|
Colorado Uiilch Ii-etlcnuls Bench Test
<br />Tec/n n cal llen~ orcm~lr ~ m
<br />1.0 Introduction
<br />As a direct result of Sugarloaf Mining District's rich mining histoi~-, Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) has
<br />negatively affected surface and subsurface «ater qualit<- witlun the Colorado Gulch drainage which is
<br />a tributai~~ of the Lake Fork, a tributai-~- to the Arkansas River. Colorado Gulch drainage is
<br />approiimatel~- 2.~ miles: running east«-ard, starting at 11,200 ft. descending to 9,600 ft at the
<br />confluence «%ith the Lake Fork atributary- to the Arkansas River (Figure 1). At 9,800 ft. the Little
<br />Fi-~-ing Pan tributan- joins the Colorado Gulch. Previous studies (CMC NRM) have noted that the
<br />Little Frying Pan tributa~~- contributes the bulls of the heavy metals and low pH water into Colorado
<br />Gulch.
<br />-- ~ ~ ~ : t
<br />~ , ,' r I_-. Tiger's ~
<br />~ , 11 Sh~lt~',~,~
<br />ti i
<br />~_~~J c~
<br />l~ ~ , '> "'~ ~ r
<br />_~ ,~~' `~
<br />~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ r.
<br />~` ~ ~`= ~ ' ''r
<br />J ~ J p/rrJO % l y I 1. {F t 7
<br />~ - -- ~ . ~ ~. ti_~
<br />"Y ^~. - ~`~.~~ r
<br />r Ger~.r_a __
<br />_ ~. ~ ~.: ~f _:
<br />~ ,~ ~ -
<br />-~ ~ , . ~~
<br />~ , ~~,~
<br />' ~ ,R w ~`,~'r'~!" i - ~ rlr I~~, ~a~rtl~tt~ \~ 1 ~`~,
<br />t'~ d t ~ f r~ - ~r irk ` ° -,_Shafta' ~ i a'~ ~.
<br />x _ r~ f~ f - f ~ Ir ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ``~
<br />yr ' - ~ ~ 1 ~ r~ r
<br />''~ ~ _~ ~ I ~ j ~ '~ ~ ~ ~a Clett ~ ~ ~~~~
<br />r'
<br />~ t-_
<br />rj~i~!' ~ ~ '~-, ~ a P ='o~ J ~in$rgr'-~, r,~~ SugariQaf
<br />1 ~ ,~~'- ~ 7~Unnol ~~ ~ r ~\ ~ edam
<br />+ ~ ,'til/, ~.~ t 4 ~ N
<br />4 ,. . 1
<br />•}~•'t~ f~ _}~ 7
<br />i~ ~ 1 $ y~
<br />111! cQ i 1 ~t• \`~v.~+reli+
<br />~ 4 •~ f ~ r f 1 ~ ~~ ~ `
<br />4
<br />~~ _.,; ~ ~I, I ~
<br />ti ~'~~ ~ ~ \ r~ { i~ ~ ~~~~ ~---_ 9sp2r1s
<br />I ';
<br />f ~ ~!l l I - `` {1 5~
<br />i ~
<br />~, I i; y , ~ ~,~~ . ,_ , , ~ ,,~~~,,, ~ ~,
<br />~, 1,
<br />,~ f+, iii ~ ti 'p204 ran8'ti ~ ~ ,, ,b
<br />~ fl ~
<br />~~~ ,`,`, _ _ ' l
<br />.' ~. ' r ' 1 ' f ~~ ' l ~ ~~~ :~ ~'~. - F'r~ 1 r . S urJa J-9ec
<br />• :_ 1
<br />~ r ~
<br />- ~_ if ~f f ;~ ;E~orr~w~%pits
<br />r= -~ „~ 86'rVW
<br />' ~.
<br />~ l.'~! ~..~ ~ /
<br />~''~ ~c~l
<br />c
<br />~~
<br />•1 Y ~
<br />• ~ -'
<br />j ~ n:ar:H _. C
<br />fll1 ~•
<br />'a I
<br />•~ ~i~`I c
<br />f ~ -1 _sGao~~rrJ--~
<br />~=,~ ` _
<br />
<br />Figure 1. Topographic Map of the Colorado Gulch Drainage Network.
<br />In an effort to improve «-ater quality- impaired b~- AMD within Colorado Gulch and ultimately the
<br />Ailcansas River, Colorado Mountain College Natural Resource Management (CMC NRM) has
<br />suive~-ed the water quality- parameters of both Gulches and the Lake Fork (CMC NRMI, 2004) and is
<br />able to provide base line data against which the efficiency of the test cells will be measured. While
<br />the use of wetlands for the treatment of AMD is a relatively new strategy-, research and successful
<br />mitigation projects has demonstrated that in some instances it is an appropriate and cost effective
<br />alternative to traditional water treatment facilities. The US Bureau of Mines estimates that over 400
<br />«etlands have been constructed for the purpose of AMD treatment. AMD treatment with natural and
<br />5 CMC NRM
<br />
|