodiamesa 1 0.21 Tvetenia Bavarica Group 16 3.35 TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE 248 51.88 GRAND TOTAL 478 100.00 Table 11 - Lake Creek, lower valley, October 12, 2005 WA: Mt. Rainier & vicinity, glacial valleys, 3000-6000' elev., reference sites. Benthic invertebrates, D-frame net, Quantitative samples, 500 micron mesh. Abundances adjusted to a square meter basis. FILE: 09URS12 IDENTIFICATION CODE 09URS12 CORRECTION FACTOR 1

Taxon Abundance % Turbellaria 9 1.36 Nematoda 1 0.15 Oligochaeta 1 0.15 Acari 1 0.15 TOTAL: NON INSECTS 12 1.82 Baetis bicaudatus 11 1.67 Baetis tricaudatus 11 1.67 Attenella delantala 1 0.15 Drunella coloradensis 5 0.76 Drunella doddsi 3 0.45 Ephemerella dorothea 19 2.88 Cinygmula 15 2.27 Epeorus grandis 1 0.15 Rhithrogena 4 0.61 Paraleptophlebia 5 0.76 TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA 75 11.36 Capniidae 1 0.15 Chloroperlidae 1 0.15 Sweltsa 24 3.64 Soyedina 3 0.45 Zapada cinctipes 103 15.61 Zapada columbiana 1 0.15 Zapada Oregonensis Gr. 99 15.00 Perlodidae 3 0.45 Megarcys 5 0.76 Yoraperla mariana 8 1.21 Taeniopterygidae 20 3.03 TOTAL: PLECOPTERA 268 40.61 Micrasema 1 0.15 Hydropsyche 1 0.15 Ecclisomyia 1 0.15 Rhyacophila 15 2.27 Rhyacophila Brunnea/Vemna Group 3 0.45 Rhyacophila grandis 1 0.15 Oligophlebodes 1 0.15 TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA 23 3.48 Simulium 32 4.85 Dicranota 7 1.06 Rhabdomastix 4 0.61 TOTAL: DIPTERA 43 6.52 Chironomidae-pupae 58 8.79 Brillia 19 2.88 Diplocladius 1 0.15 Eukiefferiella 107 16.21 Micropsectra 5 0.76 Orthocladius Complex 9 1.36 Orthocladius 1 0.15 Pagastia 19 2.88 Parorthocladius 16 2.42 Stilocladius 1 0.15 Tvetenia Bavarica Group 3 0.45 TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE 239 36.21 GRAND TOTAL 660 100.00 Table 12 - Ohanapecosh River, lower valley, Aug. 28, 2005 WA: Mt. Rainier & vicinity, glacial valleys, 3000-6000' elev., reference sites. Benthic invertebrates, D-frame net, Quantitative samples, 500 micron mesh. Relative abundance. FILE: 09URS09 IDENTIFICATION CODE 09URS09 CORRECTION FACTOR 1

Taxon Abundance % Turbellaria 1 0.19 Oligochaeta 6 1.13 Acari 16 3.02 TOTAL: NON INSECTS 23 4.34 Ameletus 1 0.19 Baetis bicaudatus 10 1.89 Baetis tricaudatus 92 17.36 Drunella doddsi 4 0.75 Ephemerella dorothea 1 0.19 Serratella tibialis 1 0.19 Cinygmula 3 0.57 Epeorus albertae 12 2.26 Epeorus grandis 7 1.32 Rhithrogena 145 27.36 TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA 276 52.08 Capniidae 1 0.19 Chloroperlidae 5 0.94 Sweltsa 1 0.19 Visoka cataractae 1 0.19 Zapada cinctipes 19 3.58 Zapada columbiana 9 1.70 Zapada Oregonensis Gr. 1 0.19 Doroneuria 5 0.94 Perlodidae 1 0.19 Megarcys 8 1.51 Yoraperla mariana 1 0.19 Taeniopterygidae 29 5.47 TOTAL: PLECOPTERA 81 15.28 Taxon Abundance % Arctopsyche grandis 21 3.96 Parapsyche elsis 17 3.21 Rhyacophila 1 0.19 Rhyacophila Betteni Group 12 2.26 Rhyacophila Brunnea/Vemna Group 2 0.38 Rhyacophila Hyalinata Group 8 1.51 Rhyacophila narvae 1 0.19 Rhyacophila pellisa/valuma 2 0.38 Rhyacophila Vofixa Group 1 0.19 Neothremma 3 0.57 Oligophlebodes 14 2.64 TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA 82 15.47 Optioservus 1 0.19 Hydrophilidae 2 0.38 TOTAL: COLEOPTERA 3 0.57 Forcipomyiinae 1 0.19 Dixa 1 0.19 Clinocera 2 0.38 Simulium 1 0.19 Dicranota 3 0.57 Hexatoma 1 0.19 Rhabdomastix 2 0.38 TOTAL: DIPTERA 11 2.08

:: Ohanapecosh River, lower valley, Aug. 28, 2005

Taxon Abundance % Chironomidae-pupae 10 1.89 Brillia 2 0.38 Brundiniella 1 0.19 Chaetocladius 2 0.38 Eukiefferiella 1 0.19 Micropsectra 27 5.09 Parametriocnemus 2 0.38 Pseudodiamesa 1 0.19 Thienemanniella 2 0.38 Tvetenia Bavarica Group 6 1.13 TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE 54 10.19 GRAND TOTAL 530 100.00

APPENDIX E ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REPORTS & QC REPORT

Data Quality Evaluation

This data quality evaluation assesses the laboratory results for surface water, soil, sediment, and waste rock samples collected as part of the July 2009 site inspection (SI) for Copper City Mill and Granite Lake. URS collected the following number of samples in accordance with the Work Plan and Sampling Analysis Plan (WPSAP; URS, 2009): Copper City Mill o 9 surface water samples (7 primary, 1 field duplicates and 1 mercury replicate ) o 8 sediment samples (7 primary and 1 field duplicate) o 11 waste soil samples (10 primary and 1 field duplicate) o 11 background soil samples (10 primary and 1 field duplicate) o 1 waste rock sample divided into a fines fraction (<2 mm) and a whole rock fraction Granite Lake o 3 surface water (3 primary) o 3 waste soil samples (3 primary) o 3 background soil samples (2 primary and 1 field duplicate) o 1 waste rock sample Sample identification numbers, locations and requested analyses are presented in Table 1. URS conducted a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review for the results as detailed in the WPSAP (URS 2009). This QA/QC review includes evaluation of representativeness, accuracy, field and analytical precision, comparability, completeness and sensitivity per guidance outlined in the Section 5.7 of the WPSAP (URS 2009). Samples were submitted to the below-listed laboratories as a single group. As a result this QA/QC review discusses the analytical results for both sites concurrently. Qualifiers assigned as a result of this review are summarized in Table 2.

ACZ Laboratories, Inc. of Steamboat Springs, Colorado (ACZ) conducted the analysis of waste rock samples; Brooks Rand Labs of Seattle, Washington (BRL) performed arsenic speciation analyses; Test America Laboratories, Inc of Tacoma, Washington (TA Tacoma) performed the grain size and chromium speciation analyses; and TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc. of Portland, Oregon (TA Portland) performed the remainder of the analytical analyses. Laboratory reports from TA Portland were amended to include results detected between the method detection limit (MDL) and the method reporting limit (MRL). Laboratory reports from ACZ and BRL also include results reported between the MDL and the MRL.

Representativeness

Chain of Custody, Preservation, and Holding Times

• The chain-of-custody (COC) forms indicate that the samples were maintained under proper custody. Forms were signed when released from the field and received at the laboratory. Samples were consistent with the COC form with which they were received with the following exceptions:

O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\Analytical Data\QC Review\QC Report - Appendix C-DRAFT_FINAL.doc 1

o The number of sample containers received for sample GL-07-SW was different from the number indicated on the COC form. The COC form indicated 8 sample containers and only 4 were received. This discrepancy did not affect the analysis of the sample, requested analyses were performed. Results were not qualified due to the COC form discrepancy. o Sample containers for arsenic and chromium speciation were inadvertently collected and submitted for sample CC-42-SW (which is a duplicate of sample CC-02-SW). The COC form correctly indicated that these analyses were not to be performed. Results were not qualified due to the inclusion of extra sample containers. o Sample L77790-01 was logged in as CC-20-WR Whole. However, this sample was filtered to less than 2 mm by the ACZ and should have been labeled CC-20- WR Fines. For the duration of this report sample L77790-01 will be referred to as CC-20-WR Fines. • Samples were received by the laboratory at temperatures within the recommended range of 6 degrees Celsius or below, with the exception of whole rock samples which have no temperature preservation requirement. Data was not qualified based on receipt temperatures. Samples were properly preserved and analyses were performed within method specified holding times with the following exceptions: • Total and dissolved mercury results for water samples CC-02-SW, CC-03-SW, CC-04- SW, CC-26-SW, CC-27-SW, CC-28-SW, CC-29-SW, CC-42-SW, GL-01-SW, GL-06- SW, and GL-07-SW were flagged ‘P’ and ‘P4’ by TA Portland due to improper preservation and bottle containers for EPA Method 1631. The laboratory inadvertently provided polyethylene containers preserved with nitric acid, which is standard for EPA Method 7471. However, EPA Method 1631, a more sensitive analysis, requires teflon- lined bottles and hydrochloric acid preservative. Upon consulting with TA Portland’s chemist in charge of trace metals analysis it was decided that the difference in preservative and sample containers should have a negligible effect on the analytical results. However, to be conservative total and dissolved mercury results for the above- listed samples were qualified as estimated and flagged ‘J/UJ’. • A mercury replicate sample was performed on sample CC-03-SW following notification by the laboratory of the incorrect mercury preservation, to identify any potential bias due to sample container and preservation. The mercury replicate was performed by collecting the total and dissolved mercury samples for CC-03-SW in teflon-lined bottles with hydrochloric acid preservative and in polyethylene bottles with nitric acid preservative. Total and dissolved mercury results from this sample were reported as non-detect, therefore any potential bias could not be determined. The results from the nitric acid preserved containers were qualified do not report and flagged ‘DNR’ and the results from the teflon-lined containers were reported in project data tables. • Water samples CC-03-SW, CC-04-GW, GL-01-SW, and GL-06-SW exceeded the holding time of 24 hours (per preparatory Method 7195) for total and dissolved hexavalent chromium by 5 to 22 days. However, these samples were preserved in the

O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\Analytical Data\QC Review\QC Report - Appendix C-DRAFT_FINAL.doc 2

field according to EPA Method 1669 (EPA, 1996) which states that preserving water samples in the field with NaOH can increase the stability and therefore the holding time of hexavalent chromium from 24 hrs to 30 days. Since this technique is not specifically promulgated for use with EPA Method 6010B total and dissolved hexavalent chromium results were qualified as estimated and flagged ‘UJ’. • The analysis of acid base accounting on CC-20-WR Fines was requested after the hold time had expired for total carbon and total inorganic carbon. These two parameters were reported as non-detect and they have been qualified as estimated and flagged ‘UJ’. • The TCLP analysis of CC-20-WR Whole and CC-20-WR Fines were requested after the hold time had expired for TCLP mercury. The TCLP mercury results for these samples have been qualified as estimated and flagged ‘UJ’.

Accuracy

Field and Laboratory Blanks

• Field blanks were not collected as part of this sampling event. Laboratory method blank results were non-detect with the following exceptions: • Arsenic and barium were detected above the MDL but below the MRL in the solid matrix method blank associated with batch 9080032. The concentrations of these analytes in the associated samples were above ten times (10x) the method blank concentrations. Therefore, no results were qualified. • Chromium was detected above the above the MDL but below the MRL in the solid matrix method blank associated with batch 9070926. The concentrations of these analytes in the associated samples were above 10x the method blank concentrations with the following exceptions. The chromium results in samples GL-01-WR, GL-02-WR, and GL-03-WR were less than 10x the method blank concentration and greater than the MRL. These results were qualified as non-detect and flagged ‘U’ at the reported concentration. • Total cobalt was detected above the MDL but below the MRL in the aqueous matrix method blank associated with batch 9080088. Cobalt was not detected in the associated sample, therefore, results were not qualified. • Nickel was detected above the MDL but below the MRL in the solid matrix method blank associated with batch 9070925. The concentrations of nickel in the associated samples were above ten times (10x) the method blank concentration or were reported as non-detect, therefore, results were not qualified. • Total calcium was detected above the MDL but below the MRL in the aqueous method blank associated with batch 9070930. The concentrations of calcium in the associated samples were above 10x the method blank concentration, therefore, results were not qualified. • Total manganese was detected above the MDL but below the MRL in the aqueous method blank associated with batch 9071001. The concentrations of manganese in the

O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\Analytical Data\QC Review\QC Report - Appendix C-DRAFT_FINAL.doc 3

associated samples were above 10x the method blank concentration with the following exceptions. The total manganese results in samples CC-02-SW, CC-04-SW, CC-26-SW, CC-28-SW, CC-42-SW, GL-01-SW, GL-06-SW were less than 10x the method blank concentration and less than the MRL. Therefore, the manganese results for these samples have been qualified as non-detect and flagged ‘U’ at the method reporting limit. • Chloride was detected above the MDL but below the MRL in the aqueous method blank associated with batches 9070905 and 9070958. The concentrations of calcium in the associated samples were above 10x the method blank concentration with the following exceptions. The chloride concentrations in samples CC-02-SW , CC-04-SW, CC-27-SW, CC-42-SW GL-01-SW, GL-06-SW, GL-07-SW were less than 10x the method blank concentration and less then the MRL, these results were qualified as non-detect and flagged ‘U’ at the MRL. The chloride concentrations in samples CC-26-SW, CC-28-SW, CC-29-SW were less than 10x the method blank concentration and greater than the MRL, these results were qualified non-detect and flagged ‘U’ at the reported concentration. • SPLP lead was detected above the MDL but below the MRL in the method blank associated with batch L78584. The concentrations of SPLP lead in the associated samples, CC-20-WR Whole and CC-20-WR Fines, were less than 10x the method blank concentration and less than the MRL. These results were qualified as non-detect and flagged ‘U’ at the MRL. Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) /Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate (LCSD)

• LSC, LCSD and the associated RPD were within laboratory specified control limits. Matrix Spike (MS) /Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD)

Project Sample CC-03-SW • The recoveries of hexavalent chromium in the MS (140%) and MSD (138%) associated with project sample CC-03-SW were above the laboratory specific control level of 125%. Hexavalent chromium was not detected in the parent sample, therefore, the result was not qualified due to the bias high MS/MSD recoveries. Project Sample CC-07-S • The recovery of manganese in the MS associated with project sample CC-07-S was below the laboratory control limit of 75% with 70.3 %. Both the MSD percent recovery and the MS/MSD RPD were within laboratory control limits. Because two of the three MS/MSD parameters were in control manganese results were not qualified due to the bias low MS recovery. • The recoveries of mercury in the MS and MSD associated with project sample CC-07-S were above the laboratory control limits. However, the parent sample result for mercury was greater than four times the spike amount. Therefore, MS/MSD percent recoveries do not provide useful information. No results were qualified due to MS/MSD recoveries. • The recovery of total organic carbon in the MSD associated with project sample CC-07-S was below the laboratory control limit of 76% with 72%. Both the MS percent recovery and the MS/MSD RPD were within laboratory control limits. Because two of the three

O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\Analytical Data\QC Review\QC Report - Appendix C-DRAFT_FINAL.doc 4

MS/MSD parameters were in control no results were qualified due to the bias low MS recovery. Project Sample CC-07-S • The recoveries of mercury in the MS (43.3%) and MSD (41.7%) associated with project sample GL-03-S were below the laboratory control limit of 71%. The mercury result in the parent sample was qualified as estimated and flagged ‘J’ due to the low bias MS/MSD results. Project Sample CC-17-WR • The recoveries of mercury in the MS and MSD associated with project sample CC-17- WR were above the laboratory control limits. However, the parent sample result for mercury was greater than four times the spike amount. Therefore, MS/MSD percent recoveries do not provide useful information. No results were qualified due to MS/MSD recoveries. Project Sample CC-20-WR • The recoveries of lead in the MS (133%) and MSD (65.8%) associated with project sample CC-20-WR were outside the laboratory control limits. The lead result in the parent sample was qualified as estimated and flagged ‘J’ due to MS/MSD recovery. • The recovery of barium in the MSD (68%) associated with project sample CC-20-WR was below the laboratory control limit of 75%. Both the MS percent recovery and the MS/MSD RPD were within laboratory control limits. Because two of the three MS/MSD parameters were in control no results were qualified due to the bias low MS recovery. • The recoveries of arsenic, cobalt, copper, and manganese in the MS and arsenic, cobalt copper, and zinc in the MSD associated with project sample CC-20-WR were outside laboratory control limits. However, the parent sample results for these analytes were greater than four times the spike amount. Therefore, MS/MSD percent recoveries do not provide useful information. No results were qualified due to MS/MSD recoveries. Project Sample CC-23-WR • The recovery of mercury in the MS associated with project sample CC-23-WR was below the laboratory control limit of 71% with 68%. Both the MSD percent recovery and the MS/MSD RPD were within laboratory control limits. Because two of the three MS/MSD parameters were in control no results were qualified due to the bias low MS recovery. Project Sample CC-28-WR • The recovery of beryllium in the MSD (127%) associated with project sample CC-28-SW was above the laboratory control limit of 125%. Both the MS percent recovery and the MS/MSD RPD were within laboratory control limits. Because two of the three MS/MSD parameters were in control no results were qualified due to the bias low MS recovery.

O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\Analytical Data\QC Review\QC Report - Appendix C-DRAFT_FINAL.doc 5

Precision

Field and Laboratory Duplicates Field duplicates were collected at the frequency outlined in the WPSAP (URS 2009) Section 3.1 with the following exceptions: • A surface water field duplicate sample was not collected at Granite Lake due to the small number (3) of samples collected from this area. Field duplicate precision criteria were not specified in the WPSAP, therefore criteria was chosen based on professional judgment. Field duplicate RPDs for results greater than five times the MRL were less than 25% for aqueous matrices and less than 40% for solid matrices with the following exceptions: • The RPDs of the arsenic, chromium, and lead results for the field duplicate analysis of samples CC-02-SD and CC-42-SD (duplicate) were greater than 40%. The results for these analytes have been qualified as estimated and flagged ‘J’ for the parent and duplicate samples. • The RPD of manganese results for the field duplicate analysis of samples CC-20-WR and CC-50-WR (duplicate) were greater than 40%. The results for this analyte have been qualified as estimated and flagged ‘J’ for the parent and duplicate samples. • The RPD of mercury results for the field duplicate analysis of samples CC-08-S and CC- 58-S (duplicate) were greater than 40%. The results for this analyte have been qualified as estimated and flagged ‘J’ for the parent and duplicate samples. • The RPD of arsenic results for the field duplicate analysis of samples GL-02-WR and GL-12-WR (duplicate) were greater than 40%. The results for this analyte have been qualified as estimated and flagged ‘J’ for the parent and duplicate samples. The RPDs for results greater than five times the MRL from laboratory duplicate analyses performed on project samples met laboratory control limit criteria with the following exceptions: • The RPD (149%) of the laboratory duplicate analysis of mercury performed on sample CC-07-S was above the laboratory control limit of 20%. The mercury result from this sample was qualified as estimated and flagged ‘J’ due to the laboratory duplicate RPD. • The RPD (69.8%) of the laboratory duplicate analysis of pyritic sulfite performed on sample CC-20-WR Whole was above the laboratory control limit of 20%. However, this value is a calculated value and the values from which it was calculated met QC requirements. Therefore, no results were qualified due to the high laboratory duplicate RPD. • The RPD (27.5%) of the laboratory duplicate analysis of SPLP arsenic performed on sample CC-20-WR-Fines was above the laboratory control limit of 20%. The SPLP arsenic result from the parent sample was qualified as estimated and flagged ‘J’ due to the laboratory duplicate RPD

O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\Analytical Data\QC Review\QC Report - Appendix C-DRAFT_FINAL.doc 6

Comparability

• Comparability is a qualitative parameter that expresses the confidence with which data from one study can be compared with data from another. Project comparability goals were achieved by using standard techniques to collect and analyze representative samples and by reporting analytical results in appropriate units.

Completeness

• The laboratory reported requested analyses and the deliverable data reports were complete, overall analytical completeness is 100%.

Sensitivity

The sensitivity of the analytical methods (i.e., MRLs) identified for this project are sufficient to allow comparison of project results to decision criteria with the following exceptions identified in the WPSAP (URS 2009). • Arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, selenium, and silver in water. • Selenium, arsenic +3, arsenic +5, chromium, and chromium +6 in soil, sediment, and whole rock. • The WPSAP identifies EPA method 7470 as the method to be used for the analysis of mercury. The method 7470 the MRL was not sensitive enough for comparison to applicable decision criteria. Therefore, mercury was analyzed by EPA method 1631 and the MRLs were sensitive enough for comparison against decision criteria.

References URS 2009. Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan, Copper City Mill and Granite Lake Sites, Summer 2009 Site Inspection, July, 2009. EPA 1996. Method 1669: Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels. US Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water Engineering and Analysis Division. July 1996. USEPA 2004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. October 2004.

O:\25696996 USFS Copper City Mill\5000 Technical\Analytical Data\QC Review\QC Report - Appendix C-DRAFT_FINAL.doc 7

Table 1: Summary of Sample Identification and Requested Analyses Copper City Mill and Granite Lake July 2009 Sampling Event Analytes 2 1 1 3 3

Field Location URS ID TestAmerica ID ACZ ID Date Sampled Alkalinity Chloride Sulfate Total Dissolved Solids Dissolved Organic Carbon Total Metals Dissolved Metals Total Arsenic Speciation Dissolved Arsenic Speciation Total Chromium Speciation Dissolved Arsenic Speciation Total Organic Carbon Grain Size Acid/Base Accounting TCLP SPLP Water Matrices CC-01-SW PSG0853-01 -- 7/21/2009 Analyses Cancelled CC-02-SW PSG0853-03 -- 7/21/2009 X X X XXXXXXXX CC-42-SW (duplicate PSG0853-35 -- 7/21/2009 X X X XXXX of CC-02-SW) CC-03-SW PSG1013-01 -- 7/29/2009 X X X XXXXXXXX CC-03-SWT (duplicate Copper City Mill PSG1013-03 -- 7/29/2009 X4 X4 of CC-03-SW) CC-04-SW PSG0853-05 -- 7/23/2009 X X X XXXXXXXX CC-26-SW PSG0853-28 -- 7/23/2009 X X X XXXX CC-27-SW PSG0853-30 -- 7/23/2009 X X X XXXX CC-28-SW PSG0853-32 -- 7/23/2009 X X X XXXX CC-29-SW PSG0853-34 -- 7/23/2009 X X X XXXX GL-01-SW PSG0853-39 -- 7/20/2009 X X X XXXXXXXX Granite Lake GL-06-SW PSG0853-45 -- 7/20/2009 X X X XXXXXXXX GL-07-SW PSG0853-46 -- 7/20/2009 X X X XXXX Solid Matrices CC-01-SD PSG0853-02 -- 7/21/2009 X XX CC-02-SD PSG0853-04 -- 7/21/2009 XXXXX CC-42-SD (duplicate of PSG0853-36 -- 7/21/2009 X XX CC-02-SD) CC-03-SD PSG1013-02 -- 7/29/2009 XXXXX CC-04-SD PSG0853-06 -- 7/23/2009 XXXXX CC-05-S PSG0853-07 -- 7/22/2009 X CC-06-S PSG0853-08 -- 7/22/2009 X CC-07-S PSG0853-09 -- 7/22/2009 X XX CC-08-S PSG0853-10 -- 7/22/2009 X XX CC-58-S (duplicate of PSG0853-38 -- 7/22/2009 X XX CC-08-S) CC-09-S PSG0853-11 -- 7/22/2009 X CC-10-S PSG0853-12 -- 7/22/2009 X XX CC-11-S PSG0853-13 -- 7/22/2009 XXXXX CC-12-S PSG0853-14 -- 7/22/2009 X XX Copper City Mill CC-13-S PSG0853-15 -- 7/22/2009 X CC-14-S PSG0853-16 -- 7/22/2009 X CC-15-WR PSG0853-17 -- 7/22/2009 X CC-16-WR PSG0853-18 -- 7/22/2009 X XX CC-17-WR PSG0853-19 -- 7/22/2009 X XX CC-18-WR PSG0853-20 -- 7/22/2009 X XX CC-19-WR PSG0853-21 -- 7/22/2009 X CC-20-WR PSG0853-22 -- 7/22/2009 XXXXX CC-50-WR (duplicate PSG0853-37 -- 7/22/2009 X XX of CC-20-WR) CC-21-WR PSG0853-23 -- 7/22/2009 X CC-22-WR PSG0853-24 -- 7/22/2009 X XX CC-23-WR PSG0853-25 -- 7/22/2009 X CC-25-WR PSG0853-27 -- 7/22/2009 X CC-26-SD PSG0853-29 -- 7/23/2009 X XX CC-27-SD PSG0853-31 -- 7/23/2009 X XX CC-28-SD PSG0853-33 -- 7/23/2009 X XX GL-01-WR PSG0853-40 -- 7/20/2009 XXXXX GL-02-WR PSG0853-41 -- 7/20/2009 XXXXX GL-12-WR (duplicate of PSG0853-47 -- 7/20/2009 X X Granite Lake GL-02-WR) GL-03-S PSG0853-42 -- 7/20/2009 X XX GL-04-S PSG0853-43 -- 7/20/2009 X XX GL-05-S PSG0853-44 -- 7/20/2009 X XX Whole Rock Matrices -- L77196-02 7/22/2009 X CC-20-WR Whole -- L78584-01 7/22/2009 XX Copper City Mill -- L77790-01 7/22/2009 X CC-20-WR Fines -- L78584-02 7/22/2009 XX Granite Lake GL-02-WR Whole -- L77196-01 7/20/2009 X (1) = Solid matrices metals list: arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc Water matrices metals list: arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, selenium, silver, sodium, zinc (2) = Acid/base accounting includes: acid generation potential, acid neutralization potential, acid-base potential, total carbon, total organic carbon, total inorganic carbon, neutralization potential as CaCO3, pH, residual organic sulfur, pyritic sulfide, sulfur sulfate, and total sulfur (3) = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure and Synthetic Percipitation Leaching Procedure metals list: arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc (4) = A mercury replicate was collected to assess the effects of preservation on total and dissolved mercury results. Table 2: Review Qualifiers Assigned during Data Quality Evaluation Copper City Mill and Granite Lake July 2009 Sampling Event

