Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of MetalsContaminated Sediment of Selected Streams Draining 

the Tri-State Mining District, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Kansas, 2011–12

Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5144

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover. Miners in the Beaver Mine near Cardin, Oklahoma, around 1930. Photograph courtesy of 

Leona Atwood.
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume 

of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of 

Selected Streams Draining the Tri-State 

Mining District, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Kansas, 2011–12

By D. Charlie Smith

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5144

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://store.usgs.gov.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Smith, D.C., 2016, Occurrence, distribution, and volume of metals-contaminated sediment of selected streams draining the Tri-State Mining District, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas, 2011–12: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5144, 86 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20165144.

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)
iii

Contents

Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

Description of Study Area and Mining History ................................................................................2

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2

Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................4

Methodology...................................................................................................................................................6

Site Selection ........................................................................................................................................6

Sample Collection.................................................................................................................................7

Stream Channel............................................................................................................................7

Flood Plain...................................................................................................................................15

Sample Processing and Analysis.....................................................................................................15

Stream Channel .........................................................................................................................20

Flood Plain...................................................................................................................................21

Laboratory Confirmation Samples ..........................................................................................21

Estimation of the Volume of Contaminated Gravel Bar Deposits................................................22

Quality Control and Quality Assurance ....................................................................................................23

Data Analysis Methods......................................................................................................................23

Standard Reference Material...........................................................................................................25

Blanks ...................................................................................................................................................29

Replicate X-Ray Fluorescence Analyses........................................................................................29

Laboratory Confirmation Samples ...................................................................................................29

Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment.......................................33

Center Creek........................................................................................................................................33

Site Selection and Description................................................................................................33

Depth and Concentration of Metals in Channel Sediments ...............................................33

Estimated Volume of Channel Sediment Contaminated by Mine Waste..........................37

Depth and Concentration of Metals in Flood-Plain Sediments..........................................37

Turkey Creek ........................................................................................................................................41

Site Selection and Description................................................................................................41

Depth and Concentration of Metals in Channel Sediments ...............................................47

Estimated Volume of Channel Sediment Contaminated by Mine Waste..........................47

Depth and Concentration of Metals in Flood-Plain Sediments..........................................47

Shoal Creek..........................................................................................................................................50

Site Selection and Description................................................................................................50

Depth and Concentration of Metals in Channel Sediments ...............................................50

Estimated Volume of Channel Sediment Contaminated by Mine Waste..........................55

Depth and Concentration of Metals in Flood-Plain Sediments..........................................55

Tar Creek ..............................................................................................................................................55

Site Selection and Description................................................................................................55

Depth and Concentration of Metals in Channel Sediments ...............................................58

Estimated Volume of Channel Sediment Contaminated by Mine Waste..........................58

Depth and Concentration of Metals in Flood-Plain Sediments..........................................58
iv

Spring River..........................................................................................................................................62

Site Selection and Description................................................................................................62

Depth and Concentration of Metals in Channel Sediments ...............................................62

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................64

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................68

Figures

1. Map showing study sites in the Tri-State Mining District in Missouri, Oklahoma,

and Kansas ....................................................................................................................................3

2. Photograph showing freeze-core sampler with attached frozen sediment sample

immediately after recovery and the freeze-core sampler with scale................................13

3. Photograph showing liquid carbon dioxide injection tube inserted into the

hollow driving rods during the injection of liquid CO2...........................................................14

4. Photograph showing removal of the rods and sample by hand using a fence-post

puller.............................................................................................................................................15

5. Photograph showing flood-plain core that has been prepared for analysis with the

x-ray fluorescence instrument.................................................................................................21

6. Graphs showing relations of percent difference between mean concentration by

x-ray fluorescence with the most-probable-value concentrations of cadmium, lead,

and zinc in standard reference materials...............................................................................28

7. Graphs showing relations between concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc

in laboratory subsamples determined by x-ray fluorescence and laboratory

methods, and between concentrations determined by x-ray fluorescence in

original and split subsamples ...................................................................................................31

8. Graphs showing comparison of relative percent difference between laboratory

results for cadmium, lead, and zinc in the split samples, and the x-ray fluorescence 

results for either the original samples or the split sample before its submittal to the 

laboratory for stream channel sediment, Tri-State Mining District ...................................32

9. Aerial photographs from 2013 and 1938 showing location of cores, samples,

and tile probe soundings for sites C1 and C2 of intensive study on Center Creek,

Missouri, 2011–12 .......................................................................................................................34

10. Aerial photographs from 2013 and 1938 for site C3 and from 2013 and 1961 for site 

C4 showing location of cores, samples, and tile probe soundings on Center Creek, 

Missouri, 2011–12 .......................................................................................................................35

11. Aerial photographs from 2013 and 1961 showing location of cores, samples, and tile

probe soundings for sites C5 and C6 on Center Creek, Missouri, 2011–12 .......................36

12. Boxplots showing frequency distributions of the concentrations of cadmium, lead,

and zinc at specific sites in order from downstream to upstream.....................................38

13. Graphs showing vertical concentration profiles for lead in the less than

2-millimeter size fraction of gravel bar-sediment samples scanned by x-ray

fluorescence, Center Creek, Missouri, 2011–12 ....................................................................39

14. Graphs showing vertical concentration profiles for zinc in the less than 2-millimeter

size fraction of gravel bar-sediment samples scanned by x-ray fluorescence,

Center Creek, Missouri, 2011–12..............................................................................................40

15. Graphs showing vertical profiles by flood-plain core and sample location of lead

concentrations analyzed by x-ray fluorescence in Center Creek, Turkey Creek,

Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek, 2011–12 ......................................................................................42
v

16. Graphs showing vertical profiles by flood-plain core and sample location of zinc

concentrations analyzed by x-ray fluorescence in Center Creek, Turkey Creek,

Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek, 2011–12 ......................................................................................43

17. Aerial photographs from 2013 and 1938 showing location of bed-sediment cores,

samples, and tile probe soundings for sites TC1, TC2, and TC3 in Turkey Creek,

Missouri, 2012..............................................................................................................................44

18. Aerial photographs from 2013 and 1938 showing location of bed-sediment cores,

samples, and tile probe soundings for sites TC4 and TC5 in Turkey Creek, Missouri,

2012 ...............................................................................................................................................45

19. Aerial photographs from 2013 and 1961 showing location of bed-sediment cores,

samples, and tile probe soundings for sites TC6 and TC7 in Turkey Creek, Missouri,

2012 ...............................................................................................................................................46

20. Graphs showing vertical profiles by core and sample location of lead

concentrations in the less than 2-millimeter size fraction of gravel bar-sediment

samples analyzed by x-ray fluorescence in Turkey Creek, Missouri, 2012.......................48

21. Graphs showing vertical profiles by core and sample location of zinc

concentrations in the less than 2-millimeter size fraction of gravel bar-sediment

samples analyzed by x-ray fluorescence in Turkey Creek, Missouri, 2012.......................49

22. Aerial photographs from 2013 and 1958 showing location of bed-sediment cores 

and sample locations for sites SFP1 and S1 in Shoal Creek, Missouri, 2012....................51

23. Aerial photographs from 2013 and 1938 showing location of bed-sediment cores

and sample locations for sites S2 and SFP2 in Shoal Creek, Missouri, 2012....................52

24. Aerial photographs from 2013 and 1938 for sites S3 and S4, and from 2013 and

1958 for site S5 showing location of cores, samples, and tile probes in Shoal Creek,

Missouri, 2012..............................................................................................................................53

25. Graphs showing vertical profiles by core and sample location of lead

concentrations in the less than 2-millimeter size fraction of stream channel

samples analyzed by x-ray fluorescence in Shoal Creek, Missouri, 2012 ........................54

26. Graphs showing vertical profiles by core and sample location of zinc

concentrations in the less than 2-millimeter size fraction of stream channel

samples analyzed by x-ray fluorescence in Shoal Creek, Missouri, 2012 ........................56

27. Aerial photographs from 2013 and 1958 showing location of sediment cores,

samples, and tile probe soundings for sites TR7, TR6, TR5, TRFP2, TR4, TR3, TR2,

and TR1 on Tar Creek, Oklahoma, 2011 ...................................................................................57

28. Aerial photographs from 2013 and 1958 showing location of sediment cores,

samples, and tile probe soundings for sites TR12, TR11, TRFP1, TR10, TR9, and TR8

on Tar Creek, Oklahoma, 2011...................................................................................................59

29. Graphs showing vertical profiles by core and sample location of lead

concentrations in the less than 2-millimeter size fraction of stream channel

samples analyzed by x-ray fluorescence in Tar Creek, Oklahoma, 2011...........................60

30. Vertical profiles by core and sample location of zinc concentrations in the less than

2-millimeter size fraction of stream channel samples analyzed by x-ray

fluorescence in Tar Creek, Oklahoma, 2011 ...........................................................................61

31. Aerial photographs from 2013 and 1958 showing location of sediment cores and

samples for sites SR1 and SR2 on Spring River, Kansas, 2012............................................63

32. Graphs showing vertical profiles by core and sample location of lead and zinc

concentrations in the less than 2-millimeter size fraction of gravel bar-sediment

samples analyzed by x-ray fluorescence, Spring River, Kansas, 2012 ..............................64
vi

Tables

1. Sediment core and sample locations, depth of water from the surface and

maximum sample depth at each location, maximum depth of sediment exceeding

the consensus probable effects concentration and the Tri-State Mining District

specific probable effects concentration, and the percent depth of sediment

exceeding the general probable effects concentration and the Tri-State Mining

District specific probable effects concentration for Center Creek, Turkey Creek,

Shoal Creek, Tar Creek, and Spring River in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12..........8

2. Flood-plain core and sample locations, maximum depth or core at each location,

maximum depth of core exceeding the consensus probable effects concentration

and the Tri-State Mining District-specific probable effects concentration, and the

percent depth of core exceeding the general probable effects concentration and

the Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration for the flood

plains of Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek in the Tri-State

Mining District, 2011–12.............................................................................................................12

3. Tile probe locations, depth of water from the surface, and maximum depth of

refusal at each location for Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek

in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12 .................................................................................16

4. Mean maximum proportional depth of sediment exceeding the consensus probable

effects concentrations and the Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects

concentrations, and mean total depth of boreholes and tile probes for each site,

Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, Tar Creek, and Spring River in the

Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12 ............................................................................................24

5. Digitized gravel bar area, creek or river total drainage area, hydrologic unit

code, mean thickness of sediments exceeding the consensus probable effects

concentrations and the Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects

concentration, and estimated total volume of sediment with concentrations of lead

or zinc that exceed the consensus probable effects concentration and the Tri-State

Mining District specific probable effects concentration for Center Creek, Turkey

Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek in the in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12........26

6. Results of analyses of standard reference materials by the x-ray fluorescence unit....27

7. Statistical summary of triplicate and septuplet x-ray fluorescence scans of intact

flood-plain cores in the Tri-State Lead and Zinc Mining District, 2011–12 .......................30

8. Concentrations of select trace element measured by two methods, with two

sample preparation types, in the less than 2-millimeter size fractions of stream

channel sediment samples .......................................................................................................72
vii

Conversion Factors

U.S. customary units to International System of Units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

acre 0.4047 square hectometer (hm2) 

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2)

square foot (ft2) 929.0 square centimeter (cm2)

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

cubic yard (yd3) 0.7646 cubic meter (m3) 

Mass

ounce, avoirdupois (oz) 28.35 gram (g) 

pound, avoirdupois (lb) 0.4536 kilogram (kg) 
viii

International System of Units to U.S. customary units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

Area

square meter (m2) 0.0002471 acre 

hectare (ha) 2.471 acre

square hectometer (hm2) 2.471 acre

square kilometer (km2) 247.1 acre

square centimeter (cm2) 0.001076 square foot (ft2)

square meter (m2) 10.76 square foot (ft2) 

square hectometer (hm2) 0.003861 section (640 acres or 1 square 

mile)

hectare (ha) 0.003861 square mile (mi2) 

square kilometer (km2) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Volume

cubic meter (m3) 1.308 cubic yard (yd3) 

Mass

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

kilogram (kg) 2.205 pound avoirdupois (lb)

Datum

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
ix

Abbreviations

ALA-D enzyme-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase

CMERSC Central Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center 

COC chain of custody

CPEC consensus probable effects concentration

DQO data quality objective

ICP–AES inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry

ICP–MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry 

LOD limit of detection

MPV most probable value

MVT Mississippi Valley-Type (metals)

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

PEC probable effects concentration 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RPD relative percent difference

RSD relative standard deviation

SLERA screening level ecological risk assessment

SRM standard reference material

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database

TPEC Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration

TSMD Tri-State Mining District 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

XRF x-ray fluorescence 

Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of MetalsContaminated Sediment of Selected Streams Draining 

the Tri-State Mining District, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Kansas, 2011–12

By D. Charlie Smith

Abstract 

Lead and zinc were mined in the Tri-State Mining 

District (TSMD) of southwest Missouri, northeast Oklahoma, 

and southeast Kansas for more than 100 years. The effects 

of mining on the landscape are still evident, nearly 50 years 

after the last mine ceased operation. The legacies of mining are the mine waste and discharge of groundwater from 

underground mines. The mine-waste piles and underground 

mines are continuous sources of trace metals (primarily lead, 

zinc, and cadmium) to the streams that drain the TSMD. Many 

previous studies characterized the horizontal extent of minewaste contamination in streams but little information exists 

on the depth of mine-waste contamination in these streams. 

Characterizing the vertical extent of contamination is difficult 

because of the large amount of coarse-grained material, ranging from coarse gravel to boulders, within channel sediment. 

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife service, collected channel-sediment samples at 

depth for subsequent analyses that would allow attainment of 

the following goals: (1) determination of the relation between 

concentration and depth for lead, zinc and cadmium in channel sediments and flood-plain sediments, and (2) determination of the volume of gravel-bar sediment from the surface 

to the maximum depth with concentrations of these metals 

that exceeded sediment-quality guidelines. For the purpose of 

this report, volume of gravel-bar sediment is considered to be 

distributed in two forms, gravel bars and the wetted channel, 

and this study focused on gravel bars. Concentrations of lead, 

zinc, and cadmium in samples were compared to the consensus probable effects concentration (CPEC) and Tri-State 

Mining District specific probable effects concentration (TPEC) 

sediment-quality guidelines.

During the study, more than 700 sediment samples were 

collected from borings at multiple sites, including gravel bars 

and flood plains, along Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal 

Creek, Tar Creek, and Spring River in order to characterize the vertical extent of mine waste in select streams in the 

TSMD. The largest concentrations of lead, zinc, and cadmium 

in gravel bar-sediment samples generally were detected in 

Turkey Creek and Tar Creek and the smallest concentrations 

were detected in Shoal Creek followed by the Spring River. 

Gravel bar-sediment samples from Turkey Creek exceeded 

the CPEC for cadmium (minimum of 70 percent of samples), 

lead (94 percent), and zinc (99 percent) at a slightly higher 

frequency than similar samples from Tar Creek (69 percent, 

88 percent, and 96 percent, respectively). Gravel bar-sediment 

samples from Turkey Creek also contained the largest concentrations of cadmium (174 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]) 

and lead (7,520 mg/kg) detected; however, the largest zinc 

concentration (46,600 mg/kg) was detected in a gravel barsediment sample from Tar Creek. In contrast, none of the 65 

gravel bar-sediment samples from Shoal Creek contained 

cadmium above the x-ray fluorescence reporting level of 

12 mg/kg, and lead and zinc exceeded the CPEC in only 

12 percent and 74 percent of samples, respectively. In most 

cases, concentrations of lead and zinc above the CPEC or 

TPEC were present at the maximum depth of boring, which 

indicated that nearly the entire thickness of sediment in the 

stream has been contaminated by mine wastes. Approximately 

284,000 cubic yards of channel sediment from land surface 

to the maximum depth that exceeded the CPEC and approximately 236,000 cubic yards of channel sediment from land 

surface to the maximum depth that exceeded the TPEC were 

estimated along 37.6 of the 55.1 miles of Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek examined in this study. 

Mine-waste contamination reported along additional reaches 

of these streams is beyond the scope of this study. Flood-plain 

cores collected in the TSMD generally only had exceedances 

of the CPEC and TPEC for lead and zinc in the top 1 or 2 feet 

of soil with a few exceptions, such as cores in low areas near 

the stream or cores in areas disturbed by past mining.
2 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

Introduction

The Tri-State Mining District (TSMD) covers about 

2,500 square miles (mi2) in southwest Missouri, northeast 

Oklahoma, and southeast Kansas (fig. 1) and has a rich history of lead and zinc mining beginning in the early 1800s and 

continuing through the mid-1900s. Most of the ore deposits 

were in Jasper and Newton Counties in Missouri, Ottawa 

County in Oklahoma, and Cherokee County in Kansas. More 

than 100 years of mining in the area has left a legacy of metalcontaminated mine-waste areas, contaminated soils and stream 

sediment, and contaminated groundwater in the region (Christenson, 1995; Barks, 1977; Feder and others, 1969). 

Although a large amount of previous work has been done 

to characterize the spatial extent of surficial streambed sediments contaminated by mine waste in the TSMD (Pope, 2005; 

Juracek, 2009 and 2013; Andrews and others, 2009; MacDonald and others, 2010), little information is available on the 

depth or thickness of contaminated sediments in the streams. 

Based on surficial streambed-sediment samples compiled from 

various sources, maps by McDonald and others (2010) show 

that approximately 49 miles (mi) of Center Creek, Turkey 

Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek have streambed sediments 

that have moderate to high risk for toxicity to benthic invertebrates, as do sediments in the entire reach of the Spring River 

downstream from the mouth of Center Creek. Information on 

the depth of contamination is important to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) and other natural resource agencies entrusted with assessing damage to the ecosystem and 

evaluating restoration alternatives in the TSMD. Determining the depth of metal contamination is difficult in saturated 

streambed sediment because of the wide range of grain size of 

the sediments (silt and sand interspersed with coarse gravels 

and large cobbles) that are difficult to sample with traditional 

methods that are generally used to collect sands, silts, and 

clays. The USFWS requested assistance from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to provide information on the depth of 

mine-waste contaminated sediments in selected streams in the 

TSMD. The USGS set the goals of (1) determination of the 

relation between concentration and depth for lead and zinc in 

channel sediments and flood-plain sediments, and (2) determination of the volume of channel sediments from the surface 

to the maximum depth with concentrations of lead and zinc 

that exceeded sediment-quality guidelines. Similar to previous 

studies, the extent of mine-waste contamination was determined using concentrations of Mississippi Valley-Type (MVT) 

metals, which include lead and zinc (Leach and others, 2010).

Description of Study Area and Mining History

The TSMD covers an area of about 2,500 mi2 and 

spans three States (fig. 1). Lead and zinc ore are present in 

Mississippian-age rocks that are exposed at the surface in 

Missouri and buried by up to several hundred feet of younger 

(Pennsylvanian-age) rocks in the Oklahoma and Kansas parts 

of the TSMD. Surface and near-surface deposits of lead ore 

were mined and smelted as early as 1820, but commercial 

mining of lead ore did not begin until about 1850 near Joplin, 

Missouri (Pope, 2005). Although zinc ore was about five times 

more common than lead ore, little zinc was produced from 

the district during the early years because of the difficulty in 

smelting zinc and the low price for the concentrate (Gibson, 

1972). The lack of heavy machinery in the early years limited most mining to the shallow near-surface deposits in the 

Missouri part of the district. In the 1870s, the availability of 

railroads and steam machinery resulted in rapid expansion to 

other areas of the district, and by 1876, mines were opened 

at Galena, Kansas. In Oklahoma and Kansas, mine shafts as 

much as 480 feet (ft) deep allowed mining by the room and 

pillar method. The water from the deep underground mines 

was pumped into nearby streams to dewater the mine. Mining 

in the TSMD peaked in about 1920, after which most mining 

in Missouri ceased. Production from Kansas and Oklahoma 

gradually declined after World War II, with the last mine closing in 1970. 

Ore was crushed during the milling process to extract 

the ore minerals. Waste rock from the milling process either 

was stored locally in large piles that often washed into nearby 

streams or was sold for use as agricultural lime, road aggregate, roof aggregate, or base rock for roads and railroads. The 

size to which the ore was crushed during milling decreased as 

milling methods improved and ranged from “chat” (medium 

to coarse sand) in the early years to silt-size material with the 

introduction of the floatation process around 1920.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to present results of a USGS 

study to assess the depth of mine-waste contaminated sediments along selected reaches of streams along Center Creek, 

Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek (fig. 1) and two 

locations along the Spring River in the TSMD. In 2011, 22 

stream channel cores and 13 flood-plain cores were collected 

in gravel bars, wetted channels, and the adjacent flood plain 

along a 7.4-mi stretch of Tar Creek in northeastern Oklahoma. 

In late 2011 and 2012, 24 stream channel cores and 7 floodplain cores were collected in gravel bars, wetted channels, 

and the adjacent flood plain along a 11.1-mi stretch of Center 

Creek, 23 stream channel cores and 6 flood-plain cores were 

collected along a 10.1-mi stretch of Turkey Creek, 12 stream 

channel cores and 8 flood-plain cores were collected along an 

9-mi stretch of Shoal Creek, and 5 stream channel cores were 

collected in 2 gravel bars on Spring River in southeastern Kansas and southwestern Missouri. For the purpose of this report, 

volume of gravel-bar sediment is considered to be distributed 

in two forms, gravel bars and the wetted channel, and this 

study focused on gravel bars.
Introduction 3

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Miami

Galena

Neosho

Joplin

Commerce

Carthage

Baxter

Springs

Picher

Spring 

River

Shoal Creek

Lost Creek

Center Creek

Tar Creek

Neosho River

Turkey Creek

Spring 

River

Empire

Lake

KANSAS

MISSOURI

OKLAHOMA

94°50' 94°40' 94°30' 94°20'

37°20'

37°10'

37°00'

36°50'

Designated waste area from Damage Assessment Plan 

for Jasper and Newton Counties, Missouri, 2009 

0 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Designated waste area

Study site and identifier

Stream study reach for volume estimate

C1

C1

C2 C3 C4

C5

C6

TC1

TC2

TC3

TC4

TC5 TC6

TC7

SFP1

S1 SFP2

S4 S2

S5

S3

TR8, 9, 10,

11, 12, TRFP2

TR1, 2, 3, 4, 

5, 6, 7, TRFP1

SR1

SR2

KANSAS MISSOURI

OKLAHOMA Tri-State Mining District

Base from National Hydrologic dataset, 2011, 1:100,000

U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2011, 1:100,000 

North American Datum 1983

JASPER COUNTY

BARTON COUNTY

CHEROKEE COUNTY

CRAWFORD COUNTY

OTTAWA 

COUNTY

NEWTON COUNTY

MCDONALD COUNTY

JASPER COUNTY

BARTON COUNTY

Figure 1. Study sites in the Tri-State Mining District in Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas.
4 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

Previous Investigations

Previous studies have sought to determine the lasting 

effects of more than 100 years of mining in the TSMD. Pope 

(2005) points out that hundreds of books, reports, articles, 

pamphlets, circulars, and abstracts have been written about the 

TSMD. This highlights the vast amount of work and research 

that has been done that ranges from geologic aspects to the 

environmental effects of the mining. Some of the earliest 

research examined the geologic nature of TSMD. Schmidt 

and Leonhard (1874) give one of the earliest accounts of the 

TSMD and describe in great detail the ore, geological conditions, and the mining activities at the time. 

The TSMD is an MVT deposit that was first characterized 

by Bastin (1939). MVT deposits are sulfide mineral deposits 

and are generally dominated by zinc (sphalerite) and lead 

(galena) ores that are hosted in carbonate rocks. They also may 

contain silver and copper, which can be mined for profit. Other 

MVT-related metals include arsenic, barium, cadmium, nickel, 

and cobalt (Leach and others, 2010). These types of deposits 

are found throughout the world, but the largest and most studied deposits are in North America. Many large MVT deposits 

are found in the drainage basin of the Mississippi River in the 

central United States and include those found in the Viburnum 

Trend and the Old Lead Belt in southeast Missouri, the Upper 

Mississippi Valley District in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa, 

and in northern Arkansas, and central Tennessee. 

One of the earliest studies on the environmental effects of 

mining in the district was done by Bailey (1911), who collected surface-water samples from the Spring River and select 

tributaries that drain the TSMD. A water sample collected 

from a tributary of Spring River just north of Galena, Kans., 

had a zinc concentration of 732 milligrams per liter (mg/L). 

Bailey (1911) also sampled water directly from select mine 

discharge and storage ponds. Concentrations of zinc in those 

samples ranged from 677 mg/L to 1,852 mg/L. 

Barks (1977) determined that mine-waste runoff and 

mine-water discharge were contributing to high concentrations 

of zinc and lead in Center Creek and Turkey Creek. Barks 

(1977) determined that groundwater from abandoned lead and 

zinc mines had a mean zinc concentration of 9.4 mg/L, but 

was limited to the immediate mine area and had little effect 

on the deep aquifer. The mean dissolved zinc concentration in 

runoff from mine-waste areas was 16 mg/L but was as large 

as 200 mg/L in one summer runoff sample that also had a 

lead concentration of 0.4 mg/L and cadmium concentration 

of 1.4 mg/L. Barks (1977) also determined that mine-water 

discharge had increased the dissolved zinc concentrations in 

receiving streams from a background concentration of 0.04 

mg/L to about 0.5 mg/L during low-flow conditions and that 

the higher concentrations were sustained during high-flow 

conditions by runoff from mine-waste piles. The deposition of 

mine waste in the streambed increased concentrations of lead 

and zinc in the bed material from background concentrations 

of 20 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to 450 mg/kg for lead 

and from 100 mg/kg to 2,500 mg/kg for zinc (Barks, 1977). 

Barks (1977) estimated that the runoff from mine-waste piles 

contributed to a 25-fold increase in concentrations of lead and 

zinc in the stream bed sediments.

Exposure to contaminants in an aquatic environment can 

cause adverse effects on the health of various aquatic species, and the contaminant concentrations at which adverse 

effects can occur vary widely and depend on exposure time, 

species, life stage, and many other factors. In an effort to 

establish a guideline for aquatic exposure to various contaminants, sediment toxicity tests, commonly using Hyalella 

azteca (a freshwater amphipod), are done to determine acute 

and chronic exposures to contaminants (Wang and others, 

2004). The results of toxicity tests are used to obtain the 

probable effects concentration (PEC) values for the various 

contaminants, above which adverse effects are more likely. 

MacDonald and others (2000) developed consensus-based 

PEC values (referred to as consensus probable effects concentration [CPEC] values in this report) for some trace metals that 

were based on several published sediment-quality guidelines 

obtained from observed effects that elevated concentrations of 

mining related metals had on aquatic wildlife. CPEC values 

were determined to be 33 mg/kg for arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg for 

cadmium, 111 mg/kg for chromium, 149 mg/kg for copper, 

128 mg/kg for lead, 48.6 mg/kg for nickel, and 459 mg/kg 

for zinc (MacDonald and others, 2000). Ingersoll and others (2009), using sediments from the TSMD, developed PEC 

values for cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations that were 

predicted to reduce the survival rate of Hyalella azteca by 

10 percent relative to reference sediments that were natural 

background concentrations and not enriched from mineralized areas. The Tri-State specific PEC (referred to as Tri-State 

Mining District specific probable effects concentration [TPEC] 

in this report) values of Ingersoll and others (2009) were determined to be 11.1 mg/kg for cadmium, 150 mg/kg for lead, and 

2,083 mg/kg for zinc. The TPECs were developed using sediment samples collected from the Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees 

(Grand Lake) in Oklahoma. The TSMD lies in the watersheds 

of the Spring River and the Neosho River. The Spring River 

flows into the Neosho River upstream from Grand Lake. The 

TSMD encompasses streams with varying levels of lead- and 

zinc-mining effects. For this reason, the CPEC or TPEC may 

not be an appropriate metric in all parts of the TSMD. In this 

report the general term PEC is used to represent both the 

CPEC and TPEC.

Pope (2005) studied surficial sediments from the Spring 

River and Tar Creek watersheds in Kansas and determined 

that the sediments were particularly enriched in cadmium, 

lead, and zinc compared to other trace elements. The median 

concentrations for cadmium, lead, and zinc were 13, 180, 

and 1,800 mg/kg, respectively. Pope (2005) determined that 

the maximum concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc 

were several hundred times higher than the minimum values 

for those respective metals, whereas the majority of maximum concentrations of other trace metals were less than (<) 

10 times the minimum value. Pope (2005) determined that 

samples in most mine-affected individual watersheds had 
Introduction 5

concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc that exceeded 

their respective CPEC. Concentrations exceeded the CPEC in 

64 percent of cadmium samples, 56 percent of lead samples, 

and 75 percent of zinc samples.

Schmitt and others (2005) collected 74 fish, representing 

6 different species, from 6 different sites on the Spring and 

Neosho Rivers in northeast Oklahoma in the TSMD. These 

six sites had varying degrees of mining influence, including 

non-mined reference sites. Schmitt and others (2005) analyzed 

the blood from each fish for cadmium, lead, zinc, iron, hemoglobin, and the activity of the enzyme δ-aminolevulinic acid 

dehydratase (ALA-D), which is involved in heme synthesis 

and is inhibited by lead. Fish from the sites that were most 

heavily affected by mining had elevated cadmium, lead, and 

zinc concentrations in their blood and generally exhibited a 

decrease in activity of ALA-D. Enzyme activity was greatest 

in fish from the reference sites. Schmitt and others (2005) also 

determined a negative correlation between lead concentrations 

and ALA-D activity in most species collected for the study. 

Their results indicated that lead was bioavailable and active 

biochemically in the Spring/Neosho River system.

Spring River flows through Empire Lake in Kansas, 

which traps much of the river’s sediment load. Juracek (2006) 

collected cores of bottom sediments from Empire Lake to 

determine the history of sediment deposition in the lake—a 

history that reflects the land use changes in the TSMD. Juracek (2006) was able to identify pre-1954 and post-1954 layers 

of sediment based on the activity of cesium-137. The overall 

concentrations of metals in sediments decreased as sediments 

got younger and have leveled off since 1954. Despite the 

concentrations remaining constant, cadmium concentrations 

exceeded the CPEC by 440 to 640 percent, lead by 40 to 80 

percent, and zinc by 580 to 970 percent in the most recently 

deposited (2005) sediments. The total volume and mass of 

sediment in Empire Lake was estimated to be 44 million 

cubic feet (about 1.6 million cubic yards) and 2,400 million 

pounds, respectively. Juracek (2006) also estimated the total 

mass of cadmium (78,000 pounds), lead (650,000 pounds), 

and zinc (12 million pounds) in sediment contained within 

Empire Lake. Sediment is deposited in Empire Lake during low-inflow periods; however, the ability of the reservoir 

to act as a sediment trap may have decreased over time and 

during periods of high-inflow most sediment may be transported through the reservoir and deposited farther downstream 

(Juracek, 2006).

Angelo and others (2007) studied mussels in the Spring 

River and determined that the number of species downstream 

from the heavily mined areas in the TSMD was considerably 

less than the number of species upstream from the mining 

areas. This decrease in species richness also corresponded 

to elevated concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc in the 

water, sediment, and tissue samples. 

Tar Creek, a tributary to the Neosho River, drains the 

historically most productive mining area of the TSMD near 

Picher, Oklahoma (Andrews and others, 2009). Andrews and 

others (2009) collected lakebed, streambed, and flood-plain 

sediments and (or) stream water samples at 30 sites in the 

Spring and Neosho River Basins and the Grand Lake O’ the 

Cherokees from 2000 to 2006. Of all the water samples collected from the study, samples from Tar Creek had the highest 

concentrations of cadmium, lead, manganese, and zinc. Tar 

Creek also had the highest concentrations of cadmium, iron, 

lead, manganese, and zinc in streambed-sediment samples collected for the study.

Juracek and Becker (2009) collected cores from five 

locations in the Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees to look at trends 

in the deposition of lead, zinc, cadmium, and other selected 

constituents. Concentrations of cadmium and lead in the core 

samples were typically less than the CPEC (MacDonald and 

others, 2000). Concentrations were also less than the TPECs 

(Ingersoll and others, 2009) of 11.1 mg/kg for cadmium and 

150 mg/ kg for lead. In contrast, zinc concentrations typically 

exceeded the CPEC of 459 mg/kg but were less than the TPEC 

of 2,083 mg/kg. Using the activity of cesium-137, Juracek and 

Becker (2009) were able to identify layers of sediment deposited earlier than 1954 and noticed an initial spike in concentrations of lead and zinc after 1964 and then a general decrease 

in concentrations in the depositional material beginning in the 

1980s.

McDonald and others (2010) conducted an advanced 

screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) of 

aquatic habitats in streams within and draining the TSMD. 

The SLERA consisted of a screening level ecological risk 

assessment to aquatic organisms and a detailed ecological risk 

assessment to benthic invertebrates to provide risk managers with additional information for identifying contaminant 

sources in streams, evaluating candidate source control measures, and assessing other risk management options. Of the 

1,162 sampling sites, 566 (49 percent) posed moderate or high 

risks to benthic invertebrate communities from contaminants 

of potential concern (COPCs) in the TSMD. The primary 

COPCs identified in sediment were metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and butyl benzyl phthalate. Most 

sediment samples that posed moderate to high risk to benthic 

invertebrates were identified along about the lower 20 mi of 

Center Creek, the lower 18 mi of Turkey Creek, the lower 

20 mi of Shoal Creek, and the lower 8–10 mi of Tar Creek. 

Sediments with moderate risk to benthic invertebrates also 

were present along most of the Spring River from its mouth 

at the Neosho River upstream to at least the mouth of Center 

Creek.

The effect of past mining activities is not limited to 

aquatic animals. Van der Merwe and others (2011) determined 

that migratory Canada geese (branta canadensis) collected 

in the TSMD had elevated concentrations of lead and zinc in 

their tissue. In their study, four to eight apparently healthy 

Canada geese, primarily young of the year goslings and adults, 

were collected from four sites with known mine-waste contamination and one reference site with no known contamination and were examined for metal poisoning. The geese from 

the mine-waste contaminated sites showed decreased activity 

of ALA-D that corresponded with elevated lead concentrations 
6 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

in tissue samples. Geese at one of the contaminated sites also 

demonstrated signs of zinc poisoning in the form of fibrosis 

and vacuolization of the pancreas, which also corresponded 

with elevated pancreatic zinc concentrations.

Juracek (2013) expanded upon his 2009 study by focusing on the presence of mining related lead and zinc in the 

flood plains of the Spring River and its tributaries in Cherokee 

County, Kans. Juracek (2013) identified the flood plain using 

USGS 1:24,000-scale topographic quadrangle maps. The 2013 

study indicated that surficial soils in the Spring River flood 

plain generally had lead and zinc concentrations that were 

less than the CPECs, and the concentrations that exceeded the 

CPECs were restricted to the flood plain of tributary streams. 

Concentrations that exceeded the CPEC or the TPEC were 

generally within the upper 2 ft of soil, or more frequently 

within the upper 6 inches (in.) of soil. Concentrations of lead 

and zinc in the surficial soil samples in the Spring River flood 

plain tended to decrease with increasing distance downstream 

and with increasing distance from the channel—the largest 

concentrations were generally present near the stream channel. Surficial soils in tributaries with very little mined areas 

had concentrations of lead and zinc that were substantially less 

than the CPEC and TPEC. Tributaries with extensive leadand zinc-mined areas had concentrations of lead and zinc in 

surficial soils that frequently or typically exceeded the CPEC 

and TPEC. 

Methodology

The large area of the TSMD required an array of methods 

for collecting samples from the stream channels along selected 

stream reaches and adjacent flood plains. The initial approach 

was to identify a representative reach along each stream 

that would be studied, and this selected reach would include 

several geomorphic channel units such as riffle, run, and pool. 

