FOREST SERVICE LANDS

Current Negotiations

______________________________________

Forest Service Meeting Summary

On April 20th, 2011 The Pendleton District Gem and Mineral Society, Pendleton, SC, hosted the second meeting (first meeting was held in 2003) between local mineral enthusiasts, mineral clubs and the US Forest Service.
Present at the meeting were;

Ray Bergeron: Zone Geologist, Francis Marion & Sumter National Forest

Ted Wallenius: Coordinator; Pendleton District Gem and Mineral Society

Richard Jacquot: President; Mountain Area Gem and Mineral Association

Members from the Pendleton District Club, Mountain Area Gem and Mineral Association (M.A.G.M.A.) Clemson University and the US Forest Service.

I spoke on behalf of the MAGMA Club and addressed some of the issues concerning rockhounding on Forest Service land in North Carolina. A map of the proposed rockhound collecting area at the Ray Mine in Yancey County, North Carolina was reviewed. The present plan for the Ray Mine includes a study by NC Fish and Wildlife starting in June, 2011, to determine the location/habitat of the bats and to see if the bats have contracted the “white nose syndrome”. If the bats are living in all the mine shafts, the mines will be grated to preserve their homes. If it is determined that only a few of the mines contain the bats, the mines will likely be left open and grated while the others will be closed off by some method, possibly, grating, foam sealing or filling them with the surrounding country rock, trees etc.
At this time the rules for the Ray Mine are as follows. Do not dig anywhere near the creek or on the area known as the Little Ray Mine. The only area that it is permissible to dig with pick and shovel is the designated area that is proposed on the map distributed by the Forest Service at this time. Keep in mind that this is a proposal and has not yet been designated as a rockhounding area. Violations of the current rules will most likely cause problems with the Forest Service and may delay or prevent the designation of this site.

Current rules for the Appalachian Ranger District are as follows; Mineral collecting with pick, shovel and other hand tools is permitted only in the “proposed” collecting area at the Ray Mine, all other Forest Service land in this district is considered surface collecting only. You are permitted to break rocks that are exposed on the surface to examine them for collectible minerals or crystals, no digging is allowed. The only two sites that I know of in the Forest Service in North Carolina that digging and collecting with hand tools is allowed are, the Chunky Gal/Buck Creek Mining District and the Ray Mica Mine.

Ray Bergeron answered numerous questions from members about this, as he is working with District Ranger Tina Tilley on this project. Ray also discussed rules and regulations in other states, specifically Georgia and South Carolina. Currently there is no collecting at all in Georgia. In South Carolina we learned that you can obtain a “letter of authorization” to pan for gold in creeks located on Forest Service land. You can also obtain a permit to collect rocks from Forest Service lands for projects that you may have at your home etc.

Also discussed was the fact that many rockhounds and mineral collectors think that it is a good idea to “hide” from rangers and don’t let them know what you are doing. A good argument for this is the recently proposed project to close four camping areas on NC Forest Service land. The first reason listed for the closures was lack of interest in these camping sites by the community. The proposal states that interest in hiking and mountain biking has increased so that is what the area will be used for. The same thing can be said for mineral collecting. If the Forest Service sees no interest in these collecting areas by hobby collectors, then why should they try to keep and maintain these sites for us? All parties agreed that public awareness of our hobby and communication with the Forest Service was the only way they will consider letting us continue to use this land for our hobby. If you are hiding behind a tree every time a ranger walks by, you only look guilty to the ranger that sees you. I don’t hide from rangers, as I feel I have a right to use the forest land for my hobby. I would rather communicate and collect legally than hide and look over my shoulder all the time.

We presented the Forest Service with a revised rockhound proposal that was initially given to them in 2003. I gave a copy to Ray Bergeron who seemed to care about our concerns and said he would be willing to help us in any way he could. Below is a copy of the proposal;

Proposal for Forest Service
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia
April 20th. 2011
TO: U.S.F.S.
RE: MINERAL COLLECTING GUIDELINES PROPOSAL
We have been asked as rock, gem, and mineral hobby collectors (local clubs and private individuals) who use the resources in our state’s Forests—to advise the Forest Service of what we would consider reasonable rules, regulations, etc. adequate to preserve our hobby and allow us continued responsible access to Forest Service properties.