URS ID Lab ID Analyte Qualifier Rational Solid Matrices (mg/kg) CC-20-WR PSG0853-22 Lead J MS/MSD Recovery GL-03-S PSG0835-42 Mercury CC-02-SD PSG0835-04 Arsenic, Chromium, CC-42-SD (duplicate PSG0835-36 Lead, of CC-02-SD) CC-20-WR PSG0853-22 CC-50-WR (duplicate Manganese PSG0835-37 of CC-20-WR) J Field Duplicate RPD CC-08-S PSG0853-10 CC-58-S (duplicate of Mercury PSG0835-38 CC-08-S) GL-02-WR PSG0835-41 GL-12-WR (duplicate Arsenic PSG0835-47 of GL-02-WR) CC-07-S PSG0853-09 Mercury J Laboratory Duplicate RPD Total Carbon and CC-20-WR Fines L77790-01 Total Inorganic UJ Holding Time Expiration Carbon GL-01-WR PSG0853-40 0.792 U GL-02-WR PSG0853-41 0.861 U Chromium Method Blank Detection GL-12-WR (duplicate PSG0853-47 0.898 U of GL-02-WR) Water Matrices (mg/L) CC-02-SW PSG0853-03 CC-04-SW PSG0835-05 CC-26-SW PSG0835-28 CC-27-SW PSG0835-30 CC-28-SW PSG0835-32 Total and Dissolved CC-29-SW PSG0835-34 J/UJ Improper Preservation Mercury CC-42-SW (duplicate PSG0835-35 of CC-02-SW) GL-01-SW PSG0835-39 GL-06-SW PSG0835-45 GL-07-SW PSG0835-46 CC-03-SW PSG1013-01 Total and Dissolved CC-04-SW PSG0835-05 Hexavalent UJ Holding Time Expiration GL-01-SW PSG0835-39 Chromium GL-06-SW PSG0835-45 Result Under Lab ID Total and Dissolved CC-03-SW PSG1013-01 DNR PSG1013-03 provides a more Mercury reliable result CC-02-SW PSG0853-03 CC-04-SW PSG0835-05 CC-26-SW PSG0835-28 CC-28-SW PSG0835-32 Total Manganese 0.002 U Method Blank Detection CC-42-SW (duplicate PSG0835-35 of CC-02-SW) GL-01-SW PSG0835-39 GL-06-SW PSG0835-45 CC-02-SW PSG0853-03 0.500 U CC-04-SW PSG0835-05 0.500 U CC-26-SW PSG0835-28 0.500 U CC-27-SW PSG0835-30 0.500 U CC-28-SW PSG0835-32 0.530 U CC-29-SW PSG0835-34 Total Chloride 0.690 U Method Blank Detection CC-42-SW (duplicate PSG0835-35 0.500 U of CC-02-SW) GL-01-SW PSG0835-39 0.500 U GL-06-SW PSG0835-45 0.500 U GL-07-SW PSG0835-46 0.500 U CC-20-WR Whole L78584-01 TCLP MercuryUJ Holding Time Expiration CC-20-WR Fines L78584-02 CC-20-WR Fines L78584-02 SPLP Arsenic J Laboratory Duplicate RPD CC-20-WR Whole L78584-01 SPLP Lead0.001 U Method Blank Detection CC-20-WR Fines L78584-02

Note: J flags applied by the laboratory to results above the MDL but below the MRL are not included in this table, but are included in project data tables and in laboratory data deliverables.

. /

0 1 50 1

23 4

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 6

7 89 :

&''* (+ (-

% &'(&

)

! "

# $

TQ U S X

N NN

m d

I I

L C C D C

A? @ ? HH ?

^ } ^

L L b D

E ? HJB E

= >

C D

= >

C D

? @A? @B ? E

Q F c

N M

CL D L DC L {{

= > =

FFF G K F

M NN

D DC L

E @A@ d

? H J B

I I

Z Q X SU ` ` X

D DL

O P Q R < S TU F W

N M M N

? H d? |

? @ HB E

r P G K

[[ ] D L C eL

B B @

^ f

O Z U `S `SS `

L [C \]

X Y O Z TTFS `

L [C \ ]

^ _

L L b D

E ? HJB E

> >

c P K P X Y K Q X Y UW Q U S

[ L L C eL C D[ L C L h DCCL C C DL \ [j h j

E H? d B @ B EB H B H @ d H d g ? @ dB JAH di d J ? B ? @B ? @ d E i ? E k H

f I I _ I f

l Z K P X Y n Z K Q TTFS ` O K

e D L [C e LL D L C L [C L j L L L L L [L C e D L D C L

d A@? B d E B dd m E ? d A@? E J @ H B d @ g @ E d E J @ E B HH g @

I _ I I I

D D DL j

Eo @ d

X P P X Y n X O Q r FU l P

L L L L L [[ D C DC [L L D j j eL L [ L L C

HH B EB H d d p @ A @g ? @J B ? @ Em ? d q B H dd @B E HB E @d ? E E H? d @ d H d

f I f I I

TTFS ` c K r P P r P r P P

j LL L DL L L L C L C C eL L L[L D L L [e L [C D C e D L C e

E @ p @ HB ? EH ? dB JAH d @ @ B d ? E ?g d @ A? @ B d B E B A A@? E

f _ I

K K r Q P K

C eL D C L C L D D DL C DC CL j

B A A@? A@ B B ? @B ? @ A @ d? @ ? @ B o B H g d d

f _ f I I I I

> >

c P Q P P P X Y n c X

[L C C L C eL C L C L C C eL LC e L CL D CL [ L C t [L C D D[ C L

A B d E? d @ d H d g ? @ J ? d B E AB @B J @d H d ? E d @@ E @ g B

s I I _

u > >

X Y c X

LCCL h LLC L D L L C t j

H @ i J B HH @ o @ J E d ?g

I _

l K P P X Y K

e D L C e L L [ DL D DC L C D LC j D C L D L C eL [ L L [L D D

d @ A? @ d B HH d ? @ ? A ? EH E d E @ d E? @ d A? Ed H g ? @ ? Ed o E d B @ d Em

I f f I

C eL L C D L C j

g @? J d ?g B AB @ B H @ A? @

TQ U S X P K P Z K P P K

N NN

j \ C eL L L [D C L DC e C e D L [C D L D L CL L C L L

g HH dB JAH d B E d dB JAH d B d d? B p d A@? p HH d A? d ?g Bg @ A J @

P P K P Q PP P

L L L CL D L C L e DC D [e L D hC D[ L C e

dB JAH d B @ @J E ? B B @ ? d B ? EB H B @m d B A AH g ? @ d A? dB H A B HH H d d B E

v I f f f

F x P y K P X Y n P K P Q

L j \ D L C eL L C L eL L C e C C L D[ C L LC L L L

dB JAH i g ? p ? H H dB JAH d ? H H? Em @ B E d d B A? H ? @ ? @ @E AH B d

f I I f I

> =

O Z r < r P P P

[ C [C L [C z L C L L D[L L L L C C D L C eL LC D [D C L [ C j

? E B ? @ @? B EB m @ ? @ d ? J @ @ A@ d E B g ? @ g @ @ B Hd B E B dd? B ? d d

f I I I

X Y r

LC D C D[ L C D L L j

@ B Ed B EB H B H @ A? @ d g ? @ g B @d

f f

P Q r O Z

L C D C eL LL L L L [ C [C L[C z L j e \

d ? Ed ? @ ? @ E B E o d AH B d ? E B B EB m @ B ? @ @? g ?

f I f I f I

~ Page 1 of 13

fg gl g l

h ij k m n k o mk o

8 >

9 :; <9=; < ?@ A BCD E

BD[ r

st uo t

`eH ^ __b HH` F H I I P P ] ^ _ ` ^

N O O NQR STRU UT S N

d a GG G

J KLM V W J X LY Z

[ \

( )

¡¢ £ §

*+,*+- *0

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ©

1 3 5676776

£ § y z y { |}

2 ¨ 4 ©

¤¨ ¤ ¥¦ ¨ v

w x w w ~ ww

£ §

y zy {

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ©

¤¨ ¨ 4¨ ¨ v

w x w

£ § $%

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ¤ #

! "

¢ ® ¯¯°± ² ²¯µ ¹ ¯ ¹ ° ¾ µ ¯ ° ¯ °¯º ¯ » ® ¢ ¢

£ ¤ ¥ ¥ ¦ ¶ · ¸ · · ¶

³ ´ ´ ³

§ § ¼ ¼½ §

©¢ ¢

¨ ¥

§ §

ª« ª ¬

§ §

¢ ª ® ¯¯°± ² ²¯µ ¹ µ ¹ ° ¾ µ ¯ ° ¯ °¯º ¯ » ® ¢ ¢

£ ¿¥ ¦ ¶ · ¸ · · ¶

³ ´ ´ ³

§ § § ¼ ¼½ §

©¢ ¢ ¬

¨ ¥

§ §

¢ ² Á ® ¯¯°± ² ²¯µ ¹ µ ¹ ° ¾ µ ¯ ° ¯ °¯º ¯ » ® ¢ ¢

£ ¥ ¨ ¥ ¶ · ¸ · · ¶

³ ´ ´ ³

§ § § ¼ ¼½ §

©¢ ¢ ª « ª ¬

§ §

° Æ È ¯ ¯ µ ¯ ° ¯ ¹° ¯º µ »¹ ¯ Å ¢ © ¬ º ±º²± ± Å ª

Ç É Ë ¸· ¸ Ê ¦Â Ä ¿ ¸ ¸ ¸¶ Â

§ ¼ § § ¼ ¼

È ¯ ¯ µ ¯ ° ¯ ¹° ¯º µ »¹ ¯ Å ¢ ¢ º ±º²± ± ©¢ ¢ ²

É Ë ¸· ¸ Ê ¦Â ¦ ¿ ¸ ¸ ¸¶ Ä

¼ § § Ì ¼

¬ © Æ ¬

Ä Ä

½ ¼ ¼

° Æ È ¯ ¯ µ ¯ ° ¯ ¹° ¯º µ »¹ ¯ Å ¢ ¢ º ±º²± ± Å ª

Ç É Ë ¸· ¸ Ê ¦Â ¦ ¿ ¸ ¸ ¸¶ Â

§ ¼ § § Ì ¼

½¼

® ¯¯°± ² ²¯µ ¹ ± ¹ ¯ ° ¯±°¯º ¯ µ Á È ¯ ¯ µ »¯ Å ¢ ª

¶ ¸ ¸ · ¸ Ë ¸· ¸ Ê ¿¥ ¦

³ ´ ´ ´ ³

§ §

¨ ¥

§ § ¼ ¼½

ª Ï ®¯ ©± ¬ µ ª ¯ ° ¯ °¯º ¯ » ± ¯ ¯ Å ¢

Î ¦ ¥ £ ¨ ¥ É ¿ ¸ · ¸¶ ¶ · · Ë ¸· ¸ · Ê

Í § § § §

® ¯¯°± ² ²¯µ ¹ ± ª« ª Å

¶ ¸ ¸¶ ¦ Ð ¦

³ ´

ª« ª ¢ Ë È ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ° ¯ ¹° ¯º ¯ »¯ ¯ Å ¢

¦ ¦ É ¸ · ¸ · Ê

½ Ì

Ç¥ £

ª« ª ¢ ª « Ë È ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ° ¯ ¹° ¯º ¯ »¯ ¯ Å ¢

¦ ¨ ¦ £ ¥ É ¸ · ¸ · Ê

ª« ª ª« Ë È ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ° ¯ ¹° ¯º ¯ »¯ ¯ Å ¢

¦ ¥ É ¸ · ¸ · Ê

ª« ª Ë È ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ° ¯ ¹° ¯º ¯ »¯ ¯ Å ¢

¦ Ä É ¸ · ¸ · Ê

ª« ª Å ª Ë È ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ° ¯ ¹° ¯º ¯ »¯ ¯ Å ¢

Ä ¦ É ¸ · ¸ · Ê

ª«

¨ ¦¥ ¦

Í §

Ï ¹ Ï Ï º ± ¯ ° ¹¯°¯º ¯ » Å ¢

¦ ¦ ¶ ¥ ¦¥ ¥ É ¿ ¸ · · · ·· Ê

³ ³

§ Ì

Ï º ± ¯ ° ¯±°¯º µ »¯ ¯ Å ¢ ª ª

¥ É ¿ ¸ · · · Ê ¥ ¦ £ ¨ ¦

³ ´

À Ò Ñ

ª Ï ®¯ ©±¬ ¯ ° ¯¹°¯º ± » ± Å ¢

¦ ¥£ ¨ ¥ É ¿ ¸ · · Ê

§ § §

Ó ¦

§ §

Æ ¯ ± ¯® ¯ µ ¯

ÇÓ¨ ¿¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ · Õ Ö

P P P Ú P P Û

O RU R R ×R T UO N ×N R R T × RTUN O

Z J Ø X J Z J ZÜ Ù Page 2 of 13

fg gl g l

h ij k m n k o mk o

8 >

9 :; <9=; < ?@ A BCD E

BD[ r

st uo t

`eH ^ __b HH` F H I I P P ] ^ _ ` ^

N O O NQR STRU UT S N

d a GG G

J KLM V W J X LY Z

[ \

( )

¡¢ £ §

*+,*+- *0

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ©

1 3 6 76776

£ § y zzy { |} |

2 ¨ 4 ©

¤¨ ¤ ¥¦ ¨ v

w x w ~ w

£ § ¡¡

y zy {

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ©

¤¨ ¨ 4¨ ¨ v

w x w

£ § $%

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ¤ #

! "

¢ ® ¯¯°± ² ²¯µ ¹ µ¹ ¹ ° ¾ µ ¯ ° ¯ °¯º ¯ » ® ¢ ¢

£ ¤ ¥ ¥ ¦ ¶ · ¸ · · ¶

³ ´ ´ ³

§ § ¼ ¼½ §

©¢ ¢

¨ ¥

§ §

ª« ª ¬

§ §

¢ ª ® ¯¯°± ² ²¯µ ¹ ±± ¹ ° ¾ µ ¯ ° ¯ °¯º ¯ » ® ¢ ¢

£ ¿¥ ¦ ¶ · ¸ · · ¶

³ ´ ´ ³

§ § § ¼ ¼½ §

©¢ ¢ ¬

¨ ¥

§ §

¢ ² Á ® ¯¯°± ² ²¯µ ¹ ²¹ ¹ ° ¾ µ ¯ ° ¯ °¯º ¯ » ® ¢ ¢

£ ¥ ¨ ¥ ¶ · ¸ · · · ¶

³ ´ ´ ³

§ § § ¼ ¼½ §

©¢ ¢ ª « ª ¬

§ §

° Æ ¯ ± Á È ¯ ¯ µ ¯ ° ¯¹°¯º »¯ ¯ Å ¢ © ¬ º ±º²± ± Å ª

Ç ¸ Ê ¸· ¸ ·· É ¦Â Ä ¿ ¸ ¸ ¸¶ Â

§ ¼ § § ¼ ¼

¯ ± Á È ¯ ¯ µ ¯ ° ¯¹°¯º »¯ ¯ Å ¢ ¢ º ±º²± ± ©¢ ¢ ²

¸ Ê ¸· ¸ ·· É ¦Â ¦ ¿ ¸ ¸ ¸¶ Ä

¼ § § Ë ¼

¬ © Æ ¬

Ä Ä

½ ¼ ¼

° Æ È ¯ ¯ µ ¯ ° ¯¹°¯º »¯ ¯ Å ¢ ¢ º ±º²± ± Å ª

Ç Ì Ê ¸· ¸ ·· É ¦Â ¦ ¿ ¸ ¸ ¸¶ Â

§ ¼ § § Ë ¼

½¼

® ¯¯°± ² ²¯µ ¹ ± ¹ ± ± È ¯ ¯ µ ¯ ° ¯±°¯º ±¯ » Å ¢ ª

¶ ¸ ¸ ¸ Ê ¸· ¸ ·· É ¿¥ ¦

³ ´ ´

§ §

¨ ¥

§ § ¼ ¼½

ª Ï ®¯ ©± ¬ ª ¯ ° ¯ °¯º ¯ »± ¯ ¯ Å ¢

Î ¦ ¥ £ ¨ ¥ Ì ¿ ¸ · ¸ · ¶ · ¶ Ê ¸· ¸ · É

´ ³

Í § § § §

® ¯¯°± ² ²¯µ ¹ ± ª« ª Å

¶ ¸ ¸¶ ¦ Ð ¦

³ ´

ª« ª ¢ º Ê È ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ° ¯ ¹° ¯º ¯ »¯ ¯ Å ¢

¦ ¦ · ¸· ¸ · ¸ · É

½ Ë

Ç¥ £

ª« ª ¢ ª « ¯ ¹ Ê È ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ° ¯ ¹° ¯º ¯ »¯ ¯ Å ¢

¦ ¨ ¦ £ ¥ ¸¶ ¸ · ¸ · É

ª« ª ª« ¯ ¯ Á Ê È ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ° ¯ ¹° ¯º ¯ »¯ ¯ Å ¢

¦ ¥ ¸ ¸ · ¸ · É

´ ´

ª« ª ¯ ° ¯ ¹° ¯º ¯ »¯ ¯ ¯ Ê È ¯ ¯ ¯ Å ¢

¦ Ä · ¸ ¸ · ¸ · É

´ ³

ª« ª Å ª ® ± Ê È ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ° ¯ ¹° ¯º ¯ »¯ ¯ Å ¢

Ä ¦ · ¸ ¸ · ¸ · É

ª«

¨ ¦¥ ¦

Í §

Ï ¹ Ï Ï º ± ¯ ° ¹¯°¯º ¯ »± ± Å ¢

¦ ¦ ¶ ¥ ¦¥ ¥ Ì ¿ ¸ · · · É

³ ³

§ Ë

Ï º ± ¯ ° ¯±°¯º ® »¯ ¯ Å ¢ ª ª

¥ Ì ¿ ¸ · · · É ¥ ¦ £ ¨ ¦

³ ´

À Ò Ñ

ª Ï ®¯ ©±¬ ¯ ° ¯¹°¯º ± »± Å ¢

¦ ¥£ ¨ ¥ Ì ¿ ¸ · ¶ É

§ § §

Ó ¦

§ §

Æ ¯ ± ¯® ¯ µ ¯

ÇÓ¨ ¿¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ · Õ Ö

P P P Ú P P Û

O RU R R ×R T UO N ×N R R T × RTUN O

Z J Ø X J Z J ZÜ Ù Page 3 of 13 ACZ Laboratories, Inc. Inorganic 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 (800) 334-5493 Reference

Report Header Explanations Batch A distinct set of samples analyzed at a specific time Found Value of the QC Type of interest Limit Upper limit for RPD, in %. Lower Lower Recovery Limit, in % (except for LCSS, mg/Kg) MDL Method Detection Limit. Same as Minimum Reporting Limit. Allows for instrument and annual fluctuations. PCN/SCN A number assigned to reagents/standards to trace to the manufacturer's certificate of analysis PQL Practical Quantitation Limit, typically 5 times the MDL. QC True Value of the Control Sample or the amount added to the Spike Rec Amount of the true value or spike added recovered, in % (except for LCSS, mg/Kg) RPD Relative Percent Difference, calculation used for Duplicate QC Types Upper Upper Recovery Limit, in % (except for LCSS, mg/Kg) Sample Value of the Sample of interest

QC Sample Types AS Analytical Spike (Post Digestion) LCSWD Laboratory Control Sample - Water Duplicate ASD Analytical Spike (Post Digestion) Duplicate LFB Laboratory Fortified Blank CCB Continuing Calibration Blank LFM Laboratory Fortified Matrix CCV Continuing Calibration Verification standard LFMD Laboratory Fortified Matrix Duplicate DUP Sample Duplicate LRB Laboratory Reagent Blank ICB Initial Calibration Blank MS Matrix Spike ICV Initial Calibration Verification standard MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate ICSAB Inter-element Correction Standard - A plus B solutions PBS Prep Blank - Soil LCSS Laboratory Control Sample - Soil PBW Prep Blank - Water LCSSD Laboratory Control Sample - Soil Duplicate PQV Practical Quantitation Verification standard LCSW Laboratory Control Sample - Water SDL Serial Dilution

QC Sample Type Explanations Blanks Verifies that there is no or minimal contamination in the prep method or calibration procedure. Control Samples Verifies the accuracy of the method, including the prep procedure. Duplicates Verifies the precision of the instrument and/or method. Spikes/Fortified Matrix Determines sample matrix interferences, if any. Standard Verifies the validity of the calibration.

ACZ Qualifiers (Qual) B Analyte concentration detected at a value between MDL and PQL. The associated value is an estimated quantity. H Analysis exceeded method hold time. pH is a field test with an immediate hold time. U The material was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the associated value. The associated value is either the sample quantitation limit or the sample detection limit.

Method References (1) EPA 600/4-83-020. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, March 1983. (2) EPA 600/R-93-100. Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples, August 1993. (3) EPA 600/R-94-111. Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples - Supplement I, May 1994. (5) EPA SW-846. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Third Edition with Update III, December 1996. (6) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th edition, 1995 & 20th edition (1998).

Comments (1) QC results calculated from raw data. Results may vary slightly if the rounded values are used in the calculations. (2) Soil, Sludge, and Plant matrices for Inorganic analyses are reported on a dry weight basis. (3) Animal matrices for Inorganic analyses are reported on an "as received" basis.

