Motivation for the Forum

1. Motivation for the Forum • Coordination • Tri-State Partnership (on-going cooperation) • Corps Watershed Plan • Technical issues • Ecological issues cross political boundaries (e.g. tribes as sovereign entities and state lines) • Expanding applicability of studies • Increase cooperation, coordination and consolidation among technical investigators

2. Forum Goals • Promote awareness of District-wide issues and activities currently being conducted by different parties • Increase coordination among all parties and optimize activities in the District and • Share technical information

3. Forum Structure • NRDAR and Tribal Overview • Technical Information • Aquatic • NRDAR • Remedial • Panel Discussions • Response actions • MOU’s

4. Issue Identification and Solutions Information Needs/Actions (Database, modeling, evaluations, research, monitoring) Duplication of Effort (Who is doing it?, What is being duplicated?) Communication (MOUs [missing MOUs], outreach, gaps) Coordination/Cooperation (opportunities, leadership [who should lead it?] framework) Other

5. What Did We Learn? • Communication and Outreach are Key • Development of communication web • Include NGO’s, local groups and other interested parties into the process • www.epa.gov/earth1R6/6sf/6sf-decisiondocs.htm • MOU meeting June 8th - tentative

6. What Did We Learn? • Coordination • Examples of how to improve coordination • Incorporation of research results (academic and professional) into central data base • Sequencing and timing of response is important: events, clean-up and sources • Subsidence teams and groundwater teams should work more closely • Consider a “clearing house” for funding requests and requirement for partnerships

7. What Did We Learn? • Data Gaps/Technical Needs • Use consistent approaches for metals and nutrients • Develop long term biological, chemical and sediment monitoring program • Continue research in ecological toxicology • Sensitivity of mussels and other biota • Plant toxicology • Consequences of chat disposal in mines • Connectivity of surface and groundwater

8. What Did We Learn? • Data Gaps/Technical Needs • Sediment studies in three states • Fluvial Hydrogeomorphology • “Acceptable” protocols for data gathering • Lack of Geochemical information and modeling • Better understanding of integration of NRDAR into Remedial Process

9. What Did We Learn? • Value of groundwater • Water quality standards, 303(d) list of impaired waters, and Total Maximum Daily Loads are factors for consideration • Expand existing groundwater model across the region

10. What Did We Learn? • The COE’s Restoration of Abandoned Mine Sites program may be a funding source • Consider utilizing 319 plans as a framework to build into watershed work • There were missing players both in academia and government • Study boundaries should define themselves • Need to make sure that our “vocabulary” is consistent (e.g. remediation, rehabilitation, reclamation, restoration)

11. Where Do We Go From Here?

12. Where Do We Go From Here? • Agreed Superfund and Water Programs in EPA Regions 6 and 7 will review QAPP • EPA Watershed approach can be used as a mechanism for continued cooperation and communication (sharing of information) in the Tri-State Mining District • contact EPA to pursue concept • key contact list

13. Where Do We Go From Here? • QAPP should be developed for the Spring River-Neosho Watershed, but will not be all-encompassing • Standardized protocols needed for other projects • Web accessible QAPP (links included) • 319 plan in Oklahoma can be used as a framework incorporating other projects as needed to accomplish overall goals for the watershed (Oklahoma Conservation Commission)

14. Where Do We Go From Here? • Expedite chat removal • Increased organizational structure relative to NRDAR, remediation, research, projects, etc. within our respective authorities • Periodic “face to face” sharing of information (i.e., forum every two years or as needed)-EPA watershed plan may be instrumental in this effort • Greater public outreach effort

15. Where Do We Go From Here? • Additional distribution list • Use of a bulletin board concept to share information and provide bi-annual updates on the progress that is being made (How? Sponsorship? Any volunteers? Funding?)

16. Where Do We Go From Here? • Is there funding associated with the EPA watershed project that could develop a Tri-State Mining District website with links to other (states, tribes, etc.) websites • Is there already a website that can be used as a mechanism to disseminate information (not interactive due to increased security) • ODEQ will create a Tri State Watershed calendar (other states, tribes, federal entities?)

17. Where Do We Go From Here? • Include on the SIU website links to other states, tribes, federal agencies, NGOs, others (will be available for a couple of weeks) • Where will we house the information from this forum once the SIU website is no longer available?

18. Where Do We Go From Here? • The magnitude and complexity of environmental and social issues in the Tri-State Mining District transcends the jurisdictional boundaries of any single agency. • The NEPA prescribes an orderly process that would result in documents that present recommended alternatives and the cumulative effects of the ongoing and reasonable foreseeable additional actions of the various agencies. • The NEPA process could also help identify a synchronized plan to implement various projects.