The Forest Service’s concerns include:
1. Damage to creeks, streams and waterways caused by mineral collecting (such as siltation, rerouting of streams, etc.)
2. Damage to plant life (such as undermining of trees, uprooting of shrubs, etc.) by digging.
3. Significant land disturbance, depth of holes dug, trenches, etc.
4. Removal of artifacts found while collecting.
5. Littering at collecting sites.
6. Defining what is considered to be “mechanical equipment.”

We are aware that the existing rules and guidelines for rockhounding on National Forest lands in North Carolina are currently being reviewed and refined. We would like to address each of the above concerns individually to propose what we would consider mutually beneficial and equitable to all interested parties.

First, we as rockhounds and mineral collectors are concerned primarily with preserving access to sites at which we have been allowed to collect for several decades, but which are now in jeopardy of being closed to the public. Subsequently, we do not want to lose sight of other collecting opportunities, such as gold panning and prospecting for new mineral deposits.

The following response therefore keeps all hobby collecting activities in mind. These sites make up a miniscule part of the national forest, and are typically only used by persons participating in our hobby. When you consider how much land in the forest is devoted to logging, hiking, camping, biking, horse riding, etc., the amount of land on which we collect minerals is negligible in proportion to land available to other types of hobbyists and outdoorsmen. All of these other activities/hobbies also result in land disturbances to one degree or another, and we are confident that if an unbiased study were done, it would show that collective disturbance from these other hobbies would far surpass the environmental disturbance caused by hobby mineral collecting. Any criteria for what constitutes “significant damage” to resources needs to be developed with all activities in mind and applied evenly forest wide. A double standard would be unfair to mineral hobbyists.

1. Damage to waterways in collecting areas
We understand that this is a problem for the Forest Service as many of our collecting sites have creeks and streams which run through the area. We propose a 3-part solution:
A buffer zone (set distance from the water source) around which we would be allowed to collect. We further propose that no screening or cleaning of minerals take place in the creek or stream. This would work logistically if we could assist the forest service in piping in water from a secondary source for the purpose of cleaning and washing mineral specimens (just as water is piped in to certain areas for the horses on the designated bridle trails). If there was a central washing/cleaning area away from the main waterway, then the buffer zone could be minimal, as the collected material would be taken away from the creek or stream and would not be causing any damage. The buffer zone could be easily established by marking trees or boulders in the area or placing signs with required distances.

If no secondary water source is available, then we propose being allowed to clean and sift material in the creek or stream with some basic rules applied. Gold panning has been an accepted practice in the North Carolina forests for years and has not sparked nearly the controversy that mineral collecting has generated. Sifting and screening for gemstones is very similar to gold panning, but the problem arises when the discarded screened material is piled in one location in the creek or stream. Over time, a large amount can eventually cause the stream to be rerouted. One simple and logical solution is to disperse the discarded material throughout the stream or return it to the hole from which it was removed.

If there is no secondary water source and screening/sifting in the creek is still not acceptable, then collectors should be allowed to use water from the creek/waterway to clean their material at a location outside the buffer zone. If a buffer zone is appropriate for a certain site, the mineral clubs in the region also stand ready to assist the USFS in rehabilitating said sites, returning the streams/waterways to their natural condition (or as close as possible), and filling in all holes and trenches that fall inside the boundary of the buffer zone. By doing this, new collectors will not see the previous condition of the area and will not be tempted to collect inside the set boundaries.

In summary, we suggest either A) a 20-30 foot buffer zone with a secondary water source for cleaning minerals; B) an allowance for the use of water from the waterway for cleaning minerals; or C) permission to sift/clean in the waterway with a couple of simple rules to follow. 1. Disperse unwanted material throughout the area evenly, or 2. Return the unwanted material to the hole it was from which it was removed. Various sites will likely warrant varying restrictions and these alternatives can be used in accordance with individual site conditions and water availability.

2. Damage to plant life
We are aware of the damage caused to plant life in certain collecting areas. We acknowledge the safety hazard inherent in undermining large trees. We believe that small shrubs and bushes warrant less concern unless protected species. Damage to smaller vegetation is typically minimal and growth returns to the point of being overgrown in some areas every season.
We propose there be no undermining or removal of trees over 5" dbh (diameter at breast height) and that any trees in danger of falling be reported to the forest service to be removed for safety reasons. Also, we would like to request that all downed trees and shrubs be taken outside the boundaries of the collecting area for reasons of safety.