For a complete list of ACZ's Extended Qualifiers, please click: http://www.acz.com/public/extquallist.pdf

REPIN03.02.07.01 Page 4 of 13

./ /4

0 12 3 5 6

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 8 9

::3 1

;

% &' & &''* -

( ( (

)

! "

+ ,

# $

P Q

L M < => ? B C

E F G

RSTRSU RX

@A D

H I JJK

[ \[\\[ ? B C

E FG

@A D

H Y

] ] h ij i k n o n o o

`abc dad e fg q r z {|

^ _ ^ l m m m l s t uv w xl y

~ ~ ~ ~

} }

¡¢ £

¥ ®¯ ® ® ¯ ² ® ´ · µ® ¶ ® ¶

¤ ¦§ ©§ª « ¬ « ¬ ° ¦° © ± ³ ³ ³

¥ ¹ ¹ ®¯ ® ® ® ²®® ¹ º ®» ¶ ¶» · ¯® ®

¤ ¦§ ©§ª ¸ ¸ ° ³° © « ³¦ ± ª ª ª ± ±¦

µ® ´ ´ ®¯ ® ® ² ® ¶ ¶ · » ¶ ®

¸ ±©§ ¦ ¼ « ¼ « ° ³° © ±§ ³ ¦ ±© ± ¦ ½¾

¨¨

] ] h ij i k n o n o o É

`abc dad e ¿ ba b¿ Á fgÂ q Ã r r

^ _ ^ _À^ l m m m ÄÅ ÆÄ Ç ÇÈ

p p

~ ~ ~ ~

} }

¡¢ £

¥ ®¯ ® ® ¯ ² ® ´ · µ® ¶ ® ¶

¤ ¦§ ©§ª « ¬ « ¬ ° ¦° © ± ³ ³ ³

µ® ´ ´ ®¯ ® ® ² ® ¶ ¶ · » ¶ ®

¸ ±©§ ¦ ¼ « ¼ « ° ³° © ±§ ³ ¦ ±© ± ¦ ½¾

¨¨

ij i k n o n o o

] ]h q r z {|

`abc dad e a b¿Á fgÊ

l m m m l s t uv w xl y

^ _ ^ _À^

~ ~ ~ ~

} }

¡¢ £

¥ ®¯ ® ® ¯ ² ® ´ · µ® ¶ ® ¶

¤ ¦§ ©§ª « ¬ « ¬ ° ¦° © ± ³ ³ ³

µ® ´ ´ ®¯ ® ® ² ® ´ ´ · ® ®

¸ ±©§ ¦ ¼ « ¼ « ° ³° © ±§ ³ ¦ ½¾

¨¨

o ] ] ÓÔÔ o Ö Ô

q Ø Ø Ë d e¿ Î d ¿ ab Ï ad bd¿ e ÊÑ Ò z

m m ÌÍ _ ^ ^ Ì ^ ^Ð ^

p Õ p

~ ~ ~ ~

} }

¡¢

¥ ¹ ¹ ®¯ ® ® ²® ¹ º ®¯¯® ®® ®¯ · ®¯ ¯® ®

¤ ¦§ ©§¦ ¸ ¸ ° ¦° © ±§ ³ « ¦ ± ± ± ±¦

µ® ´ ´ ®¯ ® ® ² » ¶ ¶ · ® ®

¸ ±©§ ¦ ¼ « ¼ « ° ¦° © ¦¦ ± ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦

¨¨

j Þi k ÓÔ o ßi É

Ú c Û d d Ü Ï d Ã

Ù ^ Í_^ Ì ^Ð Ì Ý l m

~ ~ ~ ~

} }

¡¢àá

µ® ´ ´ ®¯ ® ® ® ² ¯ ¶ ® ¶¯ ® ¶»

¸ ±© ±¼ « ¼ « ° ª° © ± ª © ¦ §

¨¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ å

ãä æ

o ç ÓÔÔ o Ö Ô

q Ø q Û e Ê b¿ Á è ¿Ü e Ò z

m m Í Í_ _ À^ ÌÐ Í^

p Õ p

~ ~ ~ ~

} }

¡¢ é

µ® ´ ´ ®¯ ® ® ² ¯ ´ ´ · ® ®

¸ ±©§ ±¼ « ¼ « ° ³° © © ª ¦ ½¾

¨¨

ç ç ÓÔÔ o Ö Ô o

Û e Ï ê ¿d ¿ Á Û e ¿Ü Ò z q Ø q

Í Í_ _ Í Ì m m

p Õ p

~ ~ ~ ~

} }

¡¢ é

µ® ´ ´ ®¯ ® ® ² ¯ ´ ´ · ® ®

¸ ±©§ ±¼ « ¼ « ° ³° © © ª ¦ ½¾

¨¨

ç ç ÓÔÔ o Ö Ô o

Û e Û e d Ò z q Ø q

Í Í_ Í ^ Ì m m

p Õ p

~ ~ ~ ~

} }

¡¢ é

µ® ´ ´ ®¯ ® ® ² ¯ ´ ´ · ® ®

¸ ±©§ ±¼ « ¼ « ° ³° © © ª ¦ ½¾

¨¨

Ô ß k Ô ß ÔÓ Ô

|ëì {

m m m m Page 5 of 13

./ /4

0 12 3 5 6

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 8 9

::3 1

;

% &' & &''* -

( ( (

)

! "

+ ,

# $

P Q

L M < => ? B C

E F G

RSTRSU RX

@A D

H I JJK

[ \[\\[ ? B C

E FG

@A D

H Y

] ^ ` ^ ghh m h

_ _ f i j j

n o p q qo

a bcd e

k l k

s s s s

r t u v r w y y w w v y

| x |} x | } ~ | | | ~ x

z z{

¢ ¢ ª «

¡ ¡ £¤¤ ¥¦ §¨ ¬¦ ¬¦

¯ ¢¢ ¯¢¢ ¯ °

® ® £¤¤ § ¦ ¥ ¨ ¬¨ ¨ ¬¦ ¥¦ ¬ £ ¥

« ª ª ª ª

® ¥ ¥± ± £¤¦¤ §¨£ ²³

]^ ` ^ ^· ] ^ ` ghh m h

_ _ _ f i j j

n o p q qo

bc de a ´ µ ¶ ed¸

k l k

s s s s

r t u v r w y y w w v y

| x |} x | } ~ | | | ~ x

z z{

« ª ª ª ª

® ¥ ¥± ± £¤¦¤ §¨£ ²³

h ¾ hg h h ¾

¹º» ¼ ½

q q n q q Page 6 of 13

./ /4 /: :

0 123 5 6

78 9 9

£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ ¡ ¢

> ; <

4 4

% &' & &''* -

( ( (

)

3 = 1 ? 0 1

! " 9 9 @ 8

+ ,

# $

U V

ST Q R A BC D G H

[\ J K L

WXYWXZ W] EF I

M N OOP

_ l l k _ l

^ ` a b o d pmie c ^d^efgfd efgn b hi^j b f dacga m

r r w q j ¡ ¢ ¤ ¤ qr q w w ~~ q ~

uz| v vut v | stuv s ysz{ s|v } szs|{s y} u |v s z uvu

w w w w ~

ut uv | s{us v s uts {|{s|vzuv | v t z

u{{zuvs s utuv | }

w w r r qr q w w ~~ q ~

uz| v vut |z§u| { {ut{ stuv s ysz{ s|v } szs|{s y} u |v s z uvu

w w w w ~

ut uv | s{us v s uts {|{s|vzuv | v t z

u{{zuvs s utuv | }

w r r w q qr q w w ~~ q ~

uz| v vut z§u| { v | stuv s ysz{ s|v } szs|{s y} u |v s z uvu

w w w w ~

ut uv | s{us v s uts {|{s|vzuv | v t z

u{{zuvs s utuv | }

£ ¦

¢ ¤ ¤ ~ w q w ¤ ¨ © ª qr q w w ~~ q ~

¥ ¥

t z z§u| { s ut stuv s ysz{ s|v } szs|{s y} u |v s z uvu

w w w w ~

ut uv | s{us v s uts {|{s|vzuv | v t z

u{{zuvs s utuv | }

~ w w ~w ¤ ¨ © ª qr q w w ~~ q ~

t z y z v { t s stuv s ysz{ s|v } szs|{s y} u |v s z uvu

« x

w w w w ~

ut uv | s{us v s uts {|{s|vzuv | v t z

u{{zuvs s utuv | }

~ ~ ¤ ¨ © ª qr q w w ~~ q ~

t z t uvs stuv s ysz{ s|v } szs|{s y} u |v s z uvu

w w w w ~

ut uv | s{us v s uts {|{s|vzuv | v t z

u{{zuvs s utuv | }

~ ¨ © ª ¤ w ~~ q ~ qr q w

t z vut s ysz{ s|v } szs|{s y} u |v s z uvu stuv

w w w w ~

ut uv | s{us v s uts {|{s|vzuv | v t z

u{{zuvs s utuv | }

~ w ~ ¨ © ª ¤ w ~~ q ~ qr q w

vut t z | t uvs s ysz{ s|v } szs|{s y} u |v s z uvu stuv

w w w w ~

ut uv | s{us v s uts {|{s|vzuv | v t z

u{{zuvs s utuv | }

w ~~ q ~ r r qr q w w q ¢ ¤ ¤

j ¡¬ ¥

s ysz{ s|v } szs|{s y} u |v s z uvu stuv uz| v vut v |

w w w w ~

ut uv | s{us v s uts {|{s|vzuv | v t z

u{{zuvs s utuv | }

w w r r w ~~ q ~ qr q w

uz| v vut |z§u| { s ysz{ s|v } szs|{s y} u |v s z uvu {ut{ stuv

w w w w ~

ut uv | s{us v s uts {|{s|vzuv | v t z

u{{zuvs s utuv | }

w ~~ q ~ r r qr q w w w q

s ysz{ s|v } szs|{s y} u |v s z uvu stuv uz| v vut z§u| { v |

w w w w ~

ut uv | s{us v s uts {|{s|vzuv | v t z

u{{zuvs s utuv | }

£ ¦

¢ ¤ ¤ ~ w q w ¨ © ª w ~~ q ~ ¤ qr q w

¥ ¥

t z z§u| { s ut s ysz{ s|v } szs|{s y} u |v s z uvu stuv

w w w w ~

ut uv | s{us v s uts {|{s|vzuv | v t z

u{{zuvs s utuv | }

~ w w ~w ¨ © ª w ~~ q ~ ¤ qr q w

t z y z v { t s s ysz{ s|v } szs|{s y} u |v s z uvu stuv

« x

w w w w ~

ut uv | s{us v s uts {|{s|vzuv | v t z

u{{zuvs s utuv | }

~ ~ ¨ © ª w ~~ q ~ ¤ qr q w

t z t uvs s ysz{ s|v } szs|{s y} u |v s z uvu stuv

w w w w ~

ut uv | s{us v s uts {|{s|vzuv | v t z

u{{zuvs s utuv | }

~ ¨ © ª w ~~ q ~ ¤ qr q w

t z vut s ysz{ s|v } szs|{s y} u |v s z uvu stuv

w w w w ~

ut uv | s{us v s uts {|{s|vzuv | v t z

u{{zuvs s utuv | }

~ w ~ ¤ ¨ © ª qr q w w ~~ q ~

vut t z | t uvs stuv s ysz{ s|v } szs|{s y} u |v s z uvu

w w w w ~

ut uv | s{us v s uts {|{s|vzuv | v t z

u{{zuvs s utuv | }

µ¶ µ µ

®¯° ± ²³ ² ² ² ³

´ ´

Page 7 of 13

./ 0 3

1 2 2 1 2

45 6 7

£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ ¡ ¢

8 9 3 / 0

2 2

% &' & &''* -

( ( (

)

5 : ;

! "

+ ,

# $

P Q

NO L M < => ? B C

VW E F G

RSTRSU RX @A D

H I JJK

YZ [ \ ] ^ \ [

` a a

{ {

bc gg i i i i x yz i i z }

d e f f jk lmnmodpdnq mnd jfp feedndr efn sdnp e smp fj fn mnd jfp sf dndr u sdnp e smpd |

h t v w

¡¢££ ¥£

¤ ¦

§ ¨ ª

¡¢££ ¥£

¤ ¦

] ² ³´ µ ³´¶ ³´µ ³´ · ¯°±

Page 8 of 13

/ 0 1 3

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 4 7

353 61

% & ' & & ''

( ) ( +,( -

!"# $

º 8 : ; > ?

´´ »¹¼

Ò Ó

ÐÑ

ØÙ

<= @A BC

ÔÕÖÔÕ× ÔÚ

µ µ ? F? ?G ?I

´ ¶ · ¶ ¸¸¹

CEA @

H D

¶ ¿¼¹¼¹¹¼

F? ?G ?I J

H KD

? ; G ?I µ µ

´ ¶· ¶¸¸¹

CEA < ÛA

O NO RPQ ³O]RXRN[QR ST

g j k

h e ef i

m n t w t t ~ t ~

op q r s q u vo p xr vpy z vp qu px { | s{ } | } u vox p zvpq q zx s { q u vor ox o |

t m f ~

q p{ |q o } r sp x oo |p v }r {x r vp r sp x zqr o

t t m f ~

q p{ |q o } r sp q { u |p x o }r{ }p vq }r{xr vp r sp x zqr o

t t ~ t t m t ~

p q s uu } u{u p vq u vpqp }r o v o r sp v vp xr q r sp vp { s{ } o zqro

m t ~

xo u |pr p q r sp s{ } o zqr o

~ m t ~ t t t

p q r sp s{ } o zqr o } { vp p p }r r s r sp q { u |p q vp xp

m ~

q r sp vp p }o z s q { u |p o v { || vpy zp qrp { }{ | qpq

m f t t ~ t t ~

vp { || q{ u |p q r s } so | } r pq o v vpy zpq rp { }{ | q pq

m t t ~ t

p vp { | | q { u |p x o }r { }p vq vpx p p }r{x r

m f

vp r sp rp u p v{ r zvp |{ } q u vpq p }r

m t t~

l l

q r sp r v u |{ } o v { } p u vp qp }r

g k

m t f

q r sp r v u |{ } o v Ü u vpq p }r

m f t t ~ ~

vp q { u |p q vpy z v } }o sp{ qu {xp sp{ q u{x p vpp

m n t t t t

o r sp q { u |p q r s{ r vpy z vp { o vp } o |q p v r s{ p o }p

LM d

NO PQRSTU V WX YSZ [ TU O ]O^ TS QS [T Y SX Q_O [ `SaO bZO UQRS TU P O[ UO ^OU N]R`O

e½f

S TQ[N Q S] [T Y ^ RUN ]OP [TNROU Q_O N R OTQ ZUQ ` O N STQ[N QO^

e½f

_RPPR T STQ[ RTO]U

¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¢ ® ¯ £ ¡ À ¢ Á ® Ã Á Ç È £ É ¢ Á ¢ £

¥ ¨ ° ¬ ¦ ¥ ¨ ¦ª « ¬

Â Â Å Â ÅÂ Æ ÅÂ Ê

§ Ä § § § Ë

À Ì Á ¡ Í À Ã¡ Á ¯ £ ¢ ¢ Ì £ ® ¯ ¡ ¢

« ¥ ¥

Â Å

§ § Ä Ä Ä Ä§ Ä

¾ l l

£¢ ¢ÀÎ¢ Ã À ¢ Ì ¢ £® ¡ ¯ £¢ ¢ £Î À Á

¥ ¥ «

Å Â Â Â

Ä § Ä §

¢ ¯ Á ¢ £À ¢ £À

ÅÅ Â Å Å Â

§ § § Ï

S QOU

¦ Ý

ß à áá ß ß ß á

Æ Þ

Ï Ï Ï Ï Page 9 of 13

/ 0 1 3

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 4 7

353 61

% & ' & & ''

( ) ( +,( -

!"# $

v 8 : ; > ? C

p p wux

{ |

<= @A B

}~}~ }

C ? F? ?G ?I

p qrsqrttu r xuxuux

EA @

H D

F? ?G ?I J

H KD

LM MV M V

NO PQ RSTU TQ W XWQYQ W U ST

[ \ ] ^

a b c d b c e f b c g b c g db c eb c h b c i j kc l a ` _ ` _

m n n o o

k k d c a h

k c c a h

k d c a l

k c a l

LM MV M V

NO PQ RSTU TQ W XWQYQ W U ST °Q±Q T

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

¥¦ « ¥ ¬ ¥

¢£ ¤ § ¢ £ ¨¢ £ £ ª§ ®

a a l a ¹ b c

m ³ µ ·³ » o ¼ µ ¿¶

À ¾

¹ ¹ e ¹ b c e

´ µ ¶ ·¶¸m ´ º ·³ » ¯ ¼ µ ¿¶ ³

e f l e f ¹ b c

³ ´ µ ¶ ·¶¸m ³ µ ·³ » n ¼ µ ¿¶

d l d a l ¹ b c

³ ´ µ ¶ ·¶¸m ³ µ ·³ » ¼ µ ¿¶

h a ¹ ¹ h a ld ¹ b c

m ´ º ·³ » n ¼ µ ¿¶

À ¾

a a l h ¹ j kc Ã

Â ¯ Â ¼ Â m µ ¿¶

À À ¾

i l i a l h ¹ j kc

³ Å» n » ¶µ µ ¶ n ¼ m µ ¿¶

Ä ½

À À À ¾

g a ¹ ¹ g h ¹ b c

¼ m ´ º ·³ » µ ¿¶

À ¾

g d a ¹ ¹ g h d ¹ b c

m ´ º ·³ » n ¼ µ ¿¶

À ¾

l l l

m n ¼ ·¶ ¶ · µ ³ ¶ Å¶¶¸¶¸ µ ¼¼´ ³ » ¿´¶

Æ ¾ À Æ À À

Ç Ç

a d e l ¹ b c a

n o m ¶µ ¸ ¶ · µ ¶ µ ¼¼´ ³ » ¿´¶ µ ¿¶ m Ê ·

½ ½ ½ È É

À À À Æ¾ À Æ À À ¾

¼ » Ê¶» Í ¼¶ ·º · ¶ ¸ ¿ Å ´ µ ¼ ·³ · µ ¼ ´ ¶ ¼ ·¶¼ · µ ³ Å

½ ½

Æ À À ¾ Æ Æ ¾ À À À Æ

Ë Ë

a e

¼ ´ ¶ o ¶ ³ ¶ ¶¸

À ¾

Ë Ì Ç Á

a kk k

Ân o Î Î Î Î

Page 10 of 13 Page 11 of 13 Page 12 of 13 Page 13 of 13

. /

0 1 50 1

23 4

¡ ¢£ ¤¡ £ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 6

7 89 :

&''* (+ (-

% &'(& )

# $

K FTQ U S

L CL L

A @

L C C D C

A? @ ? HH ?

^ | ^

L L a D

E ? H B E

= >

C D

= >

C D

? @A? @B ? E

Q F b

N M

C L D L DCL zz

= > =

F FF G K F

M NN

D DC L

E @ A@ c

? H B

IJ I

Z Q X SU X

yM y

D DL

O P Q R < S TU F W

N M M N

? H c? {

? @ HB E

p P G K

[[ ] D L C dL

B B @

^ e

O Z U S SS

M y y y

L [C \]

X Y O Z TTTS

L [C \ ]

^ _

L L a D

E ? H B E

J ^

> >

b P K P X Y K Q X Y X UW Q

[ L L C dL C D[ L C L g DCCL C C DL \ [i g C

E H? c B @ B EB H B H @ c H c f ? @ cB AH ch c ? B ? @B ? @ c E h ? E j c

e I J I J _ I I

U S Z K P X Y l Z K Q TTTS O K

NN N

i k d D L [C d LL D L C L [C L i L L L L L [L C d D L D

c A@? B c E B cc j E ? c A@? E @ H B c @ f @ E c E @ E B HH

IJ _ IJ

C L D D DL i

f @ Em @ c

I I I

X P P X Y l X O Q p FU P

L L L L L [[ D C DC [L L D i i k dL L [ L L C

HH B EB H c c n @ A @f ? @ B ? @ Ej ? c o B H cc @B E HB E @c ? E E H? c @ c H c

e J I e I I

TTTS p P P b K p P P p P

L C L C C dL L L [L D L L i LL L DL L L [d L [C D C d D L C d

@ HB ? EH ? cB AH c @ @ E @ n E B c ? E ?f c @ A? @ B c B E B AA@?

e J _ I

K K p Q P K

C dL D C L C L D D DL C DC C L i

B AA@? A@ B B ? @B ? @ A @ c? @ ? @ B m B H f c c

e _ e I I I I

> >

b P Q P P P X Y l b X

[L C C L C dL C L C L C C dL LC d L CL D C L [ L C r [L C D D[ C L

A B c E? c @ c H c f ? @ ? c B E AB @B @c H c ? E c @@ E @ f B

q I J J I _

s > >

X Y b X

LCCL g LLC L D L L C r i

H @ h B HH @ m @ E c ?f

J I J _

K P P X Y K

k d D L C d L L [ DL D DC L C D LC i D C L D L C dL [ L L [L D D

c @ A? @ c B HH c ? @ ? A ? EH E c E @ c E? @ c A? Ec H f ? @ ? Ec m E c B @ c Ej

I e e I

C dL L C D L C i

f @? c ?f B AB @ B H @ A? @

J I

X P K P Z K P P R K FTQ U S

L L [D C L DC d C d D L [C D L D L CL [C L i \ C dL

HH cB AH c B E c cB AH c B c c? B n c A@? n HH c A? c ?f Bf @ ? @ f

J I J

P P K P Q PP P

L L L CL D L C L d DC D [ d L D gC D[ L C d

cB AH c B @ @ E ? B B @ ? c B ? EB H B @j c B AAH f ? @ c A? cB H A B HH H cc B E

J J t I e e e

F v P w K P X Y l P K P Q

L i \ D L C dL L C L dL L C d C CL D[ C L LC L L L

cB AH h f ? n ? H H cB AH c ? H H? Ej @ B E c c B A? H ? @ ? @ @E AH B c

J e I I J e I

> =

O Z p < p P P P

[ C [C L [C x L C L L D[L L L L C C D L C dL LC D [D C L [ C i

? E B ? @ @? B EB j @ ? @ c ? @ @ A@ c E B f ? @ f @ @ B Hc B E B cc? B ? c c

e I I J I

X Y p

LC D C D[ L C D L L i

@ B Ec B EB H B H @ A? @ c f ? @ f B @c

e e

P Q p O Z

L C D C dL LL L L L [ C [C L [C x L i d \

c ? Ec ? @ ? @ E B E m c AH B c ? E B B EB j @ B ? @ @? f ?

e I e I e I

} ~ Page 1 of 11

/01

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ © 2

BD[ 4 5

1 / 3 3/

& ''

( +,( -

% &' &

) (

!" # $

9F F O PF

L R SNNM

789 :

= < Q

; < =; <> ;A

D EF IJ

S¦§M §MM§

? H

<; G

B:C D EF IJ K

LLLM N

? H

<; G

XY Z Y Y\

VW [ W]

t w ut nop lqm s t u t uw nop u w ot u t u wt t n u w

j k

x y y r x x r r v x y z { |} ~ x}x rv | | y v z ~ x yr x ry x} x

ut tt u w t w tt t w wt t u w t w u t

x v x yr x v x } x z |y x }vx v x } |vx |vy z r | | } | v | ~ | x }x v z v x y r x } y v r | x

t u wt q q s t u t u w t w t nop t uw

{| rv | r |rx x |v yvx { x r rv ~ x y r x ry r yy |x x v x y r x |v y } vx

nop q ut s u q t w uw w w t u wt u w t t u w

{ x} v | x ~ x } y v r | x x v x yr x | rv | x |vx x |v v x } vx rr |yv v x

w t t o o t u st s

} r | } yv y r | y r x vv x r x y ~

b Xd \ \ Y

c _e f V a

l m

w w u u u t u w w ¡n u t t w w t u ust n

j k

y y z } ry x xy vx y xy x x x x v | x} x | x | v xy x }x v v x } r | r |r r |r

u t w wu

rvx v x v x r x x ~

TU U

XY ^ X \

VW _ a a

w t u w t u w u u w w w t u u u t s t nop w t w g

l m

j k

y y r x ry r |r x | r | } r r xvx y ~ x | r xv y r x x x x |}x | v z v x | } x r |

w u t u t t w t u wu u u wt t ut w s w w u t u

v x r |r v } r x v y ~ x | r | r x x v x x r |r v | | v x v x vx | x r x x v

t u u ¡ uw w w w ¡£ t ut w w t u u wt

~ v } x r x y r x v r | ¢ ¢ z v x x } xxx v x } |v v ~ ¤ v x r}v | ry vr ¥x |

w w w t w u w w t ut w w

y |}x v x y x y r }r } rvx r x r | v x r x y yx v }r } rvx v x x v | } |v vy ~

¨©ª« ¬

l ® l¯ l° l k Page 2 of 11

de ej e j

f gh i k l i m ki m

6 <

;

7 89 :7 9 : => ? @AB C

BD[ p

qr sm r

^cF D EEF G G [ \ ] ^ \E _ \]]` FF^

L M M L OP QRPS SR Q L

H IJK N T U H VN JWX

Y Z

& '

, -

¡¢ £ §

()*()+ (.

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ©

/ 1 4 54554

£ § w xxw y z{ z

0 ¨ 2 ©

¤¨ ¤ ¥¦ ¨ t

u v u | u

£ § ¡¡

~w x~w y

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ©

¤¨ ¨ 2¨ ¨ t

} u u

£ § "#

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ¤ !

