Since 1991, RCS has opposed sand mining proposals for the Rivanna, citing inevitable increases in sedimentation, habitat loss, and other damage to aquatic environments and important scenic and recreational resources. These documents are provided as additional reading material to the Winter 2004 Rivanna Currents newsletter article titled, "RCS Subpoenaed in Rose v. Fluvanna County Sand Mine Suit" by Angus Murdoch.
RCS POSITION ON PROPOSED IN-STREAM SAND MINING FROM THE RIVANNA RIVER
RCS is against in-stream mining of sand and gravel from the Rivanna River or other Central Virginia waterways. We understand the need for local sources of these ubiquitous bulk commodities, but we believe that these materials can be readily obtained from by mining properly buffered floodplains or other land-based deposits without the risks to sensitive river environments which inevitably result from in-stream mining operations. At the very least, the burden of proof should be on the owners and operators of any proposed in-stream mine to carry out site-specific physical and biological surveys and long term monitoring to assess potential environmental impacts and ensure that inevitable disturbance is minimized. We believe that this burden of proof requirement was the clear intention of the 1991 Fluvanna Supervisors' Resolution to regulate in-stream mining, and we urge the present Board to uphold this interpretation.
A 1991 survey by a UVA stream ecologist Rick Webb of a similar in-stream sand mine in Albemarle concluded that mine operations would lead to "increasing turbidity...thereby reducing visibility and feeding opportunities for aquatic fauna," smothering gravel bars downstream and "impairing the reproductive success of egg-laying fish." Mr. Webb warned that, "Negative effects on the benthic habitat cannot be avoided when dredging".
A 2002 position paper issued by the North Carolina Chapter of the American Fisheries Society (AFS) * notes that "Excavation in the active channel lowers the streambed...steepens channel slope and increases (water) velocity" leading to increased sedimentation and "headcutting...ultimately resulting in bed degradation downstream." These physical disturbances can damage aquatic organisms with:
...higher stream temperatures, reduced dissolved oxygen, lowered water table, decreased wetted periods in riparian wetlands, and degraded riparian habitat. Both fish and aquatic invertebrate abundance may be significantly diminished by direct damage...reduction in spawning success, reduction in food availability, and clogging and damage of gills.
AFS points out that "the process of in-stream mining produces fine sediments under all flow conditions" resulting in "a deposition of fine sediment in riffles" during low-flow periods when such high quality habitats are most vulnerable. The Society stresses that, "Excess sediment is considered the greatest pollutant in U.S. waters and constitutes one of the major environmental factors in the degradation of stream fisheries." Where, as in the case of the Rivanna, "excess sediment is (already) a result of poor watershed and riparian land use"** , in-stream mining will tend towards "further exacerbating the situation by additional disturbance." In-Stream sand and gravel mining has been banned throughout much of Western Europe and several US states and Canadian provinces.
RCS encourages the Board of Supervisors to reject sand mining on the Rivanna River in Fluvanna County. Even if the proposed mine does not produce local or basin-wide environmental impacts on the same scale as basin-wide municipal water supply policies, local subdivision zoning, the proposed Tenaska discharge into Cunningham Creek, or even dramatic "non-point-source" accidents such as the 2001 Scott Stadium pesticide spill, it is, nevertheless, obvious that dredging will create a significant local disturbance to the riparian ecosystem and present an eyesore in the midst of one of Fluvanna's highest concentration of historic lock, mill, aqueduct, and canal ruins which, along with their unspoiled natural settings, are among Fluvanna's most attractive draws to locals and tourists alike.
*see http://www.sdafs.org/ncafs/Newsletters/March2002/InstreamMiningPosition.doc for full text and references
**(historically forest clearing and poor soil conservation practices on farms, now primarily related to urban and suburban development and increasing areas of impervious surfaces)
COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VIRGINIA MINE RESOURCES COMMISSION
August 27, 1991
RE: Permit Application 190-1904
Prepared by Rick Webb
Post Office Box 113
Keswick, Virginia 22947
I have been contacted by the Rivanna Conservation Society to review the above-cited application by S. L. Williamson for a permit to dredge sand and gravel from the streambed of the Rivanna River in Albemarle County. I have specifically been asked to address: (1) the potential for deleterious environmental effects related to the dredging operation; and (2) the adequacy of a proposed study of environmental effects related to the dredging operation. My qualification to address these topics is based on an academic and professional background (summary attached) in environmental sciences with an emphasis on freshwater ecosystems. I have also personally observed this and other dredging operations on multiple canoeing and fishing trips on the Rivanna River.