3. Significant land disturbance
Defining “significant” land disturbance precisely is difficult at best. Therefore, we would like to address this issue on several levels.
First, any land disturbance must occur within the boundaries set by the forest service and collectors at any given hobby collecting site. These boundaries would include any old mines/shafts/prospects and all of the dump material that was produced by same.

As previously mentioned, we do not want this proposal to in any way restrict the opportunity to prospect for new mineral digging sites on public forest land. We are simply addressing the current needs of existing sites but would like to preserve the future opportunity to discuss development and management of new and prospective digging sites. We hope to eventually cooperate with the Forest Service to establish a procedure through which new sites can be identified and responsibly accessed and managed.

As for depth of holes, as long as they remain within the boundaries of the collecting area, they could be any depth to be most productive for digging. For example, the Grimshawe Mine in Transylvania County could have a hole depth limit of 3-4 feet deep since the gravel sapphire bearing layer does not extend deeper than this, making it unproductive and unnecessary to dig any deeper. At the Ray Mica Mines in Yancey County, however, holes of any depth desired could be permitted as long as the area is producing dump material from the mine, the primary source of minerals being sought. Of course certain safety rules should be followed. "Dig safe" rules common to mineral collecting hobbyists include:
a. No tunneling.
b. No undermining of boulders too heavy to be moved by hand.
No vertical walls higher than 3-4'; any hole deeper than 3-4' must be tiered, leaving a “terrace” approximately 1' wide every 3-4' around the circumference of the hole.
d. Vertical walls and overhangs cannot be left behind at the end of the day. They must be collapsed to a safe slope.

Following these simple rules would allow safe collecting for all. They would not require filling in holes at the end of the day, but rather making them safe with stable slopes. It would be counterproductive for mineral collectors to have to repeatedly uncover or "dig out" a hole each time they return to it, often several times in a row to exhaust the deposit. Also, when a hole is depleted of any collectible resources, it could be flagged and filled in. This would serve as a sign to other collectors that the area had been dug but would not necessarily prohibit future digging in that spot. Filling in these holes periodically would, however, minimize the long term rearrangement of the landscape.

As far as wildlife is concerned, these animals are used to coping with many dangers in their environment, and many of these mines have been present for decades. The wildlife is familiar with their location and condition. There would be no erosion problem since any erosion would actually contribute to refilling existing holes.
In summary, we suggest setting boundaries around collecting sites, and safe digging rules for collecting.

4. Preserving artifacts
We propose the continued enforcement of the existing rule that any artifacts found while collecting be left as found and the date and location of the find be reported to the local Forest Service office.

5. Littering and debris
While common sense would dictate that you remove any trash you bring into a site, we know that many do not follow the rules. There is no way to make these individuals comply if they choose to break the law. We, as concerned rockhounds and collectors, commit to policing the areas where we collect, and removing any trash left by others in order to preserve these sites for future collecting.

6. Mechanical equipment
Tools should be broken down into two categories, unpowered hand tools and powered equipment.
Unpowered hand tools would consist of, but not be limited to, the following:
Shovels
Picks / Mattock
Hammers
Chisels
Buckets
Sifting screens
Any other types of unpowered hand tools
Mechanical or powered equipment would include:
Explosives,
Any machinery which is propelled by any type of fuel, electricity, or batteries;
Air compressed tools,
Hand tools which operate on any type of fuel, electricity or batteries.
Mechanical or powered equipment would not be allowed. Basically, if it is powered by hand, it is allowed. If powered by any type of fuel, electricity, batteries, compressed air or nuclear energy, it is not allowed.

We would like to have signs posted at all public forest collecting sites stating the rules and regulations for collecting at that site.

We would also like to ask that our mineral collecting sites be designated as “special use” areas or as “hobby mineral collecting areas.” With this designation, these sites will be among relatively few places we can be legally assured of having ongoing access to ensure the future of our hobby. We hope that the designation process will also address issues of accessibility. We believe that other collecting sites should have vehicular access for our elderly and disabled fellow enthusiasts. Our hobby is shared with a remarkable number of elderly and physically disabled citizens who have as much right to enjoy mineral collecting on public lands as do younger, abler-bodied bikers, hikers, etc. who enjoy the free use of the forest for the pursuit of their hobbies. Restricting vehicular access to these collecting sites unnecessarily is unfair to these individuals. We hope we can work with the Forest Service to improve access to many areas.