¬ ®¯° ² °³ · ¸ · ® ¼ ³ ¸® ® ¸ ¹

¡ ¢ £ £ ¤ « ´ µ ¶ ´ µ µ

± ±

¥ ¥ º º» ¥

¦ £

¥ ¥

¨ © ¨ ª

¥ ¥

¨ ¬ ®¯° ² °³ · · · ® ¼ ³ ¸® ® ¸ ¹

¡ ½£ ¤ « ´ µ ¶ µ µ µ

± ±

¥ ¥ ¥ º º» ¥

§ ª

¦ £

¥ ¥

° ¿ ¬ ®¯° ² °³ · ° ² · ® ¼ ³ ¸® ® ¸ ¹

¡ £ ¦ £ « ´ µ ¶ µ µ µ

± ±

¥ ¥ ¥ º º» ¥

§ ¨© ¨ ª

¥ ¥

® Ä Æ ³ ¸® ®¸ ¹· Ã ® § ª ¸ ¯¸°¯ ¯ Ã ¨

Å Ç È Ê ¶µ ¶ µ µ É À¤¡ ¤ À Â ½ ¶ ¶ ¶´ À

¥ º ¥ ¥ º º

Æ ³ ¸® ®¸ ¹· Ã ® ¸ ¯¸°¯ ¯ § °

Ç È Ê ¶µ ¶ µ µ É À¤¡ ¤ À ¤ ½ ¶ ¶ ¶´ Â

º ¥ ¥ Ë º

ª § Ä ª

Â Â

» º º

® Ä Æ ³ ¸® ®¸ ¹· Ã ® ¸ ¯¸°¯ ¯ Ã ¨

Å Ç Ê ¶µ ¶ µ µ É À¤¡ ¤ À ¤ ½ ¶ ¶ ¶´ À

¥ º ¥ ¥ Ë º

§ ª

»º

¬ ®¯° ² °³ · ¯ · · Æ ³ ¸® ®¸ · ¹³ ® ¨

« ´ ¶ ¶ ¶ µ Ê ¶µ ¶ µ µ À¤¡ ½£ ¤

¥ Ì ¥ ¥

¦ £

¥ ¥ ºº»

¨ ¨ Î ¬ §¯ ª ¸® ®¸ ¹

¶ È ¤ £¡ ¦ £ Ç ½ ¶ µ Ê ¶µ ¶ µ µ µµ

¥ Í ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ Ì

¬ ®¯° ² °³ · ¯ ¨ © ¨ Ã

« ´ ¶ ¶´ ¤ Ï ¤

¨© ¨ · ¸ Ê Æ ¸® ¸® ¸ ¹ Ã

¤ ¤ µ ¶ ¶ µ ¶ µ É

» Ë

Å£ ¡

¨© ¨ ¨ © ¯ ¸ Ê Æ ¸® ¸® ¸ ¹ Ã

¤ ¦ ¤ ¡ £ ¶ ¶ µ ¶ µ É

¨© ¨ ¨© Ê Æ ¸® ¸® ¸ ¹ Ã

¤ £ Ç ¶ µ ¶ µ É

¨© ¨ ³ ² Ê Æ ¸® ¸® ¸ ¹ Ã

¤ Â µ ¶ ¶ µ ¶ µ É

¨© ¨ Ã ¨ ³ ² Ê Æ ¸® ¸® ¸ ¹ Ã

Â ¤ µ ¶ ¶ µ ¶ µ É

¨ ©

¦ ¤£ ¤

Í ¥

Î · Î Î ¸ ¯ ¸® ®¸ ¹¯ ¯ Ã

¤ ¤ ´ £ ¤£ £ Ç ½ ¶ µ µ µ µ´ É

¥ Ë

Î ¸ ¯ ¸® ²®¸ ¹· Ã ¨ ¨

£ Ç ½ ¶ µ µ µ É £ ¤ ¡ ¦ ¤

¾ Ñ Ð

¨ Î ¬ §¯ª ¸® ®¸ ¹

¤ £¡ ¦ £ Ç ½ ¶ µ µµ

¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ Ì

Ò ¤

¥ ¥

°¯ ¨Ã ¸ ³° ¯ ¯ ¸® ®¸ ¹· Ã

£ £ ½ ¶ µ ´ ¶ ¶ µ µ É

§¯ ÃÃª

â ã çèéêë ì Ô

ææ

Õ , å Ù-Ù Ú , Õ Ù Õ Õ - Ù Õ , Õ Ù á , Õ -Ù Õ , - Ù Ú -, -

ä ( + Þ*Ü *) ( à Ü ) * () Û + *)( ( ) * () () + ÛÛ (.+Ü + .+Ü

Ý Ý Ø ß Ö × Ø

Ä ¯ ¬ ³

ÅÒ ¦ ½¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ µ î ï

M PS P P ð P R SM L ðL P P R ð PR SL M

X N N H ñ N ó V HN X HN ô X õ ò Page 3 of 11 ACZ Laboratories, Inc. Inorganic 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 (800) 334-5493 Reference

For a complete list of ACZ's Extended Qualifiers, please click: http://www.acz.com/public/extquallist.pdf

REPIN03.02.07.01 Page 4 of 11

./ /4

0 12 3 5 6

¡ ¢£ ¤¡ £ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 8 9

::3 1

;

% &' & )&''*

( ( (-

+ ,

# $

O P

G KL < => ? B C

E F

QRSQRT QW

@A D

H I JJJ

G Z [Z[[Z ? B C

E F

@A D

H X

\ ] ] \ g h i h j m nm n n

d ef p q y z {

^ _`ab c`c k l l l k r s u v wk x

| }~ | } } }

¡ ¢

¤ «¬¬ «¬¬ ²« ³ ¶

£ ¥¦§§ © ª ª §® ¯§®§ ¯§ °±§ ±¥´ ´ µ´ ´ µ¥ ©§ ¯¥§

¨ ¨

² ² ¶ º

ª¦¦¦§·§ ¯¸¹ ¸ ¹ §® ¯§®§ ¯§ °±§ ¹ ¹ § ¥§ »

\ ] ] ] \g h i h j m nm n n

d ¼ ¼ ¾ ef¿ p À q q Æ

^ _`ab c`c a `^½ a k l l l ÁÂÃÁ Ä ÄÅ

o o

| }~ | } } }

¡ ¢

² ² ¶ º

ª¦¦¦§·§ ¯¸¹ ¸ ¹ §® ¯§®§ ¯§ °±§ ¹ ¹ § ¥§ »

h i h j m nm n n

\ ] ] ] \g p q y z {

d ¼ ¾ efÇ

k l l l k r s u v wk x

^ _`ab c`c `^½ a t

| }~ | } } }

¡ ¢

² ² ¶ º

ª¦¦¦§·§ ¯¸¹ ¸ ¹ §® ¯§®§ ¯§ °±§ ¹ ¹ § ¥§ »

n ÐÑÑ n Ó Ñ

p Õ Õ ] ] ] ] \]\ Î Ï y

Ô È É d¼ Ë ¼ É ¼ d Ç

l l

c^ c ` a Ì `c ac Í

o Ò o

| }~ | } } }

¤ «¬¬ «¬¬ ²« ³ ¶

£ ¥¦§§¦ ª ª §® ¯§®§ ¯± °¯§ ¥§©©§ ¯§§ ¯§± µ¦ ¯§± µ© ©§ ¯¥§

¨ ¨

² ² ¶

ª¦¦¦§·§ ¯¸¹ ¸ ¹ §® ¯§®§ ¯´ °±§ ± µ¯ ± µ§© § µÖ ¥§

] ] ] i Üh j ÐÑ n Ýh

ÉÚ É Û À Æ

× Øb Ù c ^ c Ì Í c k l

| }~ | } } }

² ²

¥§ ª¦¦¦§·§ ¯¸¹ ¸ ¹ §® ¯§®§ ¯¯°§§ ¦ Ö µ § µ¯

àá ã

] n ä ] ÐÑÑ n Ó Ñ

Ç ¼ ¾ å É ¼Ú p Õ p d d Ï y

^ ^ ½ a Í l l Ù

Ê Ê Ê

o Ò o

| }~ | } } }

ÞææÎç

² ² ¶

ª¦¦¦§·§ ¯¸¹ ¸ ¹ §®§®§ ¯Ö °±§ ¯µ± ¯µ´© Ö µ± ¥§

ä ä ÐÑÑ n Ó Ñ n

d ¼ ¼¾ d ¼ ÚÉ Ï y p Õ p

Ù ^ Ì è^ c Ù l l

Ê Ê Ê

o Ò o

} } } | }~ |

ÞææÎç

² ² ¶ º

ª¦¦¦§·§ ¯¸¹ ¸ ¹ §®§®§ ¯Ö °±§ µ¥ µ¯´ Ö µ© ¥§ ¯

ä ä] ÐÑÑ n Ó Ñ n

d d É Ï y p Õ p

Ù ^ Ù c l l

Ê Ê Ê

o Ò o

| }~ | } } }

ÞææÎç

² ² ¶ º

ª¦¦¦§·§ ¯¸¹ ¸ ¹ §®§®§ ¯Ö °±§ ¹ µ§ ¥§§ ¥§ »

Ñ Ý j Ñ Ý ÑÐ Ñ

{ é ê z

l l l l Page 5 of 11

./ /4

0 12 3 5 6

¡ ¢£ ¤¡ £ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 8 9

::3 1

;

% &' & )&''*

( ( (-

+ ,

# $

O P

G KL < => ? B C

E F

QRSQRT QW

@A D

H I JJJ

G Z [Z[[Z ? B C

E F

@A D

H X

\ ] ^_ ]` abc d^ efgg l g

h i n o pi pn

j k j

q rs t u q v x r r r x v v u x

w w ~ w

y { yz{| { | }{ { { }

¡ ¡ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¦ © §¢ ¨¢ ¢ ¨¢

£ ¤£

«¡¡ «¡¡ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¥¢¢ « ® ¨ ¨ © ¨ ¢ ¢

ª ª £ ¤£ ¤ ¤

¢§¢ ¦ ¦ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¨ ¨ © ¨ ¢

ª ¯ ¯ £ £ ¤

¬¬¬ ° ¬ ° °

a bcd^ \ ]^ _] ` ± ]´ \ ]^ _ dc efgg l g

² ³ h i n o pi pn

j k j

q rs t u q v x r r r x v v u x

w w ~ w

y { yz{| { | }{ { { }

¢§¢ ¦ ¦ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¨ ¨ © ¨ ¢

ª ¯ ¯ £ £ ¤

¬¬¬ ° °

g » g » gf g

p ¶ · ¸ ¹ ºp p p m Page 6 of 11

./ /4 /: :

0 123 5 6

78 9 9

£ ¤¡ £ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ ¡ ¢

> ; <

4 4

% &' & )&''*

( ( (-

3 = 1 ? 0 1

! " 9 9 @ 8

+ ,

# $

T U

RS A BC D G HI PQ

Z[ J K L

VWXVWY V\ EF

M N OOO

k k j k

] ^_ ` a n c olhd b ]c]defec defm a gh]i a e ^ c`bf` l

i ¡ sz sv r y| pq r s v w xsy zw w|}w~ s ~ s sv w~ sy v~| | w

t t u { u t

r y| wvs|}w ¢wz w £| ¤¤wzw w ¢£ xsy yw~ ¤ z ~ss

t { {

}sv|~s| w syw w ys vw w zs| |y v x ¤ z

{ tu {{

s zs w w}svs| £©

¥ ¦

{{

§ ¨

sz sv | z s | r sv pq r s v w xsy zw w|}w~ s ~ s sv w~ sy v~| | w

{ { { t u { u t

r sv wvs|}w ¢wz w £| ¤¤wzw w ¢£ xsy yw~ ¤ z ~ss

{ { { {

}sv|~s| w syw w ys vw w zs| |y v x ¤ z

{ tu {{

s zs w w}svs| £©

¥ ¦

{{

§ ¨

sz sv z s | r y| pq r s v w xsy zw w|}w~ s ~ s sv w~ sy v~| | w

{ t t u { u t

r y| wvs|}w ¢wz w £| ¤¤wzw w ¢£ xsy yw~ ¤ z ~ss

t { {

}sv|~s| w syw w ys vw w zs| |y v x ¤ z

{ tu {{

s zs w w}svs| £©

¥ ¦

{{

§ ¨

«q r v¤z ¢z|| r v¤|~w « ¡ q ¢£ w ww~w~ w w ~ z vs zs z s w s w v | |

¦ ¦

{ { t {{ u { t

¨ §

r ww syw szzs|}w

r v¤z rv¤sw « ¡ q wvs|}w ¢wz w £| ¤¤wzw w ¢£ xsy yw~ ¤ z ~ss

{ {

}sv|~s| w syw w ys vw w zs| |y v x ¤ z

{ tu {{

s zs w w}svs| £©

¥ ¦

{{

§ ¨

´µ ´ ´

¬ ®¯ ° ±² ± ± ± ²

³ ³

Page 7 of 11

./ 0 3

1 2 2 1 2

45 6 7

£ ¤¡ £ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ ¡ ¢

8 9 3 / 0

2 2

% &' & )&''*

( ( (-

5 : ;

! "

+ ,

# $

O P

MN < => ? B CD KL

UV E F G

QRSQRT QW @A

H I JJJ

XY Z [ \ ] [ Z

_ ` `

z z

ab ff h q h h h q t wxy h h y |

c de e ij klmlncocmp lmc ieo eddcmc dem rcmo d rlo ei em lmc ieo re cmc rcmo d rloc {

g s u v

}

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~

¡¢¢ ¤¢¥

¨ ¡¢ «

¦ § ©

¬ ¡¢¢ ¤¢¥

\ ± ²³ ´ ²³µ ²³ ´ ²³ ¶ ® ¯ °

Page 8 of 11

/ 0 1 3

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 4 7

353 61

% & ' & & ''

( ) ( +,( -

!"# $

º 8 : ; > ?

´´ »¹¼

Ò Ó

ÐÑ

ØÙ

<= @A BC

ÔÕÖÔÕ× ÔÚ

µ µ ? F? ?G ?I

´ ¶ · ¶ ¸¸¹

CEA @

H D

¶ ¿¼¹¼¹¹¼

F? ?G ?I J

H KD

? ; G ?I µ µ

´ ¶· ¶¸¸¹

CEA < ÛA

O NO RPQ ³O]RXRN[QR ST

g j k

h e ef i

m n t w t t ~ t ~

op q r s q u vo p xr vpy z vp qu px { | s{ } | } u vox p zvpq q zx s { q u vor ox o |

t m f ~

q p{ |q o } r sp x oo |p v }r {x r vp r sp x zqr o

t t m f ~

q p{ |q o } r sp q { u |p x o }r{ }p vq }r{xr vp r sp x zqr o

t t ~ t t m t ~

p q s uu } u{u p vq u vpqp }r o v o r sp v vp xr q r sp vp { s{ } o zqro

m t ~

xo u |pr p q r sp s{ } o zqr o

~ m t ~ t t t

p q r sp s{ } o zqr o } { vp p p }r r s r sp q { u |p q vp xp

m ~

q r sp vp p }o z s q { u |p o v { || vpy zp qrp { }{ | qpq

m f t t ~ t t ~

vp { || q{ u |p q r s } so | } r pq o v vpy zpq rp { }{ | q pq

m t t ~ t

p vp { | | q { u |p x o }r { }p vq vpx p p }r{x r

m f

vp r sp rp u p v{ r zvp |{ } q u vpq p }r

m t t~

l l

q r sp r v u |{ } o v { } p u vp qp }r

g k

m t f

q r sp r v u |{ } o v Ü u vpq p }r

m f t t ~ ~

vp q { u |p q vpy z v } }o sp{ qu {xp sp{ q u{x p vpp

m n t t t t

o r sp q { u |p q r s{ r vpy z vp { o vp } o |q p v r s{ p o }p

LM d

NO PQRSTU V WX YSZ [ TU O ]O^ TS QS [T Y SX Q_O [ `SaO bZO UQRS TU P O[ UO ^OU N]R`O

e½f

S TQ[N Q S] [T Y ^ RUN ]OP [TNROU Q_O N R OTQ ZUQ ` O N STQ[N QO^

e½f

_RPPR T STQ[ RTO]U

¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¢ ® ¯ £ ¡ À ¢ Á ® Ã Á Ç È £ É ¢ Á ¢ £

¥ ¨ ° ¬ ¦ ¥ ¨ ¦ª « ¬

Â Â Å Â ÅÂ Æ ÅÂ Ê

§ Ä § § § Ë

À Ì Á ¡ Í À Ã¡ Á ¯ £ ¢ ¢ Ì £ ® ¯ ¡ ¢

« ¥ ¥

Â Å

§ § Ä Ä Ä Ä§ Ä

¾ l l

£¢ ¢ÀÎ¢ Ã À ¢ Ì ¢ £® ¡ ¯ £¢ ¢ £Î À Á

¥ ¥ «

Å Â Â Â

Ä § Ä §

¢ ¯ Á ¢ £À ¢ £À

ÅÅ Â Å Å Â

§ § § Ï

S QOU

¦ Ý

ß à áá ß ß ß á

Æ Þ

Ï Ï Ï Ï Page 9 of 11

/ 0 1 3

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 4 7

353 61

% & ' & & ''

( ) ( +,( -

!"# $

v 8 : ; > ? C

p p wux

{ |

<= @A B

}~}~ }

C ? F? ?G ?I

p qrsqrttu r xuxuux

EA @

H D

F? ?G ?I J

H KD

LM MV M V

NO PQ RSTU TQ W XWQYQ W U ST

[ \ ] ^

a b c d b c e f b c g b c g db c eb c h b c i j kc l a ` _ ` _

m n n o o

k k d c a h

k c c a h

k d c a l

k c a l

LM MV M V

NO PQ RSTU TQ W XWQYQ W U ST °Q±Q T

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

¥¦ « ¥ ¬ ¥

¢£ ¤ § ¢ £ ¨¢ £ £ ª§ ®

a a l a ¹ b c

m ³ µ ·³ » o ¼ µ ¿¶

À ¾

¹ ¹ e ¹ b c e

´ µ ¶ ·¶¸m ´ º ·³ » ¯ ¼ µ ¿¶ ³

e f l e f ¹ b c

³ ´ µ ¶ ·¶¸m ³ µ ·³ » n ¼ µ ¿¶

d l d a l ¹ b c

³ ´ µ ¶ ·¶¸m ³ µ ·³ » ¼ µ ¿¶

h a ¹ ¹ h a ld ¹ b c

m ´ º ·³ » n ¼ µ ¿¶

À ¾

a a l h ¹ j kc Ã

Â ¯ Â ¼ Â m µ ¿¶

À À ¾

i l i a l h ¹ j kc

³ Å» n » ¶µ µ ¶ n ¼ m µ ¿¶

Ä ½

À À À ¾

g a ¹ ¹ g h ¹ b c

¼ m ´ º ·³ » µ ¿¶

À ¾

g d a ¹ ¹ g h d ¹ b c

m ´ º ·³ » n ¼ µ ¿¶

À ¾

l l l

m n ¼ ·¶ ¶ · µ ³ ¶ Å¶¶¸¶¸ µ ¼¼´ ³ » ¿´¶

Æ ¾ À Æ À À

Ç Ç

a d e l ¹ b c a

n o m ¶µ ¸ ¶ · µ ¶ µ ¼¼´ ³ » ¿´¶ µ ¿¶ m Ê ·

½ ½ ½ È É

À À À Æ¾ À Æ À À ¾

¼ » Ê¶» Í ¼¶ ·º · ¶ ¸ ¿ Å ´ µ ¼ ·³ · µ ¼ ´ ¶ ¼ ·¶¼ · µ ³ Å

½ ½

Æ À À ¾ Æ Æ ¾ À À À Æ

Ë Ë

a e

¼ ´ ¶ o ¶ ³ ¶ ¶¸

À ¾

Ë Ì Ç Á

a kk k

Ân o Î Î Î Î

Page 10 of 11 Page 11 of 11

. /

0 1 50 1

23 4

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 6

7 89 :

&''* (+ (-

% &'(&

)

! "

# $

R K US Q U S

[C L

? @

L C C D C

A? @ ? HH ?

^ } ^

L L b D

E ? HJB E

= >

C D

= >

C D

? @A? @B ? E

Q F c

N M

CL D L DC L {{

= > =

FFF G K F

M NN

D DC L

E @A@ d

? H J B

I I

Z Q X SU k k X

D DL

O P Q R < S TU F W

N M M N

? H d? |

? @ HB E

r P G K

[[ ] D L C eL

B B @

^ f

O Z U kS kSS k

L [C \]

X Y O Z TW W`

L [C \ ]

^ _

L L b D

E ? HJB E

> >

k Q c P K P X Y K Q X Y R K

[ L L C eL C D[ L C L h DCCL C C DL \ [j h [C L

E H? d B @ B EB H B H @ d H d g ? @ dB JAH di d J ? B ? @B ? @ d E i ? E ? @

f I I _

U S Z K P X Y n Z K Q TW W` O K

NN M

j l e D L [C e LL D L C L [C L j L L L L L [L C e D L D

d A@? B d E B dd m E ? d A@? E J @ H B d @ g @ E d E J @ E B HH

I _ I

C L D D DL j

g @ Eo @ d

I I I

X P P X Y n X O Q r FU P

L L L L L [[ D C DC [L L D j j l eL L [ L L C

HH B EB H d d p @ A @g ? @J B ? @ Em ? d q B H dd @B E HB E @d ? E E H? d @ d H d

f I f I I

TW W` c K r P P r P r P P

j LL L DL L L L C L C C eL L L[L D L L [e L [C D C e D L C e

E @ p @ HB ? EH ? dB JAH d @ @ B d ? E ?g d @ A? @ B d B E B A A@? E

f _ I

K K r Q P K

C eL D C L C L D D DL C DC CL j

B A A@? A@ B B ? @B ? @ A @ d? @ ? @ B o B H g d d

f _ f I I I I

> >

c P Q P P P X Y n c X

[L C C L C eL C L C L C C eL LC e L CL D CL [ L C t [L C D D[ C L

A B d E? d @ d H d g ? @ J ? d B E AB @B J @d H d ? E d @@ E @ g B

s I I _

u > >

X Y c X

LCCL h LLC L D L L C t j

H @ i J B HH @ o @ J E d ?g

I _

K P P X Y K

l e D L C e L L [ DL D DC L C D LC j D C L D L C eL [ L L [L D D

d @ A? @ d B HH d ? @ ? A ? EH E d E @ d E? @ d A? Ed H g ? @ ? Ed o E d B @ d Em

I f f I

C eL L C D L C j

g @? J d ?g B AB @ B H @ A? @

X P K P Z K P P r K US Q U S

L L [D C L DC e C e D L [C D L D L CL t L L j \ C eL

HH dB JAH d B E d dB JAH d B d d? B p d A@? p HH d A? d ?g Bg @ ? J @ g

P P K P Q PP P

L L L CL D L C L e DC D [e L D hC D[ L C e

dB JAH d B @ @J E ? B B @ ? d B ? EB H B @m d B A AH g ? @ d A? dB H A B HH H d d B E

v I f f f

F x P y K P X Y n P K P Q

L j \ D L C eL L C L eL L C e C C L D[ C L LC L L L

dB JAH i g ? p ? H H dB JAH d ? H H? Em @ B E d d B A? H ? @ ? @ @E AH B d

f I I f I

> =

O Z r < r P P P

[ C [C L [C z L C L L D[L L L L C C D L C eL LC D [D C L [ C j

? E B ? @ @? B EB m @ ? @ d ? J @ @ A@ d E B g ? @ g @ @ B Hd B E B dd? B ? d d

f I I I

X Y r

LC D C D[ L C D L L j

@ B Ed B EB H B H @ A? @ d g ? @ g B @d

f f

P Q r O Z

L C D C eL LL L L L [ C [C L[C z L j e \

d ? Ed ? @ ? @ E B E o d AH B d ? E B B EB m @ B ? @ @? g ?

f I f I f I

~ Page 1 of 26

/01

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ © 2

BD[ 4 5

1 / 3 3/

& ''

( +,( -

% &' &

) (

!" # $

S T UUS

789 :

G ; Q < R R

; < =; <> ;A

D EF IJ

N®S ®SS®

? H

<; G R

B:C D EF IJ K

LMNM O

? H

<; G

Z[ \ [ [ ^

XY ] Y_

v y wv pqr nso u v w v wy pqr w y qv w v w yv v vu w w

l m

z { { t z { t t x z { | } ~ zz tx ~ ~ x z | z {t z { z z

wv v v w y y vv v y yv v w y v y w v w y

z x z {t z{ x z z | ~{ z xz x z z ~ ~ x ~ ~ z z x | x z {t z { x t ~ z zz

v w yv s s uv w v w v v y v pqr v wy

}~ tx ~ t ~tz z ~x {x z } z t tx z ~xz ~x{ | t ~ z x z { t z{ ~x { xz

w y pqr s wv u w s v y wy y y v w yv w y v

{t z{ z z t{{ ~z } z x ~ z z {x t ~ z z x z { t z ~ tx ~ z ~xz z ~x x z

v w y y v v q q v w u v u

xz tt ~{ x x z t ~ { x { t ~ { t z xx z t z {

d Zf ^ ^ [

e ag h X c

n o

y w w v w y y p w v v y y v w w w p

l m

t z{ t z x t ~ § ¬ § z { z{ z z z z x ~ ¡© z z ~ z ~ x z{ z zx z t ~t

y w w v y v w

{ { t{ z z {x z txz x z x z t { z t ~t

VW W

Z[ ` Z ^

XY a c c

w v w y v w y w w y y y v w w w v uv pqr y v y i

n o

l m

z{z { t z{ z z t ~t z ~ t ~ t t zxz { z ~ t zx { t z zz z ~ z ~ x | x z ~ z

y w v w v v y v w y w w w yv v wv y u y y w v w

t ~ x z t ~t x t z x{ z ~ t ~ t z z x z z t ~tx ~ ~ x z x z ¡ xz ~z ¢ t z z x £

v w s y y « s w w

¤ ¤¦ ¤ ¤ ¦

¥ zt t z { t z x t ~ § ¨ § | z t t{ zx zxz ~ x z ©ª tx z { t z z { x{ t z

u y y

t{ z

¯°±² ³ ´ ´ ´ ´

n µ n¶ n· n m Page 2 of 26

fg gl g l

h ij k m n k o mk o

8 >

9 :; <9=; < ?@ A BCD E

BD[ r

st uo t

`eH ^ __b HH` F H I I P P ] ^ _ ` ^

N O O NQR STRU UT S N

d a GG G

J KLM V W J X LY Z

[ \

( )

