Animas Watershed Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Brooklyn Lower 0.86 20 60 110 0.6 9 672 122 105 Mineral Creek Total 7 1,684 11.5 142 23,888 1,095 1,135 Animas above Eureka Ben Butler 0.34 40 300 28 0.8 8 225 1 165 Silver wing 1.21 50 60 98 1.0 123 393 172 131 Tom Moore 0.19 90 60 15 0.3 1 8 43 73 Ea_le O.G7 9G 60 1 0.1 1 0 7 I8 Luck~° Ja:,k 0.70 90 60 16 0.6 3 14 32 95 Animas above Eureka Total 3 157 2.8 136 639 256 482 Animas below Eureka Clippea 0.09 90 60 6 0.2 7 80 57 70 ButTato Bo1- 0.38 90 60 17 0.8 24 13 73 141 Ben Franklin 0.37 90 60 81 0.4 13 612 99 95 Caledonia 0.5 7 30 60 23 1.0 1~ 1 50 255 Sunn~•side 2.50 90 1,000 40 2.3 10 0 536 664 Animas below Eureka Total 4 168 4.6 69 706 815 1,224 GRAND TOTAL 22 3,219 102 1,691 55,655 2,167 16,595 V. REMEDIATION SCENARIOS Using the characterization and ranking of sites, the effects of remediating multiple sites can be estimated. This chapter compares several different remediation scenarios including costs. The scenarios help determine what metal loading may be "reversible" versus "irreversible". Natural sources of metals are considered 'irreversible. Some human-related sources could also be called irreversible if they are very difficult and expensive to change. There is the issue of how cost-effective these changes may be and whether or not they would have a noticeable impact in protecting aquatic life. Figures 8.18 to 8.21 of the Animas UAA show the levels of Al, Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn from adits and mine waste. These figures show the maximum amount of each of the six metals that has been identified with mining-related activities. Most remediation methods will remove only a portion of these metal loads. Section III of this plan discussed the methodology that was used to rank and prioritize specific adits and mine waste piles in the Basin, and discussed relevarn technology that could be used to remediate those sources. Cost estimates and amount of reduction corresponding to different technologies are comparable to the actual remediation costs already encountered by SGC, the ARSG, and others in the Basin. (See Chapter 3, Table 3.1 of the UAA). The ARSG technical work group estimated the potential reductions in loading (as a percentage reduction) that could be achieved by implementing remediation technologies at each adit and mine waste site. Estimated loads contributed by each of 174 adits and 158 waste rock sites are shown in Appendix 11A of the UAA. Of those sites, load reductions, applicable treatment technology, remediation option recommendations and cost estimates have been derived for 78 adits and 127 mine waste sites. Those sites that were not included contributed negligible loading, are a substantial distance from streams, and «•ould not be cost-effective to remediate. 20