Several possible study sites along each stream were identified, 

but during an initial field reconnaissance of the area, landowner permission to access was not granted at most proposed 

study sites. Alternative study sites were selected that often 

were shorter in length and contained fewer geomorphic channel features. In an effort to provide more spatial data on depth 

of mine-waste contaminated sediments along each stream, 

additional study locations focusing on gravel bars were added 

along each stream. Collection of channel sediments focused 

primarily on gravel bars, and the thickness of sediments was 

determined using various coring techniques and a tile probe. 

Site Selection 

Five streams in the TSMD were selected for study: 

Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, Tar Creek, and 

the Spring River. These streams were selected because they 

drain mined areas, are spatially distributed across the TSMD, 

and have a range of drainage areas—Turkey Creek (46 mi2), 

Tar Creek (53 mi2), Shoal Creek (251 mi2), and Center Creek 

(300 mi2). The Spring River has a drainage area of about 

2,422 mi2 at the downstream-most sampling site near Baxter 

Springs, Kans., but the overall drainage area at its mouth at the 

Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees is 2,590 mi2.

Study reaches, flood plains, and gravel bar sites were 

identified using Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS [1938]), U.S. Department of Agriculture (2010), 

and Google EarthTM (2011) aerial imagery and NRCS Soil 

Survey Geographic Database [SSURGO (NRCS, 2003)] 

maps. After possible study reaches (overall length of stream 

that was studied) and sites (sections of the stream consisting 

of 1 or 2 gravel bars and [or] an adjacent flood plain) were 

chosen, the corresponding flood plain was identified using 

SSURGO maps by identifying soils that were classified as 

“frequently flooded,” where the probability of flooding in any 

year is greater than 50 percent, or “occasionally flooded,” 

where the probability of flooding in any year is 5 to 50 percent 

(Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2003). Flood-plain 

sites along Spring River and its tributaries selected by Juracek (2010) were also located in soils that were classified as 

“frequently flooded” or “occasionally flooded,” indicating that 

both methods were comparable. Once these sites were identified, landowner permission to access the gravel bars and flood 

plains was pursued. Site identifiers were chosen for locations 

on the streams that had 1 to 2 gravel bars in proximity to one 

another. In the case of Center Creek and Turkey Creek, the 

flood-plain samples were near site C2 (Center Creek) and 

sites TC2 and TC3 (Turkey Creek; fig. 1). The site identifiers 

used the first letter of the stream and the number of its order 

from downstream in relation to other sites on the stream. Two 

letters from the stream name were used in case the first letters 

of the two stream names were identical. For example, site C2 

is on Center Creek and it is the second upstream site from the 

mouth of Center Creek. Site TR1 is the first upstream site on 

Tar Creek from the mouth. Site identifiers with “FP” in the 

identifier indicated flood-plain cores with the exception of 

Center Creek and Turkey Creek, which were both intensive 

study areas and the flood-plain transects were part of the 

gravel bar transects. For example, site C2 contained gravel 

bar-sediment samples and flood-plain samples. Flood-plain 

samples were collected from several cores located along one 

or two transects approximately perpendicular to the stream 

either on one side of the stream or on both sides depending on 

the flood-plain location and accessibility. Transects were used 

to describe the linear placement of core holes across the flood 

plain and gravel bar used to characterize the metal concentrations spatially both at depth and horizontally across the flood 

plain from the lowest elevation near the stream channel to 

its highest elevation based on flooding frequency. Additional 

cores were collected in locations that were not along the floodplain transects but were at features of interest, such as old 

channels or low-lying areas, that could be areas of preferential 

deposition. These additional flood-plain samples were given 

the prefix “FB” to indicate a possibly biased flood-plain boring. Because the Spring River flood plain had already been 
Methodology 7

sampled by Juracek (2013), no flood-plain cores were collected from the Spring River flood plain.

Two stream sites, one on the lower part of the reach of 

Center Creek and one on the lower part of the reach of Turkey 

Creek, were selected for more intensive study. These were 

sites C1 and C2 on Center Creek and sites TC1, TC2, and TC3 

on Turkey Creek (fig. 1). A greater number of cores within the 

channel and on the adjacent flood plain were collected at these 

intensive sites compared to other sites along the streams. Also, 

additional gravel bars were sampled upstream from these two 

intensive study sites to provide further information on the 

spatial variability of metal concentrations within the stream 

channel. Because of difficulty obtaining access, intensive 

study sites were not located along Tar Creek, Shoal Creek, or 

Spring River. A complete list of channel-sediment sample and 

flood-plain sample locations can be found in tables 1 and 2, 

respectively.

Sample Collection

This section presents the details of the sampling methods 

used to collect both channel-sediment samples and flood-plain 

sediment samples. A detailed field log was made for each flood 

plain and channel sediment core and sample by a hydrologist 

during the sample collection. The general sedimentological 

description of sample, method description, general remarks, 

and core recovery was noted on each log. Each log also 

included a detailed field sketch of the gravel bar, wetted channel, and (or) flood plain. A chain of custody (COC) was filled 

out for every flood-plain core and channel-sediment sample 

collected. The COC noted the general handling procedures, 

location, and persons in custody of the samples as they were 

transported from the field to the USGS Rolla, Mo., office or 

USFWS office for handheld x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis 

by USFWS personnel.

Stream Channel

Gravel bar-sediment samples required different methods 

based on cohesion, depth, and grain-size distribution of the 

sediments. Shallow samples on gravel bars (<2 ft deep and 

above the water surface) were collected using a shovel and a 

small hand scoop. A hole was typically dug to the target depth 

with a shovel. The disturbed sediment on the sides of the hole 

was carefully cleared away to expose the undisturbed sediment. A plastic hand scoop was then used to scoop up a sample of undisturbed sediment from the all exposed 1-ft intervals. 

Care was taken to avoid sampling near areas that could contain 

float from shallower depths. The channel-sediment sample was 

then placed directly in double plastic bags that were marked 

with the date, time, depth interval, and coring location identifier. The plastic scoop was rinsed with deionized water after 

each use to prevent cross contamination between the samples. 

Gravel bars with a surface 3 to 6 ft above the water level of the 

stream were typically excavated to the maximum depth above 

the saturation zone with a tractor-mounted bucket if the gravel 

bar was accessible by heavy equipment, and then samples 

were collected as described above. If the gravel bar was not 

accessible by heavy equipment, then samples from above the 

water surface were collected by digging a hole with a shovel 

as described above. 

A traditional method for sediment sampling is to collect 

core samples using a heavy walled sampler such as the splitspoon sampler or the piston sampler (Coduto, 1999). Loose, 

saturated sediment may fall from these samplers as they are 

removed from the subsurface (Murphy and Herkelrath, 1996). 

Further difficulties are encountered when sampling in coarsegrained sediments. Because of its high friction, sand and fine 

gravel can create a plug within the sampler during collection, 

which can prevent material from completely feeding into the 

sampler. Granular material larger than the opening of the sampler can block the opening and prevent sediment from feeding 

into to tube (Zapico and others, 1987). Zapico and others 

(1987) used a piston sampler to collect saturated cohesionless 

sands and gravels to depths up to approximately 110 ft and 

reported a mean recovery rate of 88 percent. The researchers 

suspected that the presence of cobble-sized material may have 

been responsible for the reduced recovery rate. Because of the 

great volume of coarse-grained material found in streams of 

the TSMD, this study used a combination of traditional and 

experimental methods to obtain gravel bar-sediment samples.

Most of the gravel bar-sediment samples were collected 

by using the freeze-core method (Smith and Barr, USGS, written commun., 2015; Smith, 2013; Smith and Elmore, 2013) 

with a truck- or tractor-mounted GeoprobeTM direct-push 

soil probe to mechanically force the freeze-core sampler into 

the subsurface and retrieve it. Many of the gravel bars in the 

TSMD are fine grained material mixed with cobble and boulder-size material, which can cause poor core recovery with 

traditional core methods. The saturated sediment in TSMD 

streams has little or no cohesion and can quickly fall from the 

traditional sampler as it is removed from the subsurface. 

A freeze-core bit was fabricated at the USGS Missouri 

Water Science Center (fig. 2) and has been successfully used 

to collect vertical profiles of sediments from other mine-waste 

contaminated streams (Smith and Barr, USGS, written commun., 2015). Early designs used by Lisle and Eads (1991) 

recommended a simple hand-driven hollow rod to freeze sediments in gravels used by salmon spawning. The design used 

for the TSMD study was a 1-ft long freeze-core sampler fabricated from GeoprobeTM 1.25-in. drive rods with 1⁄2-in. vertical steel fins along the outside, which has a gross diameter of 

2.25 in. (fig. 2). Large material is pushed aside by the sampler 

as it is driven to the desired depth. Fine grain material is then 

frozen alongside the sampler between the fins. The fins also 

protect the frozen sample from scraping against large material as the rods are pulled from the subsurface. Performance 

and quality assurance testing of the freeze-core sampler were 

discussed in Smith (2013) and Smith and Elmore (2013). 

The freeze-core sampler was attached to a 4-ft section of 

hollow drive rod and driven into the sediment mechanically 
8 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District Table 1. Sediment core and sample locations, depth of water from the surface and maximum sample depth at each location, maximum depth of sediment exceeding the consensus probable effects concentration and the Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration, and the percent depth of sediment exceeding the general probable effects concentration and the Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration for Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, Tar Creek, and Spring River in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12. [DDMMSS, degrees, minutes, seconds; mm/dd/yyyy, month, day, year; hhmm, hours, minutes; ft, foot; CPEC, probable effects concentration (MacDonald and others, 2000); TPEC, Tri-State Mining Disctrict specific probable effects concentration (Ingersoll and others, 2009); GB, gravel bar; —, no data; WC, wetted channel; all coordinates are referenced in the World Geodetic System 1984] Coring or sample identifier Latitude (DDMMSS) Longitude (DDMMSS) Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Time (hhmm) Gravel bar or wetted channel Site identifier Depth of water below the surface at coring or sample location (ft) Maximum sediment deptha (ft) Maximum depth of sediment exceeding the CPEC (ft) Maximum depth of sediment exceeding the TPEC (ft) Percent depth of sediment exceeding the CPEC Percent depth of sediment exceeding the TPEC Center Creek CTR-CH-1 370943 943519 11/02/2011 0800 GB C1 2.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 100.0 87.5 CTR-CH-2 370941 943521 11/02/2011 1310 GB C1 1.0 9.5 9.5 7.5 100.0 78.9 CTR-CH-3 370937 943523 11/02/2011 1415 GB C1 1.0 8.5 8.5 6.0 100.0 70.6 CTR-CH-4 370935 943521 11/03/2012 1055 GB C1 2.0 7.0 6.0 2.0 85.7 28.6 CTR-GB-1 370934 943524 11/03/2011

— GB C1 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 100.0 100.0

CTR-WC-1 370937 943523 11/02/2012 1445 WC C1 -0.5 6.5 6.5 3.0 100.0 46.2CTR-WC-2 370939 943523 11/02/2012 1600 WC C1 -1.0 7.0 7.0 0.0 100.0 0.0CTR-CH-5 370942 943503 11/04/2011 1050 GB C2 1.0 6.5 6.5 5.5 100.0 84.6CTR-CH-6 370934 943503 11/04/2011 1320 GB C2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 100.0 100.0CTR-CH-7 370933 943501 11/04/2011 1340 GB C2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 100.0 100.0CTR-WC-3 370944 943506 11/04/2011 1315 WC C2 -1.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 100.0 100.0CTR-WC-4 370941 943459 11/04/2011 1340 WC C2 -2.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 100.0 100.0CC-A-HD1 371002 943220 05/12/2012 1437 GB C3 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 100.0 100.0CC-A-HD2 371002 943219 05/12/2012 1700 GB C3 0.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 100.0 100.0CC-D-HD1 371006 943052 06/07/2012 1447 GB C4 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 100.0 100.0CC-D-HD2 371006 943052 06/07/2012 1559 GB C4 1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 100.0 100.0CC-D-WC1 371006 943052 06/07/2012 1200 GB C4 -2.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 100.0 100.0CC-C-HD1 371027 942727 06/05/2012 0830 GB C5 1.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 100.0 100.0CC-C-HD2 371028 942725 06/05/2012

— GB C5 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 100.0 100.0

CC-C-WC1 371028 942725 06/07/2012 1200 GB C5 -2.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 100.0 100.0CC-B-HD1 370743 942257 05/15/2012 1043 GB C6 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0CC-B-HD2 370744 942258 05/15/2012 1130 GB C6 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0CC-B-HS1 370743 942257 05/15/2012

— GB C6 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

CC-B-HS2 370744 942258 05/15/2012

— GB C6 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Methodology 

9

Table 1. Sediment core and sample locations, depth of water from the surface and maximum sample depth at each location, maximum depth of sediment exceeding the consensus probable effects concentration and the Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration, and the percent depth of sediment exceeding the general probable effects concentration and the Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration for Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, Tar Creek, and Spring River in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12.—Continued[DDMMSS, degrees, minutes, seconds; mm/dd/yyyy, month, day, year; hhmm, hours, minutes; ft, foot; CPEC, probable effects concentration (MacDonald and others, 2000); TPEC, Tri-State Mining Disctrict specific probable effects concentration (Ingersoll and others, 2009); GB, gravel bar; —, no data; WC, wetted channel; all coordinates are referenced in the World Geodetic System 1984]

Coring or 

sample 

identifier 

Latitude 

(DDMMSS)

Longitude 

(DDMMSS)

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Time 

(hhmm)

 Gravel bar 

or wetted 

channel 

 Site 

identifier 

Depth of water 

below the surface 

at coring or sample 

location 

(ft)

Maximum 

sediment 

deptha

(ft)

 Maximum 

depth of 

sediment 

exceeding 

the CPEC 

(ft) 

 Maximum 

depth of 

sediment 

exceeding 

the TPEC 

(ft) 

 Percent 

depth of 

sediment 

exceeding 

the CPEC 

 Percent 

depth of 

sediment 

exceeding 

the TPEC 

Turkey Creek

TKC-CH-5 370715 943516 06/21/2012 1300 GB TC1 0.9 4.3 4.3 4.3 100.0 100.0TKC-CH-5P 370715 943518 06/20/2015 1640 GB TC1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 100.0 100.0TKC-CH-6 370717 943517 06/21/2012 1140 GB TC1 5.0 8.5 8.5 8.5 100.0 100.0TKC-CH-7 370718 943515 06/20/2012 1630 GB TC1 1.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 100.0 100.0TKC-WC-3 370718 943516 06/21/2012 1030 WC TC1 -0.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 100.0 100.0TKC-CH-4 370713 943507 06/20/2012 1330 GB TC2 7.0 11.5 11.5 11.5 100.0 100.0TKC-CH-1 370715 943459 06/19/2012 1015 GB TC3 3.6 6.5 6.5 6.5 100.0 100.0TKC-CH-2 370715 943501 06/19/2012 1230 GB TC3 3.3 8.2 8.2 7.0 100.0 85.4TKC-CH-3 370714 943500 06/19/2012 1640 GB TC3 6.2 13.0 13.0 13.0 100.0 100.0TKC-WC-1 370715 943501 06/19/2012 1530 WC TC3 -1.6 4.6 2.0 2.0 43.5 43.5TC-D-HD1 370709 943413 06/06/2012 0925 GB TC4 1.9 8.5 8.5 8.5 100.0 100.0TC-D-HD2 370708 943411 06/06/2012 1200 GB TC4 2.2 5.1 5.1 5.1 100.0 100.0TC-B-HD1 370625 943031 05/16/2012 1020 GB TC6 0.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 100.0 100.0TC-B-HD2 370625 943030 05/16/2012 1045 GB TC6 0.4 6.4 1.0 1.0 15.6 15.6TC-C-HD1 370627 943029 05/16/2012 1415 GB TC6 0.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 100.0 100.0TC-C-HD2 370627 943029 05/16/2012 1420 GB TC6 0.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 100.0 100.0TC-C-HS1 370627 943029 05/16/2012 1425 GB TC6 1.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 100.0 100.0TC-E-HD1 370704 943323 06/06/2012 1630 GB TC5 0.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 100.0 100.0TC-E-HD2 370702 943323 06/06/2012 1620 GB TC5 1.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 100.0 100.0TC-E-HD3 370704 943323 06/06/2012 1235 GB TC5 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 100.0 100.0TC-E-WC1 370702 943323 06/07/2012 1140 WC TC5 -2.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 50.0 50.0TC-A-HD1 370601 942844 05/15/2012 1555 GB TC7 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0 100.0 0.0TC-A-HD2 370601 942846 05/15/2012 1635 GB TC7 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.0 100.0 0.0
10 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District Table 1. Sediment core and sample locations, depth of water from the surface and maximum sample depth at each location, maximum depth of sediment exceeding the consensus probable effects concentration and the Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration, and the percent depth of sediment exceeding the general probable effects concentration and the Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration for Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, Tar Creek, and Spring River in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12.—Continued [DDMMSS, degrees, minutes, seconds; mm/dd/yyyy, month, day, year; hhmm, hours, minutes; ft, foot; CPEC, probable effects concentration (MacDonald and others, 2000); TPEC, Tri-State Mining Disctrict specific probable effects concentration (Ingersoll and others, 2009); GB, gravel bar; —, no data; WC, wetted channel; all coordinates are referenced in the World Geodetic System 1984] Coring or sample identifier Latitude (DDMMSS) Longitude (DDMMSS) Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Time (hhmm) Gravel bar or wetted channel Site identifier Depth of water below the surface at coring or sample location (ft) Maximum sediment deptha (ft) Maximum depth of sediment exceeding the CPEC (ft) Maximum depth of sediment exceeding the TPEC (ft) Percent depth of sediment exceeding the CPEC Percent depth of sediment exceeding the TPEC Shoal Creek SH-CH-11 370230 943824 07/09/2012 1430 GB S1 3.0 9.0 9.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 SH-WC-3 370228 943824 07/09/2012 1200 WC S1 4.0 4.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 SH-CH-8 370210 943528 07/30/2012 1640 GB S2 1.0 9.0 3.0 1.0 33.3 11.1 SH-CH-9 370211 943529 07/30/2012 1508 GB S2 5.1 11.9 8.0 6.0 67.2 50.4 SH-CH-7 370206 943331 07/11/2012 0855 GB S3 4.0 7.9 7.9 0.0 100.0 0.0 SH-CH-5 370207 943322 07/12/2012 1300 GB S3 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 SH-WC-2 370206 943323 07/12/2012 0820 WC S3 -2.2 2.0 2.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 SH-CH-1 370156 943315 07/31/2012 0805 GB S4 1.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 SH-CH-2 370159 943318 07/31/2012 0920 GB S4 3.0 7.1 2.0 0.0 28.2 0.0 SH-WC-1 370158 943319 07/12/2012 1030 WC S4 -1.2 2.8 1.0 0.0 35.7 0.0 SC-A-HD1 365859 942628 05/17/2012 0910 GB S5 2.2 3.5 2.0 0.0 57.1 0.0 SC-A-HD2 365859 942628 05/17/2012 0940 GB S5 0.9 2.0 2.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Tar Creek TAR-12-HC1 365554 945124 07/28/2011 1345 WC TR1 -2.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 100.0 100.0 TAR-11-HC1 365413 945209 07/27/2011 1300 GB TR2 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 100.0 100.0 TAR-TR-11 365413 945209 07/14/2011 1510 GB TR2 -1.8 1.6 1.0 1.0 62.5 62.5 TAR-TR-5 365426 945212 07/13/2011 1750 GB TR3 -0.3 0.5 0.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 TAR-4-HC1 365438 945206 07/28/2011 1100 GB TR4 1.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 100.0 100.0 TAR-TR-4 365438 945206 07/13/2011 1715 GB TR4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 100.0 100.0 TAR-3-HP1 365442 945203 07/28/2011 1000 GB TR5 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 100.0 100.0 TAR-TR-3 365442 945202 07/13/2011 1610 GB TR5 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 100.0 100.0 TAR-TR-3A 365442 945204 07/12/2011 1500 GB TR5 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 100.0 100.0 TAR-TR-2 365453 945154 07/13/2011 1520 GB TR6 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 100.0 100.0
Methodology 11

Table 1. Sediment core and sample locations, depth of water from the surface and maximum sample depth at each location, maximum depth of sediment exceeding the consensus probable effects concentration and the Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration, and the percent depth of sediment exceeding the general probable effects concentration and the Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration for Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, Tar Creek, and Spring River in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12.—Continued[DDMMSS, degrees, minutes, seconds; mm/dd/yyyy, month, day, year; hhmm, hours, minutes; ft, foot; CPEC, probable effects concentration (MacDonald and others, 2000); TPEC, Tri-State Mining Disctrict specific probable effects concentration (Ingersoll and others, 2009); GB, gravel bar; —, no data; WC, wetted channel; all coordinates are referenced in the World Geodetic System 1984]

Coring or 

sample 

identifier 

Latitude 

(DDMMSS)

Longitude 

(DDMMSS)

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Time 

(hhmm)

 Gravel bar 

or wetted 

channel 

 Site 

identifier 

Depth of water 

below the surface 

at coring or sample 

location 

(ft)

Maximum 

sediment 

deptha

(ft)

 Maximum 

depth of 

sediment 

exceeding 

the CPEC 

(ft) 

 Maximum 

depth of 

sediment 

exceeding 

the TPEC 

(ft) 

 Percent 

depth of 

sediment 

exceeding 

the CPEC 

 Percent 

depth of 

sediment 

exceeding 

the TPEC 

Tar Creek—Continued

TAR-TR-1 365500 945147 07/13/2011 1450 GB TR7 -0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 100.0 100.0TAR-TR-10b 365554 945124 07/14/2011 1370 GB TR8 0.2 2.9 1.0 1.0 34.5 34.5TAR-6-VC1 365426 945212 07/27/2011 1400 GB TR9 1.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 100.0 100.0TAR-TR-6b 365605 945125 07/14/2011 1000 GB TR9 0.2 3.5 1.0 1.0 28.6 28.6TAR-TR-7b 365609 945127 07/14/2011 1035 GB TR10 0.0 3.3 1.0 1.0 30.3 30.0TAR-9-PT1 365625 945123 07/27/2011 1110 GB TR11 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 100.0 100.0TAR-9-VC1 365626 945123 07/27/2011 1030 GB TR11 2.0 6.6 6.0 5.0 90.9 78.5TAR-9-VC1A 365626 945123 07/27/2011 1230 GB TR11 2.0 6.6 6.6 6.0 100.0 90.9TAR-BAR-1 365625 945123 08/10/2011 0845 GB TR11 1.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 83.3 83.3TAR-TR-9b 365626 945123 07/14/2011 1230 GB TR11 0.5 4.3 1.0 1.0 23.3 23.3TAR-8-VC1 365630 945116 07/27/2011 1300 GB TR12 0.5 3.8 3.8 3.8 100.0 100.0TAR-TR-8b 365630 945116 07/14/2011 1140 GB TR12 0.0 3.3 1.0 1.0 30.3 30.3

Spring River

SR-CH-1 370331 944344 08/01/2012 0955 GB SR1 6.0 15.0 13.0 0.0 86.7 0.0SR-CH-2 370333 944344 08/01/2012 1215 GB SR1 4.0 19.1 19.1 0.0 100.0 0.0SR-CH-3 370335 944343 08/01/2012 1650 GB SR1 1.0 14.0 6.0 0.0 42.9 0.0SR-CH-4 370749 943735 08/02/2012 1238 GB SR2 1.0 5.3 5.3 5.0 100.0 94.3SR-CH-5 370748 943737 08/02/2012 1340 GB SR2 1.2 8.0 8.0 2.0 100.0 25.0

aThe maximum depth of recovery, which is equal to the refusal of the sampler.bThe maximum depth of the core or sample and the maximum depth differ due to the collection of shallow core or samples paired with tile probe sounding to determine the maximum depth at these locations. 
12 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

Table 2. Flood-plain core and sample locations, maximum depth or core at each location, maximum depth of core exceeding the 

consensus probable effects concentration and the Tri-State Mining District-specific probable effects concentration, and the percent 

depth of core exceeding the general probable effects concentration and the Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects 

concentration for the flood plains of Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12.

[DDMMSS, degrees, minutes, seconds; mm/dd/yyyy, month, day, year; hhmm, hours, minutes; ft,foot; CPEC, concensus probable effects concentration (MacDonald and others, 2000); TPEC, Tri-State Mining Disctrict specific probable effects concentration (Ingersoll and others, 2009); —, no data; all coordinates are 

referenced in the World Geodetic System 1984]

Coring or 

sample 

identifier 

Latitude 

(DDMMSS)

Longitude 

(DDMMSS)

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Time 

(hhmm)

Site 

identifier 

Maximum 

depth of 

core 

(ft) 

Maximum 

depth 

of core 

exceeding 

the CPEC 

(ft) 

Maximum 

depth 

of core 

exceeding 

the TPEC 

(ft) 

Percent 

depth 

of core 

exceeding 

the CPEC 

Percent 

depth 

of core 

exceeding 

the TPEC 

 Center Creek 

 CTR-FB-1 370940 943519 11/05/2011 1530 C1 9.0 4.0 3.0 44.4 33.3

 CTR-FB-2 370939 943507 11/05/2011 1145 C2 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 CTR-FP-1 370952 943500 11/08/2011 1415 C2 12.0 11.0 8.0 91.7 66.7

 CTR-FP-2 370949 943501 11/08/2011 1300 C2 16.0 16.0 16.0 100.0 100.0

 CTR-FP-3 370946 943502 11/08/2011 1140 C2 9.5 1.0 1.0 10.5 10.5

 CTR-FP-4 370939 943503 11/01/2011 1220 C2 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 CTR-FP-5 370936 943504 11/01/2011 — C2 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Turkey Creek 

 TKC-FB-1 370715 943501 06/18/2012 1620 TC3 14.5 12.0 1.0 82.8 6.9

 TKC-FB-2 370711 943510 06/19/2012 0905 TC1 13.6 1.0 1.0 7.4 7.4

 TKC-FP-1 370721 943506 06/18/2012 1410 TC2 9.0 7.0 1.0 77.8 11.1

 TKC-FP-2 370719 943505 06/18/2012 1500 TC2 13.0 10.0 10.0 76.9 76.9

 TKC-FP-3 370717 943503 06/18/2012 1545 TC2 11.0 9.0 2.0 81.8 18.2

 TKC-FP-4 370713 943459 06/19/2012 0820 TC3 11.0 9.0 1.0 81.8 9.1

 Shoal Creek 

 SH-FB-1 370158 943310 07/10/2012 1245 S4 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 SH-FB-2 370218 943426 07/10/2012 1200 SFP2 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 SH-FB-3 370217 943435 07/10/2012 1245 SFP2 16.0 12.0 0.0 75.0 0.0

 SH-FB-4 370159 943318 07/31/2012 0920 S4 9.0 9.0 8.0 100.0 88.9

 SH-FP-1 370234 943855 07/10/2012 1545 SFP1 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 SH-FP-2 370239 943855 07/10/2012 1515 SFP1 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 SH-FP-3 370244 943855 07/10/2012 1435 SFP1 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 SH-FP-4 370249 943855 07/10/2012 1400 SFP1 11.0 10.0 0.0 90.9 0.0

Tar Creek 

 TAR-FB-1 365449 945217 08/09/2011 1405 TRFP2 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 TAR-FB-2 365440 945204 08/09/2011 1455 TRFP2 11.0 6.0 3.0 54.5 27.3

 TAR-FB-3 365440 945205 08/09/2011 1430 TRFP2 10.0 10.0 1.0 100.0 10.0

 TAR-FB-4 365625 945124 08/10/2011 1200 TR11 11.0 1.0 1.0 9.1 9.1

 TAR-FP1-1 365613 945128 08/09/2011 1735 TRFP1 8.5 7.0 5.0 82.4 58.8

 TAR-FP1-2 365613 945126 08/09/2011 1715 TRFP1 13.0 1.0 1.0 7.7 7.7

 TAR-FP1-3 365613 945123 08/09/2011 1650 TRFP1 11.5 1.0 1.0 8.7 8.7

 TAR-FP1-4 365613 945120 08/09/2011 1625 TRFP1 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 TAR-FP2-1 365440 945207 08/09/2011 1315 TRFP2 13.0 1.0 1.0 7.7 7.7

 TAR-FP2-2 365441 945210 08/09/2011 1250 TRFP2 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Methodology 13

Table 2. Flood-plain core and sample locations, maximum depth or core at each location, maximum depth of core exceeding the 

consensus probable effects concentration and the Tri-State Mining District-specific probable effects concentration, and the percent 

depth of core exceeding the general probable effects concentration and the Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects 

concentration for the flood plains of Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12.—

Continued

[DDMMSS, degrees, minutes, seconds; mm/dd/yyyy, month, day, year; hhmm, hours, minutes; ft,foot; CPEC, concensus probable effects concentration (MacDonald and others, 2000); TPEC, Tri-State Mining Disctrict specific probable effects concentration (Ingersoll and others, 2009); —, no data; all coordinates are 

referenced in the World Geodetic System 1984]

Coring or 

sample 

identifier 

Latitude 

(DDMMSS)

Longitude 

(DDMMSS)

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Time 

(hhmm)

Site 

identifier 

Maximum 

depth of 

core 

(ft) 

Maximum 

depth 

of core 

exceeding 

the CPEC 

(ft) 

Maximum 

depth 

of core 

exceeding 

the TPEC 

(ft) 

Percent 

depth 

of core 

exceeding 

the CPEC 

Percent 

depth 

of core 

exceeding 

the TPEC 

Tar Creek—Continued 

 TAR-FP2-3 365443 945212 08/09/2011 1200 TRFP2 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 TAR-FP2-4 365444 945215 08/09/2011 1110 TRFP2 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 TAR-FP2-5 365446 945221 08/09/2011 1135 TRFP2 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Figure 2. Freeze-core sampler with attached frozen sediment sample immediately after recovery 

and the freeze-core sampler with scale (Smith and Elmore, 2013).
14 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

by the GeoprobeTM hammer or by hand using a 15-pound (lb) 

fence-post driver at locations not accessible to heavy equipment. Once the sampler was driven to the required depth, 

0.125-in. stainless steel tubing was inserted into the driving 

rods until the opening of the tubing was even with the center of the freeze-core sampler. The tubing was attached to a 

tank of liquid carbon dioxide (CO2

). The tank had an internal 

siphon tube that draws liquid from the bottom of the tank, 

ensuring that liquid CO2

 was released and not gaseous CO2. 

This was also accomplished using a tank without a siphon tube 

by inverting the tank. It was important to release the liquid 

CO2

 near the center of the sampler because the evaporation 

of the liquid was instantaneous. The endothermic reaction 

absorbed heat energy, which cooled the sampler and the surrounding saturated sediment. Liquid CO2

 was injected into the 

sampler for 0.5–4 minutes (min) (fig. 3). The injection of CO2

was either continuous or divided up into two to three pulses 

with 15- to 30-second breaks. The length of time that CO2

 was 

injected was varied based on conditions in the field and sample 

recovery of previous samples. The rods and sampler were 

removed mechanically by the GeoprobeTM or by hand using a 

fence-post puller (fig. 4).

Once the frozen sample was removed, it was quickly 

rinsed with deionized water to remove loose particles that 

may have attached from shallower depths while the sampler 

was pulled upward. This rinse left a frozen core that was a 

representative channel-sediment sample at the depth that it 

was frozen. The sampler with frozen sediment was placed over 

a steel pan (fig. 2) and the frozen sediment was scraped into 

the pan with a plastic scraping tool. If needed, any remaining attached sediment was then melted by rinsing into the pan 

using deionized water. The sample was then placed in double 

plastic bags and labeled with the date, time, depth interval, and 

core identification.

Tar Creek lacked the cobble and boulder sized material 

present at the other streams and the freeze-core method often 

was not necessary. Shallow samples (<2 ft deep and above 

the water surface) were collected using a shovel and a small 

hand scoop similar to the other streams. Deeper channelsediment samples were collected using the vibra-core method 

as described by Lanesky and others (1979) to collect continuous cores from the surface to bedrock. The vibra-core method 

involved vibrating a 4-in. aluminum tube into the sediment 

with an attached concrete mixer. Aluminum alloys generally 

contain trace amounts of copper, magnesium, manganese, 

silicon, tin, and zinc. These amounts are generally <1 percent. 

The sample for analysis was taken from about a 2-in. diameter 

core in the center of the aluminum tube to reduce the probability of contamination of the sample. The vibra-core method 

tended to work well for sampling at Tar Creek because the 

sediment thickness was generally a few feet or less. Once the 

cores were removed from the subsurface, the excess core tube 

was cut off using a reciprocating saw and the ends covered in 

plastic and sealed with tape. The core was marked with the 

date, time, depth interval, core identification, and orientation. 

The last method used for gravel-bar sediment was a steel GeoprobeTM core barrel sampler with plastic liner, typically used 

for collecting flood-plain samples (described in methodology 

subsection, “Flood plain”), was hammered into the gravel-bar 

sediment in gravel bars with an intermediate sediment thickness of 1 to 2 ft. 

dioxide (CO

Figure 3. Liquid carbon 

2

) injection tube 

inserted into the hollow driving 

rods during the injection of 

liquid CO2

.
Methodology 15

Figure 4. Removal of the rods 

and sample by hand using a 

fence-post puller.

The depth of refusal at each borehole (traditional core, 

freeze core, or vibra core) location was recorded. Refusal was 

assumed to be the lower vertical extent of the channel sediments. A tile probe was also used to verify the depth of refusal 

at the borehole locations as well as at other locations within 

the channel to provide additional information on the thickness 

distribution of channel sediments. The height of the gravel bar 

deposits above the water level of the stream at each borehole 

location and tile probe location was determined by measuring the depth to water that was visible in the borehole or by 

measuring the height with a hand level and surveyor’s rod. A 

complete list of tile probe locations can be found in table 3.

Flood Plain

Flood-plain cores were collected using a truck-mounted 

GeoprobeTM direct-push soil sampling unit. Traditional coring used a 4-ft long, 2.25-in. outside diameter core barrel to 

collect a 1.125-in. diameter core. After collection of each 4-ft 

increment, the sampler was mechanically removed from the 

soil. It was opened to retrieve the soil core that was inside 

of a clear plastic sleeve that prevented contact with the steel 

core barrel. Once a core was retrieved, it was measured to 

determine the percent recovery, which is computed by dividing the length of recovered core by the length of the run. 

Plastic caps were placed on both ends of the plastic sleeve 

and secured with tape. The plastic sleeve was labeled with the 

date, time, depth interval, core identification, and orientation. 

A measurement was made in the open hole to verify the depth 

between runs and ensure that the hole did not collapse. An 

insert was used in the drive shoe of the core barrel to prevent 

soil from entering until the core barrel reached the previous 

sampling depth in the event that the hole collapsed. Measuring 

the depth of the hole ensured that the sample was representative of the target depth. This process was repeated after each 

run until the sampler met refusal.

Sample Processing and Analysis

The following describes the handling and processing 

procedures including the storage, sieving, and XRF analysis 

of more than 700 stream and flood-plain samples collected 

during this study. An XRF instrument was used to analyze all 

samples for the concentration of arsenic, cadmium, barium, 

cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, lead, and zinc. The 2007 

Thermo NitonTM XL3t 600 XRF instrument was owned by the 

USFWS and analyses were conducted by USFWS personnel at 

the USFWS office in Columbia, Missouri and the USGS office 

in Rolla, Missouri. The XRF instrument analyzed concentrations for these nine MVT-related metals; however, the primary 

metals of concern for the project were cadmium, lead, and 

zinc. The XRF analysis was conducted following the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) 

which can be used in the determination of elemental concentrations in soils and must be used with confirmatory analysis 

using other techniques.
16 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

Table 3. Tile probe locations, depth of water from the surface, and maximum depth of refusal at each location for Center Creek, Turkey 

Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12.