. /

¡¢ £ §

*+,*+- *0

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ©

1 3 6 76776

£ § y zzy { |} |

2 ¨ 4 ©

¤¨ ¤ ¥¦ ¨ v

w x w ~ w

£ § ¡¡

| y y {

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ©

¤¨ ¨ 4¨ ¨ v

w w w

£ § $%

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ¤ #

! "

¡ ¢ £

« ¬ ¬ ¯ ¬ ° ±°¬± ²¬ ³¬ ´

¤ ®

¥ ¥ ¥

¦ § ¦ ¡ ¡

¡© ª

¶ ¬ ° ²·°¬± ³« ² ¹ « ¬ ¬ ¯

¸ ¤ ®

¥ ¥ ¥

ª ¡© ª

« ¬ ¬ ¯ ¬ ° ²«°¬± ² ³ «

¤ ®

¥ ¥ ¥

¦ § ¦ ¡ ¡ »

¡© ª

¡ ¦© ¦ © © £

« ²¾ · ¬²¬ ¯ ² Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ¬ ¬ À¬ ¬ Ã ¶ ¬ À ¬ ° ² °¬± ³

® ¸ Ä ¸ ¸ ¸

¿ ¿ ¿

©¡ ½ ¡

ª ª

¯ Â ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ À Á ° Â ¬ À ¬ À· ¬ ° ²¬°¬± ³ ·

® ¤ Ä

©¡ ½ ¡

Å Á « ² ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ¬« ¬ À¬ ² ¬ ° ²·°¬± ²² ³² ´

Ç Ä

º ½ ¡ »

Å Á ¯ Â ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ ¬ À¬¬± Å Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ¬· ¬ À¬ « ¬ ° ²¬°¬± ³ ·

¤ Ä

º ½ ¡

Å Á « ²¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ¬² ¬ À¬ ¬ ° ²·°¬± ²² ³² ´

Ç Ä

¡ ¦ ¦ º ½ ¡ »

Å Á ¯ Â ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ¬ ¬ À¬ ² ¬ ° ²¬°¬± ³ ·

¤ Ç Ä ¸

¡ ¦ ¦ º ½ ¡

¯ Á Á « ²¾ · ¬²¬ ¯ Ä ¬ À¬¬¬ Ã ¶ Á ° Â ¬ À¬¬¬ ¬° ² ° ¬± « ³ ¬

Ç ¸

Æ ¿

È º ½ ¡

ª ª

¯ Á Á ¯ Â ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ¬ À¬ « ¬ ° ²¬°¬± ³ ·

¤ Ç

È º ½ ¡

Ä ¬ À¬ ¯ Á Á « ² ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ¬ ° ²·°¬± ²² ³² ´

¡ » » º ½

¯ Á Á ¯ Â ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ² ¬ À ¬ ° ²¬°¬± ³ ·

¤ Ç

» º ½ ¡

Ä ¬ À¬ ¯ ¹ « ² ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ¬ ° ²·°¬± ²² ³² ´

Æ ¥

¡ » ¦ ½

¯ ¹ ¯ Â ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ ¬ À± Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ² ¬ À ¬ ° ²¬°¬± ³ ·

¤ ¸

Æ ¥

¦ ½ ¡

¯ « ² ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ ¬ À¬ Å Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ¬ À¬ ¬ ° ²·°¬± ²² ³² ´

¢¢¡ ½ ¡ »

À²¬ Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ² ¬ À ¯ ¯ Â ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ ¬ ° ²¬°¬± ³ ·

¸ ¤

Æ Æ

¡ ¢¢¡ ½

Â « ² ¾ · ¬²¬ ¯ ¶ ¬ À¬ ¬ ¬· Å Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬¬¬² ¬ À¬ ¬ ¬ ° ² °¬± ³ Ã

¸ ¸

¿ ¿

¡È ½ ¡

ª ª

Â ¯ Â ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ´ ¬ À ¬ ° ²¬°¬± ³ ·

¤ Ç ¸

¡È ½ ¡

« ²¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ ¬ À¬¬± Å Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ¬ ¬ À¬ « ¬ ° ²·°¬± ²² ³² ´

¡© ¡ ½ ¡ »

ª ª

Ä ¬ À¬ ¯ Â ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ À ² Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ¬ ° ²¬°¬± ³ ·

¤ ¸

¿ Æ Æ

¡ ¡© ¡ ½

ª ª

« ² ¾ ¬ ¯ Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬¬¬² ¬ À¬ ¬ ¬ ° ²«°¬± ²¬ ³¬ ¬ Á

¸ ® É ® ® Ç

¿ ¿

¡ º ½ ¢

ª ª

¯ Â ¾ ¬ ¯ Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬¬¬² ¬ À¬ ¬ ¬ ° ²¬°¬± « ³¬ · Á

¸ ¤ É ® ® Ç

¿ ¿

¡ º ½ § ¢

ª ª

« ² ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ¬ À¬ ¬ ° ²·°¬± ²² ³² ´

Ê Ç

Ë¡ ¦ ½ ¡ »

¯ Â ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ² ¬ À ¬ ° ²¬°¬± ³ ·

Ê ¤ Ç

Ë¡ ¦ ½ ¡

¶ Á « ²¾ · ¬²¬ ¯ ¶ ¬ À¬ ¬ ¬ Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬¬¬ ¬ À¬¬¬ ¬° ² ° ¬± « ³ ¬ Ã

¿ Æ ¿

¡ ¦¡ º ½ ¡

ª ª

¶ Á ¯ Â ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ Ä Á ° Â ¬ À ¬ À· ¬ ° ²¬°¬± ³ ·

¤ Ç

¡ ¦¡ º ½ ¡

¶ « ² ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ¬ À¬ « ¬ ° ²·°¬± ²² ³² ´

¦ ¡ ½ ¡ »

¶ ¯ Â ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ² ¬ À¬ ¬ ° ²¬°¬± ³ ·

¤ Ç

Æ Æ

¦ ¡ ½ ¡

« ² ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ¬ À¬ ¬ ° ²·°¬± ²² ³² ´

Í Ç

½ ¡ »

¯ Â ¾ · ¬ ¬ Å ¯ À« ² Ä Á ° Â ¬ À¬ ² ¬ À ¬ ° ²¬°¬± ³ ·

Í ¤

½ ¡

¦ ¡ ¢ £

« ² Ä ¬ ° ²²°¬± ³ ´ ¹ ° À ¶

¸ ¸ Î Î

¥ ¥

È ¡ ¢ »¡

¡ » ¡È º¡ ª

« Ä ¬° ±° ¬± ´ ³´ ¯ Â

¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

Ë ¡ ¦ Ï

ª ª

Ò Ó À¬ ² À¬· À¬ À¬

Ñ Ê

P P P × P P Ø Æ

ORU R R ÔR T UO N ÔN R R T Ô RTUN O

Z J Õ X J Z J ZÙ Ö Page 3 of 26

fg gl g l

h ij k m n k o mk o

8 >

9 :; <9=; < ?@ A BCD E

BD[ r

st uo t

`eH ^ __b HH` F H I I P P ] ^ _ ` ^

N O O NQR STRU UT S N

d a GG G

J KLM V W J X LY Z

[ \

( )

. /

¡¢ £ §

*+,*+- *0

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ©

1 3 6 76776

£ § y zzy { |} |

2 ¨ 4 ©

¤¨ ¤ ¥¦ ¨ v

w x w ~ w

£ § ¡¡

| y y {

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ©

¤¨ ¨ 4¨ ¨ v

w w w

£ § $%

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ¤ #

! "

)

. / . / /. / / . / . .

* + , *+ * + - *0- -0- * -, - ,+* ,+ * + ,*+

¦ § ¡ ¢ ¡£ ¡ ¤ ¡ ¥

P P P « P P ¬

ORU R R ¨R T UO N ¨N R R T ¨ RTUN O

Z J © X J Z J Z

Page 4 of 26

ef fk f k

g hi j l m j n lj n

7 =

8 9:;8<: ; >? @ ABC D

BD[ q

rs tn s

_dG ] ^^a GG_ E G H H O O \ ] ^ _ ]

M N N MPQ RSQT TS R M

c ` FF F

I JKL U V I W KX Y

Z [

' (

- .

¡¢ £ §

)*+)*, )/

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ©

0 2 5 65665

£ § x yyx z {| {

1 ¨ 3 ©

¤¨ ¤ ¥¦ ¨ u

v w v } v

£ § ¡¡ £

{ x x z

¤ ¥¦ ¨ © ©

¤¨ ¨ 3¨ ¨ u

~ v v v

£ § #$

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ¤ "

¡ ¢

ª « ¬« ® ¬« ¯ ¬°¯«° ± ¬ ± «

¤ ¤ ¤

¥ ¦ ¥

¨ ©

´ ¬« ¯ ±µ¯«° ¬ ¬ ¬ · ª « ¬« ®

¶ ¤ ¤ ¤

¨ ¸ ¥ ¦ ¥

ª « ¬« ® ¬« ¯ ±ª¯«° ± ¬ ¬

£ ¹

¤ ¤ ¤

¥ ¦ ¥ º

¨ ©

¥¨ ¥ ¨ ¨ ¢

¬ª ¬±½ µ «±« ® ¯ Â « À«« ¬ « À«« Ã ´ « Àµ ¬« ¯ ± ¯«° ¬¿ « ª

Ä ¹

¶¾ Á ¾

¨ ¼

¯ Â « À¬ « Àµ ® Â ½ µ « ¬« Å ® « Àµ ¬« ¯ ±«¯«° ¬± « µ

Ä £

¨ ¼

¯ Â « À« «ª « À« ± Å ¬ª ¬± ½ µ « ¬« Å ® ¬« ¯ ±µ¯«° ±± ª ¬

Æ Ä

Á Á

º ¸ ¼

¯ Â « À« «µ « À« ª Å ® Â ½ µ « ¬« Å ® « À«°± ¬« ¯ ±«¯«° ¬± « µ

Ä £

Á Á

¸ ¼

¯ Â « À« «± « À« ¬ Å ¬ª ¬±½ µ « ¬« Å ® ¬« ¯ ±µ¯«° ±± ª ¬

Æ Ä

Á Á

º ¥ ¥ ¸ ¼

² »

¯ Â « À«« « À« ± Å ® Â ½ µ « ¬« Å ® ¬« ¯ ±«¯«° ¬± « µ

Æ Ä ¹ £

Á Á

¥ ¥ ¸ ¼

² »

® ¬ª ¬±½ µ «±« ® Ä « À««« ¬ Ã ´ ¯ Â « À««« ¬«¯ ± ¯ «° « ¬

Æ ¹

Á Á ¶ ¾ Á

Ç ¸ ¼

Ä ¯ Â « À« ¬ « À« ª ® ® Â ½ µ « ¬« Å ® ¬« ¯ ±«¯«° ¬± « µ

Æ £

Á Á Á

Ç ¸ ¼

Ä « À« ¬ ¯ Â « À« ® ¬ª ¬± ½ µ « ¬« Å ® ¬« ¯ ±µ¯«° ±± ª ¬

¶ Á Á Á

º º ¸ ¼

Ä ¯ Â « À« ± « À ¬ ® ® Â ½ µ « ¬« Å ® ¬« ¯ ±«¯«° ¬± « µ

Æ £

Á Á Á

º ¸ ¼

Ä « À« ¬ ¯ Â « À« ® · ¬ª ¬± ½ µ « ¬« Å ® ¬« ¯ ±µ¯«° ±± ª ¬

¶ Á ¤

º ¥ ¼

Ä ¯ Â « À« ± « À ¬ ® · ® Â ½ µ « ¬« Å ® ¬ À ª ¬« ¯ ±«¯«° ¬± « µ

£ ¹

Á ¤

¥ ¼

Å Ä ¯ Â « À« ¬ « À« ® ¬ª ¬± ½ µ « ¬« Å ® « À« ª ¬« ¯ ±µ¯«° ±± ª ¬

¶ Á

º ¡¡ ¼

Ä ¯ Â « À« ± « À ¬ ® ® Â ½ µ « ¬« Å ® ¿ À « ¬« ¯ ±«¯«° ¬± « µ

¶ ¶ Á

¡¡ ¼

Â ¬ª ¬± ½ µ «±« ® Å Ä ¯ Â « À«««± « À«« ¬ Ã ´ « À««« ¬« ¯ ± ¯«° ¬¿ « ª

¾ Á ¾

Ç ¼

Ä ¯ Â « À«¿ « À Â ® Â ½ µ « ¬« Å ® ¬« ¯ ±«¯«° ¬± « µ

Æ ¹ £

Ç ¼

Å Ä ¯ Â « À«« « À« ª ¬ª ¬±½ µ « ¬« Å ® « À«« ¬« ¯ ±µ¯«° ±± ª ¬

¶ ¾ Á

º ¨ ¼

Ä « À« ¬ ® Â ½ µ « ¬« Å ® À« ¯ Â « À« ¬« ¯ ±«¯«° ¬± « µ

£ ¹

¶ ¶ Á

¨ ¼

Ä ¯ Â « À«««± « À«« ¬ ¬ª ¬± ½ « ® ¬« ¯ ±ª¯«° ±« « ±

¹ Æ È

¾ ¾ Á Á

¡ ¸ ¼

² »

Ä ¯ Â « À«««± « À«« ¬ ® Â ½ « ® ¬« ¯ ±«¯«° ¬ª ¬±

¹ Æ £ È

¾ ¾ Á Á

¦ ¡ ¸ ¼

² »

¬ª ¬± ½ µ « ¬« Å ® Ä ¯ Â « À« ¬ « À« ¬« ¯ ±µ¯«° ±± ª ¬

É Æ

Á ¶

Ê ¥ ¼ º

® Â ½ µ « ¬« Å ® Ä ¯ Â « À« ± « À ¬ ¬« ¯ ±«¯«° ¬± « µ

É £ Æ

Ê ¥ ¼

´ ¬ª ¬±½ µ «±« ® ´ « À««« Ä ¯ Â « À««« ¬ « À««« ¬«¯ ± ¯ «° « ¬ Ã

Á ¶ Á ¶ ¾

¥ ¸ ¼

´ ® Â ½ µ « ¬« Å ® Ä ¯ Â « À¬ « Àµ ¬« ¯ ±«¯«° ¬± « µ

£ Æ

Á Á

¥ ¸ ¼

´ ¬ª ¬± ½ µ « ¬« Å ® Ä ¯ Â « À« ¬ « À« ª ¬« ¯ ±µ¯«° ±± ª ¬

¥ ¼ º

Ë ²

´ ® Â ½ µ « ¬« Å ® Ä ¯ Â « À« ± « À« ¬« ¯ ±«¯«° ¬± « µ

£ Æ

Á ¶

¥ ¼

Ë ²

¬ª ¬± ½ µ « ¬« Å ® « À« ¬ Å Ä ¯ Â « À« ¬ « À« ¬« ¯ ±µ¯«° ±± ª ¬

Á ¶

¼ º

® Â ½ µ « ¬« Å ® ¬ Àµ ¬ Ä ¯ Â « À« ± « À ¬ ¬« ¯ ±«¯«° ¬± « µ

Ì £

¥ ¡ ¢

¬ª ¬± Ä ¬« ¯ ±±¯«° ¬µ ± · ¯ À ´

¹ Í Í

¤ ¤

Ç ¡ º

² »

º Ç ¸ ©

Ä « ¬ª ¬ ¬ ¬« ¯ ¬°¯«° ¬ ® Â

¹ ¹ £

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

Ê ¥ Î

² Ï

Ñ Ò À« ± À«µ À« À« ¬

Ð É

O O O Ö O O × ¶

NQT Q Q ÓQ S TN M ÓM Q Q S Ó QSTM N

Y I Ô W I Y I YØ Õ Page 5 of 26

ef fk f k

g hi j l m j n lj n

7 =

8 9:;8<: ; >? @ ABC D

BD[ q

rs tn s

_dG ] ^^a GG_ E G H H O O \ ] ^ _ ]

M N N MPQ RSQT TS R M

c ` FF F

I JKL U V I W KX Y

Z [

' (

- .

¡¢ £ §

)*+)*, )/

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ©

0 2 5 65665

£ § x yyx z {| {

1 ¨ 3 ©

¤¨ ¤ ¥¦ ¨ u

v w v } v

£ § ¡¡ £

{ x x z

¤ ¥¦ ¨ © ©

¤¨ ¨ 3¨ ¨ u

~ v v v

£ § #$

¤ ¥¦ ¨ ¤ "

(

- . - . .- . . - . - -

) * + )* )* , )/, ,/, ) ,+ , +*) +* ) * +)*

¥ ¦ ¡ ¢ £ ¤

O O O ª O O «

NQT Q Q §Q S TN M §M Q Q S § QSTM N

Y I ¨ W I Y I Y ¬

Page 6 of 26 ACZ Laboratories, Inc. Inorganic 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 (800) 334-5493 Reference

For a complete list of ACZ's Extended Qualifiers, please click: http://www.acz.com/public/extquallist.pdf

REPIN03.02.07.01 Page 7 of 26

./ /4

0 12 3 5 6

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 8 9

::3 1

;

% &' & &''* -

( ( (

)

! "

+ ,

# $

P Q

K LKM < => ? B C

E F G

RSTRSU RX

@A D

H I J

[ \[\\[ ? B C

E FG

@A D

H Y

f h ijklk mn o iq

]

^_`ab c d e e g

s s s s

r t u v r w y y w w v y

| x |} x | } ~ | | | ~ x

z z{

g g

¡ ¡ ¢£¤ ¤£ ¢ ¥ ¨ £ ¢££ª§ ¦£ ¦£ ¢¢« ¤ ® ¢£ ¦§ £ ¢¢£

¯ ¯ °

¢£¤ ¤£ ¢ ¥£ ª£ ¦££ ¢ £ ¦££ ¢ ¤ ®

¯© ¯© °

§ ± ± ¢£¤ ¤£ ¢ ¥ ¢ ª£ ¦££ ¢ £ ¦££ ¢ ¤ ®

¯ ¯ ©

§ ®² ®² ¢£¤ ¤£ ¢ ¥ ¨ £ ¢£ ¢ª ¦£ ££ ¦£ ¢ ¤ ® ¢£§ ¦³ ³£ ¢£

® ³ ª£ ¨ ¨ ¢£¤ ¤£ ¢ ¥§ ¨ £ ¢£ ¢ª ¦£ ¢£« ¦£ ¢ ¢£§ ¦« ¢ ¦£ ££ ¤ ®

® ³ ª£ ¨ ¨ ¢£¤ ¤£ ¢ ¥§ ¨ £ ¢£ ¢ª ¦£ ¢£« ¦£ ¢£« ¦ ¢ £ ¦³ ¦£ ££ ¤ ® £

´ ° ´ ° ´

® ³ ³«ª£ ± ± ¢£¤ ¤£ ¢³ ¥£ ¦ ¦³« ¦ µ ¤ ® £

h ijk ºk » mn o

] ¸ ¹

^_`ab c d ¶·

s s s s

y w v y r t u v r w y w

| |} x | ~ | | ~ x x | }

z z{

g g e g

¢ ¡ ¢£¤£¤£ ¢¢¥£ ¢ ¦§ ¡ £ ¢££ ª§ « § ¦³ ¤ ® £ ¢¢£

¯ ¯ °

¢ ¢£¤£¤£ ¢¢¥£« ¤ ® ª£ ¦¢³ £ ¦¢³

¯© ¯© °

§³ ¢± ± ¢£¤£¤£ ¢¢¥¢ ¤ ® ª£ ¦§ £ ¦§

¼ ®± ± ½ ¢ ¦ ¤ ® ³ ¢¢ §³ ¢®² ®² ¢£¤£¤£ ¢¢¥£ £

´ ° ´ ° ° °

® ³ ª£ ¢ ± ± ¢£¤£¤£ ¢¢¥§£ ¤ ® £ £ µ¾

¼ ®± ± ½ ¢ ¦£§ ¤ ® ¢ ® ³ ³«ª£ ¢¨ ¨ ¢£¤£¤£ ¢ ¥££ ¢¦¢ §

¼ ®± ± ½ ¢ ¦£³ ¤ ® ¢ ¦«§ £ ® ³ ³«ª£ ¢¨ ¨ ¢£¤£¤£ ¢ ¥£§ ¢¦¢ ³

f h ijk ºk » mn o

À ^b d e eg

ÁÂ

s s s s

y r t u v r w y w v y w

| |} x | x ~ | | | ~ x }

z z{

g g e Ã

¢£ ¡ ¢£¤¤£ ¢¥§ ¢ ¢££ ¦ ¡ £ ¢££ ª§ ¦£ ¢§ ¤ ® £ ¢¢£

¯ ¯ °

¢£ ¢£¤¤£ ¢¥§ ¤ ® ª£ ¦££ £ ¦££

¯© ¯© °

§ ± ± ¢£¤¤£ ¢¥« ¤ ® ª£ ¦££ £ ¦££

¯ ¯

£ ¢£§ª ¦ ¦ ¢«« ¤ ® ³ ¢¢ § ®² ¢ ®² ¢£¤¤£ ¢¥ £ ¢£ ¦

® ³ ª£ ¢¨ ¢£¤¤£ ¢¥ £ ¢£§ª ¦ ¦ § ¤ ® ¢ ¨ ¢£« ¦

£ ¢£§ª ¦ ¦ ¢§ ¤ ® ¢ ¢¦³ £ ® ³ ª£ ¢¨ ¨ ¢£¤¤£ ¥££ ¢£ ¦

´ ° ´ ° ° °

® ³ ³«ª£ ± ± ¢£¤¤£ ¥§« ¤ ® £ £ µ¾

h ijk ºk » mn o

¿ ¸¹

À ^b d ¶·

ÁÂ

s s s s

w v y r t u v r w y y w

~ | | ~ x | x |} x | } |

z z{

g g e g

¢ ¡ ¡ ¢£¤£¤£ ¢¢¥£ ¢ £ ¢££ ª§ ¢¦£ ¤ ® ³ £ ¢¢£

¯ ¯ °

¢ ¢£¤£¤£ ¢¢¥£« ¤ ® ª£ ¦££ £ ¦££

¯© ¯© °

§³ ¢± ± ¢£¤£¤£ ¢¢¥¢ ¤ ® ª£ ¦£ ¢³ £ ¦£ ¢³

¯ ¯ ©

£ ¦ ¤ ® §³ ¢®² ®² ¢£¤£¤£ ¢¢¥£ ¼ ®± ± ½ ¢ ¦¢« § ¦ ³ ¢¢

´ ° ´ ° ´

® ³ ª£ ¢ ± ± ¢£¤£¤£ ¢¢¥§£ ¦ ¦ ¢« ¤ ® ¦ £ µ

£ ¦ ¤ ® ® ³ ³«ª£ ¢¨ ¨ ¢£¤£¤£ ¢ ¥££ ¼ ®± ± ½ ¦££ ¢³ ¦ ³ ¢³ £ ¦ ¢

£ ¦ ¤ ® £ ® ³ ³«ª£ ¢¨ ¨ ¢£¤£¤£ ¢ ¥£§ ¼ ®± ± ½ ¦££ ¢ ¦ ¢ ¦³ ¢ ¦

o m Æ k º kj k È k º

ÄÅ

Ç Ç Ç Ç Page 8 of 26

./ /4

0 12 3 5 6

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 8 9

::3 1

;

% &' & &''* -

( ( (

)

! "

