<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:creator>J. T. Nash</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>1999</dc:date>
  <dc:description>Field observations, sampling of mine dumps and mine drainage waters, and&#13;
laboratory studies of dump materials have been made at mining areas deemed to be on&#13;
public lands administered by the USDA Forest Service in the Mineral Creek watershed.&#13;
Results of chemical analyses of dump materials, leachates of those materials, and of&#13;
surface waters draining mines or dumps provide indications of where acid is generated or&#13;
consumed, and what metals are mobilized below mines or dumps. Information on 25&#13;
sites is reviewed and reclamation priorities are ranked into four classes (high, medium,&#13;
low priority, or no work required).&#13;
The western side of the upper Animas watershed (the Mineral Creek watershed)&#13;
has a history of mining and prospecting for about 130 years. The intensity of miningrelated&#13;
disturbance is higher than in most parts of the San Juan Mountains region, but&#13;
actually is much less than the eastern half of the watershed (US BLM lands) and none of&#13;
the mines moved millions of tons of rock and ore as in some of the eastern mines. The&#13;
majority of the roughly one thousand mining sites on the USFS lands are very small (less&#13;
than 100 tons or 70 cubic yards of dump material), are more than 2 miles from a major&#13;
stream, or are so inaccessible as to prohibit reclamation. Twenty five sites have been&#13;
considered by others to have significant size and potential for significant environmental&#13;
degradation. These most significant mining areas were evaluated by multiple criteria,&#13;
including tendency to generate acid or liberate toxic metals, observed acidic pH or dead&#13;
vegetation (?kill zones?) below dumps or adits, potential mobility of metals, and&#13;
likelihood of transport into streams of the watershed. In the author?s opinion, no single&#13;
measurable parameter, such as metal concentration, is reliable for ranking significance or&#13;
feasibility of reclamation. Rather, subjective estimates are required to evaluate&#13;
combinations of, or interactions among, several parameters. The most subjective&#13;
estimate in ranking feasibility of reclamation is the amount of natural and mine-related&#13;
contamination at each mining area. Mitigation of natural contributions at mines or&#13;
unmined areas is beyond the scope of these Abandoned Mine Lands (AML)&#13;
investigations, but must be considered when planning reclamation. Available&#13;
information for the 25 problem sites is adequate for ranking, but at some sites additional&#13;
information on groundwater conditions is needed for a more reliable ranking and&#13;
evaluation of reclamation methods.</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.3133/ofr99170</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>U.S. Geological Survey</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Geochemical investigations and interim recommendations for priority abandoned mine sites on U.S.D.A. Forest Service lands, Mineral Creek watershed, San Juan County, Colorado</dc:title>
  <dc:type>reports</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>