[DDMMSS, degrees, minutes, seconds; mm/dd/yyyy, month, day, year; ft, foot; GB, gravel bar; WC, wetted channel; --, no data]

Tile probe 

identifier 

Latitude 

(DDMMSS)

Longitude 

(DDMMSS)

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

 Site 

identifier 

 Gravel bar or 

wetted channel 

Depth of water 

below the surface 

(ft)

Maximum depth 

of refusal 

(ft)

 Center Creek 

CC-A-TP-1 371002 943220 5/14/2012 C3 GB 0.0 6.3

CC-B-TP-1 370743 942258 5/15/2012 C6 GB 0.0 3.4

CC-B-TP-2 370744 942258 5/15/2012 C6 GB 0.0 2.1

CC-B-TP-3 370744 942258 5/15/2012 C6 GB 0.0 3.0

CC-C-WC-TP-1 371028 942727 6/5/2012 C5 WC -3.8 0.2

CC-C-WC-TP-2 371028 942726 6/5/2012 C5 WC -2.5 1.7

CC-D-TP-1 371008 943052 6/7/2012 C4 GB 0.0 2.0

CC-D-WC-TP-2 371007 943053 6/7/2012 C4 WC -2.0 1.0

CRT-GP-1 370943 943522 11/3/2011 C1 GB 0.0 9.0

CRT-GP-10 370944 943518 11/3/2011 C1 GB 0.0 5.0

CRT-GP-11 370940 943522 11/3/2011 C1 GB 6.0 13.5

CRT-GP-2 370940 943523 11/3/2011 C1 GB 0.5 8.5

CRT-GP-3 370938 943524 11/3/2011 C1 GB 0.0 8.4

CRT-GP-4 370936 943524 11/3/2011 C1 GB 0.0 6.2

CRT-GP-5 370937 943523 11/3/2011 C1 GB 1.0 8.0

CRT-GP-6 370937 943523 11/3/2011 C1 GB 1.0 10.0

CRT-GP-7 370938 943523 11/3/2011 C1 GB 0.5 8.5

CRT-GP-8 370940 943523 11/3/2011 C1 GB 0.5 9.5

CRT-GP-9 370943 943522 11/3/2011 C2 GB 0.0 7.0

CTR-GP-13 370943 943502 11/4/2011 C2 GB 2.0 7.2

CTR-GP-14 370942 943501 11/4/2011 C1 GB 7.0 8.8

CTR-TP-1 370933 943525 11/3/2011 C1 GB -- 1.0

CTR-TP-2 370932 943529 11/3/2011 C1 GB -- 2.0

 Turkey Creek 

TC-A-TP-1 370601 942845 5/15/2012 TC7 GB 1.1 1.6

TC-A-TP-2 370601 942846 5/15/2012 TC7 GB 2.6 4.0

TC-A-TP-3 370601 942844 5/15/2012 TC7 GB 0.0 1.0

TC-B-TP-1 370625 943032 5/16/2012 TC6 GB 0.1 4.6

TC-B-TP-2 370625 943031 5/16/2012 TC6 GB 0.2 2.4

TC-B-TP-3 370627 943031 5/16/2012 TC6 GB 1.3 4.4

TC-B-TP-4 370627 943030 5/16/2012 TC6 GB 0.6 5.3

TC-D-WC-TP-1 370709 943413 6/6/2012 TC4 WC -1.7 3.0

TC-D-WC-TP-2 370708 943412 6/6/2012 TC4 WC -1.7 2.0

TC-E-TP-2 370705 943324 6/6/2012 TC5 GB 0.0 4.7

TC-E-WC-TP-1 370703 943323 6/6/2012 TC5 WC -2.8 1.8

TKC-TP-1 370716 943459 6/19/2012 TC3 GB 3.6 8.7

TKC-TP-2 370715 943501 6/19/2012 TC3 GB 3.3 8.2

TKC-TP-3 370716 943502 6/19/2012 TC3 GB -1.6 3.0

TKC-TP-4 370718 943517 6/20/2012 TC1 WC -0.3 2.9
Methodology 17

Table 3. Tile probe locations, depth of water from the surface, and maximum depth of refusal at each location for Center Creek, Turkey 

Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12.—Continued

[DDMMSS, degrees, minutes, seconds; mm/dd/yyyy, month, day, year; ft, foot; GB, gravel bar; WC, wetted channel; --, no data]

Tile probe 

identifier 

Latitude 

(DDMMSS)

Longitude 

(DDMMSS)

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

 Site 

identifier 

 Gravel bar or 

wetted channel 

Depth of water 

below the surface 

(ft)

Maximum depth 

of refusal 

(ft)

 Shoal Creek 

SC-A-TP-1 365900 942628 5/17/2012 S5 GB 2.2 3.5

SC-A-TP-2 365860 942628 5/17/2012 S5 GB 0.1 3.6

SC-A-TP-3 365859 942628 5/17/2012 S5 GB 0.5 3.1

SC-A-TP-4 365859 942628 5/17/2012 S5 GB 0.0 3.2

SH-WC-TP-1 370158 943320 7/12/2012 S4 WC -1.2 2.8

Tar Creek 

TAR-TP-7-0 365610 945127 7/14/2011 TR10 WC -1.2 0.2

TAR-TP-7-1 365610 945127 7/14/2011 TR10 WC -1.2 0.2

TAR-TP-7-2 365610 945127 7/14/2011 TR10 WC -1.5 1.0

TAR-TP-7-3 365610 945127 7/14/2011 TR10 WC -1.7 1.4

TAR-TP-7-4 365610 945127 7/14/2011 TR10 WC -1.2 2.0

TAR-TP-7-5 365610 945127 7/14/2011 TR10 WC -1.0 2.3

TAR-TP-7-6 365610 945127 7/14/2011 TR10 WC -0.7 3.3

TAR-TP-7-7 365610 945127 7/14/2011 TR10 GB 0.0 3.5

TAR-TP-9-1 365626 945124 7/14/2011 TR11 GB 3.0 5.2

TAR-TP-9-2 365626 945124 7/14/2011 TR11 GB 2.0 4.7

TAR-TP-9-3 365626 945124 7/14/2011 TR11 GB 1.0 4.5

TAR-TP-9-4 365626 945124 7/14/2011 TR11 GB 0.5 4.3

TAR-TP-9-5 365626 945124 7/14/2011 TR11 WC -0.3 3.7

TAR-TP-9-6 365626 945124 7/14/2011 TR11 WC -0.5 3.5

TAR-TP-9-7 365626 945124 7/14/2011 TR11 WC -0.9 3.3

TAR-TP-9-8 365626 945124 7/14/2011 TR11 WC -1.5 2.8

TAR-TP-9-9 365626 945124 7/14/2011 TR11 WC -1.5 2.5

TAR-TP-8-0 365630 945116 7/14/2011 TR12 GB 0.5 3.1

TAR-TP-8-1 365630 945116 7/14/2011 TR12 GB 0.5 3.0

TAR-TP-8-10 365630 945116 7/14/2011 TR12 GB 1.0 4.0

TAR-TP-8-11 365630 945116 7/14/2011 TR12 GB 1.3 4.1

TAR-TP-8-12 365630 945116 7/14/2011 TR12 GB 2.0 4.8

TAR-TP-8-2 365630 945116 7/14/2011 TR12 GB 0.1 2.8

TAR-TP-8-3 365630 945116 7/14/2011 TR12 WC -0.1 2.4

TAR-TP-8-4 365630 945116 7/14/2011 TR12 WC -0.2 2.8

TAR-TP-8-5 365630 945116 7/14/2011 TR12 WC -0.2 2.9

TAR-TP-8-6 365630 945116 7/14/2011 TR12 GB 0.0 3.3

TAR-TP-8-7 365630 945116 7/14/2011 TR12 GB 0.3 3.7

TAR-TP-8-8 365630 945116 7/14/2011 TR12 GB 0.3 3.7

TAR-TP-8-9 365630 945116 7/14/2011 TR12 GB 0.3 3.7

TAR-TP-11-1 365414 945208 7/14/2011 TR2 WC -0.5 0.2

TAR-TP-11-10 365414 945208 7/14/2011 TR2 WC -1.2 0.8

TAR-TP-11-11 365414 945208 7/14/2011 TR2 WC -1.5 0.4
18 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

Table 3. Tile probe locations, depth of water from the surface, and maximum depth of refusal at each location for Center Creek, Turkey 

Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12.—Continued

[DDMMSS, degrees, minutes, seconds; mm/dd/yyyy, month, day, year; ft, foot; GB, gravel bar; WC, wetted channel; --, no data]

Tile probe 

identifier 

Latitude 

(DDMMSS)

Longitude 

(DDMMSS)

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

 Site 

identifier 

 Gravel bar or 

wetted channel 

Depth of water 

below the surface 

(ft)

Maximum depth 

of refusal 

(ft)

Tar Creek—Continued

TAR-TP-11-12 365414 945208 7/14/2011 TR2 WC -1.7 0.2

TAR-TP-11-13 365414 945208 7/14/2011 TR2 WC -1.7 0.1

TAR-TP-11-14 365414 945208 7/14/2011 TR2 WC -1.6 0.1

TAR-TP-11-15 365414 945208 7/14/2011 TR2 WC -1.5 2.0

TAR-TP-11-2 365414 945208 7/14/2011 TR2 WC -1.9 0.9

TAR-TP-11-3 365414 945208 7/14/2011 TR2 WC -1.8 2.3

TAR-TP-11-4 365414 945208 7/14/2011 TR2 WC -1.8 1.6

TAR-TP-11-5 365414 945208 7/14/2011 TR2 WC -2.0 2.3

TAR-TP-11-6 365414 945208 7/14/2011 TR2 WC -2.0 2.7

TAR-TP-11-7 365414 945208 7/14/2011 TR2 WC -1.9 2.3

TAR-TP-11-8 365414 945208 7/14/2011 TR2 WC -0.9 1.2

TAR-TP-11-9 365414 945208 7/14/2011 TR2 WC -1.1 0.8

TAR-TP-5-0 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 GB 0.0 0.3

TAR-TP-5-1 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 WC -0.1 0.7

TAR-TP-5-10 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 WC -1.5 0.1

TAR-TP-5-11 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 WC -1.2 0.1

TAR-TP-5-12 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 WC -1.1 0.1

TAR-TP-5-13 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 WC -0.9 0.1

TAR-TP-5-14 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 WC -0.9 0.1

TAR-TP-5-15 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 WC -0.8 0.5

TAR-TP-5-16 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 WC -0.2 3.2

TAR-TP-5-2 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 WC -0.3 0.5

TAR-TP-5-3 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 WC -0.9 0.3

TAR-TP-5-4 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 WC -1.1 0.1

TAR-TP-5-5 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 WC -1.3 0.2

TAR-TP-5-6 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 WC -1.5 0.1

TAR-TP-5-7 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 WC -1.5 0.1

TAR-TP-5-8 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 WC -1.7 0.1

TAR-TP-5-9 365427 945212 7/13/2011 TR3 WC -1.6 0.1

TAR-TP-4-0 365438 945206 7/13/2011 TR4 GB 0.1 1.7

TAR-TP-4-1 365438 945206 7/13/2011 TR4 GB 0.2 1.9

TAR-TP-4-10 365438 945206 7/13/2011 TR4 WC -1.2 0.1

TAR-TP-4-11 365438 945206 7/13/2011 TR4 WC -0.3 0.1

TAR-TP-4-12 365438 945206 7/13/2011 TR4 WC -0.3 0.7

TAR-TP-4-2 365438 945206 7/13/2011 TR4 GB 0.2 1.8

TAR-TP-4-3 365438 945206 7/13/2011 TR4 GB 0.0 1.0

TAR-TP-4-4 365438 945206 7/13/2011 TR4 WC -0.3 1.0

TAR-TP-4-5 365438 945206 7/13/2011 TR4 WC -0.7 1.0

TAR-TP-4-6 365438 945206 7/13/2011 TR4 WC -1.0 1.2
Methodology 19

Table 3. Tile probe locations, depth of water from the surface, and maximum depth of refusal at each location for Center Creek, Turkey 

Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12.—Continued

[DDMMSS, degrees, minutes, seconds; mm/dd/yyyy, month, day, year; ft, foot; GB, gravel bar; WC, wetted channel; --, no data]

Tile probe 

identifier 

Latitude 

(DDMMSS)

Longitude 

(DDMMSS)

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

 Site 

identifier 

 Gravel bar or 

wetted channel 

Depth of water 

below the surface 

(ft)

Maximum depth 

of refusal 

(ft)

 Tar Creek—Continued

TAR-TP-4-7 365438 945206 7/13/2011 TR4 WC -1.7 0.3

TAR-TP-4-8 365438 945206 7/13/2011 TR4 WC -1.7 0.1

TAR-TP-4-9 365438 945206 7/13/2011 TR4 WC -1.5 0.1

TAR-TP-3-0 365443 945201 7/13/2011 TR5 GB 0.7 0.7

TAR-TP-3-1 365443 945201 7/13/2011 TR5 GB 0.0 0.7

TAR-TP-3-2 365443 945201 7/13/2011 TR5 WC -0.5 0.2

TAR-TP-3-3 365443 945201 7/13/2011 TR5 WC -0.1 0.1

TAR-TP-3-4 365443 945201 7/13/2011 TR5 WC -0.5 0.4

TAR-TP-3-5 365443 945201 7/13/2011 TR5 WC -0.2 0.1

TAR-TP-3-6 365443 945201 7/13/2011 TR5 WC -0.0 0.1

TAR-TP-3-7 365443 945201 7/13/2011 TR5 GB 0.1 0.1

TAR-TP-2-1 365453 945154 7/13/2011 TR6 WC -0.1 0.1

TAR-TP-2-10 365453 945154 7/13/2011 TR6 WC -0.8 0.1

TAR-TP-2-11 365453 945154 7/13/2011 TR6 WC -0.5 0.1

TAR-TP-2-12 365453 945154 7/13/2011 TR6 WC -0.3 0.1

TAR-TP-2-13 365453 945154 7/13/2011 TR6 WC -0.3 0.1

TAR-TP-2-14 365453 945154 7/13/2011 TR6 WC -0.1 0.1

TAR-TP-2-15 365453 945154 7/13/2011 TR6 WC -0.1 0.1

TAR-TP-2-2 365453 945154 7/13/2011 TR6 GB 0.1 0.1

TAR-TP-2-3 365453 945154 7/13/2011 TR6 GB 0.3 0.7

TAR-TP-2-4 365453 945154 7/13/2011 TR6 GB 0.3 0.5

TAR-TP-2-5 365453 945154 7/13/2011 TR6 GB 0.1 0.3

TAR-TP-2-6 365453 945154 7/13/2011 TR6 WC -0.2 0.1

TAR-TP-2-7 365453 945154 7/13/2011 TR6 WC -0.6 0.1

TAR-TP-2-8 365453 945154 7/13/2011 TR6 WC -0.3 0.1

TAR-TP-2-9 365453 945154 7/13/2011 TR6 WC -0.7 0.1

TAR-TP-1-1 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -0.8 0.1

TAR-TP-1-10 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -0.8 0.1

TAR-TP-1-11 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -1.1 0.1

TAR-TP-1-12 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -1.0 0.1

TAR-TP-1-13 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -1.3 0.1

TAR-TP-1-14 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -1.2 0.1

TAR-TP-1-15 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -1.5 0.1

TAR-TP-1-16 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -1.8 0.1

TAR-TP-1-17 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -2.0 0.1

TAR-TP-1-18 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -1.9 0.1

TAR-TP-1-19 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -2.0 0.1

TAR-TP-1-2 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -0.8 0.1

TAR-TP-1-3 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -0.8 0.1
20 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

Table 3. Tile probe locations, depth of water from the surface, and maximum depth of refusal at each location for Center Creek, Turkey 

Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12.—Continued

[DDMMSS, degrees, minutes, seconds; mm/dd/yyyy, month, day, year; ft, foot; GB, gravel bar; WC, wetted channel; --, no data]

Tile probe 

identifier 

Latitude 

(DDMMSS)

Longitude 

(DDMMSS)

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

 Site 

identifier 

 Gravel bar or 

wetted channel 

Depth of water 

below the surface 

(ft)

Maximum depth 

of refusal 

(ft)

 Tar Creek—Continued

TAR-TP-1-4 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -0.7 0.1

TAR-TP-1-5 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -0.6 0.1

TAR-TP-1-6 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -0.5 0.3

TAR-TP-1-7 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -0.3 0.1

TAR-TP-1-8 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -0.8 0.1

TAR-TP-1-9 365500 945148 7/13/2011 TR7 WC -0.8 0.1

TAR-TP-10-0 365554 945124 7/14/2011 TR8 GB 0.0 2.8

TAR-TP-10-1 365554 945124 7/14/2011 TR8 GB 0.0 3.0

TAR-TP-10-10 365554 945124 7/14/2011 TR8 GB 0.5 3.3

TAR-TP-10-2 365554 945124 7/14/2011 TR8 GB 0.2 2.9

TAR-TP-10-3 365554 945124 7/14/2011 TR8 WC -0.1 3.0

TAR-TP-10-4 365554 945124 7/14/2011 TR8 WC -0.1 3.4

TAR-TP-10-5 365554 945124 7/14/2011 TR8 WC -0.3 3.0

TAR-TP-10-6 365554 945124 7/14/2011 TR8 WC -1.0 2.3

TAR-TP-10-7 365554 945124 7/14/2011 TR8 WC -0.8 2.3

TAR-TP-10-8 365554 945124 7/14/2011 TR8 WC -1.0 2.2

TAR-TP-10-9 365554 945124 7/14/2011 TR8 GB 0.5 3.7

TAR-TP-6-0 365605 945125 7/14/2011 TR9 WC -0.5 3.7

TAR-TP-6-1 365605 945125 7/14/2011 TR9 WC -0.3 4.0

TAR-TP-6-2 365605 945125 7/14/2011 TR9 WC -0.3 0.9

TAR-TP-6-3 365605 945125 7/14/2011 TR9 WC -0.2 3.2

TAR-TP-6-4 365605 945125 7/14/2011 TR9 GB 0.0 3.7

TAR-TP-6-5 365605 945125 7/14/2011 TR9 GB 0.2 3.4

TAR-TP-6-6 365605 945125 7/14/2011 TR9 GB 0.5 5.0

TAR-TP-6-7 365605 945125 7/14/2011 TR9 GB 1.0 5.4

Stream Channel 

After collection, channel-sediment samples were allowed 

to air dry for several days at the USGS office in Rolla, Mo. 

Once the samples were dry, they were disaggregated using 

a stainless steel mortar and pestle. Stainless steel is an iron, 

chromium, and nickel alloy that may be a source of contamination into the sample for these three elements; however, 

nickel varied in a manner consistent with other metal contamination derived from the sediment, whereas contamination 

from the probe would tend not to vary from sample to sample. 

In addition, sediment sampled using other hardware also 

contained these elements. Vibra-core samples were opened 

to expose the sediment and allowed to air dry. Samples were 

collected from the vibra-core tube by scooping the sediment 

from each 1-ft interval using a plastic scoop, placed in plastic 

bags, and weighed. The weights were generally greater than 

200 grams (g), and these samples did not require disaggregation. All samples were then sieved using a single 2-millimeter (mm) mesh-size stainless steel sieve (U.S. Number 10). 

This divided the sample into two size fractions, <2 mm and 

>2 mm. The two fractions were placed in separate plastic bags, 

labeled, and weighed. The <2-mm size fraction of each sample 

was analyzed three times using the XRF instrument. Before 

each individual scan, the bag was thoroughly mixed to ensure 

a representative scan. Each analysis was 60 seconds in duration, which was sufficient time to determine concentrations of 

the MVT-related metals (arsenic, cadmium, barium, cobalt, 

copper, manganese, nickel, lead, and zinc). The arithmetic 

mean of the three individual analyses was reported as the concentration in the sample for each constituent. 
Methodology 21

Flood Plain

The plastic sleeves containing flood-plain cores were cut 

lengthwise in the laboratory with a special core cutting knife 

to expose an area of the core about 1 in. wide. The outside of 

the core is typically disturbed during the coring process as it 

slides against the steel cutting head and into the core barrel. A 

steel knife was then used to remove a 0.25-in. thick section to 

expose the undisturbed core (fig. 5). This created a flat surface 

for the XRF that was relatively undisturbed and would be 

representative of the metal concentrations at that location. The 

core recovery was measured and the depths were marked to 

guide the XRF analysis. Then the core was cut into 2-ft lengths 

and placed in core boxes to air dry. Metal concentrations were 

determined using an XRF placed on the flat surface of the core 

previously exposed with the knife. Each 1-ft section of core 

was generally analyzed three times by USFWS using the XRF 

at the USGS office in Rolla, Mo. The original protocol was to 

collect XRF measurements using a 60-second analysis at three 

equally spaced intervals within each foot of the core and then 

compute the mean of these three measurements. For example, 

the mean of measurements at 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 ft would 

represent the metal concentrations in the 0- to 1-ft depth interval and was assigned the mean depth of 0.50 ft. After several 

days of XRF analysis, it was determined that metal concentrations in flood-plain cores tended to be largest in the upper few 

feet then decreased to much smaller concentrations throughout most of the lower sections of the cores. To expedite the 

analyses of hundreds of feet of core, three analyses were made 

each foot for the upper 3 to 5 feet of each core, and at depths 

greater than 5 ft, a single analysis was first done at the even 

foot mark. As long as the single analysis at the even foot mark 

indicated relatively low concentrations of zinc (less than about 

one-half the CPEC), analysis proceeded at 1-ft intervals down 

the core. If, for example, the single analysis indicated a zinc 

concentration greater than one-half the CPEC at 6 ft, then three 

analyses at the 6.25-, 6.50-, and 6.75-ft intervals were done and 

the mean calculated to represent the metals concentrations in 

the 6- to 7-ft intervals. Such a mean concentration was reported 

for the assigned mean depth of 6.5 ft.

Additional measures were taken during the analysis of 

the 379 core sections to expedite the results for the floodplain cores. A 60-second analysis using the XRF is required 

to determine the concentrations for arsenic, cadmium, barium, 

cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, lead, and zinc. A 30-second 

analysis can be used determine the concentrations of the same 

metals with the exception of cadmium and barium. During the 

analysis of the flood-plain cores, the analysis time was reduced 

from 60 seconds to 30 seconds for 211 core sections (samples). 

Laboratory Confirmation Samples

Eighty-five stream channel and flood-plain sediment 

samples were split and submitted for laboratory analysis to 

evaluate the accuracy of the concentrations obtained by the 

XRF instrument which is required when using EPA method 

6200 (EPA, 2007). Samples sent to the laboratory were selected 

to ensure spatial coverage of each stream segment and to 

represent a range of lead and zinc concentrations. Of the 355 

stream channel samples, 76 were sent for laboratory confirmation. Nine samples from the 34 flood-plain borings (379 total 

samples) were selected for laboratory confirmation. Most of 

the flood-plain samples selected were within the top few feet of 

the boreholes where the XRF detected larger concentrations of 

lead and zinc.

Figure 5. Flood-plain core that 

has been prepared for analysis 

with the x-ray fluorescence 

instrument.
22 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

Laboratory splits from the <2-mm size fraction of 

stream channel samples that had been previously prepared 

and analyzed by the XRF were prepared by removing 3 to 

5 g of sample from the original sample using a plastic spatula 

and placing it in a separate bag. Before the split sample was 

collected, the sample bag was mixed by turning the sample 

bag over 10 to 15 times then opening the bag and passing the 

spatula though the entire thickness of the mixed sample. Only 

one to three passes through the original sample were required 

to obtain the split sample.

The laboratory confirmatory samples for the flood-plain 

core samples required additional processing because the original XRF analyses were made on the intact core. The 1-ft interval selected for laboratory confirmation was removed from the 

plastic liner, disaggregated and sieved using a 2-mm stainless 

steel sieve, and the material finer than 2 mm was weighed 

before placing in a plastic bag. The laboratory confirmatory 

samples were then split from the bagged material in the same 

manner as described above for stream channel samples. Before 

submitting the split samples to the laboratory, each split sample (stream channel or flood-plain core) was analyzed again 

using the XRF to provide a more direct comparison between 

the XRF and laboratory analytical results. 

Split samples were shipped to the USGS Central Mineral 

and Environmental Resources Science Center (CMERSC) 

laboratory in Denver, Colorado. The laboratory analyzed 

the split samples using inductively coupled plasma-atomic 

emission spectrometry (ICP–AES) and inductively coupled 

plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP–MS) methods on samples 

that were completely digested (Taggart, 2002). The laboratory 

reported concentrations for 43 constituents, 9 of which were 

also analyzed by XRF for this study.

Concentration of metals in a sample detected through 

laboratory analysis through the complete digestion of the sample does not completely reflect the typical digestion process 

in aquatic organisms or the true bioavailability of the metals 

found in the sediment. The strength of stomach acids tend to 

vary based on diet. Beasley and others (2015) have shown that 

stomach acid pH lowers with the risk of food-borne pathogen 

exposure. Scavengers tend to have lower stomach pH than 

carnivores, and carnivores tend to have lower stomach acid pH 

than herbivores. Lower stomach acid pH can result in greater 

metal bioavailability by increasing metal solubility (Luoma, 

1989). Beasley and others (2015) reported scavenger birds 

with stomach acid pH ranging from 1.1 to 1.7. There are also 

many other factors that affect the bioavailability of metals, 

including metal concentrations, solute metal speciation, metal 

concentration in food, metal partitioning among ligands within 

food, influence of other cations, temperature, and redox potential (Louma, 1983).

Estimation of the Volume of Contaminated 

Gravel Bar Deposits

Sullivan and others (1987) indicate that most of the 

readily available sediment is found in gravel bars for large to 

moderate streams and characterization of gravel-bar sediments 

in this study focused on gravel bars with some additional 

samples collected from the wetted channel. Estimates of the 

volume of contaminated gravel bar deposits were computed 

relative to two benchmarks of contamination (that is, for both 

PEC values [CPEC and TPEC]) because of the importance of 

such information to the USFWS and other natural resource 

agencies of the TSMD for assessing damage to the ecosystem 

and evaluating restoration alternatives. The maximum depth of 

contamination was determined as the maximum depth where 

either the lead or zinc concentration exceeded the respective 

PEC values. The data files showing maximum sample depth at 

each location are listed in the Stream channel sediment samples dataset (Smith, 2016). Cadmium concentrations were not 

used to determine contaminated sediment depths because the 

limit of detection (LOD) for cadmium from the XRF analysis 

(12 mg/kg) was larger than the cadmium PECs: CPEC (4.98 

mg/kg) and TPEC (11.1 mg/kg). Thus, no sample analyzed 

by XRF could be determined with certainty from any depth to 

have a cadmium concentration below either PEC value. 

Occasionally, the concentration of lead or zinc would 

exceed either the CPEC or the TPEC at one depth, but not 

exceed either at the next depth (or several subsequent depths), 

and then would exceed again at an even greater depth. For 

example, the concentration of lead exceeds both the CPEC 

and the TPEC at 4–5 ft. The concentration of lead then does 

not exceed either the CPEC or the TPEC at 5–8 ft but then 

does exceed the CPEC and the TPEC at 8–9ft. The maximum 

depth of contamination was reported as the deepest CPEC or 

TPEC exceedance in this case 9 ft, and it was assumed that the 

distance between the land surface and the maximum contaminated depth represented the depth of excavation required to 

remediate the contaminated sediment, despite the fact that part 

or all of the sediment above may not actually have been classified as contaminated per the CPEC or TPEC. 

Two measures were required to estimate the volume of 

contaminated sediment in Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal 

Creek, and Tar Creek in the reaches studied: (1) the depth of 

contaminated sediment in the study reach and (2) the areal 

extent of contaminated sediment in the study reach. Estimates 

of the volume of contaminated sediment along the Spring 

River could not be made because of the small number of locations sampled. To determine the depth of contaminated sediment in the study reach, a six-step procedure was used:

D1. Determine the maximum depth for each borehole that 

exceeded either the CPEC or the TPEC, or both, for 

lead and zinc (Smith, 2016; Stream channel sediment 

samples; table 1)

D2. Express the maximum depth (from D1 above) of contamination (relative to each PEC type) as a proportion 
Quality Control and Quality Assurance 23

of the investigation depth in each borehole (maximum 

contaminated sediment depth in core divided by total 

depth represented by recovered core), expressed as a 

percentage. The investigation sample depth at each 

location is listed in the Flood-plain cores dataset (Smith, 

2016).

D3. Determine the mean depth of the sediment at each individual site (mean value of borehole refusal depths and 

tile probe refusal depths for each site; table 4)

D4. Determine the mean maximum proportional depth of 

contamination for each site (compute the mean of D2 

above), expressed as a percentage, for the CPEC and 

TPEC (table 4)

D5. Determine the mean maximum depth of sediment exceeding the CPEC or TPEC for each site (multiply mean 

maximum proportional depth of contamination [from 

D4 above] by the mean depth of sediment in each gravel 

bar [from D3 above]) (table 4)

D6. Determine the overall mean of the site-mean depths of 

contaminated sediment for each study site (tables 4 and 

5, mean value for stream)

To determine the areal extent of contaminated sediment sampled in the study reach, a two-step procedure was 

followed:

A1. Determine the planimetric area of each gravel bar 

within the studied reach. Google EarthTM aerial georeferenced orthophotography from 2012 (Center Creek, 

Turkey Creek, and Shoal Creek) and 2015 (Tar Creek) 

was used to identify and delineate the gravel bars that 

were digitized at the nominal scale of 1:2000 into a 

geographic information system (GIS). Comparison of 

more recent aerial photographs to 1930s aerial photographs also was done to identify persistent bars, areas of 

stream channel migration, and bars that were partially 

vegetated on the more recent photographs. For example, 

a gravel bar may experience recent growth of vegetation, which can hide the overall size of the bar. This can 

be identified using older aerial photography.

A2. Determine the total area of contaminated sediment by 

summing the areas of each individual gravel bar for 

the selected study reach of each stream (fig. 1). There 

were sites located outside of the reaches selected for the 

estimation of the volume of contaminated sediment (site 

C6 in Center Creek and site S5 in Shoal Creek; fig. 1). 

These sites had distances of 7.5 mi (Center Creek) and 

10 mi (Shoal Creek between these sites and the closest 

downstream site so volume estimates were not calculated for these reaches.

The volume of contaminated gravel bar sediment along 

the sampled reaches of Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal 

Creek, and Tar Creek was estimated by multiplying the total 

areal extent of gravel bars along each studied reach by the 

mean maximum depth of contaminated sediment in gravel bars 

along that studied reach that exceeded the CPEC or the TPEC 

(D6 times A2 above; table 4).

Estimated volumes of sediment in gravel bars in the 

study reaches exceeding the CPEC and TPEC presented in this 

report should be considered minimum volumes because they 

are only based on lead and zinc concentrations in the sampled 

gravel bars. Because the XRF LOD was greater than the 

PECs for some other constituents, particularly cadmium and 

nickel concentrations, other constituents could have exceeded 

the PECs, which could potentially have changed the maximum depths of contaminated sediment that were determined 

from the lead and zinc concentrations. In addition, there are 

many other gravel bars within the study reaches that were not 

sampled, in addition to sediment beneath other channel features such as in pools and riffles, which were not sufficiently 

characterized. Finally, the estimated volume of contaminated 

sediment is only for the 37.6 mi of selected reaches along 

Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek that 

were examined in this study. The total length of these streams 

that are contaminated by mine waste is approximately 49 mi 

(MacDonald and others, 2010).

Quality Control and Quality Assurance

To efficiently analyze the large number of samples collected (357 stream channel samples [Smith, 2016; Stream 

channel sediment samples]; 379 flood-plain samples [Smith, 

2016; Flood-plain cores]) in this study, all samples were 

analyzed using the XRF. Although samples were collected 

during 2011 to 2012, samples were analyzed during five 

periods between October 2012 and June 2014 as samples were 

processed and the XRF operated by the USFWS became available. Several quality control and quality assurance procedures 

were implemented to ensure the quality of the data acquired 

using the XRF. A series of standards and blanks were analyzed at the beginning, end, and several times throughout the 

day when environmental samples were analyzed. In addition 

to standards, triplicate and septuplet analyses of the selected 

flood-plain cores were done during the analysis. These were 

replicate analyses (3 or 7) at the same location in the core 

without moving the XRF instrument. Analyzing the same location of the core multiple times determines the variability in 

precision of the XRF on samples that are often more heterogeneous in both grain size and metals distribution than prepared 

standards. In addition, split samples from 85 channel sediment 

and flood-plain samples were analyzed by the XRF instrument 

and also analyzed by the CMERSC laboratory to allow comparison of the XRF results to the laboratory results.

Data Analysis Methods

Data analysis was completed using a combination of 

graphical methods and basic statistics to interpret and to better 
24 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

Table 4. Mean maximum proportional depth of sediment exceeding the consensus probable effects concentrations and the Tri-State 

Mining District specific probable effects concentrations, and mean total depth of boreholes and tile probes for each site, Center Creek, 

Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, Tar Creek, and Spring River in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12.

[CPEC, consensus probable effects concentration (MacDonald and others, 2000); TPEC, Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration (Ingersoll and others, 2009); ft, foot; --, not applicable]

Site identifier 

 Maximum 

proportional depth 

exceeding the CPEC 

 Maximum 

proportional depth 

exceeding the TPEC 

 Average total depth 

of coring and tile 

probes from site 

(ft) 

 Average depth of 

sediment exceeding 

the CPEC 

(ft) 

 Average depth of 

sediment exceeding 

the TPEC 

(ft) 

 Center Creek 

 C1 98.0 58.8 7.3 7.1 4.3

 C2 100.0 96.9 3.3 3.3 3.2

 C3 100.0 100.0 5.4 5.4 5.4

 C4 100.0 100.0 2.2 2.2 2.2

 C5 100.0 100.0 1.7 1.7 1.7

 C6 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0

 Mean, excluding 

gravel bar C6 

-- -- -- 4.0 3.4

 Turkey Creek 

 TC1 100.0 100.0 4.2 4.2 4.2

 TC2 100.0 100.0 11.5 11.5 11.5

 TC3 85.9 82.2 7.5 6.4 6.1

 TC4 100.0 100.0 4.7 4.7 4.7

 TC5 83.1 83.1 4.1 3.4 3.4

 TC6 87.5 87.5 2.6 2.2 2.2

 TC7 100.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0

 Mean -- -- -- 4.9 4.6

 Shoal Creek 

 S1 100.0 0.0 6.5 6.5 0.0

 S2 50.3 30.8 10.5 5.3 3.2

 S3 100.0 0.0 3.6 3.6 0.0

 S4 54.6 0.0 4.7 2.6 0.0

 S5 78.5 0.0 3.1 2.5 0.0

 Mean, excluding 

gravel bar S5 

-- -- -- 4.5 0.8

 Tar Creek 

 TR1 100.0 100.0 0.2 0.2 0.2

 TR2 81.3 81.3 1.4 1.1 1.1

 TR3 100.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0

 TR4 100.0 100.0 0.9 0.9 0.9

 TR5 100.0 100.0 0.7 0.7 0.7

 TR6 100.0 100.0 0.2 0.2 0.2

 TR7 100.0 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

 TR8 34.5 34.5 2.9 1.0 1.0

 TR9 64.3 64.3 3.6 2.3 2.3

 TR10 30.3 30.0 1.9 0.6 0.6

 TR11 79.5 74.6 4.4 3.6 3.5
Quality Control and Quality Assurance 25

Table 4. Mean maximum proportional depth of sediment exceeding the consensus probable effects concentrations and the Tri-State 

Mining District specific probable effects concentrations, and mean total depth of boreholes and tile probes for each site, Center Creek, 

Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, Tar Creek, and Spring River in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12.—Continued

[CPEC, consensus probable effects concentration (MacDonald and others, 2000); TPEC, Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration (Ingersoll and others, 2009); ft, foot; --, not applicable]

Site identifier 

 Maximum 

proportional depth 

exceeding the CPEC 

 Maximum 

proportional depth 

exceeding the TPEC 

 Average total depth 

of coring and tile 

probes from site 

(ft) 

 Average depth of 

sediment exceeding 

the CPEC 

(ft) 

 Average depth of 

sediment exceeding 

the TPEC 

(ft) 

 Tar Creek —Continued

 TR12 65.2 65.2 3.4 2.2 2.2

 Mean -- -- -- 1.1 1.1

 Spring River 

 SR1 76.5 0.0 16.0 12.3 0.0

 SR2 100.0 59.7 6.7 6.7 4.0

 Mean -- -- -- 9.5 2.0

understand the data. Graphical examination included bar 

graphs, scatterplots, and boxplots. Basic statistics given in this 

report include the number of cases, means, standard deviations, lower and upper 95th percentiles, and RSDs. Medians 

and upper and lower quartiles were displayed graphically in 

boxplots. 