Because the Rivanna Conservation Society was only recently advised concerning the permit hearing and the proposed environmental study, this review has been prepared on very short notice. A more reasonable period of time would allow for consultation with additional fisheries and environmental protection professionals and development of a more comprehensive review. In particular, more time would allow development of a more-detailed recommendation concerning the scope of environmental study needed in conjunction with stream dredging.
My brief review of the permit application for the proposed operation addresses separate topics of on-site impacts, off-site impacts, the proposed study, and study needs. Photographs of the operation site and nearby locations on the Rivanna River were obtained during a reconnaissance trip on Thursday, August 22, 1991. These are provided in order to illustrate points made in this review.
1. On-Site Impacts.
In my view the occurrence of direct on-site ecological impacts as a consequence of streambed dredging is uncontestable. In an operation such as the one at issue two specific habitat components are severely degraded by the act of dredging. These habitat components are: (1) the benthic sediments; and (2) the near-shore accumulation of woody debris and organic matter.
Negative effects on the benthic habitat cannot be avoided when dredging. The periodic removal and destabilization of the benthic sediments is equivalent to periodic destruction and continuing disruption of the benthic invertebrate community. At a minimum, a 1600 feet long operation such as the proposed operation will result is severe degradation or effective elimination of 1600 feet of benthic habitat.
Additional habitat loss occurs with the removal of fallen trees, brush, and other organic matter from the river and shoreline adjacent the dredging operation. Such materials provide cover for fish and substrate for invertebrate fauna. The presence of such material assumes particular biological importance in locations such as that of the proposed operation where the river bed is primarily sand rather than typically more productive substrates of gravel or cobbles. In the application for the proposed operation it is indicated that such material will be removed. In fact, this material has already been removed at the site of the proposed operation. Please refer to the photographs (Nos. 1-3) showing the present shoreline at the proposed operation site. In addition to removal of the woody debris, the shoreline has been altered by construction of a road or dredging platform along the shoreline. For reference compare the photographs of the denuded shoreline at the dredging site with the photographs (Nos. 4 and 7) showing the accumulation of large woody material along the shoreline at other typical less-disturbed sections of the river.
2. Off Site Impacts.
Potential off-site effects on aquatic habitat associated with the proposed operation include destabilization of streambed sediments upstream from the site and increased deposition and transport of sediments downstream from the site.
The most obvious potential for upstream impacts is related to the change in streambed gradient due to dredging. Depending on the composition of the particular material and the presence or absence of bedrock control, the streambed sediments upstream of a dredging site will shift to fill in the downstream depression caused by the dredging. At the site of the proposed operation, the streambed is composed primarily of sand and gravel to a distance of 500-1000 feet above the dredging area. At this distance (see photograph No. 5) there is a riffle area associated with a bedrock outcrop. Impairment of the benthic habitat as a consequence of streambed destabilization can be expected to occur to at least this distance, and possibly further, upstream from the dredging site.
The most obvious potential for downstream impacts is related to the suspension and transport of fine sediments and the associated sedimentation of the streambed below the dredging site. Streambed dredging, such as that at the proposed site, directly and unavoidably stirs-up fine sediment. I have personally observed muddy water extending downstream below this and other dredging on the Rivanna River on days when the water was relatively clear above the dredging sites.
The suspension of fine sediments due to dredging adversely affects aquatic habitat by increasing turbidity in the water column and thereby reducing visibility and feeding opportunities for aquatic fauna. Deposition of these fine sediments below the dredging site effectively smothers the streambed eliminating interstitial habitat for benthic fauna and impairing the reproductive success of egg-laying fish. Although sediment deposition is a natural process in a river system the suspension of fine sediment associated with dredging typically occurs under different flow regimes than that of original deposition. The result is that sediment can be redeposited in sections of the river that otherwise would not be subject to sedimentation. These effects may be particularly significant for a river such as the Rivanna that is already subject to significant sediment pollution. Based on several years of almost-daily observation, it is apparent that the Rivanna River above the proposed dredging site becomes muddy following most rainfall events. This is evidently due to soil conditions and development-related earth disturbance in the watershed. As a consequence of this background problem, the Rivanna River has relatively fewer days of low turbidity than other less-impaired rivers. The periods of clear water evidently occur only at lower flow levels. Because the dredging is commonly conducted during these lower flows, the dredging has the effect of exacerbating the existing turbidity problem by reducing the river's already limited periods of low turbidity.
3. Adequacy of Proposed Study.
In my view the proposed study is too limited in scope or level of detail to fully identify the actual ecological effects of the proposed operation. Moreover, the results of this limited study may incorrectly indicate that no ecological effects are occurring. The problem with the proposed study can be reduced to that of inappropriate application of Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP).
