Laserfiche WebLink
are added to the overall costs of the remediation scenarios described in the next chapter. <br />Disposal costs of any removed material has not been included. (It is possible that the mill <br />at Howardsville may re-open to accept wastes for removal of metal sulfides as a <br />marketable product)_ Four cost ranges have been applied: under $20,000, $20,000 to <br />$100;000, $100,000 to $00,000, and greater than $500,000. The specific remediation <br />estimates for particular sites are shown on the spreadsheets. <br />Draining Adits <br />Adits have been characterized in method similar to dumps. The results are listed <br />on rank and prioritization spreadsheets for each sub-basin and the complete Basin in <br />Appendix lOF of the UAA_ An attempt was made to sample all draining edits during <br />both high and low flow time periods. Flow measurements were taken at the same time as <br />samples_ Sampling was coordinated by the Division of Minerals and Geology and ARSG <br />(See Appendices 10A, B, C, and D - UAA). Due to the large number of edits, over 170 <br />(same being quite remote and/or not initially located), a few edits were missed or <br />sampled only at high or low flow periods. High flow samples were also not possible at <br />all sites because of inaccessibility due to deep snow. Some edits had no or unmeasurable <br />flows at loan floe. ARSG is continuing to fill in the missing data. <br />Water samples were collected from edits in the Mineral Creek drainage in 1995- <br />1996, in the Cement Creek drainage in 1996-1997, in the Upper Animas drainage above <br />Eureka in 1997-1998, and in the Upper Animas below Eureka in 1998-1999. All edits <br />were sampled the same day in each sub-basin. High flow samples were taken in late June <br />or 7uly. Low flow samples were taken in September or October_ Additional water <br />quality samples were taken at a number of sites by other agencies and companies <br />participating in ARSE. Wherever multiple high flow data exist for a particular site, the <br />data have been averaged. Multiple low flow data were also averaged. All samples were <br />taken at the portal entrances. <br />Adits were ranked in the same fashion as mine waste, using seven metals, pH and <br />the same weighting factors for each metal. Interestingly, when this ranking was <br />compared to a ranking where the weighting factors were removed, the top twenty five <br />edits in the whole Upper Animas Basin remained the same and order of those twenty five <br />changed little. The weighting factors made little difference in the overall results. <br />Adits are also be ranked on the spreadsheets for high flow, low flow, and the <br />combination of high and low flows in terms of metal loading and pH. It depends on what <br />are the analytical purposes and goals of remediation efforts_ <br />As with mine waste, other characteristics that may be important to prioritize edits <br />for remediation are included on the spreadsheets such as: <br />• site names and locations, <br />• flow rates during high flow and low flow, <br />• dates of sampling if only one sample was taken during high or low flow, <br />• proximity of receiving streams, <br />• biological potential of nearby streams (i.e. potential presence of aquatic life), <br />• orientation (direction) of slope (indicates when snow may melt off, <br />• whether or not a vegetative kill zone exists below, <br />• whether or not acid mine drainage impacts dumps below the edit, <br />15 <br />