Left censored data were common in the XRF results due 

to the high LOD of the XRF compared to laboratory results. 

The mean was calculated from the results of three individual 

scans using the XRF for each sample. Constituents for a sample that were below the LOD for the XRF for all three scans 

were reported as the LOD value. The LOD for the constituents 

of interest in this report are 11 mg/kg for arsenic, 12 mg/kg 

for cadmium, 100 mg/kg for barium, 260 mg/kg for cobalt, 

35 mg/kg for copper, 85 mg/kg for manganese, 65 m/kg for 

nickel, 13 mg/kg for lead, and 25 mg/kg for zinc. If one or two 

of the three scans were below the LOD then that particular 

LOD value would be used to calculate the mean. For example, 

the mean of three individual scans of a sediment sample with 

reported copper concentrations of 38 mg/kg, 34 mg/kg, and 

“< LOD” (less than the LOD) would be the mean of 38, 35, 

and 35 mg/kg. Means that were less than their respective LOD 

were reported as less than their respective LOD using the less 

than sign. For, example a sample with three individual scans 

that reported all concentrations less than the LOD, the reported 

concentration in the tables would be <35 mg/kg. Concentrations below the LOD were not used to calculate RPDs and 

were not used in any scatterplots. The LOD values were used 

only in the bar charts showing the vertical concentration of 

lead and zinc and in the creation of boxplots because the 

distribution shown by boxplots is better represented by using 

the reported values and concentrations below the LOD. The 

distribution of data would be skewed if LODs were not used.

Standard Reference Material

Standards included National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) high standard [standard reference material (SRM) 2710a Montana I Soil], NIST medium standard 

(SRM 2711a Montana I Soil), NCS DC 73308 standard, and 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) standard. Standards were 

used to ensure the instrument was within daily calibration 

requirements and to assess the general accuracy and precision 

of the XRF measurements on known materials. The overall 

mean concentration, standard deviation, upper and lower 

95th percentiles, and percent difference were calculated for 

six MVT-related metals measured by XRF in each standard 

and compared to the standard’s most probable value (MPV; 

table 6). Accuracy of the XRF allowed a percent difference 

within 30 percent of the standard’s MPV concentration of 

target elements to be the data quality objective (DQO) for this 

project. 

The precision of the XRF measurements was assessed by 

calculating the relative standard deviation (RSD) of XRF measurements for each of the standards. The RSD was calculated 

for target elements in each standard by dividing the standard 

deviation of the XRF results by the mean XRF result for each 

standard. The DQO for the precision of XRF measurements 

for this study was that the RSD would be <20 percent for all 

target elements measured in the standard materials. The standards were also used to ensure that the XRF was calibrated 

properly on a daily basis before and during the analysis of 

environmental samples. The concentrations of the measured 

target elements were to be within plus or minus 20 percent of 

the standard’s MPV or the instrument would be recalibrated.

Mean concentrations of arsenic, lead, manganese, and 

zinc from more than 30 analyses of standard reference materials by the XRF attained the accuracy goal of being within 
26 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District Table 5. Digitized gravel bar area, creek or river total drainage area, hydrologic unit code, mean thickness of sediments exceeding the consensus probable effects concentrations and the Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration, and estimated total volume of sediment with concentrations of lead or zinc that exceed the consensus probable effects concentration and the Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration for Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek in the in the Tri-State Mining District, 2011–12. [ft2, square foot; mi, mile; mi2, square mile; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; CPEC, consensus probable effects concentration (MacDonald and others, 2000); ft, foot; TPEC, Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration (Ingersoll and others, 2009); yd3, cubic yard; --, data not calculated] Creek or river name Area of all digitized gravel bars along reach from mouth to most upstream sitea used in volume estimate (ft2

)

Area of all 

digitized gravel 

bars along 

reach from 

mouth to most 

upstream sitea

used in volume 

estimate 

(acre)

Length of 

stream 

used for 

volume 

estimateb

(mi)

Length of 

stream studiedc

(mi)

Drainage 

area 

(mi2

)

USGS 

hydrologic unit 

code

Average 

maximum depth 

to sediment 

exceeding the 

CPEC 

(ft)

Average 

maximum depth 

to sediment 

exceeding the 

TPEC 

(ft)

Minimum 

volume of 

sediment 

exceeding CPEC 

that could be 

excavated 

(yd3

)

Minimum 

volume of 

sediment 

exceeding TPEC 

that could be 

excavated 

(yd3

)

Center Creek 916,000 21.0 11.1 18.6 300 1107020706 4.0 3.4 136,000 115,000 Turkey Creek 632,000 14.5 10.1 10.1 46 110702070901 4.9 4.6 115,000 108,000 Shoal Creek 146,000 3.4 8.5 18.5 251 1107020708 4.5 0.8 24,000 4,000 Tar Creek 230,000 5.28 7.4 7.4 53 110702060106 1.1 1.1 9,000 9,000 Spring River -- -- -- -- 2,590 11070207 9.5 2.0 -- -- Total 1,924,000 -- 37.1 54.6 -- -- -- -- 284,000 236,000 

aThe farthest upstream site used in the volume estimate was not the farthest upstream site in the length of the studied stream due to stretches of stream (Center Creek and Shoal Creek) with little or no data.bThe length of the stream used in the volume estimate was shorter than the overall length of the stream studied due to stretches of stream (Center Creek and Shoal Creek) with little or no data.cThe overall length of the studied stream reach from the farthest upstream site to its mouth at the Spring River (Center Creek, Turkey Creek, and Shoal Creek) or Neosho River (Tar Creek). 
Quality Control and Quality Assurance 27

Table 6. Results of analyses of standard reference materials by the x-ray fluorescence unit.

[mg/kg; milligram per kilogram; n, sample size; XRF, x-ray fluorescence; LCL, lower 95-percent confidence limit; UCL, upper 95-percent confidence limit; 

RSD, relative standard deviation; NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology; NCS, NCS Testing Technology Co., Ltd.; <, less than; --, not calculated; RCRA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; shaded value indicates value outside project goal of mean XRF value more than 30 percent different 

from standard or precision as measured by RSD of less than 20 percent; analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service office]

Constituent

Standard most 

probable 

value 

(mg/kg)

n

Number 

of left 

censored 

valuesa

XRF mean 

(mg/kg)

XRF 

standard 

deviation 

(mg/kg)

LCL 

(mg/kg)

UCL 

(mg/kg)

Percent 

difference 

between 

XRF mean 

and standard 

(mg/kg)

RSD 

(percent)

Overall 

average 

RSDb 

(percent)

NIST high standard

Arsenic 626 33 0 722 48.95 704.7 739.4 15.3 6.78 14.2

Barium 707 32 0 615.2 53.81 595.8 634.6 -13.0 8.75 16.8

Cadmium 21.8 32 0 29 6.09 26.8 31.2 33.0 21.00 14.1

Lead 5,532 33 0 5,430 203.8 5,358 5,502 -1.8 3.75 8.9

Manganese 10,100 33 0 9,887 588.2 9,678 10,096 -2.1 5.95 8.6

Zinc 6,952 33 0 6,885 291.2 6,781 6,988 -1.0 4.23 11.3

NIST medium standard

Arsenic 105 31 1 104.5 24.08 95.71 113.4 -0.5 23.0 --

Barium 726 30 0 601.7 46.599 584.3 619.1 -17.1 7.74 --

Cadmium 41.7 30 0 45.96 7.7 43.09 48.84 10.2 16.8 --

Lead 1,162 31 0 1,111 39.4 1,097 1,126 -4.4 3.55 --

Manganese 638 31 0 501.9 56.77 481.1 522.7 -21.3 11.3 --

Zinc 350.4 31 0 304.7 22.6 296.4 313 -13.0 7.42 --

NCS DC 73308 standard

Arsenic 25 39 1 21.04 3.86 19.79 22.29 -15.8 18.3 --

Barium 42 38 7 190 78.7 164.2 215.9 352.4 41.4 --

Cadmium 1.1 38 35 <11.6 1.88 <11.01 <12.3 -- -- --

Lead 27 39 3 23.3 5.31 21.53 24.97 -13.7 22.8 --

Manganese 1,010 39 0 722.2 74.07 698.2 746.2 -28.5 10.26 --

Zinc 46 39 0 39.05 7.04 36.77 41.33 -15.1 18.0 --

RCRA standard

Arsenic 500 27 0 469 39.8 453.3 484.8 -6.2 8.49 --

Barium -- 27 0 826 75.3 796.2 855.8 -- 9.12 --

Cadmium 500 26 0 541.6 25.4 531.3 551.8 8.3 4.69 --

Lead 500 27 0 485.5 26.5 474.9 495.9 -2.9 5.46 --

Manganese -- 26 0 590.2 41 573.6 606.8 -- 6.95 --

Zinc -- 27 0 74.7 11.5 70.1 79.3 -- 15.4 --

a

Number of samples with result less than the XRF limit of detection (LOD).

b

Average relative percent difference (RPD) of all four check standards where the RPD for each standard is the XRF standard deviation divided by the average 

value reported by the XRF.
28 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

30 percent of the MPV for all standards (table 6). The mean 

RSD for these four metals averaged over the several standards was <15 percent and within the DQO for precision of 

20 percent; however, individual RSD values for arsenic in the 

NIST medium standard (23.0 percent), barium in the NCS 

DC 73308 standard (41.4 percent), cadmium in the NIST 

high standard (21.0 percent), and lead in the NCS DC 77308 

standard (22.8 percent) were slightly larger than the DQO for 

precision (table 6). The XRF results for lead, manganese, and 

zinc tended to be biased slightly low compared to the standard 

MPVs (table 6). The bias generally increased with decreasing 

concentration in the standards (fig. 6; table 6). Results for lead 

concentrations were most accurate with the percent difference 

of the XRF mean from the MPV in the standards ranging from 

-13.7 to -1.8 percent, followed by zinc (-15.1 to -1.0 percent), 

and manganese (-28.5 to -2.1 percent). For arsenic, the pattern was somewhat different, as the bias of the XRF mean 

concentration was of similar magnitude for the two standards 

with minimum and maximum MPVs (associated biases of 

-15.8 to 15.3 percent, respectively), and a much smaller bias 

(-0.5 percent) for the NIST medium standard. The standard 

MPV in relation to the upper and lower 95th percentile is also 

an indicator of non-zero bias. MPVs that are higher than the 

upper 95th percentile indicate a positive bias (XRF results that 

are higher than the laboratory results), whereas MPVs that are 

lower than the lower 95th percentile indicate a negative bias 

(XRF results that are lower than the laboratory results). All 

standard MPVs fell below the upper 95th percentile with the 

exception of all cadmium MPVs and the arsenic MPV for the 

NIST high standard. All standard MPVs fell below the lower 

95th percentile with the exception of all cadmium MPVs and 

the arsenic and zinc MPVs for the NIST high standard. No 

time trends were noted in XRF results of standards based on 

qualitative inspection of the data. 

Based on analysis of the standards, concentrations of 

barium and cadmium reported by the XRF are less accurate 

than those reported for arsenic, lead, manganese, and zinc. 

The mean cadmium concentrations reported by the XRF in the 

NIST high standard exceeded the 30-percent accuracy goal for 

the project and the NCS DC 73308 standard was below the 

LOD for XRF; however, these were for the standards with the 

smallest MPV values (table 6). The mean cadmium concentration of 29 mg/kg reported by the XRF for the NIST high standard was about 33 percent larger than the MPV of 21.8 mg/kg. 

The mean measured cadmium concentrations in the NIST 

medium standard (MPV of 41.7 mg/kg) and RCRA standard 

(MPV of 500 mg/kg) were within 11 percent of the MPVs indicating the XRF can reliably determine cadmium concentrations 

in the 41.7 to 500 mg/kg range in environmental samples but 

the XRF could attain the reliability levels corresponding to the 

project DQOs in concentrations less than about 41 mg/kg. The 

mean barium concentration of 190 mg/kg reported by the XRF 

for the NCS DC 77308 standard was more than 350 percent 

larger than the MPV of 42 mg/kg, and the 41.4 percent RSD 

for barium in this standard was the poorest precision result for 

the XRF among the target elements (table 6). The mean barium 

concentrations reported by the XRF in the NIST medium 

and NIST high standards (MPVs of 726 and 707 mg/kg, 

respectively) were more reliable, within 18 percent of MPVs; 

moreover, the associated RSDs were <10 percent, whereas the 

mean barium concentrations reported by the XRF in the NCS 

DC 73308 standard (MPV of 42 mg/kg) were greater than 350 

percent and did not attain the reliability levels corresponding to 

the project DQOs.

Environmental samples were not excluded based on the 

range of concentrations and the corresponding XRF reliability 

for reporting a specific constituent’s concentration at those 

ranges. The statistics calculated on the standard reference material is important for stakeholders when interpreting the data. 

A. Cadmium

B. Lead

C. Zinc

1 10 100 1,000

0

25

50

75

100

0

100

1 10 100

0

10

20

30

40

1 10 100 1,000

25

50

75

Most probable value

Percent difference between x-ray flourescence mean 

and the most parobable value

Probable effects concentration, 4.98 for cadmium, 128 for 

lead, and 459 milligrams per kilogram for zinc

Tri-Satate Mining District probable effects concentration, 

11.1 for cadmium, 150 for lead, and 2,083 milligrams 

per kilogram for zinc

Trend line

EXPLANATION

Figure 6. Relations of percent difference between mean 

concentration by x-ray fluorescence with the most-probable-value 

concentrations of A, cadmium; B, lead; and C, zinc in standard 

reference materials. 
Quality Control and Quality Assurance 29

Blanks

A total of 45 silica sand blanks were analyzed during 

XRF analysis of environmental samples for the project. The 

XRF did not report concentrations in these samples of arsenic, 

lead, or manganese above the XRF LOD for these metals of 

11 mg/kg, 13 mg/kg, and 85 mg/kg, respectively. The XRF did 

report a zinc concentration (17.3 mg/kg) in one sample that 

was below its LOD of 25 mg/kg for zinc. The XRF reported 

cadmium concentrations (14.8 to 18.7 mg/kg) greater than its 

LOD of 12 mg/kg in 6 of 43 blank samples. This indicates that 

the XRF does tend to have a positive bias in the reported cadmium concentrations compared to the standard’s MPV, which 

can also be seen in the analysis of the standards (table 6). The 

LOD for the non-target metals cobalt (260 mg/kg) and nickel 

(65 mg/kg) were relatively large compared to other metals 

reported by the XRF, and the XRF did not report concentrations of these constituents.

Replicate X-Ray Fluorescence Analyses

Because flood-plain core samples were analyzed intact 

and not disaggregated, examination of the precision of the 

XRF results on these samples was done using 24 sets of triplicate (19) or septuplet (5) analyses of flood-plain core samples. 

These were replicate analyses (3 or 7) at the same location of 

the core without moving the XRF instrument. Metal concentrations should be similar for each replicate analysis, limited 

by the precision of the XRF instrument, when analyzing the 

same location of the core. The mean, standard deviation, and 

RSD were calculated for each set of analyses. The project 

DQO for precision of the XRF used with flood-plain sediment 

was to attain an RSD of <30 percent of the calculated mean 

measured concentration for groups of triplicate and septuplet 

analyses. 

Results of the triplicate and septuplet replicate analyses indicate that the XRF results for intact flood-plain core 

generally were less than or near the DQO of 30 percent for the 

RSD. Metals with mean RSDs <30 percent were arsenic (27), 

barium (6), lead (25), and zinc (16; table 7). Manganese generally exceeded the DQO for precision with a mean RSD of 34.3 

percent. Fourteen out of 24 samples were not scanned with 

the required length of time for measuring the concentration 

of barium. Standard deviations and RSDs were not calculated for samples with no measured values for barium and for 

samples that were below the LOD. Another measure of precision is the standard deviation of the replicate analyses. The 

mean standard deviation for arsenic was 10 mg/kg, barium 

was 28 mg/kg, lead was 28 mg/kg, and zinc was 33 mg/kg 

(table 7), and all were relatively low compared to manganese 

(204 mg/kg). The trimmed mean standard deviation for lead 

the outlier of 495 mg/kg (table 7) was 7.1 mg/kg, which indicates very high precision for lead. There was very little data to 

examine the precision for cobalt, copper, and nickel because of 

their low concentrations in the samples.

Laboratory Confirmation Samples

The results of the XRF instrument’s analysis of 85 

split samples (76 stream channel samples and 9 flood-plain 

samples) collected during this study were compared to the 

CMERSC laboratory results as a quality check on the accuracy 

of the XRF results and to determine the comparability of XRF 

to laboratory results The laboratory results are listed in the 

Laboratory confirmation data (Smith, 2016). The split samples 

were analyzed by the XRF before submission to the CMERSC 

laboratory to provide a direct comparison between the XRF 

values and the laboratory values of the same sample. This 

provided three datasets for comparison: the results of the XRF 

instrument’s analysis of the original sample, the results of 

XRF instrument’s analysis of the split sample for the laboratory, and the laboratory results of the split sample. 

Overall, the XRF results from analysis of the original 

sample for the target elements lead and zinc compared favorably to laboratory results, with linear regression coefficient of 

determination 0.87 for lead and 0.78 for zinc (fig. 7D and 7G). 

The results for the target element cadmium were less favorable 

with a coefficient of determination of 0.15 (fig. 7A) and the 

residuals are strongly biased towards one side of the line and 

no inferences should be made using the cadmium regression 

model. The XRF results of the original sample compared more 

favorably to the XRF results of the subsample with linear 

regression correlation coefficients of 0.84 for lead, 0.80 for 

zinc, and 0.76 for cadmium (fig. 7F, 7I, and 7C), indicating 

that compositing 1 to 3 subsamples to prepare the split sample 

was adequate for representativeness of the laboratory split 

samples. Concentrations of arsenic, cobalt, copper, and nickel 

in the split samples were generally below the LOD of the XRF 

instrument.

To compare the results between analytical methods, 

the relative percent difference (RPD) was computed as the 

absolute value of the difference between the two values 

being compared divided by the mean of the two values being 

compared, expressed as a percentage. In the computation of 

the RPD values, the LOD level was substituted for samples 

where the value determined by the XRF was less than the 

LOD. Comparisons were made using (1) the RPD between the 

XRF result for the original sample and the laboratory result for 

the split sample (RPD-1), and (2) the RPD between the XRF 

result for the split sample and the laboratory result for the 

same split sample (RPD-2; table 8 at the back of this report). 

For the three metals of most concern for this study, the mean 

RPD values for lead (22–23 percent) was less than the project 

DQO for accuracy of 30 percent, and the mean RPD values for 

cadmium and zinc (58–67 percent and 38–39 percent, respectively) exceeded the project DQO (table 8). 

Excluding samples where the cadmium concentration 

reported by the laboratory was less than the LOD of the XRF, 

there is a tendency for the RPD-1 and RPD-2 values for 

cadmium, lead, and zinc to increase with increasing concentration reported by the laboratory (fig. 8). The cause for this 

trend is not known but could be related to heterogeneity in the 
30 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District Table 7. Statistical summary of triplicate and septuplet x-ray fluorescence scans of intact flood-plain cores in the Tri-State Lead and Zinc Mining District, 2011–12. [ft, foot; <, less than; --, not calculated (samples were not scanned for sufficient time for the detection of constituent); cells with gray shading exceeded the project goal of 30 percent for relative standard devia- tion; all concentrations are in milligrams per kilogram; analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following the U.S. Enviornmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office] Coring or sample identifier Depth (ft) Number of replicate measure- ments Arithmetic mean Standard deviation Relative standard deviation Arsenic Barium Lead Manganese Zinc Arsenic Barium Lead Manganese Zinc Arsenic Barium Lead Manganese Zinc CTR-FB-2 9 3 14.8 504 21 307 154 4 49 4 114 18 24 10 20 37 12 CTR-FP-1 4 3 <11.0 -- 590 85 1,520 -- -- 495 -- 116 -- -- 84 -- 8 CTR-FP-2 4 3 <11.0 -- 16 306 307 -- -- 4 111 15 -- -- 23 36 5 CTR-FP-3 6 3 <11.0 -- 19 497 55 -- -- 1 162 2 -- -- 6 33 4 CTR-FP-3 8.8 7 <11.0 -- 25 2,798 74 -- -- 6 185 8 -- -- 23 7 11 CTR-FP-4 5 3 <11.0 -- 15 85 50 -- -- 4 -- 22 -- -- 26 -- 44 CTR-FP-5 9 2 <11.0 -- 16 85 56 -- -- 6 -- 12 -- -- 37 -- 22 TKC-FB-1 12 3 <11.0 -- 62 618 615 -- -- 8 155 148 -- -- 13 25 24 TKC-FB-2 13 3 <11.0 -- 51 364 133 -- -- 9 111 11 -- -- 17 31 8 TKC-FB-2 5 7 <11.0 -- 21 97 70 -- -- 5 21 13 -- -- 21 22 19 TKC-FP-1 2 3 <11.0 606 20 456 860 -- 6 7 89 174 -- 1 37 20 20 TKC-FP-2 12 3 <11.0 518 102 612 356 -- 71 7 870 51 -- 14 6 142 14 TKC-FP-3 5 3 <11.0 565 46 349 133 -- 17 8 177 14 -- 3 16 51 10 SH-FB-2 1 7 <11.0 424 64 277 376 -- 20 7 43 12 -- 5 11 16 3 SH-FB-3 4 3 <11.0 380 43 256 117 -- 14 9 79 7 -- 4 20 31 6 SH-FP-1 3 3 <11.0 -- 31 409 76 -- -- 7 54 14 -- -- 23 13 19 SH-FP-4 4 3 11.5 611 14 141 87 1 26 2 52 5 8 4 17 37 5 TAR-FB1 8 3 92.9 -- 64 3,083 206 41 -- 43 1,497 92 44 -- 68 49 45 TAR-FB4 8 3 12.3 -- 19 565 55 2 -- 6 297 5 18 -- 29 53 10 TAR-FP1-2 13 7 17.0 -- 17 541 122 8 -- 7 69 12 47 -- 39 13 10 TAR-FP2-1 11 3 12.4 -- 15 246 65 2 -- 2 93 15 20 -- 13 38 23 TAR-FP2-2 3 3 <11.0 -- 13 116 37 -- -- -- 35 11 -- -- -- 30 28 TAR-FP2-3a 11 7 <11.0 550 17 245 49 -- 25 4 47 6 -- 5 26 19 11 TAR-FP2-4 3 3 <11.0 -- 14 97 57 -- -- 1 20 9 -- -- 8 21 15 Averages -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10 28 28 204 33 27 6 25 34 16 Trimmed mean -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7.1b -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Number of values summarized -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 8 23 21 24 6 8 23 21 24

aMaterial identified as slough by the onsite hydrologist, indicating that the material likely fell from a shallower depth and is not representative of the soil at the 11-ft depth.bAverage standard deviation of lead excluding the value 495.3.
Quality Control and Quality Assurance 31

1 2 3 4 5 1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4

1

2

3

4

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Logarithm of concentration in the original 

sample reported by the x-ray fluorescence 

analysis, in milligrams per kilogram (table 8)

Logarithm of concentration in the laboratory subsample reported by the x-ray fluorescence 

analysis, in milligrams per kilogram (table 8)

EXPLANATION

Prediction line

0.95-confidence interval

Lead Zinc

Logarithm of concentration in sample reported by the laboratory, in milligrams per kilogram (table 8)

Concentration in the original samples reported by the x-ray fluorescence, in milligrams per kilogram

R2 = 0.90

y = 1.01x + 0.057 n = 83

R2 = 0.84

y = 0.998x + 0.002 n = 83

R2 = 0.78

y = 0.896x + 0.506 n = 85

R2 = 0.92

y = 1.06x - 0.042 n = 83

R2 = 0.80

y = 0.975x + 0.082 n = 83

E F

G H I

0 1 2 3 0

1

2

3

0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3

Cadmium

R2 = 0.52

y = 1.02x + 0.197

R2 = 0.15

y = 0.695x + 0.527

n = 42

R2 = 0.76

y = 1.11x - 0.142

n = 44 n = 34

A B C

R2= 0.87

y = 0.916x + 0.274 n = 85

D

Figure 7. Relations between concentrations of A–C, cadmium; D–F, lead; G–I, zinc in laboratory subsamples 

determined by x-ray fluorescence and laboratory methods, and between concentrations determined by x-ray 

fluorescence in original and split subsamples. 
32 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

EXPLANATION

Consensus probable effects concentration 

Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration

Trend line

Relative percent difference between laboratory results for the split sample

and the x-ray fluorescence results for the original sample 

Concentration reported by the laboratory, in milligrams per kilograms Relative percent difference between laboratory results for the split sample and the x-ray fluorescence results for the laboratory subsample

C D

0

50

100

150

0

50

100

150

200

0 100 1,000 10,000 0 100 1,000 10,000

Lead Lead

E F

0

50

100

150

200

0

50

100

150

0 100 1,000 10,000 0 100 1,000 10,000

Zinc Zinc

A B

0

50

100

150

200

0

50

100

150

0 10 100 1,000 0 10 100 1,000

Cadmium Cadmium

Figure 8. Comparison of relative percent difference between laboratory results for A–B, cadmium; C–D, lead; and

E–F, zinc in the split samples, and the x-ray fluorescence results for either the original samples (A, C, and E) or the split 

sample before its submittal to the laboratory (B, D, and F ) for stream channel sediment, Tri-State Mining District.
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment 33

distribution of metals in the samples or in sample grain size. It 

is possible that larger concentrations of metals may reflect the 

effect of a proportionately smaller number of very metal-rich 

grains (perhaps grains consisting of mostly ore minerals) that 

are not evenly distributed throughout the sample; however, 

sample-preparation differences also could explain the observed 

upward trend in RPD between XRF and laboratory results as 

concentrations increase. The laboratory completely digested a 

thoroughly homogenized fraction of the split sample submitted to the laboratory, whereas the XRF method measured only 

three small locations within the entire subsample. 

Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume 

of Metals-Contaminated Sediment

This section presents the data from the XRF analysis of 

the sediments collected in the Spring River and four tributaries 

draining mined areas in the TSMD. Data from the XRF field 

measurements were also used to estimate the total volume 

of sediment deposited in selected sampled reaches (fig. 1) of 

the stream channel with concentrations of lead or zinc greater 

than the CPEC and TPEC sediment-quality guidelines. The 

estimated volume of contaminated sediments is based on sediments in gravel bars because insufficient data was obtained to 

characterize sediment volumes beneath other channel features 

such as pools. 

Center Creek

Center Creek has a drainage area of 300 mi2 at its confluence with Spring River and is approximately 66.0 mi in length 

from the headwaters to the mouth. Approximately 18.6 mi of 

the lower part of the creek were studied and the lower 11.1 mi 

were used in the estimation of the volume of contaminated 

sediment (table 5). 

Site Selection and Description

The Center Creek study reach consisted of an area of 

intensive study (gravel bar sites C1, C2, and nearby flood 

plain; fig. 9) and four upstream supplementary gravel bar sites 

(C3, C4, C5, C6; figs. 10 and 11). The intensive study on Center Creek was done over a 1-week period in November 2011. 

Samples also were collected on four supplemental gravel bars 

during 2 weeks of drilling in the summer of 2012. In total, 

samples were collected from 24 channel locations and 7 floodplain locations in the Center Creek study reach.

The intensive study area was just west of Highway JJ, 

north of Joplin, Mo. (fig. 9). Gravel bar-sediment samples 

were centered on two gravel bars at sites C1 and C2 (fig. 9). 

Five cores (CTR-CH-5, CTR-CH-6, CTR-CH-7, CTR-WC-3, 

and CTR-WC-4) were on or near the gravel bar at site C2 near 

the flood-plain transect CTR–CTR’. The wetted channel (WC) 

cores were located adjacent to the gravel bar. The cores (CTRCH-1, CTR-CH-2, CTR-CH-3, CTR-CH-4, CTR-WC-1, and 

CTR-WC-2) were at site C1 on and near a gravel bar on the 

left bank about 1,500 ft downstream from the flood-plain 

transect CTR–CTR’ at site C2. Core CTR-GB-1 was a hand 

scoop from a small gravel bar on the right bank of the stream. 

A transect (CTR–CTR’) of five cores (CTR-FP-1, CTR-FP-2, 

CTR-FP-3, CTR-FP-4, and CTR-FP-5) were drilled across 

the flood plain with three on the north side of the creek and 

two on the south. Two flood-plain bias cores (CTR-FB-1 and 

CTR-FB-2), located on features of interest, were drilled off the 

flood-plain transect CTR–CTR’ line. The flood-plain borehole 

CTR-FB-1 was 1,300 ft west of CTR-FP-4. The flood-plain 

borehole CTR-FB-2 was on the inside of a creek meander. The 

locations of CTR-FB-1 and CTR-FB-2 were selected because 

of an apparent lower elevation within the flood plain, which 

may be subject to greater frequency of flooding.

Four additional gravel bars farther upstream were 

selected for sampling. The gravel bar at site C3 with two core 

locations (CC-A-HD1 and CC-A-HD2) was located about 

1,000 ft downstream from the Highway 171 bridge (fig. 10). 

The gravel bar at site C4 had three core locations (CC-DHD1, CC-D-HD2, and CC-D-WC-1) and was located about 

1.7 river mi upstream from site C3. Gravel bar at site C5 

had three cores (CC-C-HD1, CC-C-HD2, and CC-C-WC1; 

fig. 11) and was located 700 ft downstream from the Highway 

O bridge (not shown). The gravel bar at site C6 had two core 

locations (CC-B-HD1 and CC-B-HD2) and two hand scoop 

sample locations (CC-B-HS1 and CC-B-HS2). It was the farthest upstream site on Center Creek and was located directly 

downstream from the Highway 175 bridge east of Joplin, Mo. 

(fig. 11). 

Depth and Concentration of Metals in Channel 

Sediments

A total of 89 gravel bar-sediment samples from 24 locations were collected from gravel bar deposits along the lower 

18.6 miles of Center Creek. The maximum sample depth was 

9.5 ft below the gravel bar surface. Most of the gravel bar-sediment samples from Center Creek exceeded the CPEC and the 

TPEC for lead or zinc for sites C1, C2, C3, C4, and C5. About 

45 percent of these had detections of cadmium greater than the 

LOD for the XRF. Because the CPEC (4.98 mg/kg) and TPEC 

(11.1 mg/kg) for cadmium is less than the LOD (12 mg/kg), 

the frequency of cadmium exceeding the PEC’s is at least 

45 percent. Site C6 is upstream from most of the historic mining activity in the Center Creek basin, and none of the samples 

from this site had concentrations of lead, or zinc that exceeded 

the CPEC or TPEC or concentrations of cadmium that 

exceeded the LOD. Overall, median concentrations of lead and 

zinc increased dramatically from upstream site C6 to site C5, 

peaked at sites C4 and C3, and decreased downstream through 

sites C2 and C1; however, lead and zinc median concentrations at site C1 remained enriched significantly above their 
34 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

CTR-FP-5

CTR-FP-4

CTR-FP-3

CTR-FP-2

CTR-FP-1

CTR-FB-2 CTR-FB-1

CTR-FB-1

CTR-WC-4

CTR-WC-3

CTR-WC-2

CTR-WC-1

CTR-GB-1

CTR-CH-7

CTR-CH-6

CTR-CH-4

CTR-CH-3

CTR-CH-2

CTR-CH-1

CTR-CH-1

CTR-CH-5

94°35'30" 94°35'20" 94°35'10" 94°35'00" 94°34'50"

37°09'50"

37°09'40"

37°09'30"

CTR-FP-5

CTR-FP-4

CTR-FP-3

CTR-FP-2

CTR-FP-1

CTR-FB-1 CTR-FB-2

CTR-WC-4

CTR-WC-3

CTR-WC-2

CTR-WC-1

CTR-GB-1

CTR-CH-7

CTR-CH-6

CTR-CH-4

CTR-CH-3

CTR-CH-2

CTR-CH-1

CTR

CTR'

CTR

CTR'

CTR-CH-5

37°09'50"

37°09'40"

37°09'30"

0 500 FEET

0 500 METERS

C1

Frequently to occasionally flooded soil

Flood-plain transect

Direction of flow

Site identifier

EXPLANATION

Tile probe sounding

Flood-plain core or sample and identifier

Channel core or sample and identifier

C1 C2

Possible 

mine shaft

Possible 

mine shaft

Possible 

mine dump

Possible 

mine dump Abandoned channel

Abandoned channel

C1 C2

Flooded soils from Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) digital data, 2003

Base from National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP)

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013 (top); 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

aerial photography, 1938 (bottom)

Geographic coordinate system, North American Datum 1983

Center Creek

Center Creek

HIGHWAY JJ

A. 2013

B. 1938

CTR CTR'

HIGHWAY JJ

Figure 9. Aerial photographs from A, 2013 and B, 1938 showing location of cores, samples, and tile probe 

soundings for sites C1 and C2 of intensive study on Center Creek, Missouri, 2011–12.
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment 35

CC-A-HD1

CC-A-HD1

CC-A-HD2

94°32'25" 94°32'20" 94°32'15"

37°10'10"

37°10'05"

37°10'00"

37°09'55"

CC-D-HD1

CC-D-HD2 CC-D-WC1

94°31'00" 94°30'55" 94°30'50" 94°30'45"

37°10'15"

37°10'10"

37°10'05"

37°10'00"

CC-A-HD1

CC-A-HD2

94°32'25" 94°32'20" 94°32'15"

CC-D-HD1

CC-D-HD2 CC-D-WC1

94°31'00" 94°30'55" 94°30'50" 94°30'45"

0 400 FEET

0 400 METERS

Center Creek

Center Creek

Center Creek

Center Creek

C3

Direction of flow

Site identifier

EXPLANATION

Tile probe sounding

Channel core or sample and identifier

A. 2013

C3

C. 2013

C4

D. 1961

C4

B. 1938

C3

Base from National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013 (left images); 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) aerial photography, 1938 (top right); 

U.S. Geological Survey aerial photography, 1961 (bottom right)

Geographic coordinate system, North American Datum 1983

HIGHWAY 171

HIGHWAY 171

Figure 10. Aerial photographs from A, 2013 and B, 1938 for site C3 and from C, 2013 and D, 1961 for site C4 showing 

location of cores, samples, and tile probe soundings on Center Creek, Missouri, 2011–12.
36 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

CC-C-HD1 CC-C-HD2

CC-C-WC1

94°27'35" 94°27'30" 94°27'25" 94°27'20"

37°10'35"

37°10'30"

37°10'25"

37°10'20"

CC-C-HD1

CC-B-HD1

CC-B-HD2 CC-B-HS1

CC-B-HS2

94°23'05" 94°23'00" 94°22'55" 94°22'50"

37°07'50"

37°07'45"

37°07'40"

CC-C-HD1

CC-C-HD2

CC-C-WC1

94°27'35" 94°27'30" 94°27'25" 94°27'20"

CC-B-HD1

CC-B-HD2 CC-B-HS1

CC-B-HS2

94°23'05" 94°23'00" 94°22'55" 94°22'50"

0 400 FEET

0 400 METERS

A. 2013

C5

A. 2013

C6

B. 1961

C6

B. 1961

C5

C5

Direction of flow

Site identifier

EXPLANATION

Tile probe sounding

Channel core or sample and identifier

Base from National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013 (left images); 

U.S. Geological Survey aerial photography, 1961 (right images)

Geographic coordinate system, North American Datum 1983

HIGHWAY 175 HIGHWAY 175

Shoal Creek

Shoal Creek

Shoal Creek

Shoal Creek

Figure 11. Aerial photographs from A, 2013 and B, 1961 showing location of cores, samples, and tile probe soundings 

for sites C5 and C6 on Center Creek, Missouri, 2011–12.
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment 37

levels at upstream site C6 (fig. 12). Although no samples from 

site C6 had XRF-detectable cadmium concentrations, concentrations of cadmium followed a similar but more subdued 

pattern. Laboratory results from four samples from site C6 had 

detectable concentrations of lead, zinc, and cadmium all below 

the respective CPECs. Very few gravel bar-sediment samples 

from Center Creek exceeded the CPEC for other metals 

(one exceedance for arsenic and six exceedances for nickel), 

although exceedances for nickel may be underrepresented 

because the CPEC is less than the XRF LOD of 65 mg/kg. 