The biggest challenge faced by both mineral collectors and the Forest Service is public education and awareness. The public (those who use the forest) see holes dug by collectors and perceive this as damage done to the area. They need to be educated about the hobby of mineral collecting and mining and its many benefits, to individuals, groups and to the public. The public enjoys going to museums to view minerals and gems that come from our earth, but what many do not realize is that many times it is the hobby collector who finds these minerals in the forest and makes them available to the public through loan or donation to public museums.

We sincerely hope that we can work positively and productively with the Forest Service to preserve our mineral collecting hobby. We look forward to participating in future negotiations and planning.

Sincerely,
Richard Jacquot
President; Mountain Area Gem and Mineral Association (MAGMA)
Asheville, North Carolina
Ted Wallenius
Pendleton District Gem and Mineral Society
Pendleton, South Carolina
Doug Dover
President; Foothills Gem and Treasure Hunters Club
Gaston County, North Carolina

I want to commend the Pendleton District Gem and Mineral Society for being the only mineral club in the southeast concerned enough with these issues, not once, but twice, to host these meetings with the Forest Service. I also want to thank Ray Bergeron for his advice and input and suggestions. Ted Wallenius and Doug Dover for their help in authoring the proposal we presented, and all the concerned rockhounds who took the time to come to this meeting. Hopefully we can continue to work with the Forest Service and maybe get more sites designated in the future for our hobby.

New Forest Service Planning Rules
posted 1-7-05

Forest Service Planning Rule Revised, you can go to this link to read the revised planning rules, I have not gone through it all yet, but it does look like there will be more public involvement in future decisions.

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index2.html

Most recent memo from the Highlands Ranger District regarding collecting at the Grimshawe Mine in Transylvania County, N.C. posted May 22, 2004

DECISION MEMO

281 Mine Site
Nantahala National Forest, Highlands Ranger District
Transylvania County, North Carolina


DECISION

Description of Decision

I have decided to implement activities associated with rehabilitating a series of severely disturbed mining areas adjacent to an unnamed tributary of the Thompson River in Transylvania County. The work will involve filling the disturbed ‘pits’, reshaping the stream bank back to its original condition, re vegetating disturbed areas, and restricting digging within 100 feet of the stream.

Purpose and History

The purpose of this project is to reduce sediment and soil erosion along the Thompson River tributary caused by illegal digging. This stream has been classified as Class C Trout waters indicating suitability for trout habitat. Fisheries surveys conducted on this stream in 2001 concluded that silt and non-natural changes to the stream channel have adversely affected the aquatic habitat. The combination of illegal digging and flat terrain has resulted in unnatural stream ‘braiding’. All rehabilitation efforts will be aimed at returning the stream to a more natural condition and future digging restrictions should prevent the problems from recurring.

Location

This area is located off U. S. Highway 281, 4 miles from the intersection of U. S. Highway 64, near the intersection with state road 1152 as shown on the attached map. A primitive campsite has recently been reconstructed and a gated Forest Service road leads approximately ¼ mile to the project area. It is listed as Grimshawe Mines in several guidebooks.

Detailed Description

Following are the procedures that will be used to restore the altered stream channel back to its original condition. Intensive hand labor will be required, as the area is predominantly inaccessible by machinery. Two (2) to four (4) trees in the area will be felled, redirecting the stream back to its original channel and armoring the stream bank until natural vegetation can stabilize it. Spoil from the mining site will be used to help re-create part of the stream bank. Some stream structures may be installed to enhance pools and ripples for fish populations and habitat. A small “Bobcat” or trackhoe may be used where feasible to assist in the movement of spoil material and placement of restoration structures. By selectively accessing the site, minimal disturbance to existing vegetation can be achieved. Mined holes will be filled with existing spoil to the extent possible. Small amounts of fill can be obtained from nearby sites and used to complete site restoration where needed. Selected sites may be left open and improved to function as vernal ponds to enhance salamander and other wetland habitat fauna and flora. Soil and water quality will be monitored.
REASONS FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION OF THE ACTION

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 Chapter 30 identifies categories of actions that may be excluded from documentation in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA). I have determined that this action falls under paragraphs 6 and 7 of Section 31.2, which include timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities (6) and modification of stream habitat (7). These types of action may be excluded from documentation in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA), unless extraordinary circumstances exist; however, a project or case file is required and the decision to proceed must be documented in a decision memo.