+ ,

# $

P Q

K LKM < => ? B C

E F G

RSTRSU RX

@A D

H I J

[ \[\\[ ? B C

E FG

@A D

H Y

g hi jkl ml n op q

] a a b

^ _

` c d e f f

s s s s

r t u v r w y y w w v y

| x |} x | } ~ | | | ~ x

z z{

h h

¡¢¡ ¤ ¤ ¥ ¡ ª ¥

§ ¦

¨©

« « ¬

¡¢¡ ¤ ¡ ª ¥¢ ¥¢

¦ §

¨©

«® «® ¬

¢¤ ¡¢¡ ¯ ¡ ª ¥¢ ¥¢

¨©

« «

¢¤ ª° ª° ¡¢¡ ¤ ¥ ¤¢ ¥ ± ¥ ¡ ª

¦ § ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦

¨©

® ® ¬

ª ± ² ² ¡¢¡ ¤ ¥ ¯ ± ± ¥¯ ¥ ¡ ª

¦¦ § ¦ § ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦

¨©

® ³ ® ³ ¬

ª ± ² ² ¡¢¡ ¤ ¥ ¤¯¤ ¢ ¥ ¥¤ ¥ ¡ ª

¦¦ § § ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦

¨©

³ ¬ ³ ¬ ¬ ¬

ª ± ±¯ ¡¢¡ ¤¯ ¡ ª ´µ

¦ §

¨©

i jkl ml n op q

] a a b

^ _

` c d e ¶· ¸¹

s s s s

y w v y r t u v r w y w

| |} x | ~ | | ~ x x | }

z z{

h h h

¡¡ ¤ ¥ ¡ ª ¥¢

¦ § ¦

¨©

« « ¬

¡ ª ¥¢ ¥¢ ¡¡ ¯

§ ¦

¨©

«® «® ¬

¡ ª ¥ ¥ ¤± ¡¡

¨©

« « ®

¤± ª° ª° ¡¡ » ª ¼ ¥ ¥¯ ¤ ¡ ª ¯ ¥ ±

¦ ¦ ¦

¨©

³ ¬ ³ ¬ ¬ ¬

ª ± ¡¡ ¤ ¡ ª ´µ

¦¦ §

¨©

® ® ® ¬

ª ± ±¯ ² ² ¡¡ » ª ¼ ¥ ¥¯ ¡ ª

¦ § ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦

¨©

® ³ ® ³ ® ¬

ª ± ±¯ ² ² ¡¡ ¤ » ª ¼ ¥ ¥¯ ¡ ª ¥ ¯ ¥¯

¦ § ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦

¨©

g hi jkl¿l op q jÁ

½ ¾

· d c d e f f

s s s s

y r t u v r w y w v y w

| |} x | x ~ | | | ~ x }

z z{

h hÂÂÃ

±±¢ ¡ ¡ ¯ ² ¤ ¥ ¥¯ ¯ ¡ ª ¯ ¥

§ ¦ ¦

¨©

« ¬ «

¡ ª ¥¤ ¥¤ ¤ ±±¢ ¡ ¡

§ ¦

¨©

«® «® ¬

¡ ª ¥¤ ¥¤ ¢¤ ¡ ¡ ¤ ¯

¨©

« « ®

¢¤ ª° ª° ¡ ¡ ¤ ² ¢ ¥ ¥¯ ± ¡ ª ¯ ¥¯ ±

§ ¦

¨©

® ® ®

ª ± ² ² ¡ ¡ ¤ ¤ ² ¢ ¥ ¥ ¤ ¥¯±±¢ ¡ ª ¥

¦¦ § ¦ § ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦

¨©

® ³ ® ³ ®

ª ± ² ² ¡ ¡ ¤ ¤ ² ¢ ¥ ¥ ¤ ¥¯±¤ ¡ ª ¯ ¥ ¥

¦¦ § ¦ ¦ § ¦ ¦ ¦

¨©

³ ¬ ³ ¬ ¬ ¬

ª ± ±¯ ¡ ¡ ¯ ´µ ¡ ª

¦ §

¨©

i jkl ml n op q

½ ¾

· d c d e ¶· ¸¹

s s s s

w v y r t u v r w y y w

~ | | ~ x | x |} x | } |

z z{

h h h

¡¡ ¤ ¥ ¤ ¡ ª ¥¢

¦ § ¦

¨©

« « ¬

¡ ª ¡¡ ¯ ¥ ¥

¦ § ¦ ¦

¨©

«® «® ¬

¤± ¡¡ ¡ ª ¥¤ ¥¤

¨©

« « ®

¥ ¡ ª ¤± ª° ª° ¡¡ » ª ¼ ¥¯¢ ¤ ¥± ±

¦ ¦ ¦

¨©

³ ¬ ³ ¬

ª ± ¡¡ ¤ ¥ ¥ ¡ ª ¢ ¥ ´µ

¦¦ §

¨©

® ® ® ¬

¥ ¡ ª ª ± ±¯ ² ² ¡¡ » ª ¼ ¥¯¢ ¥¯

¦ ¦ § ¦ ¦

¨©

® ³ ® ³ ® ¬

¥ ¡ ª ª ± ±¯ ² ² ¡¡ ¤ » ª ¼ ¥¯ ± ¥±±

¦ ¦ § ¦ ¦ ¦

¨©

q o Æ l m lk l È l m

ÄÅ

Ç Ç Ç Ç Page 9 of 26

./ /4

0 12 3 5 6

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 8 9

::3 1

;

% &' & &''* -

( ( (

)

! "

+ ,

# $

P Q

K LKM < => ? B C

E F G

RSTRSU RX

@A D

H I J

[ \[\\[ ? B C

E FG

@A D

H Y

] f gh ijk lk m no p

` a b a d e e

r r r r

q s t u q v x x v v u x

{ w {| w { | } {~ { { } w

y yz

g g

¡ £ £ ¤¡£ ¨ £ ¤

¦§

¡ £ ¨ ¤£ ¤£

ª ¥

¦§

¡£ ¬ ¬ ¡ ® ¨ ¤£ ¤£

¦§

¡£ ¨¯ ¨¯ ¡ £ ¤ ¤ ¨

ª ¥ ªªª °ª ª ª

¦§

¨ ± ± ¡ £ ¤ ¡¡ £ ¤ ¤ ¨

°ªª ¥ ª ¥ ª ª ª ª

¦§

² ² «

¨ ± ± ¡ £ ¤ ¤® ¤¡ ¤ ¨

°ªª ¥ ¥ ªª ª ª ª

¦§

² « ² « « «

¨ ® ¬ ¬ ¡ £® ¨ ³´

°ª° ¥

¦§

] ] ¶· h ijk lk m no p

` a b a d µ

r r r r

x v u x q s t u q v x v

{ {| w { } {~ { } w w { |

y yz

g g g

£ ¤ ¨ ® ¤¡

ª ¥ °

¦§

¨ ¤£ ¤£ ®

¥ ª

¦§

¨ ¤¡ ¤¡ £ ¬ ¬

¥ °

¦§

£ ¨¯ ¨¯ ¹ ¨¬ ¬º ¤ ¤®¡ ¨

° ª °ª ª

¦§

² « ² « « «

¨ ¬ ¬ £ ¨ ³´

°ªª ¥

¦§

± ¹ ¨¬ ¬º ¤ ¤®® ¨ ¤¡ ¨ ® ±

ª ° ° ª ª °ª° ¥

¦§

² ² «

¨ ® ± ± £ ¹ ¨¬ ¬º ¤ ¤® ¨ ® ® ¤

°ª° ¥ ª ª ª

¦§

] f g h ijk lk m no p

`»¼½ ¾ de e

r r r r

x q s t u q v x v u x v

{ {| w { w } {~ { { } w |

y yz

g g

¡ £ £ ¤ ¤ ® ¨ ¤¡

¦§

¨ ¤£ ¤£ ¡ £

¥ ª

¦§

¨ ¤£ ¤£ ¡£ ¬ ¬ ¡ ®

¦§

¨¯ £ ¤ ¤ ® ¨ ¤ ¡£ ¨¯ ¡

ª ¥ ª ªª ° °ª ª

¦§

± £ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¨ ¡ ¨ ± ¡

ª ¥ ª ªª ª ª °ªª ¥

¦§

² ²

¨ ± ± ¡ £ ¤ ¤ ¤ £® ¨ ¤ ¤

°ªª ¥ ¥ ª ª ° ª ª ª

¦§

² « ² « « «

¨ ® ¬ ¬ ¡ £® ¨ ³´

°ª° ¥

¦§

] ] ¶· h ijk lk m no p

`»¼½ ¾ dµ

r r r r

v u x q s t u q v x x v

} {~ { } w { w {| w { | {

y yz

g g g

£ ¤ ¤£ ¨ ¡ ¤

ª ¥ ª

¦§

® ¨ ¤£ ¤£

ª ¥

¦§

£ ¬ ¬ ¤ ¨ ¤¡ ¤¡

° ¥

¦§

¤ ¨ £ ¨¯ ¨¯ ¹ ¨¬ ¬º ¤®

ª ° ª °ª ª

¦§

² « ² «

¨ ¬ ¬ £ ¤£ ¤ ¨ £ ¤£ ³´

°ªª ¥ ª

¦§

¤ ¨ ¨ ® ± ± ¹ ¨¬ ¬º ¤® ¤£ ¤®

ª °ª° ¥ ª ° ª ª

¦§

² ²

¤ ¨ ¨ ® ± ± £ ¹ ¨¬ ¬º ¤® ¤® ® ¤® ® ¤£®

ª °ª° ¥ ª ª

¦§

p n Á k l kj k Ã k l

¿À

Â Â Â Â Page 10 of 26

./ /4

0 12 3 5 6

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 8 9

::3 1

;

% &' & &''* -

( ( (

)

! "

+ ,

# $

P Q

K LKM < => ? B C

E F G

RSTRSU RX

@A D

H I J

[ \[\\[ ? B C

E FG

@A D

H Y

] f ghi ji k lm n

c dce

^__ `a b

p p } p p }

o q r s o t v v t t s v

y u yz u~ y z { y| y y { ~ u

w wx

e e c

¡ ¡ ¢ § ¢£

¥¦

¨ ¨ ª

¡ § ¢¡ ¢¡

¥¦

¨¬ ¨¬ ª

¡ « « § ¢¡ ¢¡

¥¦

¨ ¨

¡ §® §® ¡ ¢ ¢ £ ¢ §

¥¦

¬ ¬ ª

§ £ ¯ ¯ ¡ ¢ ¢ ¢ §

©© ¤ © ¤ © © © © ©

¥¦

¬ ° ¬ ° ª

§ £ ¯ ¯ ¡ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ §

©© ¤ ¤ © © © © ©

¥¦

° ª ° ª

§ £ £ « « ¡ ¢¡ ¢ § ±²

¥¦

] ] f ghi ji k lm n

³ ´µ

^__ `a b

p p } p p }

v t s v o q r s o t v t

y yz u~ y { y| y { u u y ~ z

w wx

e e c e

¡ ¢¡ § ¢

¥¦

¨ ¨ ª

§ ¢¡ ¢¡

¤ ©

¥¦

¨¬ ¨¬ ª

§ ¢ ¢ ¡£ « «

¥¦

¨ ¨ ¬

¡£ §® §® · §« «¸ ¢ ¢ § ¡ ¢ £

¥¦

° ª ° ª ª ª

§ £ « « ¡ § ±²

©© ¤

¥¦

¬ ¬ ¬

§ £ £ ¯ ¯ · §« «¸ ¢ ¢ ¢ § ¯¡

¥¦

¬ ° ¬ ° ¬

§ £ £ ¯ ¯ ¡ · §« «¸ ¢ ¢ ¢ § ¢ ¢ ¯¡

¥¦

f ghi»i lm n g½

´ º cdce

`¹ b

p } p } p p

v o q r s o t v t s v t

y yz u~ y u { y| y y { ~ u z

w wx

e e

¯ ¡ ¢ ¢ §

¥¦

¨ ¨ ª

§ ¢¡ ¢¡

¥¦

¨¬ ¿ ¨¬

¡ « « ¢¡ § ¢¡ ¢¡

¥¦

¨ ¨ ¬

¡ §® §® ¯ ¢ ¢£ § ¢¡ £

¤ © ©

¥¦

¬ ¬ ¬

§ £ ¯ ¯ ¡ ¯ ¢ ¢ ¢ §

©© ¤ © © ¤ © © © © ©

¥¦

¬ ° ¬ ° ¬

§ £ ¯ ¯ ¡ ¯ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¡ § ¢£ ¢

©© ¤ © ¤ © © © © © ©

¥¦

° ª ° ª

§ £ £ « £ ¢ ±² « ¢ § ¢

¥¦

] f ghi ji k lm n

´ º ³ ´µ

`¹ b

p } p p p }

t s v o q r s o t v v t

{ y| y { u y u yz u~ y z y ~

w wx

e e c e

¡ ¡ ¢ § ¡ ¢

¥¦

¨ ¨ ª

§ ¢ ¢

¥¦

¨¬ ¨¬ ª

¡£ « « § ¢ ¢

¥¦

¨ ¨ ¬

§ ¡£ §® §® · §« «¸ ¢ ¢ £

¥¦

° ª ° ª ª ª

§ £ « « ¡ § ±²

©© ¤

¥¦

¬ ¬ ¬ ª

§ § £ £ ¯ ¯ · §« «¸ ¢¡ ¡ ¢

¥¦

¬ ° ¬ ° ¬ ª

§ § £ £ ¯ ¯ ¡ · §« «¸ ¢ ¢ ¢¡

¥¦

n l Â i j ih i Ä i j

ÀÁ

Ã Ã Ã Ã Page 11 of 26

./ /4

0 12 3 5 6

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 8 9

::3 1

;

% &' & &''* -

( ( (

)

! "

+ ,

# $

P Q

K LKM < => ? B C

E F G

RSTRSU RX

@A D

H I J

[ \[\\[ ? B C

E FG

@A D

H Y

f g hij kj l mn o

] d ed

^_ `^_aba c

q q ~ q q ~

p r s t p u w w u u t w

z v z{ v z { | z} z z | v

x xy

f f

¢ ¢ £¦ © £¤

§¨

ª ª ¬

¢ £ £ ©

« ¥ « «

§¨

ª® ª® ¬

¢ ¤ £ £ ©

¥ « «

§¨

ª ª

¢ ©¯ ©¯ ¢ £ ¦ £ ©

« ¥ « « « «

§¨

® ® ¬

«« ¥ « ¥ « « « «

§¨

® ± ® ± ¬

«« ¥ ¥ «« « « «

§¨

± ¬ ± ¬ ¬

« ¥

§¨

g hij kj l mn o

] ´ µ¶·

^_ `^_aba c

q q ~ q q ~

w u t w p r s t p u w u

z z{ v z | z} z | v v z {

x xy

f f f

¢ £¦¢¤ © ¤ £

« ¥

§¨

ª ª ¬

¥ « « «

§¨

ª® ª® ¬

§¨

ª ª ®

¢¦ ©¯ ©¯ ¹ © º £ £¤¢ © ¦ £ ¦

« « «

§¨

± ¬ ± ¬

«« ¥

§¨

® ® ®

« ¥ « « « «

§¨

® ± ® ± ®

« ¥ « « « «

§¨

fg h j n Â

À ] ded Á ÁÁ

¿ ¿

a» ¼ » c

½ ¾

q ~ q ~ q q

w p r s t p u w u t w u

z z{ v z v | z} z z | v {

x xy

f f f

¢ ¤ ¤ £ £ ¦ © ¢ £¢

¥ « « « « «

§¨

ª ª ¬

§¨

f f

ª ª ¬

§¨

ª® ª® ¬

º £ £ ¢ ¢ ¢¢

§¨ ¨

ª ª

¢ ©¯ ©¯ ¢ ¢ ¤ £ £ © ¦

« ¥ « «

§¨

® ® ¬

«« ¥ ¥ « « «

§¨

® ± ® ± ¬

£ © © ¦ ° ° ¢ ¤ ¤ £ ¦ £

«« ¥ ¥ « « «

§¨

± ¬ ± ¬ ¬ ¬

« ¥ «

§¨

g h j n Â

] ´µ¶ · À ÁÁ

¿ ¿

a» ¼ » c

½ ¾

q ~ q q q ~

u t w p r s t p u w w u

| z} z | v z v z{ v z { z

x xy

f f Ä

¤¦ ¤ ¤ £ £¤¦ © £

¥ « «

§¨

ª ª ¬

¤¦ © £ £

§¨

ª ª ¬

¤¦ © £¤¤ £¤¤

§¨

ª ª

£ © ©¯ ©¯ ¢¢ ¤ £ ¦ ¦

¥ « «

§¨

± ¬ ± ¬ ¬

§¨

ª® ª® ¬

¢¦ ¤ º £ £

§¨ ¨

ª ª

¢¦ ©¯ ©¯ ¤¤ ¤ £ £ © ¦

¥ « «

§¨

± ¬ ± ¬ ¬ ¬

«« ¥

§¨

® ® ¬

« ¥ ¥ « «

§¨

® ± ® ± ¬

« ¥ ¥ « « «

§¨

o m Ç j k ji j É j k

ÅÆ

È È È È Page 12 of 26

./ /4

0 12 3 5 6

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 8 9

::3 1

;

% &' & &''* -

( ( (

)

! "

+ ,

# $

P Q

K LKM < => ? B C

E F G

RSTRSU RX

@A D

H I J

[ \[\\[ ? B C

E FG

@A D

H Y

e f g hij kj l mn o

]^_` b cd d

q q ~ q q ~

p r s t p u w w u u t w

z v z{ v z { | z} z z | v

x xy

f f

¢ ¢ ¦ © ¢

¥ ¤ ¤ £ ¤

§¨

ª ª «

¢ © ¢ ¢

£ ¥ ¤ ¤

§¨

ª ª «

¢ ¬ ¬ ® © ¢ ¢

¥ ¤ ¤

§¨

ª ª

¢ ©¯ ©¯ ¢ ¢ ® ¦ ©

£ ¥ ¤£ ¤ £ £ ¤£

§¨

££ ¥ £ ¥ ¤£ £ ¤ £ £ ¤£

§¨

± ± «

££ ¥ ¥ ¤£ £ £ £ £ ¤ ¤£

§¨

± « ± « « «

£ ¥

§¨

g hij kj l mn o

]^_` b c´µ ¶·

q q ~ q q ~

w u t w p r s t p u w u

z z{ v z | z} z | v v z {

x xy

f f f

¢ ¦® ©

£ ¥ ¤ ¤ £ ¤

§¨

ª ª «

¥ ¤ ¤ £

§¨

ª ª «

¥ ¤ ¤

§¨

ª ª

¢¦ ©¯ ©¯ ¹ ©¬ ¬º ® © ¦

¤£ ¤ £ ¤ £ £

§¨

± « ± « « «

££ ¥

§¨

£ ¥ ¤£ ¤ £ ¤ £ £

§¨

± ± «

£ ¥ ¤£ ¤ £ £ ¤

§¨

» e fg hij¿j mn o hÁ

b ^ cd d

a a¼

½¾

q ~ q ~ q q

w p r s t p u w u t w u

z z{ v z v | z} z z | v {

x xy

f fÂÂÃ

¦¦ ® ° ¢ ©

¥ ¤ £ ¤ £ ¤

§¨

ª « ª

¥ ¤ ¤ £

§¨

ª ª «

¥ ¤ ¤

§¨

ª ª

¢ ©¯ ©¯ ¢ ° ® ¢ © ® ® ¦

¥ ¤ £ £ ¤ ¤

§¨

££ ¥ £ ¥ ¤ £ £ ¤ ¤ £ £

§¨

± ± «

££ ¥ £ £ ¥ ¤ £ £ ¤ ¤ £ £ ¤

§¨

± « ± «

£ ¥ ¤ £ ¤ ¤

§¨

» g hij kj l mn o

b ^ c´ µ¶·

a a¼

½¾

q ~ q q q ~

u t w p r s t p u w w u

| z} z | v z v z{ v z { z

x xy

f f f

¢ ® ® ® © ®

£ ¥ ¤ ¤

§¨

ª ª «

® © ¦ ¦

£ ¥ ¤ ¤

§¨

ª ª «

¢¦ ¬ ¬ © ¢ ¢

¥ ¤ ¤

§¨

ª ª

¤ £ £

§¨

± « ± « « «

££ ¥

§¨

£ ¥ ¤ £ £

§¨

± ± «

£ ¥ ¤ £ £

§¨

o m Æ j k ji j È j k

ÄÅ

Ç Ç Ç Ç Page 13 of 26

./ /4

0 12 3 5 6

¡ ¢£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ 8 9

::3 1

;

% &' & &''* -

( ( (

)

! "

+ ,

# $

P Q

K LKM < => ? B C

E F G

RSTRSU RX

@A D

H I J

[ \[\\[ ? B C

E FG

@A D

H Y

] ^ f g hij kj l mn o

_ d ed

a b c

q q ~ q q ~

p r s t p u w w u u t w

z v z{ v z { | z} z z | v

x xy

f f

¢ ¢ £ £ ¨ £¢

¤ ¥

¦§

¢ ¨ £¢ £¢

¥ ¤

¦§

©¬ ©¬ ª

¢ « « ¨ £¢ £¢

¦§

¢ ¨® ¨® ¢ £ £¯ ¯ £ ¨

¥ ¤ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

¦§

¬ ¬ ª

¨ ¯ ° ° ¢ £ ¢ £ £ ¨

¥¥ ¤ ¥ ¤ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

¦§

¬ ± ¬ ± ª

¨ ¯ ° ° ¢ £ £ £¢ £ ¨

¥¥ ¤ ¤ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

¦§

± ª ± ª ª ª

¨ ¯ ¯ « « ¢ ¨ ²³

¥ ¤

¦§

] ^ g hij kj l mn o

_ ´µ ¶·

a b c

q q ~ q q ~

w u t w p r s t p u w u

z z{ v z | z} z | v v z {

x xy

f f f

¢ £ £ ¨ £

¥ ¤

¦§

¨ £¢ £¢

¤ ¥

¦§

©¬ ©¬ ª

¨ £ £ ¢¯ « «

¦§

¢¯ ¨® ¨® ¹ ¨« «º £ £ ¨ ¯¯ £ ¯

¥ ¥ ¥

¦§

± ª ± ª ª ª

¨ ¯ « « ¢ ¨ ²³

¥¥ ¤

¦§

¬ ¬ ¬ ª

¨ ¯ ¯ ° ° ¹ ¨« «º £ £¢ ¨ ¯ £

¥ ¤ ¥ ¥ ¥

¦§

¬ ± ¬ ± ¬ ª

¨ ¯ ¯ ° ° ¢ ¹ ¨« «º £ £ ¨ £¯ £

¥ ¤ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

¦§

^ ¼ f g hij kj l mn o

» ded

½ c

q ~ q ~ q q

w p r s t p u w u t w u

z z{ v z v | z} z z | v {

x xy

f f

¢ ¢ £ ¢ ¨ £

¤ ¥

¦§

¨ £¢ £¢ ¢

¤ ¥

¦§

©¬ ©¬

¢ « « £¯ ¨ £¢ £¢

¦§

¨® ¢ £ £ ¢¯ ¨ £ ¯ ¢ ¨®

¥ ¤ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

¦§

¬ ¬

° ¢ £ £ £ ¯ ¨ £ ¨ ¯ °

¥ ¤ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥¥ ¤

¦§

¬ ± ¬ ±

¨ ¯ ° ° ¢ £ £ £ ¢¢ ¨ £ £ ¯

¥¥ ¤ ¤ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

¦§

± ª ± ª ª

¨ ¯ ¯ « « ¢ £ ¨ ²³

¥ ¤

¦§

^ ¼ g hij kj l mn o

» ´µ¶·

½ c

q ~ q q q ~

u t w p r s t p u w w u

| z} z | v z v z{ v z { z

x xy

f f f

¢ £ ¨ £

¥ ¤ ¥ ¥

¦§

¨ £¢ £¢

¥ ¤

¦§

©¬ ©¬ ª

¢¯ « « ¨ £ £

¦§

£ ¨ ¢¯ ¨® ¨® ¹ ¨« «º £ £ ¯

¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

¦§

± ª ± ª

¨ ¯ « « ¢ £ £ ¨ £ ²³

¥¥ ¤

¦§

¬ ¬ ¬

£ ¨ ¨ ¯ ¯ ° ° ¹ ¨« «º £¢ £ ¢ ¯ £

¥ ¥ ¤ ¥ ¥

¦§

¬ ± ¬ ± ¬

£ ¨ ¨ ¯ ¯ ° ° ¢ ¹ ¨« «º £¢ £¯ £¯ £

¥ ¥ ¤ ¥ ¥

¦§

o m À j k ji j Â j k

¾¿

Á Á Á Á Page 14 of 26

./ /4 /: :

0 123 5 6

78 9 9

£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ ¡ ¢

> ; <

4 4

% &' & &''* -

( ( (

)