The application of RBP, as indicated in RAPID BIOASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS FOR USE IN STREAMS AND RIVERS (EPA/444/4-89-001, May i989)-requires careful consideration of an implementation framework. Development of this framework is required for comparison of habitat and biological measures with empirically defined reference conditions. Reference conditions must be established through systematic monitoring of actual sites that represent the natural range in variation in "least disturbed" water chemistry, habitat, and biological conditions. Emphasis is placed on the development of a reference database 'and the selection of representative reference sites. Although the proposed study will make use of multiple (six) sampling sites, it is probable that sampling conducted at these sites will not provide a clear indication of either reference (before) or post-operation (after) conditions. This is due to the already impaired state of the habitat and due to the problem of selecting useful sampling locations relative to the proposed operation.
Biological conditions at the site of the proposed operation have, or may have, been impaired by several factors. The most notable is the 25-year history of dredging that has already occurred at the site. While this operation may not have been active during much of the previous year, it should not be assumed that biological conditions have returned to an unimpaired state. This is unlikely given the lack of woody debris and organic matter deposits along the shoreline adjacent the dredging operation.
An additional factor that suggests that the site of the proposed operation may represent a biologically impaired condition is the high sediment load (discussed above) associated with the river. It should also be noted that the sewage treatment facility for the City of Charlottesville discharges upstream only a few miles above the site. This discharge could be associated with organic enrichment and consequent alteration of the benthic faunal community.
The principal problem with sample site selection is the lack of representative reference or control sites. The study proposal indicates that aquatic invertebrate samples will be obtained with kick-net seines and by coarse organic particulate matter collection at riffle sites upstream, on-site, and downstream of the proposed dredging site. The selection of riffle sites for sampling is preferred under the RBP approach because riffle areas with relatively fast current and a cobble and gravel substrate provide the most diverse benthic community. Alternately, non-riffle areas with cobble or gravel substrate are also appropriate for sampling in streams lacking riffles. Finally, if a rock substrate is not available for sampling, the RBP approach calls for sampling of submerged fixed structures (boulders, logs, etc.) by hand picking.
The study proposal indicates that riffle areas will be sampled at six sampling stations. These stations are to be located approximately 200 m upstream of the proposed site, immediately upstream of the proposed site, within the dredging site, within 20-50 m downstream of the dredging site and 100-1000 m downstream of the dredging site. While this would generally represent a sound design, this sampling scheme will not be possible given the channel and streambed characteristics at the proposed dredging operation.
It should be noted first that the dredging site is not a riffle site and that the substrate at the site is primarily sand. A sand substrate is not recommended for kick-seine sampling under the RBP approach. Moreover the lack of submerged fixed structures adjacent the dredging operation imposes limitations on alternate sampling techniques. It is not clear how riffle samples obtained above and below the site can be usefully compared with samples obtained from the sandy substrate at the sits. Moreover, it is not clear that comparisons between samples obtained at the available upstream riffle site and the downstream riffle site will provide useful information concerning the biological effects of the operation.
It should also be noted that the closest available riffle site (see photographs Nos. 6-8) for sampling below the operation is approximately one-mile (1600 m) downstream. The long pool between this riffle and the dredging site (see photograph No. 8) should essentially serve as a sediment trap and thereby concentrate the greatest downstream impact above the monitoring location. In other words, the critical monitoring site below the operation may be relatively unaffected by the operation when compared with the pool located adjacent to and immediately below the site.
In addition to the above problems, issue should also be taken with the proposed sampling schedule. First, the sampling schedule cannot be met because the first sampling is scheduled to take place before any vegetation removal, earthmoving, shoreline alterations, or instream work is initiated. Because this is a pre-existing site, all of these things have already occurred. Second, scheduling of sample timing should involve consideration of background-turbidity levels and timing of the river dredging. Comparison of turbidity levels under high versus low flow conditions, for example, will be not be useful for determining effects of the dredging. Moreover, the turbidity associated with the dredging will be quite different during active dredging periods than during inactive periods.
Finally, to summarize my findings concerning the adequacy of the proposed study--in the absence of a well-developed implementation framework involving either an applicable reference data base or appropriate reference sites, it is not clear that sufficient data, nor appropriate criteria, will be available to allow reliable assessment of dredging impacts on the aquatic habitat.
