# Reminder - Arkansas River dredge mining proposed near Numbers



## whip (Oct 23, 2003)

https://heartoftherockiesradio.com/arkansas-river-dredge-mining-proposed-near-numbers/?fbclid=IwAR18Pux1513Qm3_ZYRNj4JDdf_c2RYNWCqA-ZwT11y88u96yEAnhAgCQSLQ


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

My Comment


Ms. Titterington, 

I am writing to offer comments about the proposed mine on the Arkansas river. 

I chaired the AHRA CTF for 7 years back in the 90's, and have seen the effects of placer mining this stretch first hand. The use is incompatible with the values this area is managed for, in every way I can imagine. Destroying the landscape and running an operation such as this for short term resource extraction does not fit with the AHRA RMP, or any management plan for this area I'm aware of. Sedimentation of the river would also impact the fishery, and recreational users "experience" being it boating, hiking or other activity, and would likely impact the wildlife along this stretch as well. 

Please do NOT issue an exclusion for this use.


----------



## theusualsuspect (Apr 11, 2014)

Thank you, will submit this evening.


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

done.


----------



## whip (Oct 23, 2003)

keep those cards and e-mails a coming


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Hey, it's the mining industry. Isn't their environmental restoration record almost perfect? Well, I mean, if you consider their nearly perfect record based on a financial model of extracting the resources and then leaving the place a dump or leaving the soil and groundwater heavily contaminated. 

With suction dredge mining I see mainly a couple of things. The first is physical disturbance - the potential for sediment disturbance and greatly increasing suspended solids downstream, and also disturbance of the riverbed on a pretty large scale which would impact the benthic invertabrates that make up the bottom of the food chain and could impact habitat. There's also the question of what happens if they're moving boulders around in the main channel. The second potential problem I see related to how they plan to extract the gold from the other heavy fines (the dark stuff) after they spin it down in the centrifuge. Up in Alaska they like to use mercury for this step. They don't say anything about that - anyone know more about centrifuge separation?

If you go to the USFS website you can see some of the project documents. I didn't see all the multiple exhibits they reference (up through Exhibit G at least). Looking at the Plan of Operatons (POO) they are planning to suction dredge three 1,600 sq. foot areas (80'x20') in the main channel of the Ark to depths of 4' to 6' deep. They will have seasonal temporary 6' x 10' x 20' silt impoundments set up on the banks to settle out the water. I'd be interested in the settling pool residence time and how clear one could expect the water to be on exiting the pool.

The proposed mining will be done immediately upstream of the Numbers Launch Site. 

They say, "4 to 6 yards of material will be dredged per day. Dredge capacity is 5 yards per hour of sand-sized material." Anyone know the flow rate for that kind of operation?

There are maps showing the exact areas they plan to mine. The POO says they'll have silt and clay impoundments adjacent to the settling pools, and "The silt, sand, and clay behind the impoundment will be covered with the rock and cobbles and stabilized By the edge of the river bank, so they cannot migrate back into the river. The oversize rock and cobbles will be Placed [sic] in the dredge trench and covered with the discharge from the dredge." This sounds like they'll be leaving mounds of fine materials along the riverbank covered with gravel and possibly reseeded. 

They've got a good fuel and chemical storage plan with secondary containment in all phases including transportation in & out daily.

With regard to water quality, they say that "If required, water testing will be above the operation site, at the operation site, and below the operation site. They say that, "If required, multiple layers of silt fencing will be used on the silt fence impoundment to filter out as much of the silt and clay to meet water quality standards." I'd expect this will probably be limited to total suspended solids (TSS) testing as the likelihood of heavy metals mobilization doesn't seem too high with dredging (anyone know for sure?).

They also say, "All waders, wetsuits, and equipment will be washed to avoid the spread of aquatic invasive species." They also say they won't be working during high water, and "No dredging will occur from September 30 to April 1 to protect fish spawning habitat."

So that's the plan, a lot of it looks reasonable though it could be that they or their consultant took good notes talking to the USFS folks when they filled out the application and just wrote down what they were told to say. The operation will be relatively small. The drawings they submitted certainly indicate this is a mom & pop operation. The big question is how well they'll follow their plan and keep from making a mess. 