3 = 1 ? 0 1

! " 9 9 @ 8

+ ,

# $

U V

ST P QPR A BC D G H

[\ J K L

WXYWXZ W] EF I

M N O

_ l l k _ l

^ ` a b o d pmie c ^d^efgfd efgn b hi^j b f dacga m

j ¡ £¤ qr s x yz { y z xy qr y { y y

tu v wt v|u | v| w tu v| u uw

} ~ }

z z x xy{y y y y x

| t|ut | w v||u |v |t | t

} ~

{ y { x

t t | t | wv

¡ £ y ª ¨ © q q x y ry q r z z

uw v| u | u vw t| w tu v|v

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

x y r¨

v uv| v v| t

¦ }

¡ £¤ © y { © q q x y ry q r z z

vu v| u | u vw t| w tu v|v

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

x y r¨

v uv| v v| t

¦ }

u v | t vw t| w tu v|v v v| t

y { { x y x

| w v w | w v t |uv| t vw ww |v

r¨

qr s x yz { y z xy qr y { y ¡ £ © y { ª ¨ ©

tu v wt v|u | v| w tu v| u vu

} ~ }

z z x xy{y y y y x

| t|ut | w v||u |v |t | t

} ~

{ y { x

t t | t | wv

u v| u | u vw t| w tu v|v

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

u tu v|v vw t| w u u | v|

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

z{y { z z q r ¡ £¬¬ ry q q x y

v tu v|v vw t| w u u | v|

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

z{y { ª ¨ © z z q r ry q q x y ¡ £

v tu v|v vw t| w u u | v|

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

{y { © z z q r ry ¡ £¤ q q x y

ut tu v|v vw t| w u u | v|

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

{y { ª ¨ © z z q r ry ¡ £ q q x y

ut tu v|v vw t| w u u | v|

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

¡ £¤ x © z z q r ry q q x y

t v | tu v|v vw t| w u u | v|

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

x ª ¨ © z z q r ¡ £ ry q q x y

t v | tu v|v vw t| w u u | v|

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

tu tu v|v vw t| w u u | v|

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

ª ¨ © y x y x ¡ £ ª y x

tu | w wv w | vv w u t u v

¦ ¦

y y { x y zy y y

t |uv| t | wv w wuttu| tv| |t | w

x x ª y z x { x ¨

u t u t | vwwt v| t|ut wv

¦ ¦

¨s© x

tu vw v |v

v| u | u vw t| w tu v|v

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

x y r¨

v uv| v v| t

¦ }

¨ z y ¡ £¤

v vw vuuv|

q q x y ry q r z z

v| u | u vw t| w tu v|v

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

x y r¨

v uv| v v| t

¦ }

¡ £ ¨ z ª ¨ © q q x y ry q r z z

v v| u | u vw t| w tu v|v

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

x y r¨

v uv| v v| t

¦ }

¡ £¤ q q x y ry q r z z ©

v| u | u vw t| w tu v|v vvw

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

x y r¨

v uv| v v| t

¦ }

¡ £ ª y x y x y x ª ¨ ©

w u t u v w wv w | vv | vvw

¦ ¦

y y { x y zy y y

t |uv| t | wv w wuttu| tv| |t | w

x x ª y z x { x ¨

u t u t | vwwt v| t|ut wv

¦ ¦

¨s© x

tu vw v |v

q q x y ¡ ££¤ ry q r z z £®£ ¯

v| u | u vw t| w tu v|v u u

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

x y r¨

v uv| v v| t

¦ }

¸¹ ¸ ¸

°±²³ ´ µ¶ µ µ µ ¶

· ·

Page 15 of 26

./ /4 /: :

0 123 5 6

78 9 9

£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ ¡ ¢

> ; <

4 4

% &' & &''* -

( ( (

)

3 = 1 ? 0 1

! " 9 9 @ 8

+ ,

# $

U V

ST P QPR A BC D G H

[\ J K L

WXYWXZ W] EF I

M N O

_ l l k _ l

^ ` a b o d pmie c ^d^efgfd efgn b hi^j b f dacga m

x qr st w x y t x x}~x t t tw x t w } } x

{|{ uv z { | v z u

xwt }~x x x } x x x yt x t t

{| { | z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

¥ £} xw r ¡ ¢ xwt }~x x x } x x x yt x t t

|¤ {| { | z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

£} xw ¡ ¢ xwt }~x x x } x x x yt x t t

|¤ {| { | z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

s xwx } r ¢ s xwt }~x x x } x x x yt x t t

u {| { | z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

s xwx } ¡ ¢ xwt }~x x x } x x x yt x t t

u {| { | z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

¥ xwt }~x x x } x x x s } w~x r ¡ ¢ yt x t t

{| { | { z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

xwt }~x x x } x x x s } w~x ¡ ¢ yt x t t

{| { | { z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

¥ xwt }~x x x } x x x ¨} r ¡ ¢ yt x t t

{| { | | z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

¡ ¢ ¨ x ¢ s x } tw } w } yt x t t ~tw}t }

{ z z {

x t x x t wx x t } y t w x t } x

| z z uv | | { z zz u z

xwt }~x x x } x x x ¨} ¡ ¢ yt x t t

{| { | | z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

¡ ¢ ¨ x ¢ s x } tw } w } yt x t t ~tw}t }

{ z z {

x t x x t wx x t } y t w x t } x

| z z uv | | { z zz u z

r s x } x } xt } x x r qr s t w x y t x x}~x t t tw x t w } } x

| { | v | { | { uv z { | v z u

t } r x tw © r qr s t w x y t x x}~x t t tw x t w } } x

{ | uv z { | v z u

²³ ² ²

ª«¬ ® ¯° ¯ ¯ ¯ °

± ±

Page 16 of 26

./ /4 /: :

0 123 5 6

78 9 9

£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ ¡ ¢

> ; <

4 4

% &' & &''* -

( ( (

)

3 = 1 ? 0 1

! " 9 9 @ 8

+ ,

# $

U V

ST P QPR A BC D G H

[\ J K L

WXYWXZ W] EF I

M N O

_ l l k _ l

^ ` a b o d pmie c ^d^efgfd efgn b hi^j b f dacga m

j ¡ £¤ qr s x yz { y z xy qr y { y y

tu v wt v|u | v| w tu v| u uw

} ~ }

z z x xy{y y y y x

| t|ut | w v||u |v |t | t

} ~

{ y { x

t t | t | wv

¡ £ y ª ¨ © q q x y ry q r z z

uw v| u | u vw t| w tu v|v

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

x y r¨

v uv| v v| t

¦ }

¡ £¤ © y { © q q x y ry q r z z

vu v| u | u vw t| w tu v|v

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

x y r¨

v uv| v v| t

¦ }

u v | t vw t| w tu v|v v v| t

y { { x y x

| w v w | w v t |uv| t vw ww |v

r¨

qr s x yz { y z xy qr y { y ¡ £ © y { ª ¨ ©

tu v wt v|u | v| w tu v| u vu

} ~ }

z z x xy{y y y y x

| t|ut | w v||u |v |t | t

} ~

{ y { x

t t | t | wv

u v| u | u vw t| w tu v|v

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

u tu v|v vw t| w u u | v|

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

z{y { z z q r ¡ £¬¬ ry q q x y

v tu v|v vw t| w u u | v|

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

z{y { ª ¨ © z z q r ry q q x y ¡ £

v tu v|v vw t| w u u | v|

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

{y { © z z q r ry ¡ £¤ q q x y

ut tu v|v vw t| w u u | v|

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

{y { ª ¨ © z z q r ry ¡ £ q q x y

ut tu v|v vw t| w u u | v|

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

¡ £¤ x © z z q r ry q q x y

t v | tu v|v vw t| w u u | v|

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

x ª ¨ © z z q r ¡ £ ry q q x y

t v | tu v|v vw t| w u u | v|

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

tu tu v|v vw t| w u u | v|

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

y r¨ x

v| t uv| v v

} ¦

ª ¨ © y x y x ¡ £ ª y x

tu | w wv w | vv w u t u v

¦ ¦

y y { x y zy y y

t |uv| t | wv w wuttu| tv| |t | w

x x ª y z x { x ¨

u t u t | vwwt v| t|ut wv

¦ ¦

¨s© x

tu vw v |v

v| u | u vw t| w tu v|v

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

x y r¨

v uv| v v| t

¦ }

¨ z y ¡ £¤

v vw vuuv|

q q x y ry q r z z

v| u | u vw t| w tu v|v

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

x y r¨

v uv| v v| t

¦ }

¡ £ ¨ z ª ¨ © q q x y ry q r z z

v v| u | u vw t| w tu v|v

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

x y r¨

v uv| v v| t

¦ }

¡ £¤ q q x y ry q r z z ©

v| u | u vw t| w tu v|v vvw

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

x y r¨

v uv| v v| t

¦ }

¡ £ ª y x y x y x ª ¨ ©

w u t u v w wv w | vv | vvw

¦ ¦

y y { x y zy y y

t |uv| t | wv w wuttu| tv| |t | w

x x ª y z x { x ¨

u t u t | vwwt v| t|ut wv

¦ ¦

¨s© x

tu vw v |v

q q x y ¡ ££¤ ry q r z z £®£ ¯

v| u | u vw t| w tu v|v u u

x yz y { x y y x

v v| t v w | wv t |uv| t w |tt t tu

x y r¨

v uv| v v| t

¦ }

¸¹ ¸ ¸

°±²³ ´ µ¶ µ µ µ ¶

· ·

Page 17 of 26

./ /4 /: :

0 123 5 6

78 9 9

£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ ¡ ¢

> ; <

4 4

% &' & &''* -

( ( (

)

3 = 1 ? 0 1

! " 9 9 @ 8

+ ,

# $

U V

ST P QPR A BC D G H

[\ J K L

WXYWXZ W] EF I

M N O

_ l l k _ l

^ ` a b o d pmie c ^d^efgfd efgn b hi^j b f dacga m

x qr st w x y t x x}~x t t tw x t w } } x

{|{ uv z { | v z u

xwt }~x x x } x x x yt x t t

{| { | z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

¥ £} xw r ¡ ¢ xwt }~x x x } x x x yt x t t

|¤ {| { | z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

£} xw ¡ ¢ xwt }~x x x } x x x yt x t t

|¤ {| { | z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

s xwx } r ¢ s xwt }~x x x } x x x yt x t t

u {| { | z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

s xwx } ¡ ¢ xwt }~x x x } x x x yt x t t

u {| { | z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

¥ xwt }~x x x } x x x s } w~x r ¡ ¢ yt x t t

{| { | { z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

xwt }~x x x } x x x s } w~x ¡ ¢ yt x t t

{| { | { z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

¥ xwt }~x x x } x x x ¨} r ¡ ¢ yt x t t

{| { | | z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

¡ ¢ ¨ x ¢ s x } tw } w } yt x t t ~tw}t }

{ z z {

x t x x t wx x t } y t w x t } x

| z z uv | | { z zz u z

xwt }~x x x } x x x ¨} ¡ ¢ yt x t t

{| { | | z z {

~tw}t } x t x x t w x x t } } w y

| z z uv | | { z {

t t x x~tw t }

||{

¡ ¢ ¨ x ¢ s x } tw } w } yt x t t ~tw}t }

{ z z {

x t x x t wx x t } y t w x t } x

| z z uv | | { z zz u z

r s x } x } xt } x x r qr s t w x y t x x}~x t t tw x t w } } x

| { | v | { | { uv z { | v z u

t } r x tw © r qr s t w x y t x x}~x t t tw x t w } } x

{ | uv z { | v z u

²³ ² ²

ª«¬ ® ¯° ¯ ¯ ¯ °

± ±

Page 18 of 26

./ 0 3

1 2 2 1 2

45 6 7

£ ¤¡¥£ ¤ §¨ ©

BD[ ¡ ¢

8 9 3 / 0

2 2

% &' & &''* -

( ( (

)

5 : ;

! "

+ ,

# $

P Q

NO K LKM < => ? B C

VW E F G

RSTRSU RX @A D

H I J

` `

Y g h

^ _ _ ^ _ _ _ _ ^ _^ i ^ i_ _

Z [\] [ a Z b c da e \]f affZ[ a \ f a ba e f f

q r qs qr q t

klmn o p p p p

Page 19 of 26

/ 0 1 3

BD[ 4 7

353 61

% & ' & & ''

( ) ( +,( -

!"# $

º 8 : ; > ?

´´ »¹¼

Ò Ó

ÐÑ

ØÙ

<= @A BC

ÔÕÖÔÕ× ÔÚ

µ µ ? F? ?G ?I

´ ¶ · ¶ ¸¸¹

CEA @

H D

¶ ¿¼¹¼¹¹¼

F? ?G ?I J

H KD

? ; G ?I µ µ

´ ¶· ¶¸¸¹

CEA < ÛA

O NO RPQ ³O]RXRN[QR ST

g j k

h e ef i

m n t w t t ~ t ~

op q r s q u vo p xr vpy z vp qu px { | s{ } | } u vox p zvpq q zx s { q u vor ox o |

t m f ~

q p{ |q o } r sp x oo |p v }r {x r vp r sp x zqr o

t t m f ~

q p{ |q o } r sp q { u |p x o }r{ }p vq }r{xr vp r sp x zqr o

t t ~ t t m t ~

p q s uu } u{u p vq u vpqp }r o v o r sp v vp xr q r sp vp { s{ } o zqro

m t ~

xo u |pr p q r sp s{ } o zqr o

~ m t ~ t t t

p q r sp s{ } o zqr o } { vp p p }r r s r sp q { u |p q vp xp

m ~

q r sp vp p }o z s q { u |p o v { || vpy zp qrp { }{ | qpq

m f t t ~ t t ~

vp { || q{ u |p q r s } so | } r pq o v vpy zpq rp { }{ | q pq

m t t ~ t

p vp { | | q { u |p x o }r { }p vq vpx p p }r{x r

m f

vp r sp rp u p v{ r zvp |{ } q u vpq p }r

m t t~

l l

q r sp r v u |{ } o v { } p u vp qp }r

g k

m t f

q r sp r v u |{ } o v Ü u vpq p }r

m f t t ~ ~

vp q { u |p q vpy z v } }o sp{ qu {xp sp{ q u{x p vpp

m n t t t t

o r sp q { u |p q r s{ r vpy z vp { o vp } o |q p v r s{ p o }p

LM d

NO PQRSTU V WX YSZ [ TU O ]O^ TS QS [T Y SX Q_O [ `SaO bZO UQRS TU P O[ UO ^OU N]R`O

e½f

S TQ[N Q S] [T Y ^ RUN ]OP [TNROU Q_O N R OTQ ZUQ ` O N STQ[N QO^

e½f

_RPPR T STQ[ RTO]U

¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¢ ® ¯ £ ¡ À ¢ Á ® Ã Á Ç È £ É ¢ Á ¢ £

¥ ¨ ° ¬ ¦ ¥ ¨ ¦ª « ¬

Â Â Å Â ÅÂ Æ ÅÂ Ê

§ Ä § § § Ë

À Ì Á ¡ Í À Ã¡ Á ¯ £ ¢ ¢ Ì £ ® ¯ ¡ ¢

« ¥ ¥

Â Å

§ § Ä Ä Ä Ä§ Ä

¾ l l

£¢ ¢ÀÎ¢ Ã À ¢ Ì ¢ £® ¡ ¯ £¢ ¢ £Î À Á

¥ ¥ «

Å Â Â Â

Ä § Ä §

¢ ¯ Á ¢ £À ¢ £À

ÅÅ Â Å Å Â

§ § § Ï

S QOU

¦ Ý

ß à áá ß ß ß á

Æ Þ

Ï Ï Ï Ï Page 20 of 26

/ 0 1 3

BD[ 4 7

353 61

% & ' & & ''

( ) ( +,( -

!"# $

v 8 : ; > ? C

p p wux

{ |

<= @A B

}~}~ }

C ? F? ?G ?I

p qrsqrttu r xuxuux

EA @

H D

F? ?G ?I J

H KD

LM MV M V

NO PQ RSTU TQ W XWQYQ W U ST

[ \ ] ^

a b c d b c e f b c g b c g db c eb c h b c i j kc l a ` _ ` _

m n n o o

k k d c a h

k c c a h

k d c a l

k c a l

LM MV M V

NO PQ RSTU TQ W XWQYQ W U ST °Q±Q T

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

¥¦ « ¥ ¬ ¥

¢£ ¤ § ¢ £ ¨¢ £ £ ª§ ®

a a l a ¹ b c

m ³ µ ·³ » o ¼ µ ¿¶

À ¾

¹ ¹ e ¹ b c e

´ µ ¶ ·¶¸m ´ º ·³ » ¯ ¼ µ ¿¶ ³

e f l e f ¹ b c

³ ´ µ ¶ ·¶¸m ³ µ ·³ » n ¼ µ ¿¶

d l d a l ¹ b c

³ ´ µ ¶ ·¶¸m ³ µ ·³ » ¼ µ ¿¶

h a ¹ ¹ h a ld ¹ b c

m ´ º ·³ » n ¼ µ ¿¶

À ¾

a a l h ¹ j kc Ã

Â ¯ Â ¼ Â m µ ¿¶

À À ¾

i l i a l h ¹ j kc

³ Å» n » ¶µ µ ¶ n ¼ m µ ¿¶

Ä ½

À À À ¾

g a ¹ ¹ g h ¹ b c

¼ m ´ º ·³ » µ ¿¶

À ¾

g d a ¹ ¹ g h d ¹ b c

m ´ º ·³ » n ¼ µ ¿¶

À ¾

l l l

m n ¼ ·¶ ¶ · µ ³ ¶ Å¶¶¸¶¸ µ ¼¼´ ³ » ¿´¶

Æ ¾ À Æ À À

Ç Ç

a d e l ¹ b c a

n o m ¶µ ¸ ¶ · µ ¶ µ ¼¼´ ³ » ¿´¶ µ ¿¶ m Ê ·

½ ½ ½ È É

À À À Æ¾ À Æ À À ¾

¼ » Ê¶» Í ¼¶ ·º · ¶ ¸ ¿ Å ´ µ ¼ ·³ · µ ¼ ´ ¶ ¼ ·¶¼ · µ ³ Å

½ ½

Æ À À ¾ Æ Æ ¾ À À À Æ

Ë Ë

a e

¼ ´ ¶ o ¶ ³ ¶ ¶¸

À ¾

Ë Ì Ç Á

a kk k

Ân o Î Î Î Î

Page 21 of 26 Page 22 of 26 Page 23 of 26 Page 24 of 26 Page 25 of 26 Page 26 of 26

September 2, 2009

Test America ATTN: Estella Rieben 9405 SW Nimbus Ave. Beaverton OR 97008 [email protected]

RE: BRL report 0931007 TST-BE0902

Ms. Rieben, On July 28, 2009, Brooks Rand Labs (BRL) received six (6) water samples and five (5) soil samples in a cooler with blue ice at a temperature of 2.1 °C. The Chain-of-Custody form requested arsenic speciation analysis of the water and soil samples, contractually defined as trivalent arsenic [As(III)], inorganic arsenic [As(Inorg)], and pentavalent arsenic [As(V)] determined by difference. Samples requiring the determination of dissolved analytes were field- filtered upon (at?) sample collection. The samples were received and stored according to BRL standard operating procedures (SOP) and EPA methodology. The results were method blank corrected as described in the calculations section of the relevant BRL SOP(s) and may have been evaluated using reporting limits that have been adjusted to account for sample aliquot size. Please refer to the Sample Results page for sample-specific MDLs, MRLs, and other details. Samples which yielded results for the analysis of dissolved As(III) slightly greater than the results from the analysis of the corresponding total As(III), but were within an RPD below the method criterion for duplicate precision (RPD < 35%), were considered statistically equivalent and presumably all of the analyte of interest was found in the dissolved form. During the analysis of sequence 0900632, the initial CCV standard demonstrated a high bias of 110% and the closing CCV standard produced a recovery of 122%, slightly outside the control limits (80 - 120%). The analyst immediately analyzed two additional CCV standards and both produced elevated yet passing recoveries of 119% and 117% respectively. On this basis the results for As(Inorg) in sequence 0900632 have been CCV corrected. The final three CCVs were averaged to obtain a closing CCV recovery of 119%. The CCV1 recovery (110%) was then averaged with 119% to get a correction factor of 114.5%. All results bracketed by the CCVs wer e corrected by dividing the uncorrected result by 1.145. All three closing CCVs, including the one outside the control limits, have been reported so that it is clear how this correction factor was derived. The MS/MSD set prepared in analytical batch B091003 was spiked at a concentration less than the native sample concentration. As a result, two PS were prepared from the associated native sample and both met the acceptance criteria.

3958 6th Ave NW • Seattle, WA 98107 • T: 206-632-6206 • F: 206-632-6017 • www.brooksrand.com • [email protected] Page 1 of 21

BRL, an accredited laboratory, certifies that the reported results of all analyses for which BRL is NELAP accredited meet all NELAP requirements. For more details, please see the Report Information page in your report. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding this report.

Sincerely,

Amanda Fawley Tiffany Stilwater Project Manager Project Manager [email protected] [email protected]

3958 6th Ave NW • Seattle, WA 98107 • T: 206-632-6206 • F: 206-632-6017 • www.brooksrand.com • [email protected] Page 2 of 21 Work Order: 0931007 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Report Information

Laboratory Accreditation

BRL is accredited by the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) through the State of Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Laboratories (E87982) and is certified to perform many environmental analyses. BRL is also certified by many other states to perform environmental analyses. For a current list of our accreditations/certifications, please visit our website at . Results reported relate only to the samples listed in the report.

Common Abbreviations

BLK method blank MS matrix spike BRL Brooks Rand Labs MSD matrix spike duplicate BS laboratory fortified blank ND no n-detect CAL calibration standard NR no n-reportable CCV continuing calibration verification PS post preparation spike COC chain of custody record REC percent recovery CRM certified reference material RPD relative percent difference D dissolved fraction RSD relative standard deviation DUP duplicate SCV secondary calibration verification ICV initial calibration verification SOP standard operating procedure MDL method detection limit SRM standard reference material MRL method reporting limit T total recoverable fraction

Definition of Data Qualifiers (Effective 6/12/08)

B Detected by the instrument, the result is > the MDL but ≤ the MRL. Result is reported and considered an estimate. E An estimated value due to the presence of interferences. A full explanation is presented in the narrative. H Holding time and/or preservation requirements not met. Result is estimated. J Estimated value. A full explanation is presented in the narrative. J-M Duplicate precision (RPD) for associated QC sample was not within acceptance criteria. Result is estimated. J-N Spike recovery for associated QC sample was not within acceptance criteria. Result is estimated. M Duplicate precision (RPD) was not within acceptance criteria. Result is estimated. N Spike recovery was not within acceptance criteria. Result is estimated. R Rejected, unusable value. A full explanation is presented in the narrative. U Result is ≤ the MDL or client requested reporting limit (CRRL). Result reported as the MDL or CRRL.

These qualifiers are based on those previously utilized by Brooks Rand, Ltd., those found in the EPA SOW ILM03.0, Exhibit B, Section III, pg. B-18, and the USEPA Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Inorganic Analyses; USEPA; July 2002. These supersede all previous qualifiers ever employed by BRL.

