County, BLM staff debate warning signs, fences after high lead readings at Animas Forks

BLM field staff and county commissioners discussed proposed warning signage and fencing at Animas Forks after soil sampling identified hotspots with elevated concentrations of lead and arsenic in parts of the historic site.

Charlie, speaking for the field office, summarized the goal as informing the public "of the presence of lead and arsenic" so visitors can make informed choices. Staff proposed placing five to six 11x7 signs on 4x4 posts at pedestrian entrances and installing fencing around two primary hotspots to deter access. The signs would include a BLM logo and a QR code linking to additional information, with language emphasizing the presence of lead and arsenic.

Field staff said targeted (bias) sampling identified individual hotspots with very high lead concentrations near a restroom area — citing readings in the tens of thousands of parts per million. "When you have 68,000 parts per million lead right next to the toilet," a field presenter said, "we feel very strong about that," arguing for clear warnings and hotspot deterrents to reduce ingestion and dust exposure risks.

At the same time, several commissioners and community members raised concerns about the number and size of signs and the visual impact of fences at a historic site. "You lose the aesthetics," one commissioner said, noting that visitors and photographers value unobstructed historic views. Others suggested using larger entry signs rather than many small signs and using QR codes to host technical reports, including both the field office's risk assessment and opposing bioavailability perspectives.

Presenters acknowledged that bioavailability/speciation testing has not been completed and that the site's risk profile depends on exposure pathways and individual susceptibility. They also described sampling approaches (composite/unbiased versus bias/targeted sampling) and said the proposed signs and temporary fencing could be used as mitigation while longer‑term remedial options (removal or capping) are evaluated.

Interagency coordination was a recurring theme: participants discussed consulting the field office and KAG (local advisory group), confirming any applicable water rights for potential pumping elsewhere on site, and clarifying hauling permits and road impacts with EPA and the Forest Service. The BLM field office said it would take feedback and coordinate signage placement and language, and commissioners asked staff to return with any field‑office decisions or refined plans.

Why it matters: The discussion balances visitor safety and health concerns (especially for children and pregnant women) against preservation of a historic site and community expectations. The debate highlighted that some hotspots are well above common screening thresholds but that bioavailability testing and final remedy decisions remain outstanding.

What happens next: The field office will carry feedback back to BLM and the KAG and will seek field office concurrence on placing entry signage and fences at identified hotspots; no formal county ordinance or regulatory change was adopted at the meeting.