Lead concentrations ranged from 14.0 mg/kg to 

1,880 mg/kg (Smith, 2016; Stream channel sediment samples) 

in the <2-mm size fraction of the 89 channel-sediment samples 

from Center Creek and exceeded the CPEC in 60 samples 

(67 percent). The largest lead concentration was at site C1 

in borehole CTR-CH-3 at a depth of 4 to 5 ft below surface. 

Hereinafter, all depths in the body of this report will be referenced to the local land surface. The deepest sample with a 

lead concentration (177 mg/kg) greater than the CPEC was at 

site C1 in borehole CTR-CH-2 at a depth of 6.5 to 7.5 ft (fig. 

13). Of the 80 samples from sites C1–C5, 60 had lead concentrations greater than the CPEC and 57 were greater than 

the TPEC. Excluding upstream site C6, concentrations of lead 

in the upper 5 ft of most cores exceeded the CPEC or TPEC 

for one or more depth intervals (fig. 13), and in a few cases, 

concentrations tended to increase with depth. As examples of 

the latter, see results in figure 13 for CTR-CH-3, CC-A-HD2, 

and CC-C-HD1.

Zinc concentrations in the <2-mm size fraction in 

channel-sediment samples from Center Creek ranged 

from 201 mg/kg to 25,200 mg/kg exceeding the CPEC in 

76 samples (85 percent). The largest zinc concentration was 

in borehole CC-A-HD1 at a depth of 3 to 4 ft (Smith, 2016; 

Stream channel sediment samples). The deepest sample with 

a zinc concentration (1,100 mg/kg) greater than the CPEC 

was at site C1 at a depth of 8.5 to 9.5 ft in borehole CTRCH-2 (fig. 14), the same borehole that had the deepest lead 

concentration greater than the CPEC (fig. 13). The deepest 

sample with a zinc concentration (3,470 mg/kg) greater than 

the TPEC was at site C1 in borehole CTR-CH-1 at a depth of 

6 to 7 ft. Because the zinc TPEC is more than 4 times larger 

than the CPEC, the frequency of samples from sites C1 to C5 

with zinc exceeding the TPEC is smaller (53 of 80, or 66 percent) than the frequency of samples exceeding the CPEC (76 

of 80, or 95 percent). Perhaps more importantly, the depth of 

contamination is greatly dependent on which PEC (CPEC or 

TPEC) value is used. Of the 56 samples from sites C1 to C5 

collected from depths <4 ft, 55 samples (98 percent) exceeded 

the CPEC and 45 samples (80 percent) exceeded the TPEC; 

however, of the 24 samples collected from depths greater than 

4 ft, 21 of 24 (88 percent) exceeded the CPEC, whereas only 8 

(33 percent) exceeded the TPEC. 

Cadmium concentrations in the <2-mm size fraction in 

stream channel sediments were detected above the 12 mg/kg LOD 

in 34 samples (38 percent) and the maximum concentration was 

171 mg/kg (Smith, 2016; Stream channel sediment samples). 

The median concentrations (fig. 12) tended to increase downstream from no detection at site C6 to a peak at site C3 and 

then decreased to site C1, which is nearest to the confluence 

with Spring River. Gravel bars at sites C3, C4, and C5 had 

detectable cadmium concentrations that exceeded the CPEC 

and TPEC in 24 out of 27 samples. The farthest downstream 

sites (C1 and C2) had fewer cadmium concentrations that 

exceeded the CPEC and LOD (10 out of 53 samples). 

Estimated Volume of Channel Sediment 

Contaminated by Mine Waste 

The total volume of sediment deposited in gravel bars 

along the lower 11.1 mi of Center Creek from site C1 to site 

C5 was estimated on the basis of the mean maximum sediment 

depths with concentrations of lead and zinc that exceeded 

the CPEC and the TPEC. Site C5 was chosen as the farthest 

upstream extent of known sediment contamination because 

no lead or zinc concentrations exceeding their respective 

CPEC or TPEC values were upstream from site C5. Site C6 

was approximately 7.5 mi upstream from site C5. The mean 

thickness of sediment that would need excavation based on 

the CPEC for Center Creek was 4.0 ft, and the mean thickness 

of sediment that would need excavation based on the TPEC 

was 3.4 ft (table 5). The total area of studied gravel bars for 

Center Creek was 916,000 square feet (ft2; 21.0 acres; table 5). 

The estimated minimum volume of sediment in gravel bars 

that would need excavation based on the CPEC along Center 

Creek from the mouth to site C5 was 136,000 cubic yards 

(yd3), and the estimated minimum volume of gravel bar sediment exceeding the TPEC was 115,000 yd3

 (table 5). These 

estimates are considered minimum volumes because they 

were only based on the visible gravel bars and do not include 

sediment beneath the wetted channel in other features such as 

pools, and presumably some of these deposits are negatively 

affected by mine-waste contaminated sediment but were 

not sufficiently characterized to be included in the volume 

estimate.

Depth and Concentration of Metals in FloodPlain Sediments 

A total of 84 samples were collected from 7 locations 

on the Center Creek flood plain at sites C1 and C2 within 

the intensive study. Four of the seven boreholes had at least 

one depth interval where lead or zinc exceeded the CPEC 

or TPEC. Intervals that exceeded the lead or zinc CPEC and 

TPEC were generally <3 ft deep with occasional detections 

greater than the CPEC at deeper intervals. Because of time 

limitations, concentrations of cadmium or barium were not 

analyzed in many core intervals. For the intervals that were 

analyzed, 15 out of 23 had concentrations of cadmium greater 

than the LOD, CPEC, and TPEC, 3 of which were greater than 

2 times the LOD. Core samples from borehole CTR-FB-2 had 

cadmium concentrations analyzed at every sampled interval, 
38 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

LEAD

100

1,000

100

1,000

100

10

100

10

100

1,000

C1 C2 

11

C310 

C4  9

C5 8

C6 9

TC1 TC2

 9

TC3

 33

TC4

 14

TC5

 8

TC6

 15

TC7

 4

S1 S2

20

S3 8

S4  3

S515

S6 6 

SR1

n=38

SR2 14

2

5

3

1

4

4

5

4

6

1

7 

1

8

1

9

5

10

 1

11

22

12

 5

n = 42

TR1

n=17

n=13

n=1

ZINC

1,000

10,000

1,000

10,000

100

1,000

1,000

100

1,000

10,000

n = 42

n=17

n=13

n=1

TC1 TC2

 9

TC3

 33

TC4

 14

TC5

 8

TC6

 15

TC7

 4

C1 C2 

11

C310 

C4  9

C5 8

C6 9

2

5

3

1

4

4

5

4

6

1

7 

1

8

1

9

5

10

 1

11

22

12

 5

TR1

SR1

n=38

SR2 14

S1 S2

20

S3 8

S4  3

S515

S6 6 

Concentration in samples reported by the x-ray flourescence, in milligrams per kilogram

Gravel bar sites in order from downstream to upstream

CADMIUM

100

10

100

1010

100

n = 42

n=17

TC1 TC2

 9

TC3

 33

TC4

 14

TC5

 8

TC6

 15

TC7

 4

C1 C2 

11

C310 

C4  9

C5 8

C6 9

2

5

3

1

4

4

5

4

6

1

7 

1

8

1

9

5

10

 1

11

22

12

 5

TR1

n=1

SR1

n=38

SR2 14

Upper adjacent (within 1.5 times IQR)75th percentileMedian

25th percentile } Interquartile range (IQR)

Upper detached (greater than 3.0 times IQR)Upper outside (1.5 to 3 times IQR)

Lower adjacent (within 1.5 times IQR) 

Upper outside (1.5 to 3 times IQR)Lower detached (greater than 3.0 times IQR)IQR is the interquartile range

EXPLANATION

Spring

River

Turkey

Creek

Center

Creek

Shoal

Creek

Tar

Creek

Figure 12. Frequency distributions of the concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc at specific sites in order from 

downstream to upstream.
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment 39

C4

10 100 1,000

Concentration of lead in sediment samples, in milligrams per killogram

Midpoint of each sample interval below the local water surface, in feet

C1

C2 C3

C4

C2

C5

C6

10

-5

0

5

10

-5

0

5

10

-5

0

5

10

-5

0

5

10

-5

0

5

10

100 1,000 10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000

CC-A-HD1 CC-A-HD2

CC-B-HD1 CC-B-HD2 CC-B-HS1 CC-B-HS2

CC-C-HD1 CC-C-HD2 CC-C-WC1

CC-D-HD1

CC-D-HD2 CC-D-WC1

CTR-CH-1 CTR-CH-2 CTR-CH-3 CTR-CH-4

CTR-CH-5 CTR-CH-6 CTR-CH-7

CTR-GB-1

CTR-WC-1 CTR-WC-2

CTR-WC-3 CTR-WC-4

 [Core and site identifiers are explained in table 1]

Sample concentration

Probable effects concentration, 128 milligrams per kilogram

Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration, 

150 milligrams per kilogram

EXPLANATION

Figure 13. Vertical concentration profiles for lead in the less than 2-millimeter size fraction of gravel bar-sediment samples 

scanned by x-ray fluorescence, Center Creek, Missouri, 2011–12.
40 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

Concentration of zinc in sediment samples, in milligrams per kilogram

Midpoint of each sample interval below the local water surface, in feet

C1

C2

C2 C3

C4

C4

C5

C6

-5

0

5

10

10

-5

0

5

10

-5

0

5

10

-5

0

5

10

-5

0

5

10

100 1,000 10,000 10 100 1,000 10,000 10 100 1,000 10,000 10 100 1,000 10,000

10 100 1,000 10,000

 [Core and site identifiers are explained in table 1]

Sample concentration

Probable effects concentration, 459 milligrams per kilogram

Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration, 

2,083 milligrams per kilogram 

EXPLANATION

CC-A-HD1 CC-A-HD2

CC-B-HD1 CC-B-HD2 CC-B-HS1 CC-B-HS2

CC-C-HD1 CC-C-HD2 CC-C-WC1

CC-D-HD1

CC-D-HD2 CC-D-WC1

CTR-CH-1 CTR-CH-2 CTR-CH-3 CTR-CH-4

CTR-CH-5 CTR-CH-6 CTR-CH-7

CTR-GB-1

CTR-WC-1 CTR-WC-2

CTR-WC-3 CTR-WC-4

Figure 14. Vertical concentration profiles for zinc in the less than 2-millimeter size fraction of gravel bar-sediment samples 

scanned by x-ray fluorescence, Center Creek, Missouri, 2011–12.
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment 41

and concentrations exceeded the CPEC and TPEC in every 

interval shallower than 7 ft and at the 8 to 9 ft interval (Smith, 

2016; Flood-plain cores) but had no exceedances of the CPEC 

or TPEC for lead or zinc. 

Of 84 samples on the Center Creek flood plain, 14 had 

concentrations of lead greater than the CPEC (13 greater than 

the TPEC) and 25 had concentrations of zinc greater than the 

CPEC (10 greater than the TPEC [Smith, 2016; Flood-plain 

cores]). Three of the seven boreholes (CTR-FB-2, CTR-FP-4, 

and CTR-FP-5) had no samples with lead or zinc concentrations greater than the CPEC, and borehole CTR-FP-3 had 

lead and zinc exceed their CPEC values in only the 0 to 1 ft 

interval (figs. 15 and 16). One borehole, CTR-FP-1, had lead 

concentrations generally exceeding the CPEC value in intervals <8 ft deep and zinc concentrations exceeding the CPEC 

in intervals <11 ft deep. From the 1938 aerial photograph 

(fig. 9B), borehole CTR-FP-1 was within or very near an old 

stream channel draining what appears to be a possible minewaste dump and mine shaft. Borehole CTR-FP-2 was farther 

from the old stream channel, and lead and zinc contamination 

levels greater than the CPEC values were limited to intervals 

<3 ft deep (figs. 15 and 16). In deeper intervals of most floodplain boreholes, lead concentrations generally were between 

20 and 50 mg/kg, and zinc concentrations were more variable 

ranging from <25 mg/kg to about 175 mg/kg. 

The concentrations of lead and zinc in deeper core 

intervals are similar to background concentrations estimated 

by Pope (2005) of 20 mg/kg for lead and 100 mg/kg for zinc 

except for an anomalous zinc concentration (33,700 mg/kg) at 

the bottom of borehole CTR-FP-2. This anomalous zinc sample also had the largest cadmium concentration (183 mg/kg) 

detected in any flood-plain sample or streambed-sediment 

sample from this study (Smith, 2016; Flood-plain cores), but 

visual inspection of the core indicated the presence of the zinc 

ore mineral, sphalerite, which is known to contain abundant 

quantities of cadmium (Jolly and Van Heyl, 1968). Changes 

in the geologic character of the core at depth, and the abrupt 

increases in concentrations at the bottom of the core, lead to 

the interpretation that the anomalous concentrations of zinc 

and cadmium in the sample from 15 to 16 ft depth are most 

likely derived from naturally occurring minerals in weathered 

bedrock and not the result of mine contamination. 

Turkey Creek

Turkey Creek has a drainage area of 46 mi2 at its confluence with Spring River and is approximately 20.8 mi in length 

from the headwaters to the mouth. Approximately 10.1 mi of 

the lower part of the creek was studied and used in the estimation of the volume of contaminated sediment (table 5).

Site Selection and Description 

Turkey Creek gravel bar-sediment samples and floodplain samples were collected during a period of 3 weeks in the 

summer of 2012. The Turkey Creek study reach consisted of 

an area of intensive study (TC1, TC2, and TC3; fig. 17) and 

four upstream supplemental gravel bar sites (TC4, TC5, TC6, 

and TC7 [the farthest upstream]; figs. 18, 19). The intensive 

study area was west of Joplin (fig. 1). Twenty-three gravel 

bar locations and six flood-plain locations were cored along 

Turkey Creek. Transect TC–TC’ with five cores spanning 

gravel bar sites TC2 and TC3 (TKC-FP-1, TKC-FP-2, TKCFP-3, TKC-FB-1, and TKC-FP-4) were drilled across the flood 

plain with four on the north side of the creek and one on the 

south (fig. 17). There were three gravel bar coring locations 

along transect TC–TC’ at gravel bar site TC3: two on the dry 

part of the gravel bar (TKC-CH-2 and TKC-CH-3) and one in 

the wetted channel (TKC-WC-1). One gravel bar borehole at 

gravel bar site TC3 (TKC-CH-1) was located a short distance 

out of the transect line but on the same gravel bar (fig. 17). 

Additional cores were collected in the intensive study 

area downstream from transect TC–TC’. Another core at 

gravel bar site TC2 (TKC-CH-4) was located about 600 ft 

downstream from the transect line on the north side of the 

creek. Another flood-plain borehole at gravel bar site TC1 

(TKC-FB-2) was drilled south of the creek and about 1,000 

ft downstream from transect TC–TC’. Four additional gravel 

bar-sediment sample locations at site TC1 were on gravel bars 

<1,500 ft downstream from transect TC–TC’, near an overflow channel that exists north of the main channel of Turkey 

Creek (fig. 17). The overflow channel branches off of the main 

channel and rejoins it less than half a mile downstream. At the 

time of sampling, the overflow channel contained only small 

pools of standing water and was choked with sand and gravel, 

especially at the upstream end. Flow through the overflow 

channel likely only occurs during periods of high flow in 

Turkey Creek, which makes it a likely depositional area for 

sediment transported during storm events. Four cores were 

drilled in and between the overflow and main channels. At site 

TC1, one core (TKC-CH-7) was drilled on a gravel bar and 

one core (TKC-WC-3) was drilled in the adjacent submerged 

part of the gravel bar in the overflow channel (fig. 17). At site 

TC1, hand sample TKC-CH-5P and core TKC-CH-5 were on 

opposite sides of the main channel. At site TC1, hand samples 

were collected from TKC-CH-5P from 0 to 2 ft on a gravel bar 

on the opposite side of the stream from coring location TKCCH-5. At site TC1, core TKC-CH-6 was drilled between the 

main channel and overflow channel (fig. 17).

Thirteen locations were sampled at five supplemental 

gravel bars upstream from the intensive study site. Site TC4 

had two cores (TC-D-HD1 and TC-D-HD2) and was located 

about 1,000 ft downstream from the bridge at North Black 

Cat Road (fig. 18). Site TC5 had three cores (TC-E-HD1, 

TC-E-HD2, and TC-E-WC1), and was located about 3,000 ft 

upstream from the bridge at site TC4. At site TC5, core TCE-WC1 was in the wetted channel while the remaining cores 

were drilled on the gravel bar itself (fig. 18). Site TC6 had 

two adjacent gravel bars (fig. 19) and was located about 3 mi 

upstream from the site TC5. The upstream gravel bar at site 

TC6 had a single core (TC-B-HD1). Coring was attempted in 
42 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000

10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000

20

0

5

10

15

20

0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

0

5

10

15

20

20

SH-FB-1 SH-FB-2 SH-FB-3 SH-FB-4 SH-FP1

SH-FP-2 TAR-FB-1 TAR-FB-2 TAR-FB-3

TAR-FB-4 TAR-FP1-1 TAR-FP1-2 TAR-FP1-3 TAR-FP1-4 TAR-FP2-1

TAR-FP2-2 TAR-FP2-3 TAR-FP2-4 TAR-FP2-5

TKC-FP-4

CTR

TKC

SH

TAR

Center Creek

Turkey Creek

Shoal Creek

Tar Creek

CTR-FB-1 CTR-FB-2 CTR-FP-1 CTR-FP-2 CTR-FP-3 CTR-FP-4

CTR-FP-5 TKC-FB-1 TKC-FB-2 TKC-FP-1 TKC-FP-2 TKC-FP-3

SH-FP-3 SH-FP-4

Concentration of lead in flood-plain cores and samples, in milligrams per killogram

Midpoint of each sample interval below land surface, in feet

 [Core and site identifiers are explained in table 2]

Sample concentration

Probable effects concentration, 128 milligrams per kilogram

Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration, 

150 milligrams per kilogram

EXPLANATION

Figure 15. Vertical profiles by flood-plain core and sample location of lead concentrations analyzed by x-ray fluorescence in 

Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek, 2011–12.
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment 43

 [Core and site identifiers are explained in table 2]

Sample concentration

Probable effects concentration, 459 milligrams per kilogram

Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration, 

2,083 milligrams per kilogram

EXPLANATION

Midpoint of each sample interval below land surface, in feet

Concentration of zinc in flood-plain cores and samples, in milligrams per kilogram

0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000

10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000

20

0

5

10

15

20

0

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

0

5

10

15

20

20

SH-FB-1 SH-FB-2 SH-FB-3 SH-FB-4 SH-FP1

SH-FP-2 TAR-FB-1 TAR-FB-2 TAR-FB-3

TAR-FB-4 TAR-FP1-1 TAR-FP1-2 TAR-FP1-3 TAR-FP1-4 TAR-FP2-1

TAR-FP2-2 TAR-FP2-3 TAR-FP2-4 TAR-FP2-5

TKC-FP-4

CTR-FB-1 CTR-FB-2 CTR-FP-1 CTR-FP-2 CTR-FP-3 CTR-FP-4

CTR-FP-5 TKC-FB-1 TKC-FB-2 TKC-FP-1 TKC-FP-2 TKC-FP-3

SH-FP-3 SH-FP-4

CTR

TKC

SH

TAR

Center Creek

Turkey Creek

Shoal Creek

Tar Creek

Figure 16. Vertical profiles by flood-plain core and sample location of zinc concentrations analyzed by x-ray fluorescence in 

Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek, 2011–12.
44 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

TKC-CH-2

TKC-CH-1

TKC-CH-3

TKC-CH-4

TKC-CH-5

TKC-CH-6 TKC-CH-7

TKC-WC-3

TKC-CH-5P

TKC-WC-1

TKC-FB-1

TKC-FB-2

TKC-FP-1

TKC-FP-2

TKC-FP-3

TKC-FP-4

TKC

TKC'

94°35'20" 94°35'10" 94°35'00" 94°34'50" 94°34'40"

37°07'20"

37°07'10"

TKC

TKC'

Turkey Creek

Turkey Creek

37°07'20"

37°07'10"

TKC-FB-1

TKC-FB-2

TKC-FP-1

TKC-FP-2

TKC-FP-3

TKC-FP-4

TKC-CH-2

TKC-CH-1

TKC-CH-3

TKC-CH-4

TKC-CH-5

TKC-CH-6 TKC-CH-7

TKC TKC-WC-1 -WC-3

TKC-CH-5P

0 500 FEET

0 500 METERS

TKC-FP-1

TKC-CH-1

TC1

Frequently to occasionally flooded soil

Flood-plain transect

Direction of flow

Site identifier

EXPLANATION

Tile probe sounding

Flood-plain core or sample and identifier

Channel core or sample and identifier

TKC TKC'

Base from National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013 (top); 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) aerial photography 

1938 (bottom)

Geographic coordinate system, North American Datum 1983

Overflow

channel

Overflow

channel

TC1

TC1

TC2

TC2

TC3

TC3

A. 2013

B. 1938

Flooded soils from Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) digital data, 2003

Figure 17. Aerial photographs from A, 2013 and B, 1938 showing location of bed-sediment cores, samples, and tile 

probe soundings for sites TC1, TC2, and TC3 in Turkey Creek, Missouri, 2012.
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment 45

TC-D-HD1

TC-D-HD2

94°34'15" 94°34'10" 94°34'05" 94°34'00"

37°07'15"

37°07'10"

37°07'05"

37°07'00"

TC-E-HD1

TC-E-HD2

TC-E-WC1

TC-E-HD3

94°33'35" 94°33'30" 94°33'25" 94°33'20"

37°07'05"

37°07'00"

37°06'55"

TC-D-HD1

TC-D-HD2

94°34'15" 94°34'10" 94°34'05" 94°34'00"

TC-E-HD1

TC-E-HD2

TC-E-WC1

TC-E-HD3

94°33'35" 94°33'30" 94°33'25" 94°33'20"

Base from National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013 (left images); 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) aerial photography, 

1938 (right images)

Geographic coordinate system, North American Datum 1983

A. 2013

TC4

A. 2013

TC5

B. 1938

TC5

B. 1938

TC4

NORTH BLACK CAT 

ROAD

NORTH BLACK CAT 

ROAD

TC-D-HD1 TC4

Direction of flow

Site identifier

EXPLANATION

Tile probe sounding

Channel core or sample and identifier

Turkey Creek

Turkey Creek

Turkey Creek

Turkey Creek

0 400 FEET

0 400 METERS

Figure 18. Aerial photographs from A, 2013 and B, 1938 showing location of bed-sediment cores, samples, and tile 

probe soundings for sites TC4 and TC5 in Turkey Creek, Missouri, 2012.
46 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

TC-B-HD1

TC-C-HD1

TC-C-HD2

TC-C-HS1

TC-B-HD2

94°30'40" 94°30'35" 94°30'30" 94°30'25"

37°06'35"

37°06'30"

37°06'25"

37°06'20"

TC-A-HD1

TC-A-HD2

94°28'50" 94°28'45" 94°28'40" 94°28'35"

37°06'05"

37°06'00"

37°05'55"

TC-B-HD1

TC-C-HD1

TC-C-HD2

TC-C-HS1

TC-B-HD2

94°30'40" 94°30'35" 94°30'30" 94°30'25"

TC-A-HD1

TC-A-HD2

94°28'50" 94°28'45" 94°28'40" 94°28'35"

0 400 FEET

0 400 METERS

TC-C-HD1 TC6

Direction of flow

Site identifier

EXPLANATION

Tile probe sounding

Channel core or sample and identifier

Base from National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013 (left images); 

U.S. Geological Survey aerial photography, 1961 (right images)

Geographic coordinate system, North American Datum 1983

A. 2013

TC6

A. 2013

TC7

B. 1961

TC7

B. 1961

TC6

NORTH RANGELINE ROAD

NORTH RANGELINE ROAD

Turkey Creek

Turkey Creek

Turkey Creek

Turkey Creek

Figure 19. Aerial photographs from A, 2013 and B, 1961 showing location of bed-sediment cores, samples, and tile 

probe soundings for sites TC6 and TC7 in Turkey Creek, Missouri, 2012.
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment 47

other parts of the gravel bar with no success. Coring at this 

location was extremely difficult because of large boulders and 

broken concrete rubble placed in the creek to control erosion. The downstream gravel bar at site TC6 had two cores 

(TC-C-HD1 and TC-C-HD2) and one hand sample location 

(TC-C-HS1; fig. 19). Site TC7, located near North Rangeline 

Road, had two cores (TC-A-HD1 and TC-A-HD2) and was the 

farthest upstream bar sampled on Turkey Creek (fig. 19). 

Depth and Concentration of Metals in Channel 

Sediments

A total of 100 samples were collected from 23 locations 

on gravel bar deposits along Turkey Creek. The maximum 

sample depth was 13 ft, with the thickest channel deposits in 

the gravel bars at sites TC2 and TC3 (table 5) and thinnest 

deposits at upstream site TC7 (<2 ft thick). Excluding samples 

with concentrations below the LOD, median lead concentrations increased from the most upstream site TC7 to a peak at 

TC5 and decreased somewhat at the two downstream sites 

TC1 and TC2 (fig. 12). Median zinc concentrations increased 

from the most upstream site at TC7 to a peak at TC4 then 

remained relatively steady to the most downstream site at TC1 

(fig. 12). Median cadmium concentrations increased from 

concentrations below the LOD at the upstream site TC7 to site 

TC3 and then remained relatively steady to the most downstream site at TC1 (fig. 12). 

Lead and zinc concentrations in nearly all gravel barsediment samples from Turkey Creek exceeded the CPEC and 

TPEC often to the maximum depth of the boreholes. Lead concentrations exceeded the CPEC in all but 6 samples (94 percent) and exceeded the TPEC in all but 11 samples. Zinc 

concentrations exceeded the CPEC in all but 1 sample (99 

percent) and exceeded the TPEC in all but 13 samples. Most 

samples also had exceedances of both PECs for cadmium 

(minimum of 70 percent; <12 to 175 mg/kg), although this 

number of exceedances may be greater because the XRF LOD 

is greater than the CPEC and TPEC for cadmium. Cadmium 

concentrations exceeding the CPEC and TPEC were present as 

deep as 11.5 ft. Few samples exceeded the CPECs for metals 

other than lead, zinc, and cadmium, although exceedances for 

nickel may be underrepresented because the CPEC for nickel 

(48.6 mg/kg) is less than the XRF LOD (65 mg/kg). 

Lead concentrations in gravel bar-sediment samples 

from Turkey Creek ranged from 70 mg/kg to 7,520 mg/kg 

and zinc concentrations ranged from 329 mg/kg to 27,900 

mg/kg (Smith, 2016; Stream channel sediment samples). 

The smallest lead and zinc concentrations generally were 

from upstream site TC7 where lead and zinc concentrations 

were less than the TPEC in all four samples from this site. At 

site TC7, the lead concentration exceeded the CPEC in one 

sample, and the zinc concentration exceeded the CPEC in all 

four samples (figs. 20 and 21). All samples collected from 

sites downstream from TC7 contained lead concentrations 

greater than the CPEC with the exception of three samples 

with concentrations <120 mg/kg (at boreholes TKC-CH-4 

[0 to 2 ft], TKC-CH-6 [8 ft], and TKC-WC-1 [3.6 to 4.6 ft]). 

Samples that exceeded the CPEC in Turkey Creek generally 

exceeded the larger TPEC with the exception of 5 samples: 

TC-C-HS1 from 0 to 1 ft (129 mg/kg), TC-A-HD2 from 0 to 

1 ft (137 mg/kg), TKC-CH-2 from 7.2 to 8.2 ft (140 mg/kg), 

TKC-CH-3 from 8 to 9 ft (128 mg/kg), and TKC-CH-3 from 

9 to 10 ft (138 mg/kg) (Smith, 2016; Stream channel sediment 

samples; fig. 20). 

Estimated Volume of Channel Sediment 

Contaminated by Mine Waste 

Sediment deposited in gravel bars along the entire 

10.1-mi study reach of Turkey Creek had concentrations of 

lead and zinc that exceeded the CPEC and the TPEC, from the 

gravel bar at site TC7 to the creek’s mouth at the Spring River. 

The gravel bar at site TC7 was chosen as the farthest upstream 

extent for the estimated volume of sediment because no data 

were collected farther upstream from this site. The mean 

thickness of sediment that would need excavation based on the 

CPEC for Turkey Creek was 4.9 ft and the mean thickness of 

sediment that would need excavation based on the TPEC was 

4.6 ft (table 5). The total area of studied gravel bars for Turkey 

Creek was 632,000 ft2 (14.5 acres; table 5). The estimated 

minimum volume of sediment in gravel bars exceeding the 

CPEC for the chosen reach of Turkey Creek was 115,000 yd3

and 108,000 yd3 of sediment in gravel bars exceeding the 

TPEC (table 5). These estimates are considered minimum 

volumes because they were only based on the visible gravel 

bars and do not include sediment beneath the wetted channel 

in other features such as pools, and presumably some of these 

deposits are negatively affected by mine-waste contaminated 

sediment but were not sufficiently characterized to be included 

in the volume estimate.

Depth and Concentration of Metals in FloodPlain Sediments 

A total of 73 samples were collected from six locations 

on the Turkey Creek flood plain (Smith, 2016; Flood-plain 

cores). Of these, cadmium concentrations were analyzed in 

51 samples (Smith, 2016; Flood-plain cores). Nine of the 73 

samples had concentrations of lead greater than the CPEC and 

15 had concentrations of zinc greater than the CPEC. Lead 

concentrations in eight samples and zinc concentrations in five 

samples exceeded their respective TPECs. The exceedances of 

the TPEC for lead or zinc were limited to the upper 1 or 2 feet 

of the cores except for core TKC-FP-2 where concentrations 

of lead and zinc were less than the CPEC and TPEC in the 

upper few feet. Concentrations for lead and zinc for core TKCFP-2 gradually increased with depth and lead exceeded the 

CPEC between 6 and 10 ft (fig. 15). The largest concentrations 

of lead (789 mg/kg from core TKC-FP-4) and zinc (6,620 

mg/kg from core TKC-FP-3) were in the 0 to 1 ft intervals 
48 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

TC-A-HD1 TC-A-HD2

TC-B-HD1

TC-B-HD2

TC-C-HD1 TC-C-HD2 TC-C-HS1

TC-D-HD1 TC-D-HD2 TC-E-HD1 TC-E-HD2 TC-E-HD3

TC-E-WC1

TKC-CH-4 TKC-CH-1 TKC-CH-2 TKC-CH-3

TKC-CH-5 TKC-CH-5P TKC-CH-6 TKC-CH-7

TKC-WC-1

TKC-WC-3

TC1

TC2 TC3

TC4 TC5

TC6

TC7

TC5

TC6

-10

-5

0

5

10

-10

-5

0

5

10

-10

-5

0

5

10

-10

-5

0

5

10

-10

-5

0

5

10 100 1,000 100 1,000 100 1,000

100 1,000 100 1,000

Concentration of lead in sediment samples, in milligrams per kilogram

Midpoint of each sample interval below the local water surface, in feet

 [Core and site identifiers are explained in table 1]

Sample concentration

Probable effects concentration, 128 milligrams per kilogram

Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration, 

150 milligrams per kilogram

EXPLANATION

Figure 20. Vertical profiles by core and sample location of lead concentrations in the less than 2-millimeter size fraction of gravel 

bar-sediment samples analyzed by x-ray fluorescence in Turkey Creek, Missouri, 2012.
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment 49

10

10,000

-10

-5

0

5

-10

-5

0

5

10

-10

-5

0

5

10

-10

-5

0

5

10

-10

-5

0

5

10

10 100 1,000 10,000 10 100 1,000 10,000 10 100 1,000

10 100 1,000 10,000 10 100 1,000 10,000

 [Core and site identifiers are explained in table 1]

Sample concentration

Probable effects concentration, 459 milligrams per kilogram

Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration, 

2,083 milligrams per kilogram

EXPLANATION

Concentration of zinc in sediment samples, in milligrams per kilogram

Midpoint of each sample interval below the local water surface, in feet

TC-A-HD1 TC-A-HD2

TC-B-HD1

TC-B-HD2

TC-C-HD1 TC-C-HD2 TC-C-HS1

TC-D-HD1 TC-D-HD2 TC-E-HD1 TC-E-HD2 TC-E-HD3

TC-E-WC1

TKC-CH-4 TKC-CH-1 TKC-CH-2 TKC-CH-3

TKC-CH-5 TKC-CH-5P TKC-CH-6 TKC-CH-7

TKC-WC-1

TKC-WC-3

TC1

TC4

TC5 TC6

TC6 TC7

TC2 TC3

TC5

Figure 21. Vertical profiles by core and sample location of zinc concentrations in the less than 2-millimeter size fraction of gravel 

bar-sediment samples analyzed by x-ray fluorescence in Turkey Creek, Missouri, 2012.
50 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

(figs. 15, 16). Borehole TKC-FP-1 was farthest from the creek 

and lead concentrations in all samples from this core were less 

than the CPEC, however, zinc concentrations were greater 

than the CPEC in most samples <7 ft deep. Three cores (TKCFB-1, TKC-FB-2, and TKC-FP-4) had lead concentrations 

exceed both PECs in the top 1 ft of depth only (fig. 15). Those 

lead concentrations were 371 mg/kg (TKC-FB-1), 162 mg/kg 

(TKC-FB-2), and 789 mg/kg (TKC-FP-4). 

Cadmium concentrations exceeded the CPEC at most 

depths in flood-plain cores on Turkey Creek. Out of 51 

samples from the flood plain that were analyzed for cadmium 

concentrations, a minimum 44 concentrations exceeded 

both PECs for cadmium (Smith, 2016; Flood-plain cores). 

The number of cadmium concentration exceedances may be 

greater because the LOD (12 mg/kg) is larger than the CPEC 

(4.98 mg/kg) and TPEC (11.1 mg/kg).

Shoal Creek

Shoal Creek has a drainage area of 251 mi2 at its confluence with Spring River and is approximately 80.2 mi in length 

from the headwaters to the mouth. Approximately 19 mi of 

the lower part of the creek was studied and the lower 9 mi was 

used in the estimation of the volume of contaminated sediment 

(table 5).

Site Selection and Description

Shoal Creek gravel bar-sediment samples and flood-plain 

samples were collected from eight sites during a period of 

3 weeks during the summer of 2012. Because of difficulties 

with permission to access the flood plain in the vicinity of 

sampled gravel bars, an intensive study area with a number of 

co-located flood-plain borehole and channel core samples was 

not possible. Flood-plain boreholes were drilled at two sites 

(SFP1 and SFP2) with no corresponding gravel bar-sediment 

samples, and hand samples of flood-plain deposits were 

obtained from a cut bank and the side wall of an excavation at 

site S4. The flood-plain transect SH–SH’ along Shoal Creek 

was at the downstream most site (SFP1) about 2.0 mi south 

of Galena, Kansas (fig. 1). Four boreholes were drilled on the 

north side of the stream at distances of about 450 ft (SH-FP-1), 

900 ft (SH-FP-2), 1,400 ft (SH-FP-3), and 1,900 ft (SH-FP-4) 

from the stream (fig. 22). Two additional flood-plain boreholes 

(SH-FB-2 and SH-FB-3) were drilled on the south side of 

Shoal Creek at site SFP2 (fig. 23) about 5.5 mi upstream from 

site SFP1. Access to the channel at these two sites was limited 

to a reach that contained few channel deposits at either site; 

therefore, no gravel bar-sediment samples were collected at 

the sites with the flood-plain samples. 