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 3 of 21 Work Order: 0931007 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Sample Information

Sample Lab ID Report Matrix Type Sampled Received PSG0853-05 0931007-01 W ater S am ple 07/23/2009 07/28/2009 PSG0853-05 0931007-02 W ater S am ple 07/23/2009 07/28/2009 PSG0853-06 0931007-03 Soil S am ple 07/23/2009 07/28/2009 PSG0853-13 0931007-04 Soil S am ple 07/22/2009 07/28/2009 PSG0853-22 0931007-05 Soil S am ple 07/22/2009 07/28/2009 PSG0853-39 0931007-06 W ater S am ple 07/20/2009 07/28/2009 PSG0853-39 0931007-07 W ater S am ple 07/20/2009 07/28/2009 PSG0853-40 0931007-08 Soil S am ple 07/20/2009 07/28/2009 PSG0853-41 0931007-09 Soil S am ple 07/20/2009 07/28/2009 PSG0853-45 0931007-10 W ater S am ple 07/20/2009 07/28/2009 PSG0853-45 0931007-11 W ater S am ple 07/20/2009 07/28/2009

Batch Summary

Analyte Lab Matrix Method Prepared Analyzed Batch S e q ue nc e %TS Soil/Sediment SM 2540G 08/20/2009 08/24/2009 B091010 N/A As(III) Soil/Sediment EPA Method 1632 mod. 08/20/2009 08/24/2009 B091002 0900673 As(Inorg) Soil/Sediment EPA Method 1632 mod. 08/24/2009 08/25/2009 B091003 0900674 As(III) W ater EPA Method 1632 08/10/2009 08/10/2009 B091000 0900631 As(Inorg) W ater EPA Method 1632 08/10/2009 08/10/2009 B091001 0900632

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 4 of 21 Work Order: 0931007 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Sample Results

Sample Analyte Report Matrix Fraction Result Qualifier MDL MRL U ni t Batch S e q ue nc e PSG0853-05 0931007-01 As(III) W ater T 0.044 0.008 0.025 µg/L B091000 0900631 0931007-02 As(III) W ater D 0.039 0.008 0.025 µg/L B091000 0900631 0931007-01 As(Inorg) W ater T 0.243 0.008 0.025 µg/L B091001 0900632 0931007-02 As(Inorg) W ater D 0.233 0.008 0.025 µg/L B091001 0900632 0931007-01 As(V) W ater T 0.199 0.008 0.025 µg/L [CALC] N/A 0931007-02 As(V) W ater D 0.194 0.008 0.025 µg/L [CALC] N/A

PSG0853-06 0931007-03 %TS Soil N/A 68.62 0.07 0.23 % B091010 N/A 0931007-03 As(III) Soil N/A 0.065 B 0.039 0.130 mg/kg dry B091002 0900673 0931007-03 As(Inorg) Soil N/A 13.6 1.57 5.23 mg/kg dry B091003 0900674 0931007-03 As(V) Soil N/A 13.5 1.57 5.23 mg/kg dry [CALC] N/A

PSG0853-13 0931007-04 %TS Soil N/A 51.10 0.07 0.23 % B091010 N/A 0931007-04 As(III) Soil N/A 0.439 0.051 0.169 mg/kg dry B091002 0900673 0931007-04 As(Inorg) Soil N/A 25.7 2.03 6.76 mg/kg dry B091003 0900674 0931007-04 As(V) Soil N/A 25.3 2.03 6.76 mg/kg dry [CALC] N/A

PSG0853-22 0931007-05 %TS Soil N/A 97.35 0.07 0.23 % B091010 N/A 0931007-05 As(III) Soil N/A 0.229 0.056 0.187 mg/kg dry B091002 0900673 0931007-05 As(Inorg) Soil N/A 2680 236 786 mg/kg dry B091003 0900674 0931007-05 As(V) Soil N/A 2680 236 786 mg/kg dry [CALC] N/A

PSG0853-39 0931007-06 As(III) W ater T 0.042 0.008 0.025 µg/L B091000 0900631 0931007-07 As(III) W ater D 0.040 0.008 0.025 µg/L B091000 0900631 0931007-06 As(Inorg) W ater T 0.081 0.008 0.025 µg/L B091001 0900632 0931007-07 As(Inorg) W ater D 0.052 0.008 0.025 µg/L B091001 0900632 0931007-06 As(V) W ater T 0.039 0.008 0.025 µg/L [CALC] N/A 0931007-07 As(V) W ater D 0.012 B 0.008 0.025 µg/L [CALC] N/A

PSG0853-40 0931007-08 %TS Soil N/A 79.83 0.07 0.23 % B091010 N/A 0931007-08 As(III) Soil N/A 1.62 0.067 0.225 mg/kg dry B091002 0900673 0931007-08 As(Inorg) Soil N/A 23.2 1.50 5.00 mg/kg dry B091003 0900674 0931007-08 As(V) Soil N/A 21.6 1.50 5.00 mg/kg dry [CALC] N/A

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 5 of 21 Work Order: 0931007 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Sample Results

Sample Analyte Report Matrix Fraction Result Qualifier MDL MRL U ni t Batch S e q ue nc e PSG0853-41 0931007-09 %TS Soil N/A 95.28 0.07 0.23 % B091010 N/A 0931007-09 As(III) Soil N/A 0.201 0.056 0.186 mg/kg dry B091002 0900673 0931007-09 As(Inorg) Soil N/A 145 12.0 40.1 mg/kg dry B091003 0900674 0931007-09 As(V) Soil N/A 145 12.0 40.1 mg/kg dry [CALC] N/A

PSG0853-45 0931007-10 As(III) W ater T 0.035 0.008 0.025 µg/L B091000 0900631 0931007-11 As(III) W ater D 0.039 0.008 0.025 µg/L B091000 0900631 0931007-10 As(Inorg) W ater T 0.048 0.008 0.025 µg/L B091001 0900632 0931007-11 As(Inorg) W ater D 0.046 0.008 0.025 µg/L B091001 0900632 0931007-10 As(V) W ater T 0.013 B 0.008 0.025 µg/L [CALC] N/A 0931007-11 As(V) W ater D 0.008 U 0.008 0.025 µg/L [CALC] N/A

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 6 of 21 Work Order: 0931007 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Accuracy & Precision Summary

Batch: B091000 Lab Matrix: Water Method: EPA Method 1632

Sample Analyte N ative Spike Result U ni t s REC & Limits RPD & Limits B091000-MS1 Matrix Spike (0931025-01) As(III) 0.059 0.2500 0.342 µg/L 113% 65-135

B091000-MSD1 Matrix Spike Duplicate (0931025-01) As(III) 0.059 0.2500 0.318 µg/L 104% 65-135 7% 35

Batch: B091001 Lab Matrix: Water Method: EPA Method 1632

Sample Analyte N ative Spike Result U ni t s REC & Limits RPD & Limits B091001-MS1 Matrix Spike (0931025-01) As(Inorg) 0.467 2.500 2.930 µg/L 99% 65-135 As(Inorg) 0.535 2.500 2.930 µg/L 96% 65-135

B091001-MSD1 Matrix Spike Duplicate (0931025-01) As(Inorg) 0.467 2.500 2.796 µg/L 93% 65-135 5% 35 As(Inorg) 0.535 2.500 2.796 µg/L 90% 65-135 5% 35

Batch: B091002 Lab Matrix: Soil/Sediment Method: EPA Method 1632 mod.

Sample Analyte N ative Spike Result U ni t s REC & Limits RPD & Limits B091002-BS2 Laboratory Fortified Blank (0935045) As(III) 0.5000 0.405 mg/kg 81% 50-150

B091002-SRM1 Certified Reference Material (0720024, PACS-2) As(III) 4.752 3.441 mg/kg 72% 50-150

B091002-SRM2 Certified Reference Material (0720024, PACS-2) As(III) 4.752 3.403 mg/kg 72% 50-150

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 7 of 21 Work Order: 0931007 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Accuracy & Precision Summary

Batch: B091002 Lab Matrix: Soil/Sediment Method: EPA Method 1632 mod.

Sample Analyte N ative Spike Result U ni t s REC & Limits RPD & Limits B091002-DUP1 Duplicate (0931025-03) As(III) ND ND mg/kg dry N/C 35

B091002-MS1 Matrix Spike (0931025-03) As(III) ND 2.394 1.829 mg/kg dry 76% 50-150

B091002-MSD1 Matrix Spike Duplicate (0931025-03) As(III) ND 2.383 1.837 mg/kg dry 77% 50-150 0.4% 35

B091002-PS1 Post Spike (0931025-03) As(III) ND 0.3960 0.409 mg/kg dry 103% 65-135

Batch: B091003 Lab Matrix: Soil/Sediment Method: EPA Method 1632 mod.

Sample Analyte N ative Spike Result U ni t s REC & Limits RPD & Limits B091003-BS2 Laboratory Fortified Blank (0935040) As(Inorg) 5.000 4.171 mg/kg 83% 65-135

B091003-SRM1 Certified Reference Material (0908046, MESS-3) As(Inorg) 18.62 17.10 mg/kg 92% 65-135

B091003-SRM2 Certified Reference Material (0908046, MESS-3) As(Inorg) 18.62 14.03 mg/kg 75% 65-135

B091003-DUP1 Duplicate (0931007-05) As(Inorg) 2680 2577 mg/kg dry 4% 35

B091003-MS1 Matrix Spike (0931007-05) As(Inorg) 2680 4.910 2224 mg/kg dry NR 65-135

B091003-MSD1 Matrix Spike Duplicate (0931007-05) As(Inorg) 2680 4.967 2708 mg/kg dry NR 65-135 20% 35

B091003-PS1 Post Spike (0931007-05) As(Inorg) 2680 7856 8044 mg/kg dry 68% 65-135

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 8 of 21 Work Order: 0931007 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Accuracy & Precision Summary

Batch: B091003 Lab Matrix: Soil/Sediment Method: EPA Method 1632 mod.

Sample Analyte N ative Spike Result U ni t s REC & Limits RPD & Limits B091003-PS2 Post Spike (0931007-05) As(Inorg) 2680 7856 8264 mg/kg dry 71% 65-135

Batch: B091010 Lab Matrix: Soil/Sediment Method: SM 2540G

Sample Analyte N ative Spike Result U ni t s REC & Limits RPD & Limits B091010-DUP1 Duplicate (0930027-06) %TS 98.40 98.24 % 0.2% 15

B091010-DUP2 Duplicate (0931007-08) %TS 79.83 79.44 % 0.5% 15

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 9 of 21 Work Order: 0931007 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Method Blanks & Reporting Limits

Batch: B091000 Matrix: Water Method: EPA Method 1632 Analyte: As(III) Sample Result U ni t s B091000-BLK1 0.001 µg/L B091000-BLK2 0.003 µg/L B091000-BLK3 0.002 µg/L B091000-BLK4 0.001 µg/L Average: 0.002 Standard Deviation: 0.001 MDL: 0.008 µg/L Limit: 0.016 Limit: 0.005 MRL: 0.025 µg/L

Batch: B091001 Matrix: Water Method: EPA Method 1632 Analyte: As(Inorg) Sample Result U ni t s B091001-BLK1 0.013 µg/L B091001-BLK2 0.008 µg/L B091001-BLK3 0.010 µg/L B091001-BLK4 0.011 µg/L Average: 0.011 Standard Deviation: 0.002 MDL: 0.008 µg/L Limit: 0.016 Limit: 0.005 MRL: 0.025 µg/L

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 10 of 21 Work Order: 0931007 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Method Blanks & Reporting Limits

Batch: B091002 Matrix: Soil/Sediment Method: EPA Method 1632 mod. Analyte: As(III) Sample Result U ni t s B091002-BLK1 0.056 mg/kg B091002-BLK2 0.057 mg/kg B091002-BLK3 0.060 mg/kg B091002-BLK4 0.055 mg/kg Average: 0.057 Standard Deviation: 0.002 MDL: 0.030 mg/kg Limit: 0.060 Limit: 0.020 MRL: 0.100 mg/kg

Batch: B091003 Matrix: Soil/Sediment Method: EPA Method 1632 mod. Analyte: A s( Inorg) Sample Result U ni t s B091003-BLK1 0.000 mg/kg B091003-BLK2 0.001 mg/kg B091003-BLK3 0.001 mg/kg B091003-BLK4 0.001 mg/kg Average: 0.001 Standard Deviation: 0.000 MDL: 0.003 mg/kg Limit: 0.006 Limit: 0.002 MRL: 0.010 mg/kg

Batch: B091010 Matrix: Soil/Sediment Method: SM 2540G Analyte: %TS Sample Result U ni t s B091010-BLK1 -0.02 % B091010-BLK2 -0.05 % Average: -0.03 MDL: 0.07 % Limit: 0.23 MRL: 0.23 %

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 11 of 21 Work Order: 0931007 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Instrument Calibration

Sequence: 0900631 Total Arsenic and Arsenic Speciation by HG-CT-AAS Instrument: HGAAS-2 Method: EPA Method 1632 Date: 08/10/2009 Analyte: As(III) Lab ID T r ue V a l ue Result U ni t s REC & Limits 0900631-IBL1 0.030 ng A s 0900631-IBL2 0.067 ng A s 0900631-IBL3 0.031 ng A s 0900631-IBL4 0.028 ng A s 0900631-CAL1 0.5000 0.594 ng A s 119 0900631-CAL2 2.000 2.214 ng A s 111% 0900631-CAL3 10.00 9.850 ng A s 98%% 0900631-CAL4 20.00 19.40 ng A s 97% 0900631-CAL5 30.00 24.81 ng A s 83% 0900631-ICV1 5.000 5.724 ng A s 114 80-120 0900631-CCV1 5.000 5.691 ng A s 114% 80-120 0900631-CCB1 0.022 ng A s % 0900631-CCV2 5.000 5.303 ng A s 106 80-120 0900631-CCB2 0.038 ng A s %

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 12 of 21 Work Order: 0931007 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Instrument Calibration

Sequence: 0900632 Total Arsenic and Arsenic Speciation by HG-CT-AAS Instrument: HGAAS-2 Method: EPA Method 1632 Date: 08/10/2009 Analyte: As(Inorg) Lab ID T r ue V a l ue Result U ni t s REC & Limits 0900632-IBL2 0.295 ng A s 0900632-IBL3 0.188 ng A s 0900632-IBL4 0.226 ng A s 0900632-IBL5 0.247 ng A s 0900632-CAL1 0.5000 0.534 ng A s 107 0900632-CAL2 2.000 2.382 ng A s 119% 0900632-CAL3 10.00 9.914 ng A s 99%% 0900632-CAL4 20.00 18.65 ng A s 93% 0900632-CAL5 30.00 26.24 ng A s 87% 0900632-ICV2 5.000 5.306 ng A s 106 80-120 0900632-CCV1 5.000 5.489 ng A s 110% 80-120 0900632-CCB1 0.201 ng A s % 0900632-CCV2 5.000 6.123 ng A s 122 80-120 0900632-CCV3 5.000 5.929 ng A s 119% 80-120 0900632-CCV4 5.000 5.870 ng A s 117% 80-120 0900632-CCB2 0.164 ng A s %

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 13 of 21 Work Order: 0931007 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Instrument Calibration

Sequence: 0900673 Total Arsenic and Arsenic Speciation by HG-CT-AAS Instrument: HGAAS-2 Method: EPA Method 1632 mod. Date: 08/24/2009 Analyte: As(III) Lab ID T r ue V a l ue Result U ni t s REC & Limits 0900673-CAL1 0.5000 0.534 µg/L 107 0900673-CAL2 2.000 2.082 µg/L 104% 0900673-CAL3 10.00 9.814 µg/L 98%% 0900673-CAL4 20.00 18.45 µg/L 92% 0900673-ICV1 5.000 5.456 µg/L 109 80-120 0900673-CCV1 5.000 5.082 µg/L 102% 80-120 0900673-CCB1 0.007 µg/L % 0900673-CCV2 5.000 5.160 µg/L 103 80-120 0900673-CCB2 -0.003 µg/L % 0900673-CCV3 5.000 5.481 µg/L 110 80-120 0900673-CCB3 0.013 µg/L %

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 14 of 21 Work Order: 0931007 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Instrument Calibration

Sequence: 0900674 Total Arsenic and Arsenic Speciation by HG-CT-AAS Instrument: HGAAS-2 Method: EPA Method 1632 mod. Date: 08/25/2009 Analyte: As(Inorg) Lab ID T r ue V a l ue Result U ni t s REC & Limits 0900674-CAL1 0.5000 0.574 ng A s 115 0900674-CAL2 2.000 2.165 ng A s 108% 0900674-CAL3 10.00 9.551 ng A s 96%% 0900674-CAL4 20.00 17.26 ng A s 86% 0900674-CAL5 30.00 22.06 ng A s 74% 0900674-ICV1 5.000 4.878 ng A s 98% 80-120 0900674-CCV1 5.000 5.313 ng A s 106 80-120 0900674-CCB1 0.086 ng A s % 0900674-CCB2 0.303 ng A s 0900674-CCB3 0.092 ng A s 0900674-CCB4 1.94 ng A s 0900674-CCB5 0.316 ng A s 0900674-CCB6 0.084 ng A s 0900674-CCB7 0.269 ng A s 0900674-CCB8 0.080 ng A s 0900674-CCV2 5.000 5.223 ng A s 104 80-120 0900674-CCB9 0.118 ng A s %

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 15 of 21 Work Order: 0931007 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Sample Containers

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 16 of 21 Work Order: 0931007 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Sample Containers

Lab ID: 0931007-01 Report Matrix: Water Collected: 07/23/2009 S am ple: PSG0853-05 Sample Type: S am ple Received: 07/28/2009 Des C o nt a i ne r Size Lot Preservation P-Lot pH Ship. Cont. C o m m e nt s A Bottle HDPE As-SP 250-mL 0.4% 6 N HCL (PP) 0923057 <2 Cooler

Lab ID: 0931007-02 Report Matrix: Water Collected: 07/23/2009 S am ple: PSG0853-05 Sample Type: S am ple Received: 07/28/2009 Des C o nt a i ne r Size Lot Preservation P-Lot pH Ship. Cont. C o m m e nt s A Bottle HDPE As-SP 250-mL 0.4% 6 N HCL (PP) 0923057 <2 Cooler

Lab ID: 0931007-03 Report Matrix: Soil Collected: 07/23/2009 S am ple: PSG0853-06 Sample Type: S am ple Received: 07/28/2009 Des C o nt a i ne r Size Lot Preservation P-Lot pH Ship. Cont. C o m m e nt s A Jar Glass 4-oz N one N/A Cooler

Lab ID: 0931007-04 Report Matrix: Soil Collected: 07/22/2009 S am ple: PSG0853-13 Sample Type: S am ple Received: 07/28/2009 Des C o nt a i ne r Size Lot Preservation P-Lot pH Ship. Cont. C o m m e nt s A Jar Glass 4-oz N one N/A Cooler

Lab ID: 0931007-05 Report Matrix: Soil Collected: 07/22/2009 S am ple: PSG0853-22 Sample Type: S am ple Received: 07/28/2009 Des C o nt a i ne r Size Lot Preservation P-Lot pH Ship. Cont. C o m m e nt s A Jar Glass 4-oz N one N/A Cooler

Lab ID: 0931007-06 Report Matrix: Water Collected: 07/20/2009 Sample: PSG0853-39 Sample Type: S am ple Received: 07/28/2009 Des C o nt a i ne r Size Lot Preservation P-Lot pH Ship. Cont. C o m m e nt s A Bottle HDPE As-SP 250-mL 0.4% 6 N HCL (PP) 0923057 <2 Cooler

Lab ID: 0931007-07 Report Matrix: Water Collected: 07/20/2009 S am ple: PSG0853-39 Sample Type: S am ple Received: 07/28/2009 Des C o nt a i ne r Size Lot Preservation P-Lot pH Ship. Cont. C o m m e nt s A Bottle HDPE As-SP 250-mL 0.4% 6 N HCL (PP) 0923057 <2 Cooler

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 17 of 21 Work Order: 0931007 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Sample Containers

Lab ID: 0931007-08 Report Matrix: Soil Collected: 07/20/2009 S am ple: PSG0853-40 Sample Type: S am ple Received: 07/28/2009 Des C o nt a i ne r Size Lot Preservation P-Lot pH Ship. Cont. C o m m e nt s A Jar Glass 4-oz N one N/A Cooler

Lab ID: 0931007-09 Report Matrix: Soil Collected: 07/20/2009 S am ple: PSG0853-41 Sample Type: S am ple Received: 07/28/2009 Des C o nt a i ne r Size Lot Preservation P-Lot pH Ship. Cont. C o m m e nt s A Jar Glass 4-oz N one N/A Cooler

Lab ID: 0931007-10 Report Matrix: Water Collected: 07/20/2009 S am ple: PSG0853-45 Sample Type: S am ple Received: 07/28/2009 Des C o nt a i ne r Size Lot Preservation P-Lot pH Ship. Cont. C o m m e nt s A Bottle HDPE As-SP 250-mL 0.4% 6 N HCL (PP) 0923057 <2 Cooler

Lab ID: 0931007-11 Report Matrix: Water Collected: 07/20/2009 S am ple: PSG0853-45 Sample Type: S am ple Received: 07/28/2009 Des C o nt a i ne r Size Lot Preservation P-Lot pH Ship. Cont. C o m m e nt s A Bottle HDPE As-SP 250-mL 0.4% 6 N HCL (PP) 0923057 <2 Cooler

Shipping Containers

Cooler Received: July 28, 2009 9:00 Description: Cooler Custody seals present? Yes Tracking No: 417075240699 via FedEx Damaged in transit? No Custody seals intact? Yes Coolant Type: Blue Ice Returned to client? No COC present? Yes Temperature: 2.1°C

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 18 of 21 Page 19 of 21 Page 20 of 21 Page 21 of 21

September 2, 2009

Test America ATTN: Estella Rieben 9405 SW Nimbus Ave. Beaverton OR 97008 [email protected]

RE: BRL report 0931025 TST-BE0902

Ms. Rieben, On July 31, 2009, Brooks Rand Labs (BRL) received two (2) water samples and one (1) soil sample in a cooler with blue ice at a temperature of 2.2 °C. The Chain-of-Custody form requested arsenic speciation analysis of the water and soil samples, contractually defined as trivalent arsenic [As(III)], inorganic arsenic [As(Inorg)], and pentavalent arsenic [As(V)] determined by difference. Samples requiring the determination of dissolved analytes were field- filtered upon sample collection. The samples were received and stored according to BRL standard operating procedures (SOP) and EPA methodology. The results were method blank corrected as described in the calculations section of the relevant BRL SOP(s) and may have been evaluated using reporting limits that have been adjusted to account for sample aliquot size. Please refer to the Sample Results page for sample-specific MDLs, MRLs, and other details. Samples which yielded results for the analysis of dissolved As(III) slightly greater than the results from the analysis of the corresponding total As(III), but were within an RPD below the method criterion for duplicate precision (RPD < 35%), were considered statistically equivalent and presumably all of the analyte of interest was found in the dissolved form. During the analysis of sequence 0900632, the initial CCV standard demonstrated a high bias of 110% and the closing CCV standard produced a recovery of 122%, slightly outside the control limits (80 - 120%). The analyst immediately analyzed two additional CCV standards and both produced elevated yet passing recoveries of 119% and 117% respectively. On this basis the results for As(Inorg) in sequence 0900632 have been CCV corrected. The final three CCVs were averaged to obtain a closing CCV recovery of 119%. The CCV1 recovery (110%) was then averaged with 119% to get a correction factor of 114.5%. All results bracketed by the CCVs were corrected by dividing the uncorrected result by 1.145. All three closing CCVs, including the one outside the control limits, have been reported so that it is clear how this correction factor was derived. The MS/MSD set prepared in analytical batch B091003 was spiked at a concentration less than the native sample concentration. As a result, two PS were prepared from the associated native sample and both met the acceptance criteria.

3958 6th Ave NW • Seattle, WA 98107 • T: 206-632-6206 • F: 206-632-6017 • www.brooksrand.com • [email protected] Page 1 of 17

Sincerely,

Amanda Fawley Tiffany Stilwater Project Manager Project Manager [email protected] [email protected]

3958 6th Ave NW • Seattle, WA 98107 • T: 206-632-6206 • F: 206-632-6017 • www.brooksrand.com • [email protected] Page 2 of 17 Work Order: 0931025 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Report Information

Laboratory Accreditation

Common Abbreviations

Definition of Data Qualifiers (Effective 6/12/08)

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 3 of 17 Work Order: 0931025 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Sample Information

Sample Lab ID Report Matrix Type Sampled Received PSG1013-01 0931025-01 W ater S am ple 07/29/2009 07/31/2009 PSG1013-01 0931025-02 W ater S am ple 07/29/2009 07/31/2009 PSG1013-02 0931025-03 Soil S am ple 07/29/2009 07/31/2009

Batch Summary

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 4 of 17 Work Order: 0931025 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Sample Results

Sample Analyte Report Matrix Fraction Result Qualifier MDL MRL U ni t Batch S e q ue nc e PSG1013-01 0931025-01 As(III) W ater T 0.059 0.008 0.025 µg/L B091000 0900631 0931025-02 As(III) W ater D 0.070 0.008 0.025 µg/L B091000 0900631 0931025-01 As(Inorg) W ater T 0.467 0.080 0.250 µg/L B091001 0900632 0931025-02 As(Inorg) W ater D 0.457 0.080 0.250 µg/L B091001 0900632 0931025-01 As(V) W ater T 0.408 0.080 0.250 µg/L [CALC] N/A 0931025-02 As(V) W ater D 0.387 0.080 0.250 µg/L [CALC] N/A

PSG1013-02 0931025-03 %TS Soil N/A 95.43 0.07 0.23 % B091010 N/A 0931025-03 As(III) Soil N/A 0.030 U 0.030 0.099 mg/kg dry B091002 0900673 0931025-03 As(Inorg) Soil N/A 4.81 1.13 3.76 mg/kg dry B091003 0900674 0931025-03 As(V) Soil N/A 4.81 1.13 3.76 mg/kg dry [CALC] N/A

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 5 of 17 Work Order: 0931025 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley

Accuracy & Precision Summary

Batch: B091000 Lab Matrix: Water Method: EPA Method 1632

Sample Analyte N ative Spike Result U ni t s REC & Limits RPD & Limits B091000-MS1 Matrix Spike (0931025-01) As(III) 0.059 0.2500 0.342 µg/L 113% 65-135

B091000-MSD1 Matrix Spike Duplicate (0931025-01) As(III) 0.059 0.2500 0.318 µg/L 104% 65-135 7% 35

Batch: B091001 Lab Matrix: Water Method: EPA Method 1632

Sample Analyte N ative Spike Result U ni t s REC & Limits RPD & Limits B091001-MS1 Matrix Spike (0931025-01) As(Inorg) 0.467 2.500 2.930 µg/L 99% 65-135 As(Inorg) 0.535 2.500 2.930 µg/L 96% 65-135

B091001-MSD1 Matrix Spike Duplicate (0931025-01) As(Inorg) 0.467 2.500 2.796 µg/L 93% 65-135 5% 35 As(Inorg) 0.535 2.500 2.796 µg/L 90% 65-135 5% 35

Batch: B091002 Lab Matrix: Soil/Sediment Method: EPA Method 1632 mod.

Sample Analyte N ative Spike Result U ni t s REC & Limits RPD & Limits B091002-BS2 Laboratory Fortified Blank (0935045) As(III) 0.5000 0.405 mg/kg 81% 50-150

B091002-SRM1 Certified Reference Material (0720024, PACS-2) As(III) 4.752 3.441 mg/kg 72% 50-150

B091002-SRM2 Certified Reference Material (0720024, PACS-2) As(III) 4.752 3.403 mg/kg 72% 50-150

3958 6th Avenue NW Seattle WA 98107 · P(206) 632-6206 · F(206) 632-6017 · [email protected] · www.brooksrand.com Page 6 of 17 Work Order: 0931025 Client PM: Estella Rieben Project ID: TST -BE0902 PM: Amanda Fawley