Thanks for posting this, Whip!

-AH


----------



## coachtuz (Jun 21, 2009)

Done and done. Thanks for the notice.


----------



## GOTY2011 (Mar 18, 2018)

Having just successfully passed suction dredge mining reform in WA state after five years, you're in for a fight, trust me. Our Governor just signed new rules that protects ESA-listed fish (you'll not have the luxury of that on your side, unfortunately) that went from worst to best in terms of when, how, and where dredge mining could be done. Get your local Trout Unlimited (TU) Chapter involved as they'll have our experience in the NW to create a plan of attack around. Be prepared for quite a lot of push-back from miners, who cite more than 100-year old laws to justify their hobby.


----------



## 2tomcat2 (May 27, 2012)

Also, done and done...please remember, our environment, perhaps more than ever, needs protection


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Here is Trout Unlimited's response. It is public record, so feel free to use parts of it in your own letter of opposition. It's pretty long.


Dear Ms. Titterington,

Please accept the following comments pertaining to the proposed mining operations on the Oro Vista #1, #2, and #3 (herein as Oro Vista Claim Block) 12 miles north of Buena Vista, CO.
As one of the leading cold-water conservation organizations, TU strives to protect, restore, reconnect, and sustain our nation’s waterways. Since TU was founded in 1959, on-the-ground restoration of streams, watersheds, and fisheries has been our hallmark. TU has been completing abandoned mine land (AML) project work across Colorado since the early 2000’s. Specifically, TU has completed over 30 reclamation projects across the State since 2012 that focus on water quality improvement, non-point source contamination reduction, and revegetation of degraded landscapes. Through this work, and other AML advocacy, TU is viewed as an industry expert in the mine reclamation field. We commonly work with USFS on various reclamation sites across the Region and are aware common steps necessary to properly reclaim and conduct mining operations. The comments and concerns below seek to gain clarification, knowledge, and intent of proposed operations on a Gold Medal listed river.

- _Section IV-C_ – Stated that 4-6 yards (cubic yards?) will be dredged per day and dredge capacity is 5 yards per hour of sand-sized material. Which is going to happen on site, because 5 yards per hour over the course of an 8 hour work day is approximately 35 yards more than 5 yards per day. This needs to be clarified. Additional clarification should be also added to the location, area and direction of the intended dredging.

- _Section IV-C_ – Assuming 5 yards per day over 216 proposed work days equals 1,080 yards of material. This is a lot of material to be removed from the 1,600 SF maximum site disturbance footprint.
- Is this excavated material all going back into the dredge trench?
- Is that material going to be placed below the high water mark (HWM)?
- If so, more detail is needed on how material will be compacted and reclaimed other than
placing 4” rock/gravel on top. Unconsolidated material placed below the HWM will be mobilized by high flows downstream. This will create an over-widened section of river that will have the potential to cause immediate up, and downstream degradation of channel habitat.
 How is 4” rock being generated for placement? Will there be a grizzly on site to ensure proper gradation?
- Is this 1,080 yards of material specified in the Army Corp of Engineers permit? If not, it needs to be, and a detailed plan of reclamation needs to follow.
 In regards to appropriate permitting, the applicant intends to commence operations on April 1st, 2020. This timeline will not allow for appropriate permit application, review or corrections; thus the timeline of operations should be adjusted to accommodate appropriate permit review.

- _Section IV-C_ – If they are not already clearly identified, drill hole locations should be clearly mapped and identified to be within, or outside of, the riparian zone. Areas of drill hole disturbance should be included in the site reclamation plan and appropriately revegetated and restored.

- _Section IV-C_ – Locations, number and flow rate of water pumps should be clearly identified in this application. Protective screens and/or additional protective measures should also be identified in this plan of operations. Finally, the applicants indicate that watercraft will be able to pass by the site but make no mention of fish passage as required by “Guidelines For Operating Equipment Within A Stream Channel On The PSICC”. This applicant should provide additional information on how operations will protect the existing environment and fish populations in this valuable fishery.