Gravel bar-sediment samples from Shoal Creek were 

collected from 12 locations at 5 sites along the lower 19 mi of 

Shoal Creek (S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5; fig. 1). Sites S1, S2, S3, 

and S4 were along about a 6-mi reach of Shoal Creek ranging from about 2.5 mi to about 10.5 mi upstream from Empire 

Lake. The upstream most site (S5) was about 10 mi upstream 

from site S4. Site S4 was about 1,000 ft upstream from the 

Schifferdecker Road Bridge (fig. 24). This site included three 

channel sediment cores (SH-CH-1, SH-CH-2, and SH-WC1) and two nearby flood-plain sample locations (SH-FB-1 

and SH-FB-4). Flood-plain locations SH-FB-1 and SH-FB-4 

were samples of soil from the side wall of an excavation made 

by a gravel mining operation (SH-FB-1) and the side of an 

inactive cut bank on the north side of the creek (SH-FB-4; 

fig. 24). Three channel sediment cores were collected about 

0.1 mi downstream at site S3 (fig. 24). Core SH-CH-5 was 

on a gravel bar 400 ft upstream from the Schifferdecker Road 

Bridge on the north side of the channel. Core SH-WC-2 was 

also upstream from the bridge but inside the wetted channel. 

Downstream from the bridge, core SH-CH-7 was collected on 

the south side of the creek (fig. 24). Site S2 was centered on 

a gravel bar near the City of Joplin’s Shoal Creek Wastewater 

Plant and had two cores (SH-CH-8 and SH-CH-9; fig. 23). Site 

S1 was on the south side of Galena, Kans., and included the 

gravel bar cores SH-CH-11 and SH-WC-3 (fig. 22). Two boreholes (SC-A-HD1 and SC-A-HD2) were drilled on a gravel 

bar about 10 mi upstream from site S4 at site S5 (fig. 24). 

Depth and Concentration of Metals in Channel 

Sediments

A total of 65 samples were collected from 12 locations on 

gravel-bar deposits along Shoal Creek. The maximum sample 

depth was 11.9 ft. The maximum depth of sediments that had 

concentrations of lead and zinc that exceeded the respective 

CPEC for those metals was 7 ft for lead and 9 ft for zinc. 

Overall, cores from Shoal Creek generally had concentrations 

of zinc that exceeded the CPEC at many depths, including the 

upstream site S5 about 19 mi upstream from Empire Lake. 

Few samples had exceedances of the TPEC for any MVTrelated metals in channel sediments from Shoal Creek. 

In the <2-mm size fraction of gravel bar-sediment 

samples from Shoal Creek, lead concentrations ranged from 

<13 mg/kg to 183 mg/kg (Smith, 2016; Stream channel sediment samples). Of the 65 samples, 8 samples (12 percent) had 

lead concentrations greater than the CPEC and only 4 samples 

(about 6 percent) had concentrations greater than the TPEC. 

Five of the eight gravel bar-sediment samples greater than 

the CPEC for lead and three greater than the TPEC for lead 

were from site S2 at borehole SH-CH-9 (2 to 7 ft). The other 

samples were from site S3 from borehole SH-CH-7 from 2 to 

3 ft (139 mg/kg), site S2 from borehole SH-CH-8 from 0 to 

1 ft (181 mg/kg), and site S1 from borehole SH-CH-11 from 

1 to 2 ft (130 mg/kg) (Smith, 2016; Stream channel sediment 

samples; fig. 25). 

Zinc concentrations in the <2-mm size fraction in 

samples ranged from 176 mg/kg to 3,010 mg/kg and cadmium 

concentrations were <12 mg/kg in all samples (Smith, 2016; 

Stream channel sediment samples). Almost 74 percent of 

the samples (48 of 65) had zinc concentrations greater than 
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment 51

SH-FP-1

SH-FP-2

SH-FP-3

SH-FP-4

94°39'00" 94°38'55" 94°38'50" 94°38'45" 94°38'40"

37°02'50"

37°02'45"

37°02'40"

37°02'35"

37°02'30"

SH-CH-11

SH-WC-3

94°38'35" 94°38'30" 94°38'25" 94°38'20" 94°38'15" 37°02'40"

37°02'35"

37°02'30"

37°02'25"

37°02'20"

SH-FP-1

SH-FP-2

SH-FP-3

SH-FP-4

SH

SH'

SH

SH'

94°39'00" 94°38'55" 94°38'50" 94°38'45" 94°38'40"

SH-CH-11

SH-WC-3

94°38'35" 94°38'30" 94°38'25" 94°38'20" 94°38'15"

0 400 FEET

0 400 METERS

SH-FP-1

SH-CH-1

S1

Frequently to occasionally flooded soil

Flood-plain transect

Direction of flow

Site identifier

EXPLANATION

Flood-plain core or sample and identifier

SH SH' Channel core or sample and identifier

Flooded soils from Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) digital data, 2003

Base from National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013 (left images); 

U.S. Geological Survey aerial photography, 1958 (right images)

Geographic coordinate system, North American Datum 1983

A. 2013

SFP1

A. 2013

S1

B. 1958

S1

B. 1958

SFP1

Shoal Creek Shoal Creek

Shoal Creek

Shoal Creek

Figure 22. Aerial photographs from A, 2013 and B, 1958 showing location of bed-sediment cores and sample locations 

for sites SFP1 and S1 in Shoal Creek, Missouri, 2012.
52 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

SH-CH-8

SH-CH-9

94°35'35" 94°35'30" 94°35'25" 94°35'20"

37°02'10"

37°02'05"

37°02'00"

SH-FB-3 SH-FB-2

94°34'40" 94°34'35" 94°34'30" 94°34'25" 37°02'25"

37°02'20"

37°02'15"

37°02'10"

SH-CH-8

SH-CH-9

94°35'35" 94°35'30" 94°35'25" 94°35'20"

SH-FB-3 SH-FB-2

94°34'40" 94°34'35" 94°34'30" 94°34'25"

A. 2013

S2

A. 2013

SFP2

B. 1938

SFP2

B. 1938

S2

Shoal Creek

Wastewater 

Treatment Plant

Shoal Creek

Shoal Creek

Shoal Creek Shoal Creek

SH-FB-2

SH-CH-9

S2

Frequently to occasionally flooded soil

Direction of flow

Site identifier

EXPLANATION

Flood-plain core or sample and identifier

Channel core or sample and identifier

Flooded soils from Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) digital data, 2003

Base from National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013 (left images); 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) aerial photography, 

1938 (right images)

Geographic coordinate system, North American Datum 1983 0 400 FEET

0 400 METERS

Figure 23. Aerial photographs from A, 2013 and B, 1938 showing location of bed-sediment cores and sample 

locations for sites S2 and SFP2 in Shoal Creek, Missouri, 2012.
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment 53

SH-CH-1

SH-CH-2

SH-CH-5 SH-CH-7

SH-WC-1

SH-WC-2

SH-FB-4

SH-FB-1

94°33'30" 94°33'25" 94°33'20" 94°33'15" 94°33'10"

37°02'15"

37°02'10"

37°02'05"

37°02'00"

SC-A-HD1

SC-A-HD2

94°26'30" 94°26'25" 94°26'20" 94°26'15"

36°59'10"

36°59'05"

36°59'00"

36°58'55"

36°58'50"

SH-CH-1

SH-CH-2

SH-CH-5 SH-CH-7

SH-WC-1

SH-WC-2

SH-FB-4

SH-FB-1

94°33'30" 94°33'25" 94°33'20" 94°33'15" 94°33'10"

SC-A-HD1

SC-A-HD2

94°26'30" 94°26'25" 94°26'20" 94°26'15"

0 400 FEET

0 400 METERS

Base from National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013 (left images); 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) aerial photography, 

1938 (top right); 

U.S. Geological Survey aerial photography, 1958 (bottom right)

Geographic coordinate system, North American Datum 1983

SH-FB-1

SH-CH-1 S3

Frequently to occasionally flooded soil

Direction of flow

Site identifier

EXPLANATION

Tile probe sounding

Flood-plain core or sample and identifier

Channel core or sample and identifier

Flooded soils from Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) digital data, 2003

SCHIFFERDECKER ROAD

A. 2013

D. 1958

S5

C. 2013

S5

S4

S3

S4

B. 1938

S3

Shoal Creek

Shoal Creek

Shoal Creek

Shoal Creek

Figure 24. Aerial photographs from A, 2013 and B, 1938 for sites S3 and S4, and from C, 2013 and D, 1958 for site S5 

showing location of cores, samples, and tile probes in Shoal Creek, Missouri, 2012.
54 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

[Core and site identifiers are explained in table 1]

Sample concentration

Probable effects concentration, 128 milligrams per kilogram

Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration, 

150 milligrams per kilogram

EXPLANATION

S1 S2

S3 S4

S4 S5

SC-A-HD1 SC-A-HD2

SH-CH-1

SH-CH-11

SH-CH-2

SH-CH-5 SH-CH-7

SH-CH-8 SH-CH-9

SH-WC-1

SH-WC-2

SH-WC-3

Midpoint of each sample interval below local water surface, in feet

Concentration of lead in sediment samples, in milligrams per kilogram

0

5

10

10 100 10 100 10 100 10 100

0

5

10

0

5

10

-5

-5

-5

Figure 25. Vertical profiles by core and sample location of lead concentrations in the less than 2-millimeter 

size fraction of stream channel samples analyzed by x-ray fluorescence in Shoal Creek, Missouri, 2012.
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment 55

the CPEC, but only one sample had a concentration greater 

than the TPEC (borehole SH-CH-8 at depth interval 0 to 1 ft 

(Smith, 2016; Stream channel sediment samples). This sample 

was collected at the same site (S2) where all four samples 

exceeding the lead TPEC were found. The wastewater plant 

outfall has created a large pool (fig. 23), which may act as a 

trap and allow fine material to collect at this site. Concentrations of zinc that exceeded the CPEC generally extended 

several feet to as much as 9 ft below the surface of the channel 

sediment (Smith, 2016; Stream channel sediment samples; 

fig. 26). Concentrations of zinc in 9 of the 15 samples from 

site S5 were greater than the CPEC with the maximum of 

996 mg/kg in samples from <1 ft deep (Smith, 2016; Stream 

channel sediment samples). None of the stream channel sediments contained detectable concentrations of cadmium, and 

only four samples contained concentrations of nickel greater 

than the LOD of 65 mg/kg.

Estimated Volume of Channel Sediment 

Contaminated by Mine Waste 

The volume of contaminated sediment within sampled 

gravel bars was estimated for the 9-mi reach of Shoal Creek 

from site S4 to the upper end of the south arm of Empire Lake 

(fig. 1). Although channel sediments at site S5 contained zinc 

concentrations greater than the CPEC, the absence of data 

along the nearly 10-mi reach between this site and the next 

downstream site (S4) precluded the estimation of contaminated sediment volume along this reach. The mean thickness 

of sediment along the lower, 9-mi reach of Shoal Creek that 

would need excavation based on the CPEC was 4.5 ft, and 

the mean thickness of sediment that would need excavation 

based on the TPEC was 0.8 ft (table 5). The total area of 

studied gravel bars for Shoal Creek was 146,000 ft2 (3.4 acres; 

table 5). Using the mean thickness of contaminated sediment and a total area of sampled gravel bars along this reach 

of 146,000 ft2, the estimated minimum volume of contaminated sediment in gravel bars exceeding the CPEC is about 

24,000 yd3 (table 5). The estimated minimum volume of sediment in gravel bars exceeding the TPEC is smaller at about 

4,000 yd3 (table 5). These estimates are considered minimum 

volumes because they were only based on the visible gravel 

bars and do not include sediment beneath the wetted channel 

in other features such as pools, and presumably some of these 

deposits are negatively affected by mine-waste contaminated 

sediment but were not sufficiently characterized to be included 

in the volume estimate.

Depth and Concentration of Metals in FloodPlain Sediments 

A total of 80 flood-plain samples were collected from 

8 locations along the Shoal Creek flood plain (Smith, 2016; 

Flood-plain cores). Lead concentrations greater than the 

CPEC were present in 5 of the 80 (about 6 percent) flood-plain 

samples from Shoal Creek. Zinc concentrations exceeded the 

CPEC in 11 samples (about 14 percent). Flood-plain cores 

sampled along Shoal Creek tended to have concentrations of 

lead and zinc below the CPEC and TPEC, even in the upper 

2 ft of depth; however, the samples from borehole SH-FB-4 

had lead or zinc concentrations that exceeded the CPEC and 

TPEC to depths greater than 8 ft (Smith, 2016; Flood-plain 

cores; figs. 15, 16). All 5 of the CPEC exceedances by lead 

concentration and 9 of the 11 CPEC exceedances by zinc were 

from this single location. Samples at this location were collected from a cut bank on the north side of Shoal Creek at site 

S4 (fig. 24). It is possible that the stream channel at this location has migrated southward leaving a thick metal-rich deposit 

of recently (post mining) deposited sediment but comparison 

of the 1938 and 2013 imagery the migration of what would 

be defined as the thalweg is not definitive (fig. 24). The area 

also has active gravel mining and other disturbances such as 

maintenance of the nearby gravel road for access to the gravel 

bar or erosion control may have occurred since 1938, and this 

material may have been reworked at some point as well. This 

would mean that nearby metal-rich surficial material could 

have been filled and graded in this area, which could create an 

anthropogenic sediment profile that is not representative of the 

natural deposition of sediment from the nearby stream.

Tar Creek

Tar Creek has a drainage area of 53 mi2 at its confluence 

with the Neosho River and is approximately 19.3 mi in length 

from the headwaters to the mouth. Approximately 7.4 mi of 

the creek was studied and was used in the estimation of the 

volume of contaminated sediment (table 5).

Site Selection and Description

Tar Creek gravel bar-sediment samples and flood-plain 

samples were collected during a period of 3 weeks in the 

summer of 2012. The Tar Creek study reach consisted of 

multiple sites including 22 stream channel cores and 13 floodplain cores collected in gravel bars, wetted channels, and the 

adjacent flood plain. One of the more intensively studied sites 

(TR4) was located just east of Miami, Oklahoma. Transect 

TR2–TR2’ with five cores at site TRFP2 (TAR-FP2-1, TARFP2-2, TAR-FP2-3, TAR-FP2-4, and TAR-FP2-5) were drilled 

across the flood plain (figs. 1 and 27). Three additional floodplain cores (TAR-FB-1, TAR-FB-2, and TAR-FB-3) were 

located off transect TR2–TR2’. Cores TAR-FB-2 and TARFB-3 were in what may have been an older channel of the 

creek. Core TAR-FB-1 was in an area to contrast the locations 

of cores TAR-FB-2 and TAR-FB-3 and was located slightly 

upstream from the other cores and farther away from the 

stream (1,500 ft). Near flood-plain transect TR2–TR2’ were 

six stream channel cores (site TR4); two cores (TAR-TR-4 

and TAR-4-HC1) were on a gravel bar downstream from the 

flood-plain transect TR2–TR2’ and four cores (TAR-BAR-1, 
56 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

[Core and site identifiers are explained in table 1]

Sample concentration

Probable effects concentration, 459 milligrams per kilogram

Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration, 

2,083 milligrams per kilogram

EXPLANATION

Midpoint of each sample interval below the local water surface, in feet

Concentration of zinc in sediment samples, in milligrams per kilogram

10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000

SC-A-HD1 SC-A-HD2

SH-CH-1

SH-CH-11

SH-CH-2

SH-CH-5 SH-CH-7

SH-CH-8 SH-CH-9

SH-WC-1

SH-WC-2

SH-WC-3

S1 S2

S3 S4

S4 S5

0

5

10

0

5

10

0

5

10

-5

-5

-5

Figure 26. Vertical profiles by core and sample location of zinc concentrations in the less than 2-millimeter 

size fraction of stream channel samples analyzed by x-ray fluorescence in Shoal Creek, Missouri, 2012.
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment 57

TAR-12-HC1

TAR-3-HP1

TAR-4-HC1

TAR-11-HC1

TAR-TR-1

TAR-TR-11

TAR-TR-2

TAR-TR-3

TAR-TR-4

TAR-TR-5

TAR-FB-1

TAR-FB-2 TAR-FB-3

TAR-FP2-1

TAR-FP2-2

TAR-FP2-3

TAR-FP2-4 TAR-FP2-5

TR2

TR2'

TAR-TR-3A

94°52'20" 94°52'10" 94°52'00" 94°51'50"

36°55'10"

36°55'00"

36°54'50"

36°54'40"

36°54'30"

36°54'20"

36°54'10"

0 500 FEET

0 500 METERS

TAR-12-HC1

TAR-3-HP1

TAR-4-HC1

TAR-11-HC1

TAR-TR-1

TAR-TR-11

TAR-TR-2

TAR-TR-3

TAR-TR-4

TAR-TR-5

TAR-FB-1

TAR-FB-2

TAR-FB-3

TAR-FP2-1

TAR-FP2-3

TAR-FP2-2

TAR-FP2-4 TAR-FP2-5 TAR-TR-3A

TR2

TR2'

94°52'20" 94°52'10" 94°52'0" 94°51'50"

Base from National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013 (left); 

U.S. Geological Survey aerial photography, 1958 (right)

Geographic coordinate system, North American Datum 1983

Flooded soils from Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) digital data, 2003

TR7 TR7

TR1 TR1

TR2 TR2

TR3 TR3

TR4

TR5 TR5

TRFP2 TRFP2

TR6 TR6

TR4

Abandoned 

channel

Abandoned 

channel

A. 2013 B. 1958

Tar Creek

Tar Creek

TAR-FB-1

TAR-TR-1

TR1

Frequently to occasionally flooded soil

Flood-plain transect

Direction of flow

Site identifier—Yellow represents

 a flood-plain site

EXPLANATION

Tile probe sounding

Flood-plain core or sample and identifier

Channel core or sample and identifier

TR2 TR2'

Figure 27. Aerial photographs from A, 2013 and B, 1958 showing location of sediment cores, samples, and tile probe 

soundings for sites TR7, TR6, TR5, TRFP2, TR4, TR3, TR2, and TR1 on Tar Creek, Oklahoma, 2011.
58 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

TAR-3-HP1, TAR-TR-3, and TAR-TR-3A were on a gravel 

bar upstream from the flood-plain transect TR2–TR2’. Within 

about 0.5 mi of site TR4 were six additional core and sample 

locations at five different sites. Sites TR7 (TAR-TR-1) and 

TR6 (TAR-TR-2) are upstream and sites TR3 (TAR-TR-5), 

TR2 (TAR-11-HC1 and TAR-TR-11), and TR1 (TAR-12-HC1) 

are downstream sites (fig. 27).

Another area, east of Commerce, Okla., and about 2 mi 

upstream from the flood-plain transect TR1–TR1’ at site 

TRFP1, had 6 sites with 11 gravel bar-sediment samples and 

sample locations and 5 flood-plain cores. Those sites (fig. 28), 

in order from upstream to downstream, are TR12 (TAR-8-VC1 

and TAR-TR-8), TR11 (TAR-FB-4, TAR-9-PT1, TAR-9-VC1, 

TAR-9-VC1A, and TAR-TR-9), TRFP1 (TAR-FP1-1, TARFP1-2, TAR-FP1-3, and TAR-FP1-4), TR10 (TAR-TR-7), TR9 

(TAR-TR-6 and TAR-6-VC1), and TR8 (TAR-TR-10). 

Depth and Concentration of Metals in Channel 

Sediments

A total of 51 samples were collected on gravel bar deposits along Tar Creek. The maximum sample depth was 6.6 ft. 

Overall, concentrations of lead and zinc generally exceeded 

the CPEC in cores from the surface to the top of bedrock that 

was generally <5 ft deep and in some cases <1 ft deep. Lead 

and zinc concentrations generally also exceeded the TPEC 

from the surface to the maximum depth. Lead concentrations, in the <2-mm size fraction in these samples, ranged 

from a single non-detection (<13 mg/kg) to 2,540 mg/kg 

(Smith, 2016; Stream channel sediment samples). Out of the 

51 gravel bar-sediment samples, all but 6 (88 percent) had 

lead concentrations greater than the CPEC and the TPEC. All 

samples collected in Tar Creek that exceeded the CPEC for 

lead also exceeded the TPEC (Smith, 2016; Stream channel 

sediment samples; fig. 29). Zinc concentrations, in the <2-mm 

size fraction in these samples, ranged from 63.0 mg/kg to 

46,600 mg/kg (Smith, 2016; Stream channel sediment samples). Out of the 51 stream channel samples, all but 2 (96 percent) had zinc concentrations that exceeded the CPEC, and 

all but 5 had concentrations that exceeded the TPEC (Smith, 

2016; Stream channel sediment samples; fig. 30). 

Cadmium concentrations, in the <2-mm size fraction 

in these cores, ranged from non-detection (<12 mg/kg) to 

131 mg/kg (Smith, 2016; Stream channel sediment samples). 

Of 51 stream channel samples, 35 had detectable cadmium 

(69 percent) and exceeded the CPEC and TPEC. Cadmium 

concentrations exceeded the CPEC and TPEC in samples 

from multiple depths. The number of cadmium concentration 

exceedances may be greater because the LOD (12 mg/kg) is 

larger than the CPEC (4.98 mg/kg) and TPEC (11.1 mg/kg).

Of the 51 samples, 31 (61 percent) had concentrations 

of nickel that exceeded the CPEC (48.6 mg/kg). There is no 

TPEC for nickel. Exceedances of the CPEC for nickel generally extended several feet below the surface and were present as deep as 6.6 ft (sample TAR-9-VC1A). Nickel CPEC 

exceedance frequencies may be underreported because the 

LOD (65 mg/kg) is larger than the CPEC (48.6 mg/kg). 

Estimated Volume of Channel Sediment 

Contaminated by Mine Waste 

The total volume of sediment in Tar Creek gravel bar 

deposits that had concentrations of lead and zinc that exceeded 

the CPEC and the TPEC was estimated using data collected in 

this study. The estimated volume was computed for the 7.4-mi 

Tar Creek reach from about 800 ft upstream from site TR12 

to the creek’s confluence at the Neosho River. Although large 

mine-waste piles and past mining areas are upstream from the 

site chosen as the farthest upstream extent of the contaminated 

sediment-volume analysis, no data were collected upstream 

from the TR12 location. The mean thickness of sediment that 

exceeded the CPEC and the TPEC for Tar Creek was 1.1 ft 

(table 5). The total area of studied gravel bars for Tar Creek 

was 230,000 ft2 (5.3 acres; table 5). The estimated minimum volume of sediment in sampled gravel bars exceeding 

the CPEC and TPEC for the chosen reach of Tar Creek was 

9,000 yd3 (table 5). These estimates are considered minimum 

volumes because they were only based on the visible gravel 

bars and do not include sediment beneath the wetted channel 

in other features such as pools, and presumably some of these 

deposits are negatively affected by mine-waste contaminated 

sediment but were not sufficiently characterized to be included 

in the volume estimate.

Depth and Concentration of Metals in FloodPlain Sediments 

A total of 142 samples were collected from 13 locations 

along the Tar Creek flood plain (Smith, 2016; Flood-plain 

cores). Concentrations of lead and zinc in flood-plain samples 

from Tar Creek generally exceeded the CPEC and the TPEC 

in the upper 1 or 2 ft of soil, and the concentrations were 

generally greater than concentrations in samples deeper than 

2 or 3 ft by an order of magnitude or more. Lead and zinc 

concentrations in flood-plain samples seemed to decrease with 

distance from the creek. The 7 cores located within 450 ft of 

the creek had lead and zinc concentrations that exceeded the 

CPEC and the TPEC, whereas the 6 cores at distances greater 

than 450 ft from the creek had no exceedances. Lead concentrations in 11 of 142 analyzed flood-plain core sections from 

Tar Creek exceeded the CPEC and the TPEC. Concentrations 

of zinc exceeded the CPEC in 21 flood-plain core sections and 

exceeded the TPEC in 9 flood-plain core sections. Cadmium 

concentrations exceeded the CPEC and the TPEC in 25 of 33 

flood-plain core sections where cadmium was analyzed.

Site TRFP1 (figs. 1, 28) was east of Commerce, Okla. 

This site had four cores (in order from nearest to the creek 

to the farthest): TAR-FP1-1, TAR-FP1-2, TAR-FP1-3, and 

TAR-FP1-4 (fig. 28). The lead concentration in samples from 

TAR-FP1-1 exceeded the CPEC and TPEC at depths <2 ft 
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment 59

TAR-6-VC1

TAR-8-VC1

TAR-9-PT1

TAR-9-VC1

TAR-9-VC1A

TAR-BAR-1

TAR-TR-10

TAR-TR-6

TAR-TR-7

TAR-TR-8

TAR-TR-9 TAR-FB-4

TAR-FP1-1

TAR-FP1-2

TAR-FP1-3

TAR-FP1-4

94°51'30" 94°51'20" 94°51'10"

36°56'30"

36°56'20"

36°56'10"

36°56'00"

TAR-6-VC1

TAR-8-VC1

TAR-9-PT1

TAR-9-VC1

TAR-9-VC1A

TAR-BAR-1

TAR-TR-10

TAR-TR-6

TAR-TR-7

TAR-TR-8

TAR-TR-9 TAR-FB-4

TAR-FP1-1

TAR-FP1-2

TAR-FP1-3

TAR-FP1-4

94°51'30" 94°51'20" 94°51'10"

TR12

TR11

TR10

TRFP1

TR9

TR8

TR12

TR11

TR10

TRFP1

TR9

TR8

A. 2013 B. 1958

Base from National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013 (left); 

U.S. Geological Survey aerial photography, 1958 (right)

Geographic coordinate system, North American Datum 1983

TAR-FB-4

TAR-TR-8

TR8

Frequently to occasionally flooded soil

Flood-plain transect

Direction of flow

Site identifier

EXPLANATION

Tile probe sounding

Flood-plain core or sample and identifier

Channel core or sample and identifier

TR1 TR1'

Tar Creek

Tar Creek

TR1 TR1' TR1 TR1'

0 400 FEET

0 400 METERS

Flooded soils from Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) digital data, 2003

Figure 28. Aerial photographs from A, 2013 and B, 1958 showing location of sediment cores, samples, and tile probe 

soundings for sites TR12, TR11, TRFP1, TR10, TR9, and TR8 on Tar Creek, Oklahoma, 2011.
60 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District Midpoint of each sample interval below the local water surface, in feet

Concentration of lead in sediment samples, in milligrams per kilogram

TAR-12-HC1 TAR-11-HC1

TAR-4-HC1 TAR-3-HP1

TAR-6-VC1

TAR-8-VC1

TAR-9-PT1 TAR-9-VC1 TAR-9-VC1A TAR-BAR-1

TAR-TR-1 TAR-TR-10

TAR-TR-11

TAR-TR-3 TAR-TR-3A TAR-TR-2

TAR-TR-5 TAR-TR-4

TAR-TR-6 TAR-TR-7

TAR-TR-8

TAR-TR-9

-5

0

5

-5

0

5

-5

0

5

100 1,000

-5

0

5

-5

0

5

100 1,000

100 1,000 100 1,000 100 1,000

TR1 TR2 TR3 TR4

TR5 TR6

TR7

TR4

TR8 TR9 TR10

TR11

TR12

 [Core and site identifiers are explained in table 1]

Sample concentration

Probable effects concentration, 128 milligrams per kilogram

Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration, 

150 milligrams per kilogram

EXPLANATION

Figure 29. Vertical profiles by core and sample location of lead concentrations in the less than 2-millimeter size fraction of 

stream channel samples analyzed by x-ray fluorescence in Tar Creek, Oklahoma, 2011.
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment 61

-5

0

-5

0

5

-5

0

5

-5

0

5

-5

0

5

10 100 1,000 10,000 10 100 1,000 10,000

10 100 1,000 10,000 10 100 1,000 10,000 10 100 1,000 10,000

5

TAR-12-HC1 TAR-11-HC1

TAR-4-HC1 TAR-3-HP1

TAR-6-VC1

TAR-8-VC1

TAR-9-PT1 TAR-9-VC1 TAR-9-VC1A TAR-BAR-1

TAR-TR-1 TAR-TR-10

TAR-TR-11

TAR-TR-3 TAR-TR-3A TAR-TR-2

TAR-TR-5 TAR-TR-4

TAR-TR-6 TAR-TR-7

TAR-TR-8

TAR-TR-9

TR1 TR2 TR3 TR4

TR5 TR6

TR7

TR4

TR8 TR9 TR10

TR11

TR12

 [Core and site identifiers are explained in table 1]

Sample concentration

Probable effects concentration, 459 milligrams per kilogram

Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration, 

2,083 milligrams per kilogram

EXPLANATION

Midpoint of each sample interval below the local water surface, in feet

Concentration of zinc in sediment samples, in milligrams per kilogram

Figure 30. Vertical profiles by core and sample location of zinc concentrations in the less than 2-millimeter size fraction of stream 

channel samples analyzed by x-ray fluorescence in Tar Creek, Oklahoma, 2011.
62 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

and depths between 4 and 5 ft with the greatest concentrations in the top 2 ft (1,120 mg/kg in the interval 0 to 1 ft 

and 2,190 mg/kg in the interval 1 to 2 ft). The largest zinc 

concentrations were also in the top 2 ft (10,700 mg/kg in the 

interval 0 to 1 ft and 11,900 mg/kg in the interval 1 to 2 ft). 

Zinc concentration in core TAR-FP1-1 exceeded the CPEC 

for all samples from depths <7 ft but only exceeded the TPEC 

for depths <3 ft and the depth interval between 4 and 5 ft. 

Lead and zinc concentrations in samples from depths <1 ft in 

cores TAR-FP1-2 and TAR-FP1-3 exceeded the CPEC and 

TPEC, except for zinc concentrations in TAR-FP1-3, which 

only exceeded the CPEC. The lead and zinc concentrations 

generally decreased with depth in core TAR-FP1-4, as they did 

generally for all flood-plain cores, but concentrations in core 

TAR-FP1-4 did not exceed the PECs. Site TR11 was about 

1,300 ft upstream from site TRFP1 and had a single floodplain core (TAR-FB-4). Core TAR-FB-4 was within 100 ft of 

the creek, and lead concentrations exceeded the CPEC and the 

TPEC only in the sample from 0 to 1 ft (220 mg/kg), whereas 

the zinc concentration in that sample exceeded only the CPEC 

(1,810 mg/kg) (Smith, 2016; Flood-plain cores; fig. 16).

Site TRFP2 (fig. 27) is the downstream flood-plain site. 

A total of eight flood-plain cores were drilled at this location. 

Cores TAR-FB-1, TAR-FP2-2, TAR-FP2-3, TAR-FP2-4, and 

TAR-FP2-5 were located more than 450 ft from the creek and 

none of the 54 samples from these cores had concentrations 

of lead or zinc that exceeded the respective CPEC or TPEC 

(Smith, 2016; Flood-plain cores; figs. 15, 16). TAR-FP2-1 

was <300 ft from the creek, and the lead concentration at 

0–1 ft below soil surface (190 mg/kg) exceeded the CPEC and 

TPEC, whereas the zinc concentration in that depth interval 

(795 mg/kg) exceeded the CPEC only. Cores TAR-FB-2 and 

TAR-FB-3 were the nearest to the creek (<300 ft) and had 

concentrations at various depths that exceeded the CPEC 

or both PECs for lead and zinc. Concentrations of lead and 

zinc in core TAR-FB-2 exceeded the CPEC and TPEC for all 

samples from depths <3 ft, whereas for zinc concentrations 

also exceeded the CPEC for all samples from depths 3–6 ft. 

Lead concentrations from samples <3 ft deep from TAR-FB-2 

were 1 to 2 orders of magnitude greater than concentrations 

from samples deeper than 3 ft, and zinc concentrations from 

samples <6 ft deep averaged more than 1 order of magnitude 

greater than concentrations from samples deeper than 6 ft. 

Concentrations in samples from core TAR-FB-3 exceeded the 

CPEC for lead at depths <1 ft and for zinc at depths <3 ft and 

in the 9 to 10 ft depth interval. The lead and zinc concentrations in core TAR-FB-3 exceeded the TPEC only for the sample from depth 0–1 ft. Like core TAR-FB-2, concentrations of 

lead and zinc less than the CPEC were generally more than 1 

order of magnitude less than the concentrations that exceeded 

the CPEC (Smith, 2016; Flood-plain cores; figs. 15, 16). 

Spring River

The Spring River has a drainage area of 2,590 mi2 where 

it enters the Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees and is approximately 133.6 mi in length. The Spring River was heavily 

affected by lead and zinc mining in the TSMD because the 

Spring River and many of its tributary streams received sediment loads including waste material derived from mining 

activities.

Site Selection and Description

Spring River gravel bar-sediment samples were collected 

during a 1-week period in the summer of 2012. Juracek (2013) 

completed a study on the flood plain located adjacent to the 

downstream gravel bar site sampled in this study so the Spring 

River flood plain was not sampled during this study. Estimates 

of the volume of contaminated sediment along the Spring 

River were also not made because of the small number of locations sampled. The Spring River study reach consisted of two 

sites (SR1 and SR2; fig. 31) where five gravel bar cores were 

collected. Three cores (SR-CH-1, SR-CH-2, and SR-CH-3) 

were drilled at site SR1 just north of Baxter Springs, Kans. 

(figs. 1, 31). Two cores (SR-CH-4 and SR-CH-5) were drilled 

at site SR2 near the mouth of Turkey Creek, north of Galena, 

Kans. (figs. 2, 31). 

Depth and Concentration of Metals in Channel 

Sediments

A total of 52 samples were collected from 5 locations 

on gravel bar deposits along the Spring River (Smith, 2016; 

Stream channel sediment samples). The maximum depth 

sampled was 19.1 ft. Lead concentrations ranged from 14 to 

390 mg/kg and exceeded the CPEC in 7 samples (14 percent). Zinc concentrations ranged from 225 to 5,020 mg/

kg exceeding the CPEC in 46 (89 percent) of the samples. 

Lead concentrations in gravel bar-sediment samples at the 

site downstream from Empire Lake (SR1) were generally 

less than concentrations in samples collected at the upstream 

site (SR2). Lead concentrations in the <2-mm size fraction 

from all 38 samples from the downstream site (SR1) were 

<105 mg/kg, which was less than the CPEC; however, zinc 

concentrations exceeded the CPEC in 32 of these samples. 

Lead concentrations at the upstream site (SR2) were larger, 

exceeding the CPEC and TPEC in 7 of the 14 samples with 

the largest concentration of 390 mg/kg detected in a samples 

from 1 to 2 ft deep (Smith, 2016; Stream channel sediment 

samples). Zinc exceeded the CPEC in all 14 samples from 

the upstream site and exceeded the TPEC in 7 samples from 

site SR2. Lead and zinc concentrations in core SR-CH-4 

from upstream site SR2 exceeded the respective CPEC and 

TPEC in all samples from depths up to 5 ft (Smith, 2016; 
Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment 63

SR-CH-1

SR-CH-2

SR-CH-3

94°43'45" 94°43'40" 94°43'35" 94°43'30"

37°03'45"

37°03'40"

37°03'35"

37°03'30"

37°03'25"

SR-CH-1

SR-CH-5 SR-CH-4

94°37'45" 94°37'40" 94°37'35" 94°37'30" 94°37'25"

37°08'00"

37°07'55"

37°07'50"

37°07'45"

37°07'40"

SR-CH-1

SR-CH-2

SR-CH-3

94°43'45" 94°43'40" 94°43'35" 94°43'30"

SR-CH-5 SR-CH-4

94°37'45" 94°37'40" 94°37'35" 94°37'30" 94°37'25"

Turkey Creek

Turkey Creek

Spring River

Spring River

Spring River

Spring River

0 400 FEET

0 400 METERS

A. 2013

SR1

A. 2013

SR2

B. 1958

SR2

B. 1958

SR1

SR1

Direction of flow

Site identifier

Channel core or sample and identifier

EXPLANATION

Flooded soils from Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) digital data, 2003

Base from National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013 (left images); 

U.S. Geological Survey aerial photography, 1958 (right images)

Geographic coordinate system, North American Datum 1983

Figure 31. Aerial photographs from A, 2013 and B, 1958 showing location of sediment cores and samples for sites 

SR1 and SR2 on Spring River, Kansas, 2012.
64 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

Stream channel sediment samples; fig. 32). Lead and zinc 

concentrations in core SR-CH-5 from site SR2 exceeded the 

respective CPEC and TPEC in both samples from depths <2 ft. 