4. Scope of Needed Study.
In my view a comprehensive environmental impact study should be prepared prior to the issuance of this or additional permits for sand and gravel dredging from upland rivers and streams in Virginia. In the absence of an appropriate implementation framework, or adequate reference database, quantitative assessments of potential impacts associated with individual dredging operations cannot be obtained and individual permitting decisions cannot be defended based on quantitative criteria. The same lack of quantitative analysis would also apply to economic considerations associated with permitting decisions. A comprehensive study addressing both the environmental and economic issues associated with sand and gravel dredging would place the Virginia Marine Resources Commission in a position to make informed permitting decisions.
5. Conclusion and Recommendation
The degradation of aquatic habitat is an unavoidable consequence of sand and gravel dredging in upland rivers. Given the inevitability of ecosystem degradation, there is little justification for permitting this type of activity. Authorization of dredging activity is clearly inconsistent with Virginia's water control policy that requires protection of existing high quality waters and restoration of other waters to a condition that will support the propagation and growth of, aquatic life that may reasonably be expected to inhabit them.
I recommend that this permit be denied.
If it is deemed that additional environmental studies would be useful, I recommend that more comprehensive and detailed studies be conducted that conform with the implementation framework required for the use of established Rapid Bioassessment Protocols. Studies of a less rigorous design are likely to provide inconclusive or misleading results.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
James R. Webb August 26, 1991
ACADEMIC:
Davis and Elkins college, Elkins, West Virginia, 1981-1983 Bachelor of Science: Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1983-1988 Master of Science: Environmental Sciences
PROFESSIONAL:
1988, To Present
Research Scientist, Department of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
- This position involves management of research and monitoring programs that address effect of acidic deposition and other environmental factors on mountain watersheds and streams in western. Virginia.
1983,
Hydrologic Technician
Monongahelia National Forest, Elkins, West Virginia.
- This position involved routine collection of water quality data and development of plans for monitoring sedimentation impacts associated with timber harvest operations.
1982-1983
Consultant, "Stream Life Unit" Program
Randolph County Schools, Elkins, West Virginia.
- This position involved the development and implementation of an ecological science curriculum.
1979-1982
Member, Water Quality Advisory Committee
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, West Virginia.
- This position involved participation in the development and review of non-point-source pollution control programs.
1978-1982
Project Director
West Virginia Mountain Stream Monitors, Inc., Elkins, West Virginia.
- This position involved development of a water-quality surveillance program designed to address water pollution problems in West Virginia.
North Carolina Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Position Paper on Instream Sand and Gravel Mining Activities in North Carolina
6 February 2002
A. Issue Definition
The two major forms of sand and gravel mining are instream dredging of a streambed and land surface mining, which includes floodplain excavations. Instream mining operations remove accumulated sand and gravel directly from stream channels in increasingly larger quantities in the U.S. (EPA 1995), primarily for construction and industrial uses. Instream mining is prohibited in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland and is restricted in select rivers in Italy, Portugal, and New Zealand (Kondolf 1997). In addition, instream mining is not allowed in Saskatchewan or most of Canada (Starnes and Gasper 1996). Sand and gravel are mined commercially in every state in the U.S.; however, due to numerous research studies that have demonstrated long lasting environmental effects from instream mining, many states have imposed strict regulations on instream mining, and some no longer allow it (Roell 1999). Some of the more detrimental effects of instream mining include channel degradation and erosion, headcutting, increased turbidity, stream bank erosion, and sedimentation of riffle areas. All of these changes can adversely affect fish and other aquatic organisms, either directly by damage to the organisms or through habitat degradation, or indirectly through disruption of the food web. Further, effects on stream geomorphology (e.g., channel incision) can result in infrastructure damage such as undermining bridge piers and exposure of buried pipeline crossings and water supply intakes (Kondolf 1997). Each mining operation not only exerts an individual effect on the stream, but effects of multiple mining operations within a river system may be cumulative. Therefore, individual extraction operations should be evaluated in the context of their spatial and temporal cumulative impacts.