FINDING OF NO EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES

I, along with the Highlands Ranger District interdisciplinary team have reviewed the “extraordinary circumstances” identified in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 30, Section 30.3, paragraph 2; considered information brought forward during scoping; and considered the effects of this project in conjunction with other projects. Based on this review I have determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist for this project, which would make it inappropriate to categorically exclude the project from documentation in an EA or EIS. Specifically:

This determination will not adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or result in the loss of any other species’ viability, or create significant trends toward the listing of a species under the Endangered Species Act. A Biological Evaluation (BE) for the presence of these species has been completed and is included in the project file.

This project is not expected to cause any adverse affects on Heritage Resources. The Forest Service Archaeologist has reviewed this project and determined that it is not likely to affect cultural resources, as documented in the project file.

This action will not negatively affect floodplain's, wetlands, steep slopes and highly erosive soils, or municipal watersheds. This was determined from field visits and reviews of topographic and soil maps.

The project area does not fall within a congressionally designated area, such as a Wilderness, National Recreation Area, Wild and Scenic River corridor, or Research Natural Area.


PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Scoping began on this project on March 18, 2003 when 138 letters were mailed to interested publics identified through our district mailing list as being interested in this type of project or in this area of the District. A legal notice was published in The Highlander and the project was included in the National Forests in North Carolina Schedule of Proposed Actions which is mailed to the Forest mailing list and posted on the Forest web site. Two specific responses to the 281 Mine Site Project were received as a result of these public scoping efforts. The names of the people who were sent letters are included in the project files, along with a copy of the scoping letter, and all comments received on these projects.

In addition, after the official scoping period had ended, a local mineral hobby collector contacted the district to discuss the 281 Mine Site Project. These discussions led to on-site meetings with additional local mineral hobby collectors to discuss problems and potential solutions. Subsequently, a meeting was held in Seneca, SC, with representatives from local mineral clubs and representatives from three National Forests (Sumter, Chattahoochee, and Nantahala). Our initial proposal included restriction of digging within 200 foot of the stream. This distance was reduced to 100 feet as a response to comments generated from these meetings.


RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Our response to questions asked and concerns expressed during scoping are as follows:

1. “Avoid the use of invasive exotic plant species in re vegetation efforts”

No invasive or exotic plant species will be used to re vegetate disturbed soil on this project.


FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS

As required by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, I have determined that these actions are consistent with the Nantahala and Pisgah Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), as amended. They adhere to applicable standards, guidelines, and monitoring requirements in the LRMP. The project area lies primarily in Management Area 18 with some activities occurring in Management Area 4A. Management Area 18 is the Riparian Management Area which includes perennial streams and a zone on either side along with 100-year floodplain's. Typically, this zone is 100 feet unless interdisciplinary review determines otherwise. The area is to be actively managed to protect and enhance, where possible, riparian resource values. A priority for the Management Area is management of wild trout streams as designated by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. The natural hydraulic and hydrologic functioning of the stream channel is to be maintained and the integrity of the stream system including channel, banks and stream bottom is to be protected. Mineral activity is to be restricted, where necessary to maintain riparian values. In Management Area 4A, the emphasis is on managing for quality scenery. Timber production is permitted, modified to emphasize visual quality and wildlife habitat. Activities should not be a dominant feature of the landscape.

Informal discussions with the Corps of Engineers indicated this type of project is exempt from additional permitting requirements because it is covered under Nationwide Permit No. 13, Bank Stabilization.


IMPLEMENTATION DATE

Implementation of this decision may begin immediately.


ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES

Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.12 (f), this decision is not subject to appeal.


CONTACT PERSON

For additional information concerning this decision or clarification on this process, please contact Jeff Owenby or myself by phone at (828) 526-3765, or at 2010 Flat Mountain Road, Highlands NC 28741.


RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL SIGNATURE AND DATE

 


_____________________________ _____________________
ERIN M. BRONK DATE
District Ranger

Ray Mica Mine, Yancey County, North Carolina
3-10-04

I just wanted to pass on that I talked with Ranger McFee of the Ray Mine District area the other day and he informed me that phase one of improving access to the Ray Mine site has been completed, this phase will last for about a year and then phase two will be implemented. Thank you again to all the various clubs in the area who sent representitives to the meetings which eventually led to this agreement between the Rockhounds and the Forest Service, your particpation was a great part of the final outcome and now we still have the great collecting site, the Ray Mines to rockhunt, thank you all, Rick Jacquot

 

Update/Rehab plan for Charlie's Creek
Amethyst Prospect • Georgia

Please respond to this proposal at the email address and contact information listed.