Cadmium was detected in 7 of the 52 (14 percent) samples at a maximum concentration of 22 mg/kg. The detected 

cadmium concentrations in samples exceeded the CPEC and 

TPEC at site SR2 near the mouth of Turkey Creek. Cadmium 

concentrations in samples from core SR-CH-4 exceeded both 

PECs at depths <5 ft, and cadmium concentrations in samples 

from core SR-CH-5 exceeded both PECs for depths <2 ft. 

The number of cadmium concentration exceedances may be 

greater because the LOD (12 mg/kg) is larger than the CPEC 

(4.98 mg/kg) and TPEC (11.1 mg/kg).

Nickel concentrations in samples from Spring River also 

had several exceedances of the CPEC at one or more depths in 

each of four cores. The CPEC for nickel is less than the LOD 

(65 mg/kg) for nickel, so the frequency of nickel concentration exceedances of PECs may be underreported. Ten of the 52 

samples (19 percent) had measured exceedances of the CPEC.

Summary and Conclusions

The Tri-State Mining District (TSMD) covers about 

2,500 square miles (mi2) in southwest Missouri, northeast 

Oklahoma, and southeast Kansas and has a rich history of lead 

and zinc mining beginning in the early 1800s and continued 

through the mid-1900s. Most of the ore deposits were in Jasper and Newton Counties in Missouri, Ottawa County in Oklahoma, and Cherokee County in Kansas. More than 100 years 

of mining in the area has left a legacy of metal-contaminated 

mine-waste areas, contaminated soils and stream sediment, 

and contaminated groundwater in the region. 

Although previous work has been done to characterize 

the spatial extent of surficial streambed sediments contaminated by mine waste in the TSMD, little information is available on the depth or thickness of contaminated sediments in 

the streams. Based on surficial streambed-sediment samples 

compiled from various sources, it is estimated that approximately 49 miles of Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, 

Concentration of lead in sediment samples, in milligrams per kilogram

20

Concentration of zinc in sediment samples, in milligrams per kilogram

Midpoint of each sample interval below the local water surface, in feet

-10

0

10

20

-10

0

10

10 100

1,000

10 100 10 100 10 100 10 100

10 100 10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000

 [Core and site identifiers are explained in table 1]

Sample concentration

Probable effects concentration, 128 milligrams per kilogram for lead and 

459 milligrams per kilogram for zinc

Tri-State Mining District specific probable effects concentration, 

150 milligrams per kilogram for lead and 2,083 milligrams per kilogram

for zinc

EXPLANATION

SR1

SR1

SR2

SR2

SR-CH-1 SR-CH-2 SR-CH-3 SR-CH-4 SR-CH-5

SR-CH-1 SR-CH-2 SR-CH-3 SR-CH-4 SR-CH-5

Figure 32. Vertical profiles by core and sample location of lead and zinc concentrations in the less than 2-millimeter size fraction of 

gravel bar-sediment samples analyzed by x-ray fluorescence, Spring River, Kansas, 2012.
Summary and Conclusions 65

and Tar Creek have streambed sediments that have a moderate 

to high risk for toxicity to benthic invertebrates, as do sediments in the entire reach of the Spring River downstream from 

the mouth of Center Creek. Information on the depth of contamination is important to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and other natural resource agencies entrusted with 

assessing damage to the ecosystem and evaluating restoration 

alternatives in the TSMD. Determining the depth of metal contamination is difficult in saturated streambed sediment because 

of the wide range of grain size of the sediments (silt and sand 

interspersed with coarse gravels and large cobbles) that are 

difficult to sample with traditional methods that are generally 

used to collect sands, silts, and clays. The USFWS requested 

assistance from the U.S. Geological Survey to provide information on the depth of mine-waste contaminated sediments in 

selected streams in the TSMD. The U.S. Geological Survey set 

the goals of (1) determination of the relation between concentration and depth for lead, zinc, and cadmium in channel sediments and flood-plain sediments, and (2) determination of the 

volume of channel sediment from the surface to the maximum 

depth with concentrations of lead, zinc, and cadmium that 

exceeded sediment-quality guidelines. 

The large area of the TSMD required an array of methods 

for collecting samples from the stream channels along selected 

stream reaches and adjacent flood plains. The initial approach 

was to identify a representative reach along each stream that 

would be studied and this selected reach would include several 

geomorphic channel units, such as riffle, run, and pool. Several possible study sites along each stream were identified, but 

during an initial field reconnaissance of the area, landowner 

permission to access was not granted at most proposed study 

sites. Alternative study sites were selected that often were 

shorter in length and contained fewer geomorphic channel 

features. In an effort to provide more spatial data on depth 

of mine-waste contaminated sediments along each stream, 

additional study locations focusing on gravel bars were added 

along each stream. Collection of channel sediments focused 

primarily on gravel bars, and the thickness of sediments was 

determined using various coring techniques and a tile probe.

Five streams in the TSMD were selected for study: 

Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, Tar Creek, and 

the Spring River. These streams were selected because they 

drain mined areas, are spatially distributed across the TSMD, 

and have a range of drainage areas—Turkey Creek (46 mi2), 

Tar Creek (53 mi2), Shoal Creek (251 mi2), and Center Creek 

(300 mi2). The Spring River has a drainage area of about 

2,422 mi2 from the downstream-most sampling site near 

Baxter Springs, Kansas, but the overall drainage area from its 

mouth at the Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees is 2,590 mi2.

Volume of gravel-bar sediment is considered to be distributed in two forms, gravel bars and the wetted channel, and 

this study focused on gravel bars. Most of the readily available 

sediment is found in gravel bars for large to moderate streams 

and characterization of gravel-bar sediments in this study 

focused on gravel bars with some additional samples collected 

in adjacent areas. Estimates of the volume of contaminated 

gravel bar deposits were computed relative to two benchmarks 

of contamination—that is, for both probable effects concentration (PEC) values (consensus PEC [CPEC] and Tri-State Mining District specific PEC [TPEC])—because of the importance 

of such information to the USFWS and other natural resource 

agencies of the TSMD for assessing damage to the ecosystem 

and evaluating restoration alternatives. The maximum depth of 

contamination was determined as the maximum depth where 

either the lead or zinc concentration exceeded the respective PEC values. Cadmium concentrations were not used to 

determine contaminated sediment depths because the limit 

of detection (LOD) for cadmium from the x-ray fluorescence 

(XRF) analysis (12 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]) was 

larger than the cadmium PECs: CPEC (4.98 mg/kg) and TPEC 

(11.1 mg/kg). Thus, no sample analyzed by XRF could be 

determined with certainty from any depth to have a cadmium 

concentration below either PEC value.

To efficiently analyze the large number of samples 

collected (357 stream channel samples and 379 flood-plain 

samples) in this study, all samples were analyzed using the 

XRF. Several quality control and quality assurance procedures 

were implemented to ensure the quality of the data acquired 

using the XRF. A series of standards and blanks were analyzed at the beginning, end, and several times throughout the 

day when environmental samples were analyzed. In addition 

to standards, triplicate and septuplet analyses of the selected 

flood-plain cores were done during the analysis.

During the study, more than 700 sediment samples were 

collected from borings at multiple sites along Center Creek, 

Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, Tar Creek, and Spring River in 

order to characterize the vertical extent of mine waste in select 

streams in the TSMD. The largest concentrations of lead, 

zinc, and cadmium in gravel bar-sediment samples generally 

were detected in Turkey Creek and Tar Creek and the smallest concentrations were detected in Shoal Creek followed by 

the Spring River. Gravel bar-sediment samples from Turkey 

Creek exceeded the CPEC for cadmium (minimum of 70 percent of samples), lead (94 percent), and zinc (99 percent) at a 

slightly higher frequency than similar samples from Tar Creek 

(69 percent, 88 percent, and 96 percent, respectively). Gravel 

bar-sediment samples from Turkey Creek also contained 

the largest concentrations of cadmium (174 milligrams per 

kilogram [mg/kg]) and lead (7,520 mg/kg) detected; however, 

the largest zinc concentration (46,600 mg/kg) was detected 

in a gravel bar-sediment sample from Tar Creek. In contrast, 

none of the 65 streambed-sediment samples from Shoal Creek 

contained cadmium above the x-ray fluorescence reporting 

level of 12 mg/kg, and lead and zinc exceeded the CPEC in 

only 12 percent and 74 percent of samples, respectively. In 

most cases, concentrations of lead and zinc above the CPEC 

or TPEC were present at the maximum depth of boring, which 

indicated that nearly the entire thickness of sediment in the 

stream has been contaminated by mine wastes. Approximately 

284,000 cubic yards of channel sediment from land surface 

to the maximum depth that exceeded the CPEC and approximately 236,000 cubic yards of channel sediment from land 
66 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

surface to the maximum depth that exceeded the TPEC were 

estimated along 37.6 of the 55.1 miles of Center Creek, Turkey Creek, Shoal Creek, and Tar Creek examined in this study. 

Mine-waste contamination reported along additional reaches 

of these streams is beyond the scope of this study. Flood-plain 

cores collected in the TSMD generally only had exceedances 

of the CPEC and TPEC for lead and zinc in the top 1 or 2 feet 

of soil with a few exceptions, such as cores in low areas near 

the stream or cores in areas disturbed by past mining.

A total of 89 gravel bar-sediment samples from 24 locations were collected from gravel bar deposits along the lower 

18.6 miles of Center Creek. The maximum sample depth was 

9.5 ft below the gravel bar surface. Most of the gravel barsediment samples from Center Creek exceeded the CPEC and 

the TPEC for lead or zinc at five (C1, C2, C3, C4, and C5) of 

the six sites along this stream. Site C6 is upstream from most 

of the historic mining activity in the Center Creek basin, and 

none of the samples from this site had concentrations of lead, 

or zinc that exceeded the CPEC or TPEC or concentrations of 

cadmium that exceeded the LOD. Overall, median concentrations of lead and zinc increased dramatically from upstream 

site C6 to site C5, peaked at sites C4 and C3, and decreased 

downstream through sites C2 and C1; however, lead and zinc 

median concentrations at site C1 remained enriched significantly above levels at upstream site C6. Lead concentrations 

ranged from 14.0 mg/kg to 1,880 mg/kg in the <2-millimeter 

(mm) size fraction of the 89 channel-sediment samples from 

Center Creek and exceeded the CPEC in 60 samples (67 percent). Zinc concentrations in the <2-mm size fraction in 

channel-sediment samples from Center Creek ranged from 201 

mg/kg to 25,200 mg/kg exceeding the CPEC in 76 samples 

(85 percent). Cadmium concentrations in the <2-mm size 

fraction in stream channel sediments were detected above the 

12 mg/kg LOD in 34 samples (38 percent) and the maximum 

concentration was 171 mg/kg. Very few gravel bar-sediment 

samples from Center Creek exceeded the CPEC for other 

metals.

The total area of studied gravel bars for Center Creek was 

916,000 square feet (ft2; 21.0 acres). The estimated minimum 

volume of sediment in gravel bars that would need excavation based on the CPEC along Center Creek from the mouth 

to site C5 was 136,000 cubic yards (yd3), and the estimated 

minimum volume of gravel bar sediment exceeding the TPEC 

was 115,000 yd3. These estimates are considered minimum 

volumes because they were only based on the visible gravel 

bars and do not include sediment beneath the wetted channel 

in other features such as pools, and presumably some of these 

deposits are negatively affected by mine-waste contaminated 

sediment but were not sufficiently characterized to be included 

in the volume estimate.

A total of 84 samples were collected from 7 locations 

on the Center Creek flood plain at sites C1 and C2 within the 

intensive study area. Four of the seven boreholes had at least 

one depth interval where lead or zinc exceeded the CPEC 

or TPEC. Intervals that exceeded the lead or zinc CPEC and 

TPEC were generally <3 ft deep with occasional detections 

greater than the CPEC at deeper intervals. Because of time 

limitations, concentrations of cadmium or barium were not 

analyzed in many core intervals. For the intervals that were 

analyzed, 15 out of 23 had concentrations of cadmium greater 

than the LOD, CPEC, and TPEC. Core samples from borehole 

CTR-FB-2 had cadmium concentrations analyzed at every 

sampled interval, and concentrations exceeded the CPEC and 

TPEC in every interval shallower than 7 ft and at the 8 to 9 ft 

interval but had no exceedances of the CPEC or TPEC for lead 

or zinc.

A total of 100 samples were collected from 23 locations 

on gravel bar deposits along Turkey Creek. The maximum 

sample depth was 13 ft, with the thickest channel deposits in 

the gravel bars at sites TC2 and TC3 and thinnest deposits 

at upstream site TC7 (<2 ft thick). Excluding samples with 

concentrations below the LOD, median lead concentrations 

increased from the most upstream site TC7 to a peak at site 

TC5 and decreased somewhat at the two downstream sites 

TC1 and TC2. Median zinc concentrations increased from the 

most upstream site at TC7 to a peak at TC4 then remained 

relatively steady to the most downstream site at TC1. Median 

cadmium concentrations increased from concentrations 

below the LOD at the upstream site TC7 to site TC3 and then 

remained relatively steady to the most downstream site at 

TC1. 

Lead and zinc concentrations in nearly all gravel barsediment samples from Turkey Creek exceeded the CPEC and 

TPEC often to the maximum depth of the boreholes. Lead 

concentrations exceeded the CPEC in all but 6 samples and 

exceeded the TPEC in all but 11 samples. Zinc concentrations exceeded the CPEC in all but 1 sample and exceeded the 

TPEC in all but 13 samples. Most samples also had exceedances of both PECs for cadmium (minimum of 70 percent; 

<12 to 174 mg/kg), although this number of exceedances may 

be greater because the XRF LOD is greater than the CPEC and 

TPEC for cadmium. Lead concentrations in gravel bar-sediment samples from Turkey Creek ranged from 70.0 mg/kg to 

7,520 mg/kg and zinc concentrations ranged from 329 mg/kg 

to 27,900 mg/kg. The total area of studied gravel bars for Turkey Creek was 632,000 ft2

. The estimated minimum volume 

of sediment in gravel bars exceeding the CPEC for the chosen 

reach of Turkey Creek was 115,000 yd3 and 108,000 yd3 of 

sediment in gravel bars exceeding the TPEC. 

A total of 73 samples were collected from six locations 

on the Turkey Creek flood plain. Of these, cadmium concentrations were analyzed in 51 samples. Nine of the 73 samples 

had concentrations of lead greater than the CPEC and 15 had 

concentrations of zinc greater than the CPEC. Lead concentrations in eight samples and zinc concentrations in five samples 

exceeded their respective TPECs. The exceedances of the 

TPEC for lead or zinc were limited to the upper 1 or 2 feet of 

the cores except for core TKC-FP-2 where concentrations of 

lead and zinc were less than the CPEC and TPEC in the upper 

few feet. Concentrations for lead and zinc for core TKC-FP-2 

gradually increased with depth and lead exceeded the CPEC 

between 6 and 10 ft.
Summary and Conclusions 67

A total of 65 samples were collected from 12 locations on 

gravel bar deposits along Shoal Creek. The maximum sample 

depth was 11.9 ft. The maximum depth of sediments that had 

concentrations of lead and zinc that exceeded the respective 

CPEC for those metals was 7 ft for lead and 9 ft for zinc. 

Overall, cores from Shoal Creek generally had concentrations 

of zinc that exceeded the CPEC at many depths, including 

the upstream site S5 about 19 miles upstream from Empire 

Lake. In channel sediments from Shoal Creek, few samples 

had exceedances of the TPEC for any Mississippi ValleyType related metals. In the <2-mm size fraction of gravel 

bar-sediment samples from Shoal Creek, lead concentrations 

ranged from <13 mg/kg to 183 mg/kg. Out of the 65 samples, 

8 samples (12 percent) had lead concentrations greater than 

the CPEC and only 4 samples (about 6 percent) had concentrations greater than the TPEC. Zinc concentrations in the 

<2-mm size fraction in samples ranged from 176 mg/kg to 

3,010 mg/kg and cadmium concentrations were <12 mg/kg 

in all samples. Almost 74 percent of the samples (48 of 65) 

had zinc concentrations greater than the CPEC, but only one 

sample had a concentration greater than the TPEC (borehole 

SH-CH-8 at depth interval 0 to 1 ft). The total area of studied 

gravel bars for Shoal Creek was 146,000 ft2 (3.4 acres). Using 

the mean thickness of contaminated sediment and a total area 

of sampled gravel bars along this reach of 146,000 ft2, the estimated minimum volume of contaminated sediment in gravel 

bars exceeding the CPEC is about 24,000 yd3. The estimated 

minimum volume of sediment in gravel bars exceeding the 

TPEC is smaller at about 4,000 yd3. 

A total of 80 flood-plain samples were collected from 

8 locations along the Shoal Creek flood plain. Lead concentrations greater than the CPEC were present in 5 of the 80 

(about 6 percent) flood-plain samples from Shoal Creek. Zinc 

concentrations exceeded the CPEC in 11 samples (about 14 

percent). Flood-plain cores sampled along Shoal Creek tended 

to have concentrations of lead and zinc below the CPEC and 

TPEC, even in the upper 2 ft of depth.

A total of 51 samples were collected on gravel bar deposits along Tar Creek. The maximum sample depth was 6.6 ft. 

Overall, concentrations of lead and zinc generally exceeded 

the CPEC in cores from the surface to the top of bedrock that 

was generally <5 ft deep and in some cases <1 ft deep. Lead 

and zinc concentrations generally also exceeded the TPEC 

from the surface to the maximum depth. Lead concentrations, 

in the <2-mm size fraction in these samples, ranged from a 

single non-detection (<13 mg/kg) to 2,540 mg/kg. Out of the 

51 gravel bar-sediment samples, all but 6 had lead concentrations greater than the CPEC and the TPEC. All samples 

collected in Tar Creek that exceeded the CPEC for lead also 

exceeded the TPEC. Zinc concentrations, in the <2-mm 

size fraction in these samples, ranged from 63.0 mg/kg to 

46,600 mg/kg. Out of the 51 stream channel samples, all but 

2 had zinc concentrations that exceeded the CPEC, and all 

but 5 had concentrations that exceeded the TPEC. Cadmium 

concentrations, in the <2-mm size fraction in these cores, 

ranged from non-detection to 131 mg/kg. Out of 51 stream 

channel samples, 35 had detectable cadmium (69 percent) and 

exceeded the CPEC and TPEC. Out of the 51 samples, 31 (61 

percent) had concentrations of nickel that exceeded the CPEC 

(48.6 mg/kg). There is no TPEC for nickel. Exceedances of 

the CPEC for nickel generally extended several feet below the 

surface and were present as deep as 6.6 ft. The total area of 

studied gravel bars for Tar Creek was 230,000 ft2 (5.3 acres). 

The estimated minimum volume of sediment in sampled 

gravel bars exceeding the CPEC and TPEC for the chosen 

reach of Tar Creek was 9,000 yd3. These estimates are considered minimum volumes because they were only based on the 

visible gravel bars.

A total of 142 samples were collected from 13 locations 

along the Tar Creek flood plain. Concentrations of lead and 

zinc in flood-plain samples from Tar Creek generally exceeded 

the CPEC and the TPEC in the upper 1 or 2 ft of soil, and the 

concentrations were generally greater than concentrations 

in samples deeper than 2 or 3 ft by an order of magnitude or 

more. Lead and zinc concentrations in flood-plain samples 

seemed to decrease with distance from the creek. The 7 cores 

located within 450 ft of the creek had lead and zinc concentrations that exceeded the CPEC and the TPEC, whereas 

the 6 cores located at distances greater than 450 ft from the 

creek had no exceedances. Lead concentrations in 11 of 142 

analyzed flood-plain core sections from Tar Creek exceeded 

the CPEC and the TPEC. Concentrations of zinc exceeded 

the CPEC in 21 flood-plain core sections and exceeded the 

TPEC in 9 flood-plain core sections. Cadmium concentrations 

exceeded the CPEC and the TPEC in 25 of 33 flood-plain core 

sections where cadmium was analyzed.

A total of 52 samples were collected from 5 locations on gravel bar deposits along the Spring River. The 

maximum depth sampled was 19.1 ft. Lead concentrations 

ranged from 14.0 to 390 mg/kg and exceeded the CPEC in 

7 samples (14 percent). Zinc concentrations ranged from 

225 to 5,020 mg/kg exceeding the CPEC in 46 (89 percent) 

of the samples. Lead concentrations in gravel bar-sediment 

samples at the site downstream from Empire Lake (SR1) 

were generally less than concentrations in samples collected 

at the upstream site (SR2). Lead concentrations in the <2-mm 

size fraction from all 38 samples from the downstream site 

(SR1) were <105 mg/kg, which was less than the CPEC; 

however, zinc concentrations exceeded the CPEC in 32 of 

these samples. Cadmium was detected in 7 of the 52 (14 percent) samples at a maximum concentration of 22 mg/kg. The 

detected cadmium concentrations in samples exceeded the 

CPEC and TPEC at site SR2 near the mouth of Turkey Creek.
68 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District

References Cited

Andrews, W.J., Becker, M.F., Mashburn, S.L., and Smith, 

S.J., 2009, Selected metals in sediments and streams in the 

Oklahoma part of the Tri-State mining district, 2000–2006: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2009–5032, 36 p.

Angelo, R.T., Cringan, M.S., Chamberlain, D.L., Stahl, A.J., 

Haslouer, S.G., and Goodrich, C.A., 2007, Residual effects 

of lead and zinc mining on freshwater mussels in the Spring 

River Basin (Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, USA): Science of the Total Environment, v. 384, p. 467–496.

Bailey, E.H.S., 1911, Preliminary report on stream pollution 

by mine waters in southeastern Kansas, in Parker, H.N., 

Quality of the water supplies of Kansas: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 273, p. 349–361.

Barks, J.H., 1977, Effects of abandoned lead and zinc mines 

and mine-waste piles on water quality in the Joplin area, 

Missouri: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 77–75, 49 p.

Bastin, E.S., 1939, Theories of formation of ore deposits: 

Scientific American, v. 49, no. 6, p. 538–547.

Beasley, D.E., Koltz, A.M., Lambert, J.E., Fierer, N., and 

Dunn, R.R., 2015, The evolution of stomach acidity and its 

relevance to the human microbiome: PLoS ONE, v. 10, no. 

7, 12 p.

Christenson, S., 1995, Contamination of wells completed in 

the Roubidoux aquifer by abandoned zinc and lead mines, 

Ottawa County, Oklahoma: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigation Report 95–4150, 65 p.

Coduto, D.P., 1999, Geotechnical engineering—Principles and 

practices: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 

759 p.

Feder, G.L., Skelton, J., Jeffery, H.G., and Harvey, E.J., 1969, 

Water resources of the Joplin area, Missouri: Missouri Division of Geology and Land Survey Water Resources Report 

24, 97 p. [Also available at http://www.dnr.mo.gov/pubs/

WR24.pdf.]

Gibson, A.M., 1972, Wilderness bonanza—The Tri-State District of Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma: Norman, Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma Press, 362 p.

Google EarthTM, 2011, Aerial imagery, Aerial imagery of 

Jasper and Newton Counties, Missouri, Cherokee County, 

Kansas, and Ottawa County, Oklahoma.

Ingersoll, C.G., Ivey, C.D., Brumbaugh, W.G., Besser, J.M., 

and Kemble, N.E., 2009, Toxicity assessment of sediments 

from the Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees with the amphipod 

Hyalella azteca: U.S. Geological Survey Administrative 

Report CERC-8335-FY09-20-01, 97 p., accessed December 

2009 at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/documents/contaminants/ingersoll%20et%20al.%20grand%20

lake%20sediment%20toxicity%20report%20text%20

final%20august%2027%202009.pdf.

Jolly, J.L., and Van Heyl, A., 1968, Mercury and other trace 

elements in sphalerite and wallrocks from central Kentucky, 

Tennessee, and Appalachian Zinc Districts: U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 1252–F, 40 p.

Juracek, K.E., 2006, Sedimentation and occurrence and trends 

of selected chemical constituents in bottom sediment, 

Empire Lake, Cherokee County, Kansas, 1905–2005: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–

5307, 79 p.

Juracek, K.E., 2013, Occurrence and variability of miningrelated lead and zinc in the Spring River flood plain and 

tributary flood plains, Cherokee County, Kansas, 2009–11: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2013–5028, 70 p.

Juracek, K.E., and Becker, M.F., 2009, Occurrence and trends 

of selected chemical constituents in bottom sediment, Grand 

Lake O’ the Cherokees, northeast Oklahoma, 1940–2008: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2009–5258, 28 p.

Lanesky, D.E., Logan, B.W., Brown, R.G., and Hine, A.C., 

1979, A new approach to portable vibracoring underwater 

and on land: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 49, p. 

654–657.

Leach, D.L., Taylor, R.D., Fey, D.L., Diehl, S.F., and Saltus, 

R.W., 2010, A deposit model for Mississippi Valley-Type 

lead-zinc ores, chap. A of Mineral deposit models for 

resource assessment: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010–5070–A, 52 p.

Lisle, T.E., and Eads, R.E., 1991, Methods to measure sedimentation of spawning gravels: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station 

Research Note PSW–411, 7 p. 

Luoma, S.N., 1983, Bioavailability of trace metals to aquatic 

organisms—A review: The Science of the Total Environment, v. 28, p. 1–22.

Luoma, S. N., 1989, Can we determine the biological availability of sediment-bound trace elements?: Hydrobiologia, 

v. 176, no. 1, p. 379–396.
References Cited 69

MacDonald, D.D., Ingersoll, C.G., and Berger, T.A., 2000, 

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment 

quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems: Archives of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 39, p. 

20–31.

MacDonald, D.D., Ingersoll, C.G., Crawford, Meara, Prencipe, Heather, Besser, J.M., Brumbaugh, W.G., Kemble, 

Nile, May, T.W., Ivey, C.D., Meneghetti, Melissa, Sinclair, 

Jesse, and O’Hare, Margaret, 2010, Advanced ScreeningLevel Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) for aquatic 

habitats within the Tri-State Mining District, Oklahoma, 

Kansas, and Missouri: Nanaimo, British Columbia, MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd., [variously paged].

Merwe, D. van der, Carpenter, J.W., Nietfeld, J.C., and 

Miesner, J.F., 2011, Adverse health effects in Canada geese 

(Branta Canadensis) associated with waste from zinc and 

lead mines in the Tri-State Mining District (Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri, USA): Journal of Wildlife Diseases, v. 

47, no. 3, p. 650–660.

Murphy, F., and Herkelrath, W.N., 1996, A sample-freezing 

drive shoe for a wire-line piston core sampler: Groundwater 

Monitoring and Remediation, v. 16, no. 3, p. 86–90.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2003, Soil survey of 

Jasper and Newton Counties, Missouri, Cherokee County, 

Kansas, and Ottawa County, Oklahoma: accessed November 2015 at http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1938, Aerial imagery 

of Jasper and Newton Counties, Missouri.

Pope, L.M., 2005, Assessment of contaminated streambed 

sediment in the Kansas part of the historic Tri-State Lead 

and Zinc Mining District, Cherokee County, 2004: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–

5251, 61 p.

Schmidt, A., and Leonhard, A., 1874, The lead and zinc 

regions of south-west Missouri, in Broadhead, G.C., ed., 

Report of the Geological Survey of the State of Missouri including field work of 1873–1874: Jefferson City, 

Missouri, Bureau of Geology and Mines, p. 381–502, 

accessed June 7, 2005, at https://archive.org/details/

aet7172.0001.001.umich.edu.

Schmitt, C.J., Whyte, J.J., Brumbaugh, W.G, and Tillitt, D.E., 

2005, Biochemical effects of lead, zinc, and cadmium from 

mining on fish in the Tri-States District of northeastern 

Oklahoma, USA: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 

v. 24, no. 6, p. 1483–1495.

Smith, D., 2013, A modification of freeze-core technology for 

collecting granular fluvial sediment sample: Rolla, Mo., 

Missouri University of Science and Technology, Master’s 

thesis, 60 p.

Smith, D., and Elmore, A.C., 2013, A modification of freezecore technology for collecting granular fluvial sediment 

samples: Environmental Earth Sciences, v. 71, no. 9, p. 

4149–4156.

Smith, D.C, 2016, Metals and other constituent concentrations in metals-contaminated sediment of selected streams 

draining the Tri-State Mining District, Missouri, Oklahoma, 

and Kansas, 2011–12: U.S. Geological Survey data release, 

accessed November 2016, at https://dx.doi.org/10.5066/

F7CZ359X.

Sullivan, K., Lisle, T.E., Dolloff, C.A., Grant, G.E. and Reid, 

L.M., 1987. Stream channels—The link between forests 

and fishes, in Salo, E.O. and Cundy, T.W., eds., Streamside 

management—Forestry and fishery interactions: Seattle, 

Washington, University of Washington, Institute of Forest 

Resources, no. 57, p. 39–97.

Taggart, J.E., 2002, Analytical methods for chemical analysis 

of geologic and other materials, U.S. Geological Survey: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02–223

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010, Aerial imagery of 

Jasper and Newton Counties, Missouri, Cherokee County, 

Kansas, and Ottawa County, Oklahoma.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007, Method 6200, 

Field portable x-ray fluorescence spectrometry for the determination of elemental concentrations in soil and sediment: 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

32 p. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/

documents/6200.pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011, National hydrography dataset: 

U.S. Geological Survey, accessed November 15, 2014, at 

http://nhd.usgs.gov/.

Wang, F., Goulet, R.R., and Chapman, P.M., 2004, Testing 

sediment biological effects with the freshwater amphipod 

Hyalella azteca—The gap between laboratory and nature: 

Chemosphere, v. 57, no. 11, p. 1713–1724.

Zapico, M.M., Vales, S., and Cherry, J.A., 1987, A wireline 

piston core barrel for sampling cohesionless sand and gravel 

below the water table: Ground Water Monitoring Review, v. 

7, no. 3, p. 74–82.

Table 8 71

Table 8
72 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District Table 8. Concentrations of select trace element measured by two methods, with two sample preparation types, in the less than 2-millimeter size fractions of stream channel sediment samples. [XRF, analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office; LAB, analysis was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry methods described in Taggart (2002); RPD, relative percent difference; <, less than; --, not calculated; shaded value indicates RPD greater than 30 percent] Core location Depth below land surface (foot) Arsenic Barium Cadmium Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB Center Creek CC-A-HD1 2–3 30 <11 10 99 -- 111 <100 158 35 -- 34.8 <12 22.8 42 -- CC-A-HD2 3–4 25 <11 10 86 -- 124 195 232 61 17 63.0 71.6 104.0 49 37 CC-B-HD1 0–1 <11 13 11 -- 15 104 142 189 58 29 <12 <12 1.8 -- -- CC-B-HD2 1–2 14 <11 11 21 -- <100 135 152 -- 12 <12 <12 1.8 -- -- CC-B-HS1 1–2 <11 14 8 -- 53 109 165 594 138 113 <12 <12 1.9 -- -- CC-B-HS2 0–1 <11 <11 8 -- -- 144 223 269 61 19 <12 <12 2.1 -- -- CC-C-HD1 1–2 19 <11 11 52 -- 123 218 166 30 27 25.1 34.9 54.6 74 44 CC-C-HD2 0–1 <11 19 11 -- 53 133 184 191 36 4 18.2 16.8 56.3 102 108 CC-C-WC1 0–0.5 <11 <11 9 -- -- 106 143 236 76 49 17.6 20.4 47.9 93 81 CC-D-HD1 3–3.5 <11 <11 10 -- -- 116 134 172 39 25 28.5 29.4 57.3 67 64 CC-D-HD2 3–4 21 <11 5 124 -- 131 <100 91 36 -- 25.7 15.5 25.6 1 49 CC-D-WC1 0.2–0.5 <11 <11 7 -- -- <100 <100 229 -- -- 27.0 21.0 42.2 44 67 CTR-CH-1 7–8 <11 <11 5 -- -- 119 183 252 72 31 <12 <12 3.8 -- -- CTR-CH-2 3–4 22 <11 12 57 -- 148 251 146 2 53 <12 14.9 8.5 -- 54 CTR-CH-3 3–4 <11 <11 11 -- -- 179 254 292 48 14 42.7 52.7 53.5 22 2 CTR-CH-4 6–7 22 16 18 20 14 243 306 416 52 30 <12 <12 7.7 -- -- CTR-CH-4 0-1 <11 <11 8 -- -- <100 105 251 -- 82 17.3 16.6 26.7 43 47 CTR-CH-5 4.5–5.5 18 <11 11 47 -- <100 109 261 -- 82 <12 14.7 32.7 -- 76 CTR-CH-6 0.5–1 <11 <11 10 -- -- 125 155 148 17 4 <12 16.8 21.3 -- 24 CTR-CH-7 0–1 <11 <11 6 -- -- <100 110 202 -- 59 16.4 19.3 28.1 53 37 CTR-FB-1 1–2 <11 <11 8 -- -- 520 274 376 32 31 73.6 47.9 53.1 32 10 CTR-FB-2 5–6 <11 <11 13 -- -- 464 223 221 71 1 43.1 <12 1.2 189 -- CTR-GB-1 0–0.2 <11 <11 7 -- -- 115 114 221 63 64 14.6 19.6 30.0 69 42 CTR-WC-1 5.5–6.5 <11 14 9 -- 40 <100 182 145 -- 23 <12 <12 3.3 -- -- CTR-WC-2 1–2 <11 <11 8 -- -- <100 125 278 -- 76 <12 <12 6.6 -- --

CTR-WC-2 2–3 13 <11 7 62 -- <100 118 260 -- 75 <12 <12 4.6 -- --CTR-WC-4 0–0.2 19 <11 12 46 -- 128 195 152 17 25 <12 <12 27.5 -- --
Table 8 73

Table 8. Concentrations of select trace element measured by two methods, with two sample preparation types, in the less than 2-millimeter size fractions of stream channel sediment samples.—Continued[XRF, analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office; LAB, analysis was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry methods described in Taggart (2002); RPD, relative percent difference; <, less than; --, not calculated; shaded value indicates RPD greater than 30 percent]

Core location

Depth 

below land 

surface

(foot)