- _Section IV-C_ – “Any dry-land disturbance will be reclaimed and reseeded with FS approved seed mixture. Reclamation will occur at end of each mining season.” In addition to seed, erosion control blankets, wattles, and/or combination of wood straw should be placed in addition to seed. Seed will do nothing for revegetation without other amendments.
- This emphasizes the need for more detailed operations and reclamation plans for this operation. Typically, mine applicants also consult their local NRCS office staff in order to affirm the appropriateness of their seed mix selection.

- _Section IV-C_ –Applicant should supply additional information on the operational timeline for this site. Typically, operational timelines include dates, seasonal timelines, approximate length of time for development of each aspect of the project and specific reclamation timelines per phase of project. This applicant has not appropriately supplied this information and should clarify the timeline of operations.

- _Section IV-E_ -This application does not appropriately provide “engineering design and geotechnical information for project facilities, justification and calculations for sizing of tanks, pipelines and water diversions” as required by the application. Information on these structures should be included in this application to provide the appropriate level of detail for this application.
- TU has worked in collaboration with various non-profits and municipalities to reclaim historic dredge mines. Due to the nature of how target metals are extracted in dredge operations, surface water interactions with the hyporheic zone and groundwater aquifers becomes highly altered, the impacts to natural hydrology cannot be understated. Moreover, destabilizing large amounts of stream channel substrates often brings non-target impacts to downstream reaches, ultimately creating future issues for consumptive users, aquatic organisms (i.e., fish and macroinvertebrates), and recreational users to name a few.
- Due to the complex nature of stream sediment matrixes, remedial action to recover hydrologic processes if often costly and rarely attains pre-disturbance conditions.

- _Section V-A_ – Additional information should be included to describe the dust suppression/mitigation plan for this site. Typically, applicants provide information on frequency and timing of truck traffic, number and type of trucks travelling to and from the site and how recreational and residential use of the area will be respected.

- _Section V-B_ –Applicant states that they do not currently have knowledge of State and Federal water quality standards that are applicable to this site. These standards are publicly available and applicants working in stream or riparian environments should have awareness and knowledge of the standards they will be held to during operation. If the applicant is unaware of State and Federal standards, they should consult with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment tounderstand these standards and to determine the appropriateness of a site-specific discharge
permit.

- _Section V-B_ – What measures will ensure a wash-out does not occur of impoundment during
summer thunderstorms?
- State WQ standards for sediment can be stringent. Who will be testing downstream water
quality to ensure operation is meeting standards? At what frequency will this testing take place and who will review the data gathered? What is the recourse if standards are exceeded?

- _Section V-B-5-1_ – Applicant should indicate the volume and rate of river water to be used for washing. Before discharge from dredge to river, applicant must ensure water quality is not degraded. Typically, mine applicants include a sediment management and flow management plan along with their application to ensure they will not be impacting the hydrologic balance at their operational site. The plan of operations included in this application is incomplete and the current outlined plan includes a high potential for degraded water to re-enter the system and/or sediment release through poor sediment management.

- _Section V-B-5-2_ – Silt, sand and clay being covered with cobble is not an effective way of stabilizing fine-grained sediment. If high flows come into contact with that material, it will just be mobilized back into the river, further creating instability with overlying cobble. This material needs to be properly revegetated. Typically, mine applicants will provide a systematic reclamation plan for all disturbed areas. A thorough reclamation plan is missing from this application and must be included in this application.

-_ Section V-B-5-3_ – Applicant should consult with the Colorado Department of Health and Environment regarding the appropriateness of their sampling plan and to ensure the applicant is properly testing for required analytes. Given the applicants lack of knowledge of appropriate State and Federal water quality standards indicated in the beginning of Section V-B, the applicant appears to need additional information on appropriate water quality metrics and sampling techniques. The applicant’s suggestion to utilize multiple layers of silt fence to mitigate sediment loading is an incomplete solution as it does not indicate how this silt fence will be safely removed to present extensive sediment release, nor does it indicate how appropriate safety measures will be installed to ensure the sediment catchment system will not be overwhelmed and potentially damage downstream water users and the environment. Typically, applicants develop a complete sediment management plan and an extensive reclamation plan to address these concerns; this application lacks both of these plans.