B. Background
Sand and gravel are used to produce concrete, asphalt, and bricks, which are essential building materials for residential, commercial, and industrial buildings, and in most public work projects such as roads and bridges. Even though sand and gravel mining is a common practice, the industry may be the least regulated of any form of mining (Starnes and Gasper 1996). Demand for sand and gravel for construction continues to increase in the U.S. Construction sand and gravel output increased 5.4% in 2000 and was projected to increase by an additional 2.6% in 2001, and domestic sales of industrial sand and gravel increased 2% in 2000 (USGS 2001). Approximately 10-20% of the sand and gravel mined in the U.S. in 1974 was dredged from streams (Newport and Moyer 1974). North Carolina was ranked seventh in total production (method of removal not specified) of industrial sand and gravel in 1998, producing 10,900,000 metric tons valued at $58,000,000 (USGS 1999). In 1999, the total number of permitted mines in North Carolina was 854. Six-hundred-and-two (70%) of the permits were for mining sand and gravel, and 53 (8.8% of the 70%) were instream mines. There were another nine new permits issued for instream mines in 2000 (totaling 62 permitted instream mines), and six additional permits have been applied for as of July 2001. Nine permitted instream mining operations are in the Mountain region and 53 are located in the Piedmont. Mining permits are typically effective for 10 years, at which time the applicant has the option to apply for a renewal permit. Mining operations that affect less than 1 acre of upland area (instream area is not taken into account) are not regulated; therefore, the number of actual instream mining operations is underestimated.
Draglines and hydraulic dredges are the two main types of equipment permitted to mine sand and gravel from North Carolina streams. Mining operations typically remove sand and gravel from a section of river extending to 2,500 linear feet. Processing usually includes grading and screening the sand and gravel in wash water and stockpiling the aggregate along the riverbank for subsequent transport. Wash water is discharged into settling pits before being released back into the river. After removal of alluvial materials, the river bottom may be as much as 8 feet deeper than adjacent upstream and downstream areas. Many of the streams with permitted mines contain federal or state endangered, threatened, special concern, significantly rare, or other sensitive aquatic species.
C. Impacts on Aquatic and Riparian Environments
Stream Geomorphology
Removal of alluvial materials by instream sand and gravel mining disrupts the balance between sediment supply and transport capacity, typically inducing incision upstream and downstream of the extraction site (Kondolf 1997). The alteration of geomorphic structure may occur due to increased velocity and decreased sediment load associated with mined areas. Excavation in the active channel lowers the streambed, creating a nick point that steepens channel slope and increases velocity (Kondolf 1997). The nick point migrates upstream due to increased water speed, i.e., headcutting. The deposition of sediments at the mine site creates a sediment-deficient flow leaving the site, this in turn results in the water picking up more sediment from the stream reach below the mine site; ultimately resulting in bed degradation downstream. Both processes can move long distances (as much as 7 river miles) and headcutting can additionally move into tributaries (Kondolf 1997). Channel incision can also cause lateral instability by increasing stream bank heights, resulting in bank failure and additional transport of sediments downstream.
Aquatic and Riparian Habitat
Effects directly related to extraction and to changes in geomorphology include increased sedimentation, turbidity, and bankfull widths (Rosgen 1996), higher stream temperatures, reduced dissolved oxygen, lowered water table, decreased wetted periods in riparian wetlands, and degraded riparian habitat (see reviews by Nelson 1993; NMFS 1996; Meador and Layher 1998; Bork 1999; Roell 1999; and original research by Kanehl and Lyons 1992; Brown et al. 1998; and references therein). Channel geomorphology changes, such as a wider and shallower streambed (Kanehl and Lyons 1992; Brown et al. 1998) may consequently result in increased stream temperature (Kondolf 1997). Although studies have shown differing results, chemical changes such as reduced dissolved oxygen and changes in pH levels have been reported downstream of instream mining areas (Nelson 1993; Meador and Layher 1998). Loss of riparian habitat may result from direct removal of vegetation along the stream bank to facilitate the use of a dragline or through the process of lowering the water table, bank undercutting, and channel incision (Kondolf 1997; Brown et al. 1998). The physical composition and stability of substrates are altered as a result of instream mining, and most of these physical effects may exacerbate sediment entrainment in the channel. Furthermore, the process of instream mining and gravel washing produces fine sediments under all flow conditions, resulting in a deposition of fine sediment in riffles as well as other habitats at low discharge (Nelson 1993). Excess sediment is considered the greatest pollutant in U.S. waters and constitutes one of the major environmental factors in the degradation of stream fisheries (Waters 1995). Much of the excess sediment is a result of poor watershed and riparian land use. However, instream mining may contribute additional sediment to downstream reaches due to the disruption of substrate stability. Once sediment enters the stream, it is best to let natural geomorphological and hydrological processes reach a dynamic equilibrium, rather than further exacerbating the situation by additional disturbance.
