My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-01-24_PERMIT FILE - M2011007 (8)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2011007
>
2011-01-24_PERMIT FILE - M2011007 (8)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:29:20 PM
Creation date
1/25/2011 8:09:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2011007
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
1/24/2011
Doc Name
New 110d Appl.- 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.
/
120
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 />• Historic Structures <br />There are no historic structures or artifacts at this site. <br />Water Quality Impacts <br />Both waste piles have been severely eroded by the ephemeral drainage. Road drainage braids <br />below the retaining wall and has eroded most of the waste downstream. Site # 131 has a large <br />vegetation kill zone below the pile. <br />Reclamation Measures <br />The waste rock adjacent to the drainages should be removed and consolidated on-site. Access to <br />these sites is poor, so the waste may have to be moved using manual labor. There is sufficient <br />topsoil in the area to cover and revegetate the piles if a road is built to the site. <br />Other Sites of Interest <br />Robinson Gulch <br />Three waste piles in Robinson Gulch ranked high on the basis of their chemical characteristics and <br />past erosion. These include sites #69, #72, and #73. All three waste rock piles had high <br />concentrations of leachable heavy metals. In fact, site #72 ranked third, #73 ranked fourth and #69 <br />ranked twenty-third out of the 79 sites sampled. However, because the water quality sampling <br />showed very little contribution of metals from Robinson Gulch, the overall ranking went down. <br />These sites should receive consideration for reclamation once the higher priority sites are <br />completed. <br />Buttermilk Gulch <br />Two mine waste piles in the Buttermilk Gulch watershed (Sites #56 and #58) ranked high on the <br />• basis of their chemical characteristics and past erosion. Site #56 ranked twenty-fourth out of 79. <br />Site #58 commonly erodes several tons of waste onto the Gilson Gulch road following summer <br />thunderstorms. <br />CONCLUSIONS <br />Based upon the information collected during this investigation, the following conclusions can be <br />made: <br />The majority of the heavy metals from mining related sources is derived from a few sites. <br />Conversely, most of the mine waste piles in Virginia Canyon are minor sources of metals. <br />2. Road drainage patterns contribute to erosion of mine waste piles. Changing the road <br />drainage is a high priority. <br />3. Sediments in Virginia Canyon contain significant quantities of metals. Ultimately, the <br />sediments must be removed to have a positive effect on water quality. <br />4. Robinson Gulch and Buttermilk Gulch are minor sources of heavy metals. <br />The mainstem of Virginia Canyon above Robinson Gulch, Boomerang Gulch, and Seaton <br />Gulch are the principal sources of heavy metals. <br />6. Hydrologic controls can be very effective in controlling erosion and leaching of heavy metals <br />from waste rock piles. <br />0 69
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.