Colbalt Copper Lead 

Original 

sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b

XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB

Center Creek—Continued

CC-A-HD1 2–3 <260 <260 11.7 -- -- <35 <35 12.6 -- -- 263 331 253 4 27CC-A-HD2 3–4 <260 <260 13.1 -- -- <35 52.0 31.7 -- 49 1,020 1,010 983 4 3CC-B-HD1 0–1 312 280 15.2 147 179 <35 <35 6.5 -- -- 49.8 42.2 49.3 1 16CC-B-HD2 1–2 270 <260 14.0 180 -- <35 <35 6.9 -- -- 37.5 40.9 43.8 15 7CC-B-HS1 1–2 <260 <260 13.4 -- -- <35 <35 9.9 -- -- 46 51.1 59.7 26 16CC-B-HS2 0–1 <260 <260 12.8 -- -- <35 <35 8.8 -- -- 56 59.6 61.2 9 3CC-C-HD1 1–2 <260 <260 12.9 -- -- <35 36.9 12.1 -- 101 238 208 257 8 21CC-C-HD2 0–1 268 <260 12.4 182 -- <35 <35 552 -- -- 282 213 247 13 15CC-C-WC1 0–0.5 <260 <260 12.4 -- -- <35 <35 15.4 -- -- 305 329 411 30 22CC-D-HD1 3–3.5 <260 <260 7.7 -- -- 37.3 <35 19.8 61 -- 247 307 370 40 19CC-D-HD2 3–4 <260 <260 4.9 -- -- <35 <35 10.2 -- -- 503 419 410 20 2CC-D-WC1 0.2–0.5 <260 <260 12.1 -- -- <35 <35 19.9 -- -- 488 409 411 17 0CTR-CH-1 7–8 <260 <260 28.0 -- -- <35 <35 32.3 -- -- 36.8 39.4 46.4 23 16CTR-CH-2 3–4 275 <260 15.1 179 -- <35 <35 8.4 -- -- 109 127 149 31 16CTR-CH-3 3–4 <260 <260 13.9 -- -- 53.1 40.1 1,180 266 187 866 828 843 3 2CTR-CH-4 6–7 <260 <260 20.0 -- -- 42.8 49.2 24.6 47 67 49.1 64.4 64 26 1CTR-CH-4 0–1 <260 <260 14.0 -- -- <35 <35 14.0 -- -- 409 357 374 9 5CTR-CH-5 4.5–5.5 <260 <260 15.5 -- -- <35 <35 37.0 -- -- 237 271 280 17 3CTR-CH-6 0.5–1 <260 <260 11.9 -- -- <35 <35 98.7 -- -- 182 250 231 24 8CTR-CH-7 0–1 <260 <260 11.1 -- -- <35 <35 16.0 -- -- 364 401 360 1 11CTR-FB-1 1–2 <260 <260 13.3 -- -- 38.2 45.8 31.9 16 36 938 1,240 1,280 31 3CTR-FB-2 5–6 430 <260 15.8 186 -- <35 <35 11.6 -- -- 26.5 35 34.5 26 1CTR-GB-1 0–0.2 <260 <260 11.8 -- -- <35 <35 15.4 -- -- 459 438 451 2 3CTR-WC-1 5.5–6.5 <260 <260 14.4 -- -- <35 <35 6.9 -- -- 31.5 30.4 38.2 19 23CTR-WC-2 1–2 <260 <260 14.5 -- -- <35 <35 17.2 -- -- 131 124 122 7 2CTR-WC-2 2–3 <260 279 11.3 -- 184 <35 <35 9.7 -- -- 74.5 68.8 72.4 3 5CTR-WC-4 0–0.2 <260 <260 13.6 -- -- <35 <35 9.8 -- -- 218 194 197 10 2
74 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District Table 8. Concentrations of select trace element measured by two methods, with two sample preparation types, in the less than 2-millimeter size fractions of stream channel sediment samples.—Continued [XRF, analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office; LAB, analysis was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry methods described in Taggart (2002); RPD, relative percent difference; <, less than; --, not calculated; shaded value indicates RPD greater than 30 percent] Core location Depth below land surface (foot) Manganese Nickel Zinc Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB Center Creek—Continued CC-A-HD1 2–3 763 675 533 36 24 <65 <65 26.1 -- -- 6,160 4,100 4,880 23 17 CC-A-HD2 3–4 416 260 315 28 19 <65 <65 31.4 -- -- 17,800 17,900 21,300 18 17 CC-B-HD1 0–1 808 865 820 1 5 <65 <65 29.9 -- -- 310 250 397 25 45 CC-B-HD2 1–2 997 802 761 27 5 <65 <65 28.0 -- -- 275 281 447 48 46 CC-B-HS1 1–2 793 697 985 22 34 <65 <65 25.1 -- -- 268 258 360 29 33 CC-B-HS2 0–1 747 1,150 832 11 32 <65 <65 25.3 -- -- 262 272 356 30 27 CC-C-HD1 1–2 645 808 578 11 33 <65 <65 30.2 -- -- 3,590 1,970 4,360 19 76 CC-C-HD2 0–1 859 825 556 43 39 <65 <65 26.3 -- -- 4,140 3,090 10,300 85 108 CC-C-WC1 0–0.5 693 742 725 5 2 <65 <65 23.6 -- -- 3,190 3,170 8,410 90 91 CC-D-HD1 3–3.5 535 496 476 12 4 <65 <65 18.3 -- -- 4,140 3,960 9,980 83 86 CC-D-HD2 3–4 572 385 295 64 27 <65 <65 11.9 -- -- 8,320 5,320 5,550 40 4 CC-D-WC1 0.2–0.5 1,110 1,070 951 15 12 <65 <65 21.6 -- -- 5,860 6,160 7,090 19 14 CTR-CH-1 7–8 7,460 6,950 9,340 22 29 <65 105.7 61.0 -- 54 873 793 868 1 9 CTR-CH-2 3–4 948 1,103 864 9 24 <65 <65 31.7 -- -- 1,300 1,210 2,110 48 54 CTR-CH-3 3–4 848 734 759 11 3 73.2 <65 40.4 58 -- 10,100 9,950 10,400 3 4 CTR-CH-4 6–7 3,670 4,380 3,130 16 33 <65 <65 78.6 -- -- 335 310 409 20 28 CTR-CH-4 0–1 699 1,000 908 26 10 <65 <65 24.1 -- -- 3,800 3,430 4,000 5 15 CTR-CH-5 4.5–5.5 994 1,260 1,230 21 2 66.3 <65 57.8 14 -- 4,230 5,090 7,270 53 35 CTR-CH-6 0.5–1 749 637 564 28 12 <65 <65 26.4 -- -- 2,670 3,040 4,380 49 36 CTR-CH-7 0–1 787 646 639 21 1 <65 <65 19.7 -- -- 3,980 3,590 4,540 13 23 CTR-FB-1 1–2 437 481 547 22 13 <65 <65 23.5 -- -- 6,830 7,770 8,870 26 13 CTR-FB-2 5–6 304 983 525 53 61 <65 <65 33.8 -- -- 142 210 248 54 17 CTR-GB-1 0–0.2 526 594 624 17 5 <65 <65 21.9 -- -- 4,260 3,560 5,150 19 37 CTR-WC-1 5.5–6.5 175 230 217 21 6 <65 <65 33.1 -- -- 1,410 1,410 1,610 13 13 CTR-WC-2 1–2 988 1,040 869 13 18 <65 <65 27.1 -- -- 1,830 1,680 1,790 2 6

CTR-WC-2 2–3 422 458 490 15 7 <65 <65 36.1 -- -- 1,200 1,110 1,290 7 15CTR-WC-4 0–0.2 982 909 726 30 22 <65 <65 31.6 -- -- 2,300 2,720 4,550 66 50
Table 8 75

Table 8. Concentrations of select trace element measured by two methods, with two sample preparation types, in the less than 2-millimeter size fractions of stream channel sediment samples.—Continued[XRF, analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office; LAB, analysis was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry methods described in Taggart (2002); RPD, relative percent difference; <, less than; --, not calculated; shaded value indicates RPD greater than 30 percent]

Core location

Depth 

below land 

surface

(foot)

Arsenic Barium Cadmium

Original 

sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b

XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB

Turkey Creek

TC-A-HD1 1–1.3 <11 <11 11 -- -- 137 233 190 33 21 <12 <12 9.5 -- --TC-A-HD2 1–1.8 <11 <11 11 -- -- 109 <100 259 82 -- <12 <12 9.4 -- --TC-B-HD1 1–2 <11 <11 11 -- -- 104 121 242 80 67 <12 14.5 59.3 -- 121TC-B-HD2 0–1 <11 <11 8 -- -- <100 <100 294 -- -- 13.3 <12 19.2 37 --TC-C-HD1 2–3 27 <11 14 64 -- 106 <100 181 52 -- 18.9 <12 20.8 10 --TC-C-HD2 2-3 <11 <11 11 -- -- 103 <100 168 48 -- 13.2 <12 16.6 23 --TC-C-HS1 0–1 23 <11 11 70 -- 121 <100 104 15 -- <12 <12 17.7 -- --TC-D-HD1 7.5–8.5 51 40 10 134 121 <100 113 106 -- 6 51.3 37.6 103.0 67 93TC-D-HD2 3–4 <11 <11 10 -- -- <100 142 153 -- 8 22.8 27.2 81.8 113 100TC-E-HD1 1–2 28 <11 9 103 -- <100 136 102 -- 29 16.2 26.5 67.9 123 88TC-E-HD2 3.5–4.5 <11 <11 10 -- -- 104 112 107 3 5 33.3 26.0 114.0 109 126TC-E-HD3 0–1 <11 <11 7 -- -- <100 125 110 -- 13 19.0 23.0 44.0 79 63TC-E-WC1 0–0.7 <11 <11 8 -- -- 279 108 193 36 57 40.2 15.3 7.3 139 71TKC-CH-1 4–5 46 <11 8 141 -- 179 <100 180 1 -- 128.5 77.3 186.0 37 83TKC-CH-2 1–2 <11 26 8 -- 105 141 170 116 19 38 44.7 28.9 104.0 80 113TKC-CH-3 9–10 <11 <11 9 -- -- <100 136 192 -- 34 <12 <12 13.6 -- --TKC-CH-4 10–11 19 18 10 62 59 159 217 190 18 13 17.1 20.2 29.9 54 39TKC-CH-5 2–3 <11 <11 11 -- -- <100 136 161 -- 17 <12 20.1 55.8 -- 94TKC-CH-5P 1–2 <11 <11 8 -- -- 110 204 143 26 35 30.0 30.9 49.8 50 47TKC-CH-6 8–8.5 <11 <11 9 -- -- 111 125 178 46 35 18.5 22.6 28.8 44 24TKC-CH-7 1–2 17 7 82 100 106 -- 81 27 -- 38.9 -- 60.2 43 --TKC-CH-7 4–4.5 <11 <11 8 -- -- 106 164 80 28 69 22.7 28.2 75.1 107 91TKC-FP-1 0–1 <11 <11 6 -- -- 419 250 328 24 27 79.9 59.5 71.4 11 18TKC-FP-3 0–1 <11 <11 8 -- -- 455 243 438 4 57 65.2 40.1 59.1 10 38TKC-WC-1 3.6–4.6 16 <11 20 22 -- 161 149 335 70 77 <12 <12 2.4 -- --TKC-WC-3 2–3 <11 77 14 -- 139 632 261 321 65 21 173.6 116.6 125.0 33 7
76 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District Table 8. Concentrations of select trace element measured by two methods, with two sample preparation types, in the less than 2-millimeter size fractions of stream channel sediment samples.—Continued [XRF, analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office; LAB, analysis was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry methods described in Taggart (2002); RPD, relative percent difference; <, less than; --, not calculated; shaded value indicates RPD greater than 30 percent] Core location Depth below land surface (foot) Colbalt Copper Lead Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB Turkey Creek—Continued TC-A-HD1 1–1.3 <260 <260 12.0 -- -- <35 <35 10.2 -- -- 77.8 88.1 141 58 46 TC-A-HD2 1–1.8 <260 <260 12.8 -- -- <35 <35 9.9 -- -- 115 112 136 17 19 TC-B-HD1 1–2 <260 <260 10.9 -- -- 36.9 <35 15.0 84 -- 606 226 1,320 74 142 TC-B-HD2 0–1 <260 <260 11.8 -- -- <35 44.3 15.0 -- 99 244 301 428 55 35 TC-C-HD1 2–3 <260 <260 11.1 -- -- 37.5 41.2 17.7 62 80 809 488 831 3 52 TC-C-HD2 2–3 <260 <260 12.6 -- -- <35 <35 7.7 -- -- 907 198 1,880 70 162 TC-C-HS1 0–1 <260 <260 10.7 -- -- <35 <35 8.5 -- -- 129 241 396 102 49 TC-D-HD1 7.5–8.5 <260 <260 6.9 -- -- 42.2 40.0 44.9 6 12 1,100 722 1,070 3 39 TC-D-HD2 3–4 <260 <260 9.9 -- -- <35 <35 19.8 -- -- 807 687 788 2 14 TC-E-HD1 1–2 <260 <260 10.3 -- -- <35 <35 33.2 -- -- 519 389 875 51 77 TC-E-HD2 3.5–4.5 <260 <260 10.6 -- -- <35 <35 24.7 -- -- 465 444 1,160 86 89 TC-E-HD3 0–1 <260 <260 10.5 -- -- <35 <35 20.3 -- -- 563 313 755 29 83 TC-E-WC1 0–0.7 <260 <260 9.6 -- -- <35 <35 5.5 -- -- 495 359 211 80 52 TKC-CH-1 4–5 <260 <260 19.8 -- -- <35 47.3 36.5 -- 26 2,970 2,260 4,320 37 63 TKC-CH-2 1–2 <260 <260 10.4 -- -- 45.6 <35 41.7 9 -- 537 422 787 38 60 TKC-CH-3 9–10 <260 <260 9.9 -- -- <35 <35 12.2 -- -- 138 179 168 20 6 TKC-CH-4 10–11 <260 <260 11.1 -- -- <35 37.2 14.8 -- 86 227 227 243 7 7 TKC-CH-5 2–3 <260 <260 12.9 -- -- 40.9 45.2 25.8 40 55 317 289 400 23 32 TKC-CH-5P 1–2 <260 <260 12.2 -- -- 45.5 <35 20.4 76 -- 571 417 492 15 17 TKC-CH-6 8–8.5 <260 <260 10.3 -- -- <35 <35 25.6 -- -- 606 594 562 8 6 TKC-CH-7 1–2 <260 -- 8.6 -- -- <35 -- 22.5 -- -- 342 -- 330 4 -- TKC-CH-7 4–4.5 <260 <260 7.4 -- -- <35 <35 23.0 -- -- 267 267 352 27 27 TKC-FP-1 0–1 <260 <260 7.7 -- -- <35 39.9 17.2 -- 79 118 129 128 8 1 TKC-FP-3 0–1 <260 <260 10.9 -- -- <35 39.5 43.8 -- 10 515 796 841 48 5 TKC-WC-1 3.6–4.6 <260 <260 17.4 -- -- 40.0 <35 16.8 82 -- 118 126 147 22 15

TKC-WC-3 2–3 <260 <260 43.2 -- -- <35 <35 27.6 -- -- 7,520 7,500 7,050 6 6
Table 8 77

Table 8. Concentrations of select trace element measured by two methods, with two sample preparation types, in the less than 2-millimeter size fractions of stream channel sediment samples.—Continued[XRF, analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office; LAB, analysis was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry methods described in Taggart (2002); RPD, relative percent difference; <, less than; --, not calculated; shaded value indicates RPD greater than 30 percent]

Core location

Depth 

below land 

surface

(foot)

Manganese Nickel Zinc

Original 

sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b

XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB

Turkey Creek—Continued

TC-A-HD1 1–1.3 959 929 820 16 13 <65 <65 21.7 -- -- 865 1,930 2,460 96 24TC-A-HD2 1–1.8 708 501 728 3 37 <65 <65 21.0 -- -- 1,830 1,210 2,310 23 63TC-B-HD1 1–2 1,430 1,260 1,020 33 21 <65 <65 26.3 -- -- 2,670 2,610 9,290 111 112TC-B-HD2 0–1 1,040 1,270 1,050 1 19 <65 72.8 27.9 -- 89 2,970 2,620 3,060 3 15TC-C-HD1 2–3 463 512 570 21 11 <65 <65 24.7 -- -- 3,590 2,240 3,520 2 44TC-C-HD2 2–3 1,440 398 440 106 10 <65 <65 24.4 -- -- 1,710 2,010 2,720 46 30TC-C-HS1 0–1 916 1,350 567 47 82 <65 <65 18.8 -- -- 1,450 954 3,680 87 118TC-D-HD1 7.5–8.5 175 171 315 57 59 67.0 <65 23.7 96 -- 13,100 8,630 20,000 42 79TC-D-HD2 3–4 729 763 439 50 54 <65 <65 31.7 -- -- 11,600 7,270 15,300 28 71TC-E-HD1 1–2 580 418 487 17 15 <65 <65 16.8 -- -- 3,510 4,530 13,200 116 98TC-E-HD2 3.5–4.5 788 702 525 40 29 <65 <65 19.8 -- -- 7,960 7,880 20,900 90 90TC-E-HD3 0–1 775 423 541 36 24 <65 <65 17.7 -- -- 6,470 5,380 8,800 31 48TC-E-WC1 0–0.7 962 940 611 45 42 <65 <65 17.1 -- -- 8,960 3,260 1,310 149 85TKC-CH-1 4–5 382 402 262 37 42 <65 82.6 50.3 -- 49 27,900 21,900 42,100 41 63TKC-CH-2 1–2 664 545 493 30 10 <65 <65 19.9 -- -- 11,700 6,480 20,200 53 103TKC-CH-3 9–10 323 336 342 6 2 <65 <65 36.0 -- -- 3,120 3,940 3,930 23 0TKC-CH-4 10–11 653 752 616 6 20 <65 <65 24.6 -- -- 4,590 4,060 5,620 20 32TKC-CH-5 2–3 525 533 463 13 14 69.8 80.9 29.7 67 93 3,740 4,400 11,600 102 90TKC-CH-5P 1–2 555 929 607 9 42 <65 <65 23.0 -- -- 6,080 7,210 9,800 47 30TKC-CH-6 8–8.5 355 347 357 0 3 <65 <65 25.7 -- -- 4,880 4,640 5,220 7 12TKC-CH-7 1–2 341 -- 302 12 -- <65 -- 22.4 -- -- 8,930 -- 12,100 30 --TKC-CH-7 4–4.5 259 311 306 17 2 <65 <65 16.8 -- -- 7,460 5,460 15,000 67 93TKC-FP-1 0–1 318 355 562 56 45 <65 <65 19.3 -- -- 5,750 8,050 9,270 47 14TKC-FP-3 0–1 341 511 543 46 6 <65 <65 25.6 -- -- 6,620 8,170 9,880 40 19TKC-WC-1 3.6–4.6 1,240 1,290 1,230 1 5 <65 <65 53.6 -- -- 329 335 464 34 32TKC-WC-3 2–3 620 664 629 2 5 74.7 <65 89.4 18 -- 9,560 9,140 8,970 6 2
78 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District Table 8. Concentrations of select trace element measured by two methods, with two sample preparation types, in the less than 2-millimeter size fractions of stream channel sediment samples.—Continued [XRF, analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office; LAB, analysis was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry methods described in Taggart (2002); RPD, relative percent difference; <, less than; --, not calculated; shaded value indicates RPD greater than 30 percent] Core location Depth below land surface (foot) Arsenic Barium Cadmium Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB Shoal Creek SC-A-HD1 2.5–3.5 <11 <11 3 -- -- <100 <100 185 -- -- <12 <12 0.8 -- -- SC-A-HD2 1–2 <11 <11 5 -- -- 104 103 230 75 76 <12 <12 3.3 -- -- SH-CH-1 3–4 13 <11 6 73 -- 130 <100 162 22 -- <12 <12 3.5 -- -- SH-CH-11 3–4 <11 <11 7 -- -- <100 <100 196 -- -- <12 <12 4.4 -- -- SH-CH-5 0–1 <11 <11 9 -- -- 128 222 151 16 38 <12 <12 3.3 -- -- SH-CH-7 2–3 15 <11 4 117 -- <100 165 217 -- 27 <12 <12 4.1 -- -- SH-CH-8 4–5 <11 <11 8 -- -- 165 108 270 49 85 <12 <12 2.3 -- -- SH-CH-9 2–3 <11 <11 7 -- -- 119 135 114 4 17 <12 <12 6.6 -- -- SH-FB-2 1–2 <11 <11 5 -- -- 393 222 369 6 50 13.7 <12 1.1 170 -- SH-FB-3 0–1 <11 12 5 -- 85 414 164 336 21 69 19.8 <12 1.0 181 -- SH-FB-4 7–8 <11 <11 5 -- -- 124 125 381 102 101 <12 <12 9.6 -- -- SH-WC-1 2–2.8 <11 <11 6 -- -- 195 148 430 75 98 <12 <12 2.4 -- -- SH-WC-2 1–2 <11 <11 7 -- -- 137 205 152 10 30 <12 <12 3.6 -- -- SH-WC-3 3–4 <11 17 7 -- 84 <100 <100 151 -- -- <12 <12 2.4 -- -- Tar Creek TAR-FB-3 0–1 <11 <11 9 -- -- -- 150 181 -- 19 -- 32.1 38.0 -- 17 TAR-FP1-3 4–5 <11 <11 6 -- -- 513 227 216 81 5 19.7 18.0 25.7 27 35 TAR-TR-1 0–0.3 24 23 32 30 32 125 192 87 36 75 14.4 14.8 27.1 61 59 TAR-TR-2 0–0.2 18 25 28 44 10 109 269 87 22 102 13.6 16.7 25.0 59 40 TAR-TR-3 0–0.7 30 21 38 23 58 <100 177 101 -- 55 <12 14.9 22.1 -- 39 TAR-TR-3A 1–2 34 19 33 4 54 <100 157 92 -- 52 12.9 17.3 23.4 58 30 TAR-TR-4 0–1 <11 <11 33 -- -- 150 138 115 26 18 <12 <12 19.5 -- -- TAR-TR-5 0–0.5 20 <11 29 38 -- <100 103 79 -- 27 <12 <12 4.3 -- -- TAR-TR-6 0–1 <11 22 17 -- 25 110 159 59 60 92 13.6 21.0 46.5 110 76 TAR-TR-7 0–1 <11 <11 19 -- -- 112 115 181 47 44 <12 13.7 27.0 -- 66

TAR-TR-8 0–1 28 21 18 44 17 106 178 57 61 103 17.6 17.7 28.2 46 46TAR-TR-9 0–1 22 30 15 36 66 145 187 56 88 108 <12 18.2 20.7 -- 13
Table 8 79

Table 8. Concentrations of select trace element measured by two methods, with two sample preparation types, in the less than 2-millimeter size fractions of stream channel sediment samples.—Continued[XRF, analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office; LAB, analysis was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry methods described in Taggart (2002); RPD, relative percent difference; <, less than; --, not calculated; shaded value indicates RPD greater than 30 percent]

Core location

Depth 

below land 

surface

(foot)

Colbalt Copper Lead

Original 

sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b

XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB

Shoal Creek—Continued

SC-A-HD1 2.5–3.5 <260 <260 4.3 -- -- <35 <35 7.2 -- -- 20 21.4 31 43 37SC-A-HD2 1–2 <260 <260 8.5 -- -- <35 38.7 8.3 -- 129 60.2 57.1 70.1 15 20SH-CH-1 3–4 <260 <260 8.3 -- -- <35 <35 8.4 -- -- 74.7 123 74.4 0 49SH-CH-11 3–4 <260 <260 7.8 -- -- 35.9 <35 14.0 88 -- 128 123 113 12 8SH-CH-5 0–1 <260 <260 8.0 -- -- <35 <35 6.0 -- -- 80 81.8 82.3 3 1SH-CH-7 2–3 <260 <260 5.2 -- -- <35 <35 11.4 -- -- 139 149 147 6 1SH-CH-8 4–5 <260 <260 12.5 -- -- <35 <35 15.1 -- -- 46.1 50.6 54.1 16 7SH-CH-9 2–3 <260 <260 8.1 -- -- <35 <35 6.1 -- -- 183 129 173 6 29SH-FB-2 1–2 <260 <260 6.9 -- -- <35 <35 10.0 -- -- 38.4 30.6 40.2 5 27SH-FB-3 0–1 <260 <260 8.5 -- -- <35 <35 14.3 -- -- 55.3 41.7 48 14 14SH-FB-4 7–8 <260 <260 9.3 -- -- <35 36.1 16.0 -- 77 222 219 226 2 3SH-WC-1 2–2.8 <260 <260 10.0 -- -- <35 <35 17.5 -- -- 44.4 51.2 51.9 16 1SH-WC-2 1–2 <260 <260 7.2 -- -- <35 <35 6.1 -- -- 59.1 74.5 103 54 32SH-WC-3 3–4 <260 290 6.8 -- 191 <35 <35 7.2 -- -- 93.2 80.2 80.7 14 1

Tar Creek—Continued

TAR-FB-3 0–1 <260 <260 9.9 -- -- 46.4 58.8 38.8 16 41 676 764 733 8 4TAR-FP1-3 4–5 <260 <260 9.2 -- -- <35 36.1 21.9 -- 49 19.5 511 483 184 6TAR-TR-1 0–0.3 <260 <260 15.6 -- -- <35 43.4 17.7 -- 84 320 322 337 5 5TAR-TR-2 0–0.2 <260 <260 12.4 -- -- 71.4 <35 14.9 131 -- 315 314 350 11 11TAR-TR-3 0–0.7 <260 <260 20.2 -- -- <35 <35 18.0 -- -- 266 300 336 23 11TAR-TR-3A 1–2 <260 <260 15.2 -- -- <35 <35 14.3 -- -- 308 237 347 12 38TAR-TR-4 0–1 345 334 17.1 141 181 <35 <35 27.4 -- -- 298 236 285 4 19TAR-TR-5 0–0.5 <260 <260 18.2 -- -- <35 <35 15.1 -- -- 49.9 55.4 59.6 18 7TAR-TR-6 0–1 <260 <260 7.7 -- -- <35 <35 15.1 -- -- 244 282 343 34 20TAR-TR-7 0–1 <260 <260 9.7 -- -- <35 <35 12.4 -- -- 276 298 315 13 6TAR-TR-8 0–1 <260 <260 4.3 -- -- <35 <35 11.3 -- -- 258 238 286 10 18TAR-TR-9 0–1 <260 <260 3.3 -- -- <35 <35 9.0 -- -- 200 263 280 33 6
80 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District Table 8. Concentrations of select trace element measured by two methods, with two sample preparation types, in the less than 2-millimeter size fractions of stream channel sediment samples.—Continued [XRF, analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office; LAB, analysis was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry methods described in Taggart (2002); RPD, relative percent difference; <, less than; --, not calculated; shaded value indicates RPD greater than 30 percent] Core location Depth below land surface (foot) Manganese Nickel Zinc Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB Shoal Creek—Continued SC-A-HD1 2.5–3.5 87 85 66 27 25 <65 <65 13.0 -- -- 176 176 219 22 22 SC-A-HD2 1–2 391 434 380 3 13 <65 <65 16.6 -- -- 628 558 633 1 13 SH-CH-1 3–4 402 450 449 11 0 65.5 <65 39.6 51 -- 806 1,020 824 2 21 SH-CH-11 3–4 412 450 493 18 9 <65 <65 36.3 -- -- 1,030 1,020 993 4 3 SH-CH-5 0–1 416 439 458 10 4 <65 <65 20.4 -- -- 763 744 907 17 20 SH-CH-7 2–3 172 265 245 35 8 <65 <65 21.0 -- -- 822 788 871 6 10 SH-CH-8 4–5 878 842 880 0 4 <65 <65 29.2 -- -- 443 396 539 20 31 SH-CH-9 2–3 425 468 472 11 1 <65 <65 15.9 -- -- 1,850 1,360 2,110 13 43 SH-FB-2 1–2 508 348 558 9 46 <65 <65 13.0 -- -- 212 259 290 31 11 SH-FB-3 0–1 441 418 642 37 42 <65 <65 17.5 -- -- 202 187 233 14 22 SH-FB-4 7–8 589 611 708 18 15 <65 <65 37.1 -- -- 1,740 1,690 1,920 10 13 SH-WC-1 2–2.8 130 157 186 35 17 66.9 <65 47.2 34 -- 267 221 252 6 13 SH-WC-2 1–2 841 837 689 20 19 <65 <65 22.9 -- -- 970 974 1,080 11 10 SH-WC-3 3–4 494 419 427 15 2 <65 <65 33.4 -- -- 901 811 799 12 1 Tar Creek—Continued TAR-FB-3 0–1 250 303 283 12 7 <65 <65 36.7 -- -- 4,430 6,130 6,100 32 0 TAR-FP1-3 4–5 398 294 387 3 27 <65 <65 16.9 -- -- 39.4 3,630 3,680 196 1 TAR-TR-1 0–0.3 417 402 449 7 11 99.4 80.4 74.0 30 8 6,970 7,490 8,010 14 7 TAR-TR-2 0–0.2 403 672 337 18 66 68.4 90.8 62.6 8 37 5,220 4,230 7,990 42 62 TAR-TR-3 0–0.7 1,190 2,410 674 55 113 83.2 157.5 97.1 12 47 5,040 5,970 7,100 34 17 TAR-TR-3A 1–2 145 184 370 87 67 79.4 97.5 73.6 7 28 3,150 3,870 6,740 73 54 TAR-TR-4 0–1 341 400 455 29 13 76.7 <65 83.6 9 -- 2,730 2,550 5,910 74 79 TAR-TR-5 0–0.5 313 369 654 71 56 <65 <65 60.8 -- -- 791 671 871 10 26 TAR-TR-6 0–1 1,020 2,280 283 113 156 99.2 111.8 34.1 80 107 3,230 4,980 11,300 111 78 TAR-TR-7 0–1 2,300 2,270 477 131 131 115.4 141.7 35.8 82 119 3,860 3,690 7,740 67 71

TAR-TR-8 0–1 380 344 189 67 58 96.8 117.4 25.3 90 129 4,120 3,750 7,070 53 61TAR-TR-9 0–1 <85 127 99 -- 25 79.6 122.0 18.8 83 147 2,280 4,450 6,010 90 30
Table 8 81

Table 8. Concentrations of select trace element measured by two methods, with two sample preparation types, in the less than 2-millimeter size fractions of stream channel sediment samples.—Continued[XRF, analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office; LAB, analysis was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry methods described in Taggart (2002); RPD, relative percent difference; <, less than; --, not calculated; shaded value indicates RPD greater than 30 percent]

Core location

Depth 

below land 

surface

(foot)

Arsenic Barium Cadmium

Original 

sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b

XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB

Spring River

SR-CH-1 5–6 <11 <11 13 -- -- 359 305 339 6 10 <12 <12 3.0 -- --SR-CH-2 9–10 15 <11 12 20 -- 115 157 173 40 10 <12 12.9 5.2 -- 85SR-CH-3 2–3 <11 <11 13 -- -- <100 196 154 -- 24 <12 <12 2.4 -- --SR-CH-4 3–4 <11 <11 9 -- -- 103 114 111 8 2 22.4 15.2 36.0 47 82SR-CH-5 4–5 <11 -- 9 -- 100 116 -- 129 11 -- <12 -- 5.6 -- --SR-CH-5 6–7 <11 <11 11 -- -- <100 163 128 -- 24 <12 <12 3.1 -- --
82 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District Table 8. Concentrations of select trace element measured by two methods, with two sample preparation types, in the less than 2-millimeter size fractions of stream channel sediment samples.—Continued [XRF, analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office; LAB, analysis was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry methods described in Taggart (2002); RPD, relative percent difference; <, less than; --, not calculated; shaded value indicates RPD greater than 30 percent] Core location Depth below land surface (foot) Colbalt Copper Lead Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB Spring River—Continued SR-CH-1 5–6 <260 <260 17.1 -- -- <35 <35 8.7 -- -- 66 60.1 68.7 4 13 SR-CH-2 9–10 <260 <260 16.3 -- -- <35 <35 10.6 -- -- 71.7 55 69.1 4 23 SR-CH-3 2–3 <260 <260 15.2 -- -- <35 <35 11.1 -- -- 28.7 41.6 48.3 51 15 SR-CH-4 3–4 <260 <260 10.1 -- -- <35 <35 13.7 -- -- 184 135 182 1 30 SR-CH-5 4–5 <260 -- 13.5 -- -- <35 -- 12.2 -- -- 73.9 -- 86 15 -- SR-CH-5 6–7 <260 <260 23.1 -- -- <35 <35 6.8 -- -- 19.6 24.2 28.7 38 17
Table 8 83

Table 8. Concentrations of select trace element measured by two methods, with two sample preparation types, in the less than 2-millimeter size fractions of stream channel sediment samples.—Continued[XRF, analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office; LAB, analysis was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry methods described in Taggart (2002); RPD, relative percent difference; <, less than; --, not calculated; shaded value indicates RPD greater than 30 percent]

Core location

Depth 

below land 

surface

(foot)

Manganese Nickel Zinc

Original 

sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b

XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB

Spring River—Continued

SR-CH-1 5–6 7,030 4,360 2,050 110 72 92.0 <65 30.2 101 -- 779 526 749 4 35SR-CH-2 9–10 597 428 515 15 18 <65 <65 32.9 -- -- 1,120 1,130 1,170 4 3SR-CH-3 2–3 756 585 668 12 13 <65 <65 35.4 -- -- 512 470 601 16 24SR-CH-4 3–4 253 227 311 21 31 <65 <65 25.1 -- -- 5,020 3,780 7,160 35 62SR-CH-5 4–5 323 -- 486 40 -- <65 -- 29.2 -- -- 1,070 -- 1,570 38 --SR-CH-5 6–7 189 187 383 68 69 <65 <65 42.3 -- -- 908 850 874 4 3
84 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District Table 8. Concentrations of select trace element measured by two methods, with two sample preparation types, in the less than 2-millimeter size fractions of stream channel sediment samples.—Continued [XRF, analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office; LAB, analysis was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry methods described in Taggart (2002); RPD, relative percent difference; <, less than; --, not calculated; shaded value indicates RPD greater than 30 percent] Core location Depth below land surface (foot) Arsenic Barium Cadmium Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB Average RPD -- -- -- -- -- 62 61 -- -- -- 41 42 -- -- -- 67 58 Number of cases -- -- 28 18 85 28 20 60 70 85 60 70 42 44 85 42 44 Maximum value -- -- 51 77 38 141 139 632 306 594 138 113 174 117 186 189 126 Minimum value -- -- <11 <11 3 4 10 <100 <100 56 1 1 <12 <12 1 1 2
Table 8 85

Table 8. Concentrations of select trace element measured by two methods, with two sample preparation types, in the less than 2-millimeter size fractions of stream channel sediment samples.—Continued[XRF, analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office; LAB, analysis was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry methods described in Taggart (2002); RPD, relative percent difference; <, less than; --, not calculated; shaded value indicates RPD greater than 30 percent]

Core location

Depth 

below land 

surface

(foot)

Cobalt Copper Lead

Original 

sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b

XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB

Average relative percent difference—Continued

-- -- -- -- -- 169 184 -- -- -- 70 70 -- -- -- 23 22

Number of cases—Continued

-- -- 6 4 85 6 4 14 18 84 14 18 85 83 85 85 83

Maximum value—Continued

-- -- 430 334 43 186 191 71 59 552 266 187 7,520 7,500 7,050 184 162

Minimum value—Continued

-- -- <260 <260 3 141 179 <35 <35 6 6 10 20 21 29 0 0
86 Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District Table 8. Concentrations of select trace element measured by two methods, with two sample preparation types, in the less than 2-millimeter size fractions of stream channel sediment samples.—Continued [XRF, analysis was conducted using an x-ray fluorescence instrument owned and operated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 6200 (EPA, 2007) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office; LAB, analysis was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Central Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry methods described in Taggart (2002); RPD, relative percent difference; <, less than; --, not calculated; shaded value indicates RPD greater than 30 percent] Core location Depth below land surface (foot) Manganese Nickel Zinc Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b Original sample Split sample RPD-1a RPD-2b XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB XRF XRF LAB Average relative percent difference—Continued -- -- -- -- -- 29 26 -- -- -- 49 75 -- -- -- 39 38 Number of cases—Continued -- -- 84 83 85 84 83 17 12 85 17 12 85 83 85 85 83 Maximum value—Continued -- -- 7,460 6,950 9,340 131 156 115 157 97 101 147 27,900 21,900 42,100 196 118 Minimum value—Continued -- -- 87 85 66 0 0 <65 <65 12 7 8 39 176 219 1 0

aRPD between XRF results from analysis of the original sample and split sample sent for laboratory analysis.bRPD between XRF scan of split sample sent for laboratory chemical analysis and split sample sent for laboratory analysis.

Publishing support provided by:

Rolla Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Director, USGS Missouri Water Science Center

1400 Independence Road

Rolla, MO 65401

(573) 308–3667

Or visit the Missouri Water Science Center Web site at: 

http://mo.water.usgs.gov/

Smith—Occurrence, Distribution, and Volume of Metals-Contaminated Sediment of Selected Streams, Tri-State Mining District—SIR 2016–5144

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20165144