Aquatic Organisms
The distribution of stream biota is strongly related to physical habitat (Brown et al. 1998); therefore, fundamental changes in the total biotic community are to be expected when the physical structure of the stream is altered. Suspended sediments can limit primary production by reducing light penetration (Nelson 1993; Waters 1995), which, in turn, will affect the aquatic food chain and limit production at higher trophic levels. Both fish and aquatic invertebrate abundance may be significantly diminished by direct damage, removal of the substrate, degradation of habitat, riparian habitat removal, reduction in spawning success, reduction in food availability, and clogging and damage of gills (see reviews by Nelson 1993; NMFS 1996; Meador and Layher 1998; Bork 1999; Roell 1999; and original research by Kanehl and Lyons 1992; Brown et al. 1998; Lake and Hinch 1999; and references therein). Brown et al. (1998) found significant reductions in invertebrate densities and biomass and significantly lower biomass of most fishes as a result of instream gravel mining in Ozark streams. In addition, Hartfield (1993) found severe effects on the mussel fauna in Mississippi streams due to headcutting that resulted from instream mining. Increases in suspended sediment can disrupt respiration and modify behavior in aquatic invertebrates and fishes, reduce fish tolerance to disease and toxicants, increase physiological stress in fish, and smother fish eggs (Waters 1995).
In addition to the effects of mining activities at the site of extraction, physical and biotic effects can extend far upstream and downstream (Brown et al. 1998). All of these adverse impacts can result in shifts in species composition, decrease in species diversity and abundance, and a loss of sensitive species and ecosystem integrity. The effects of sand and gravel extraction on stream ecosystem recovery time can be extensive. Kanehl and Lyons (1992) found conditions in some stream reaches in Wisconsin to remain in early stages of recovery 20 years after mining had stopped, and other reaches were in worse condition after 10 years. Further, total restoration of severely affected streams has been considered to be improbable (Brown et al. 1998).
D. Needed Actions
Minimization or mitigation of the effects of instream mining is problematic, if not unlikely, because physical structure is the very foundation upon which stream communities are assembled (Brown et al. 1998). Gravel replenishment has been used as a technique to mitigate the reduction of sediment load below dams (Kondolf 1997), but has not been considered to be a viable option for instream mining sites because of the difficulty in distributing the aggregate naturally and completely throughout the basin prior to the next high water event (Brown et al. 1998). Even when results have been successful below dams, effects are short termed and require continual replenishment efforts (Kondolf 1997). In addition, strategies to minimize impacts are often not effective. The State of California permits extraction of a specified depth below the channel bed or only down to the thalweg. However, a limit in actual elevation was not stated, and therefore, the extraction limits have migrated vertically downward as the channel incises (Kondolf 1997). Another approach that has been examined is to estimate the annual bedload to determine the "safe sustainable yield". However, there are complications with this approach as well, due to the variability in bedload transport from year to year. Alternatively, if extraction rates were instead based on the amount of new deposition per year, the channel may remain negatively affected because mining at the replenishment rate is expected to produce sediment-deficient flow conditions downstream, since the upstream area is the sediment source for downstream reaches (Kondolf 1997).
Implementation of rock gabions may halt headcutting (Kanehl and Lyons 1992), however this and other types of "hard" engineering can impede fish movement (Waters 1995) and ultimately do more harm than good. Measures such as installing rock vanes and rootwads and revegetating stream banks may be used to enhance habitat and stabilize stream banks once mining has completely ceased, and may provide a level of restoration. However, even with mitigative practices, instream excavation causes extreme damage (Waters 1995).
Recommended Guidelines
In circumstances that may warrant instream mining for construction or industrial purposes on a case-by-case basis, we offer the following recommendations.
E. Position
Due to the numerous credible studies demonstrating environmental degradation that results from instream mining, it is quite probable that the existing operations in North Carolina streams and rivers have adversely affected fisheries and aquatic communities in those systems, and particularly those species that are already rare or endangered, due to the elimination of suitable habitats and reduction in quantity and quality of food resources.
It is therefore the position of the North Carolina Chapter of the American Fisheries Society:
Literature cited:
Bork, K. 1999. Floodplain and instream mining: a TU primer. Trout Unlimited, Arlington, Virginia.
Brown, A.V., M.M. Lyttle, and K.B. Brown. 1998. Impacts of gravel mining on gravel bed streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:979-994.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. Sector notebook project: profile of the non-fuel, non-metal mining industry. EPA, Office of Compliance, Washington, D.C.
Hartfield, P. 1993. Headcuts and their effect on freshwater mussels. Pages 131-141 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Kock, eds. Conservation and management of freshwater mussels. Proceedings of an Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee (UMRCC) symposium, 12-14 October 1992, St. Louis, Missouri, UMRCC, Rock Island, Illinois.
Kanehl, P., and J. Lyons. 1992. Impacts of in-stream sand and gravel mining on stream habitat and fish communities, including a survey on the Big Rib River, Marathon County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Research Report 155, Madison.