- _Section V-B-5-A_ small settling pond or small plastic pool to catch sediment? This should be an engineered pond as the operations are on a major water of the US. More detail and emphasis needs to be placed on this aspect of the project!
- Again, typically new mine applications will include a detailed map and plan for sediment retention ponds. These plans include dimensions, grade, flow calculations for incoming and outgoing surface and (when applicable) groundwater flows, settling time, and safety measures. This incomplete application does not include any of these crucial plan details.

- _Section V-B-5_-All permits from Army Corp of Engineers should be made available for public review. Again, the timeline for operations do not appear to take into account the necessary time to develop a complete permit. If operations commence on April 1st, 2020, it is very unlikely the Army Corps of Engineers will have adequate time to review this pending application.

- _Section V-C_-This description of management of solid wastes on site is incomplete. Applicant has not adequately addressed the frequency of maintenance on the portable toilet, its location relative to the river and riparian area or stormwater controls to protect water quality.
- Mining operations are specified to take place 216 days per year. In Section V-E it is specified that no dredging will occur from Sept 30 through April 1st. It is also specified earlier that operations will take place after runoff. Runoff subsides typically in mid-July leaving substantially less than 216 available days to conduct mining operations. This should be revised to be more realistic given site location and restrictions of spawning and high water.

- _Section V-E_ also does not describe fish passage measures as required by the PSICC, nor does it describe screen protections on pumping equipment to protect fish.

- _Section V-G-1_-Applicant does not adequately list the hazardous materials that will be utilized on site or how each will be stored. If oil and gas are the only potentially hazardous materials on site that should be clarified. If they are not, the applicant needs to provide significantly more information on their chemical management plan. How will the public be kept safe in this high- recreation use area? Will appropriate signage be utilized on site per chemical? What is the disposal plan? Typically, mine applicants intending to utilize hazardous wastes on site must have an approved chemical management plan designed to protect workers, the public and the environment; this incomplete application does not include this vital information.

- _Section V-G-3_- Applicant’s plan for notification is incomplete. Which agencies will be notified? In which order? Who are the contacts at those agencies? Who is responsible for those calls on site?
- Applicant also mentions that potentially contaminated dirt will be “removed from the site”. Who will determine if that soil is contaminated? How will they do that? How frequently will they review site conditions? How will that contaminated material be managed? This incomplete application does not include any of these standard environmental protection measures.

- _Section V-H_-The reclamation plan supplied by the applicant is completely inadequate. Reclamation in this a valuable Gold metal fishery and popular recreation area should be held to the highest standards in our State. This reclamation plan lacks basic components like a map, timeline, grading and revegetation plan, stormwater and weed control plan and monitoring plan. Without these basic components this reclamation plan is woefully incomplete and does not adequately protect land users, managing agencies, recreational or residential users or the environment.
- What is the amount of the reclamation bond? This should be provided so it can be verified it is enough to complete reclamation. Given the lack of information in the Reclamation section of the application, there is concern enough bonding is currently being requested.
- The Oro Vista Claim Block sets a dangerous precedent if lack of forethought by the claimants concerning BMPs are not vetted throughout this public comment period.

Best Regards,

Jason Willis
Trout Unlimited CO AML Program Manager


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Here is a link to American Whitewater's form letter opposing the mining operation:

https://secure.everyaction.com/hYuX...HqRv7Ev9h_0V8X5UA2ELH0VIZRtvdgR_i_Pj2FTzmz3m4


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

sent my email opposing the dredge operation this afternoon.

The ARK is a special place and the Numbers deserves special protection for future boaters.


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

I got an email from USFS today that the proposal has been withdrawn, the project as described is dead. Unclear whether our letters did the job, the initiators found it unfeasible, etc but nevertheless, its dead for now. A win.


----------



## 2tomcat2 (May 27, 2012)

Thanks for sharing this!


----------

