My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-09-25_PERMIT FILE - M2009076 (43)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2009076
>
2009-09-25_PERMIT FILE - M2009076 (43)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:55:47 PM
Creation date
9/28/2009 3:07:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2009076
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
9/25/2009
Doc Name
Reclamation Feasibility Report- Virginia Canyon
From
Venture Resources
To
DRMS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
113
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Reclamation Feasibility Report - Virginia Canyon <br />• <br />Sixteen stream sites were sampled during a summer thunderstorm on August 17, 2000. Two <br />draining mine adits were subsequently sampled the following day. There were no rain gauges in <br />Virginia Canyon, but, based upon measurements in Idaho Springs, the thunderstorm was <br />estimated to be approximately 1 inch. One of the stream samples was an opportunistic sample <br />taken directly below a mine waste pile. Stream flow less than 1 cfs was measured using one-inch <br />and four-inch Baski cutthroat flumes. Stream flow over 1 cfs was measured with a current meter. <br />Field measurements included pH and electrical conductivity. Water samples were collected at <br />each site in 250 ml pre-acidified HDPE bottles. Total recoverable metals and dissolved metals <br />samples were collected. The dissolved metals samples were filtered through 0.45-micron filters in <br />the field. <br />The May 2000 water quality data is presented in Appendix 1. The August 2000 storm flow data is <br />presented in Appendix 2. It should be noted that metals loading data in the appendices is reported <br />in grams per day, whereas throughout the text, the data is presented in pounds per day. This was <br />done to enable the reader to visualize the amounts better. To convert pounds to grams, multiply <br />the number of pounds by 454. Conversely, to convert grams to pounds, divide the number of <br />grams by 454. <br />Water samples were collected by CSM three different times in 1999. The water samples were <br />collected along with sediment samples to compare the chemistry of the two mediums. Water <br />samples were collected in 1999 during spring run-off in May, during low-flow drainage in August, <br />and after a 0.5 - 1 inch summer thunderstorm in August. Only dissolved metals samples were <br />• collected. Flows were not measured. The pH, Eh, ionic conductivity, and water temperature were <br />recorded. The water samples were filtered, then acidified for later analysis using the ICP-AES. <br />The spring 1999 data is presented in Appendix 3. The 1999 low-flow data is presented in <br />Appendix 4. The data following a summer thunderstorm is presented in Appendix 5. <br />MINE WASTE SAMPLING <br />Mining waste samples were collected at 74 different locations in Virginia Canyon. All the mine <br />waste samples were waste rock. No mill tailings were observed in Virginia Canyon. Vegetated <br />and unvegetated soils and alluvium were also collected at 5 locations. The vegetated soils <br />included one near the headwaters and one near the two brothers mine. Alluvium samples were <br />collected in a recent 16-foot high head-cut in Boomerang Gulch and a manganeous debris flow <br />near the mouth of Robinson Gulch. One sample of a naturally denuded soil, near the Comstock <br />Mine, was sampled. The locations of the sampling sites are shown on Figure 3. <br />Waste rock and soil samples were collected from a minimum of ten and maximum of thirty <br />locations at each site. Acid-washed plastic 100 ml beakers were used to remove the top two <br />inches of material. The 10+ sub-samples from each site were composited in a 1-gallon re- <br />closeable plastic bag. The composited samples were thoroughly mixed by inverting the plastic bag <br />numerous times. <br />The soil and waste rock samples were analyzed by two different methods. A portion of the <br />composited sample was sent to Analytica Laboratory as a solid sample. Another portion of the <br />composite sample was leached with deionized water, then the filtered leachate was sent to <br />Analytica Laboratory. <br />a
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.