Kondolf, G.M. 1997. Hungry water: effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels. Environmental Management 21:533-551.
Lake, R.G., and S.G. Hinch. 1999. Acute effects of suspended sediment angularity on juvenile coho salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:862-867.
Meador, M.R., and A.O. Layher. 1998. Instream sand and gravel mining: environmental issues and regulatory process in the United States. Fisheries 23(11):6-13.
NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). A guide to surface freshwater classifications in North Carolina. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swcfaq.html.
Nelson, K.L. 1993. Instream sand and gravel mining. Pages 189-196 in C.F. Bryan and D.A. Rutherford, eds. Impacts on warmwater streams: guidelines for evaluation. Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Newport, B.D., and J.E. Moyer. 1974. State-of-the-art: sand and gravel industry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-660/2-74-066, Washington, D.C.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 1996. NMFS National Gravel Extraction Policy. NMFS Southwest Region, Habitat Conservation Division, Long Beach, California.
Roell, M.J. 1999. Sand and gravel mining in Missouri stream systems: aquatic resource effects and management alternatives. Executive Summary. Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Starnes, L.B., and D.C. Gasper. 1996. Effects of surface mining on aquatic resources in North America. Fisheries 21(5):24-26.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2001. Mineral Commodity Summaries. USGS, Geologic Division, Reston, Virginia.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1999. Minerals yearbook. USGS, Geologic Division, Reston, Virginia.
Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, Bethesda, Maryland.
Glossary
Alluvial - Related to material deposited by running water.
Channel - A natural or artificial waterway that periodically or continuously contains moving water, has a definite bed, and has banks that serve to confine water at low to moderate stream flows.
Channel Incision - A result of down-cutting into the substrate.
Dragline - Equipment used to excavate and remove bottom materials from a water body. The materials are removed with a bucket that is pulled toward the piece of equipment with cables.
Geomorphology - Study of the origin of landforms, the processes that form them, and their material composition.
Headcutting - Erosion of the channel upstream of dredging.
Hydraulic Dredge - Equipment used to excavate and remove bottom materials from a water body using suction.
Nick Point - Where the channel dips into the head of the mine pit.
Thalweg - Deepest point in a channel cross section.
Watershed - Region or area drained by surface and groundwater flow in rivers, streams, or other surface channels.
December 12, 2003
Rivanna Conservation Society Position Regarding Proposed Revisions to
Fluvanna County Zoning Ordinances
Sand Mines
Finally, we urge the supervisors to return to the unfinished business of the 1991 Board of Supervisors' resolution on sand mining and see that this measure is incorporated into County zoning ordinances as soon as possible. We believe that in-stream mining should be banned in Fluvanna and throughout the Rivanna Basin. Failing that, potential mine operators should be obliged to produce site-specific physical and biological surveys and long-term monitoring to demonstrate that their mines will not substantially damage aquatic resources. We believe that local demand for sand and gravel can be met from properly buffered land-based mining operations or, perhaps, from sediments dredged from existing man-made lakes and reservoirs (i.e. Lake Monticello and South Fork Rivanna Reservoir) as part of the future sediment removal programs that will eventually be necessary to maintain these impoundments for the purposes they were designed.
(This is a transcription of a document from the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors. The document is very difficult to read in original form.)
FLUVANNA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
P.O. BOX 296
PALMYRA, VIRGINIA 22963
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the 1987 admendments to the Clean Water Act, the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983, the Constitution of Virginia and the Virginia Wetlands Act provide for the protection of lands and water from pollution, impairment and destruction; and
WHEREAS, the Fluvanna County Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to preserve the rural character of Fluvanna County; and
WHEREAS, the 1989 Virginia Outdoors Plan: encourages the development of a statewide system of greenways; recommends that localities, agencies, and the private sector work together to establish greenways; and proposes a Rivanna River Trail as a possible component of the State Trails System; and
WHEREAS, the Rivanna River is host to seven (7) endangered or rare aquatic species, as identified by the Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation, and the American bald eagle; and
WHEREAS, the Rivanna River is designated as Virginia's First Scenic River with significant adjacent historic sites, including the Rivanna Navigation Company system of locks and canals; and
WHEREAS, the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors has already endorsed and supported the intent of the Rivanna Conservation Society's efforts to pursue conservation easements along the Rivanna River from Columbia through Charlottesville in order to establish hiking and biking trails.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors will support all administrative and legal means of protecting the Rivanna River as an historic scenic waterway from the dredging of sand or other materials by either drag line or hydraulic means, as well as the destruction of adjacent wetlands or shorelines, until the economic and environmental impact can be determined.
Thomas E. Payne, Chairman October 28, 1991
Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors
THE RIVANNA CONSERVATION SOCIETY, INC. ANNUAL REPORT 1991
The Rivanna Conservation Society, Inc. (RCS) has finished our first full year. Funding for RCS comes solely from membership dues and donations. RCS is operated and directed by an all volunteer Board of Directors and membership. Administration, planning and implementing RCS programs took 562 volunteer hours in 1991. While some activities never materialized, unplanned circumstances offered exciting opportunities. Because of these opportunities, RCS grew in scope much faster than planned.
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
The coordination of efforts between County, State, Federal, regional, and private groups offered dramatic opportunities. The Southwest Mountain Coalition, Rivanna Scenic River Board, and RCS opposed a permit before the State Water Pollution Control Board for the Glenmore subdivision to discharge the effluent from a secondary sewage treatment plant into the Rivanna River. Because of this concerted opposition, the Glenmore developer will now build a tertiary treatment plant. RCS also opposed three sand mining operations proposed in the Rivanna River. Permits were being reviewed by the Virginia Marine Resource Commission and the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors. With minor changes this resolution was unanimously passed by the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors. A similar packet of information for the Albermarle County Board of Supervisors has been developed to be presented in the near future. Senator Ed Houck and Delegate Earl Dickinson have now told VMRC they are opposed to the sand mining in the Rivanna. One permit application has been withdrawn and the other two are in limbo. RCS has been in contact with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and the Department of Conservation and Recreation to set up our programs and to help meet goals of Commonwealth.
EDUCATION: SCHOOLS
RCS sponsored three trips for high school students. Due to limited resources in the school system, no trips have been allowed during school hours. The structures that remain at Rivanna Mills, the canal and aqueducts to the James River was the focus of a history field trip. The students canoed to Rivanna Mills where 4-H and RCS staff explained the rise and fall of river centered life and commerce in Virginia. Two separate ecology field trips have canoed to Pettit Island where RCS has established a site to periodically sample water quality. The students were taught how to take unbiased samples of aquatic life; how to identify the different organisms; and to determine water quality as a function of indicator species and diversity of species. These water quality trips offer ecological learning experiences, plus they supply the only data on the quality of water in the Rivanna.
EDUCATION: COMMUNITY
A community wide educational trip by canoe or hay wagon to the Rivanna Mills complex was sponsored by RCS. Two speakers picked by the Fluvanna County Historical Society detailed a river based community life. RCS made at least six more community oriented presentations on topics that ranged from community planning, environmental protection, to non-consuming economic growth. The audiences receiving these talks have been local Ruritan clubs, the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, the Fluvanna Historical Society, the Fluvanna County Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District Board. An RCS display was exhibited at Lake Monticello Earth Day and Fluvanna County Day.
CONSERVATION
RCS got started in conservation-oriented projects during 1991. Thirteen adults and seven children worked one day to clean a two-mile stretch of the Rivanna below Crofton Bridge. The river cleanup project collected two dump truck loads of everything from tires to a mimeograph machine. Five different tree and shrub plant species were planted on Pettit Island as part of an ongoing experiment to control stream bank erosion and to improve wildlife habitat. Three of the five species appear promising and will continue to be evaluated by RCS. Different species and techniques will be tried. The Commonwealth is attempting to determine minimum in stream flows for acceptable recreational uses. This information may actually be used to require river water users to reduce withdraws during low water levels. RCS fills out In Stream Flow forms for our river trips and we encourage all members to do the same. RCS has forms available for any interested members.
Some progress has been made in all planned programs. A study of Fluvanna County income/expenditures is almost final. It will now be possible to prove financial benefits of farmland, forests, and other undeveloped open space. RCS had applied for a grant to fund our efforts to help the Fluvanna Historical Society stabilize the old mill in Palmyra, create a trail to the mill and lock and possibly create a river park in Palmyra (unfortunately 94 other groups wanted the same money and our grant was not approved). A structure for improved fund raising is nearly finished. The first RCS ventures in changing the unthinking exploitation of natural resources have been surprisingly successful and; the Water Pollution Control Board and Virginia Marine Resource Commission know who we are.
I hope each member feels that The Rivanna Conservation Society, Inc. is justifying your faith in joining the society. So far every member has joined because they believed in the people that are RCS. We are just now building a reputation, just now finding out what we can do. With your support, 1992 will be another good year.
Thank You,
J. Stephen Pence
President, RCS