Dear Interested Forest Stakeholder:

My staff and I are considering a proposal to rehabilitate amethyst mine pits located in the vicinity of Charlies Creek in Towns County, Georgia (see attached map.) The four areas proposed for treatment total approximately one acre and are located approximately one mile west of the community of Tate City, and about 15 miles northwest of Clayton. I would like to hear any comments or concerns that you might have regarding any aspect of this proposal.

Rehabilitation would be accomplished by filling in existing pits with the soil piled up nearby, installing water bars, and re-vegetating all exposed soil in the area using plant species that quickly control erosion. Exposed soil would be covered by erosion mats or straw to minimize raindrop erosion and maximize germination of seed.

The pits have been the site of illegal digging for several years, and new pits continue to be dug closer and closer to the Southern Nantahala Wilderness Area. Our current Forest Plan guides us to “conserve soil and water resources” (Forest Plan, Goal 12, page 4-2) and sets as an objective to “minimize conditions that would deliver soil to streams or reduce soil productivity through surface erosion.” (Forest Plan, page 4-37.)

I would like to hear from you regarding this proposal before making my decision. This action appears to fall into a category of actions that may be excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. This determination, however, will not be finalized until after consideration of your comments and concerns. My staff may also use your comments to modify the specific methods described in this proposal.

This proposal is a starting point for discussion and analysis and no decision has been made. Responses from the local community, interested individuals and groups, other government agencies, and Forest Service employees are needed to help determine the extent of analysis so that we meet the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments received help us to develop viable options and/or indicate additional mitigation and monitoring measures needed.

Responses should contain relevant facts or comments along with supporting reasons that we would then consider in reaching final decisions on this proposal. Comments received, including names, become part of the project record and are available for public review. We would appreciate receiving your comments by November 17, 2003. This will help to ensure a thorough and complete analysis of the proposals. Send your written comments to the Tallulah District at the address given on the letterhead. You may also comment by phone (see letterhead), e-mail to Steve Cole (sncole-at-fs.fed.us) or in person at our office on Highway 441 South in Clayton, Georgia.

Please note that you will be sent further correspondence on this proposed project only if you comment on it or if you request further correspondence on it.

This letter is being sent to organizations and individuals who have previously participated or been interested in our project proposals. This letter assumes that you have some familiarity with the planning process as conducted by the Forest Service in accordance with NEPA. If you are receiving this letter and are unsure of the context or how to participate, please contact us at the Tallulah District. Management of the National Forest is a public trust and is best conducted with broad participation.

Thank you for your interest and involvement.

Sincerely,

DAVID W. JENSEN
District Ranger

NOTE:
Even though the reply date has passed on this proposal, the rangers have informed me that they will still hear any ideas or comments or suggestions, please take the time to read and review this proposal and respond. Thanks, Rick

Meeting with the Pendleton District Gem and Mineral Society
November 18, 2003

In attendance were:
Jeff Owenby, Highlands Ranger District, North Carolina
Greg Borgen, Andrew Pickens Ranger District, South Carolina
Randy Fowler, Chatuge Watershed, Ga., S.C., N.C.
Ted Wallenious, Pendleton District Gem and Mineral Society
Kim Cochran, Georgia Mineral Society
John Deney, Pendleton District Gem and Mineral Society
Richard Jacquot, Mountain Area Gem and Mineral Association
and approximately 20 members of the Pendleton Club.


We met at Ted Wallenious' house for dinner before the meeting, his wife Marcia fixed us a great dinner and we discussed the agenda. Also present for dinner were reps from the Forest Service, John Deney, and Kim Cochran from the Georgia Mineral Society.

We proceeded to the meeting where the rest of the club was waiting for us—a very nice group of people. Ted introduced us, I reviewed the work we have been doing here in W.N.C. with the Forest Service and the progress we have made. I handed out copies of our proposal that were sent to the North Carolina Forest Service regarding rockhounding and copies of the letter from our club (Mountain Area Gem & Mineral Association) that have been sent to the Forest Service to invite a line of communication between us and them. I encouraged the Pendleton Club and the Georgia Mineral Society to use our proposal and letter as a guide to make their own versions to be sent to the Forest Services in their states.

The Forest Service reps presented a slide show which showed the severe damage caused at Charlies Creek, Ga. and the Grimshawe Mine, N.C. Also covered was Laurel Creek, Ga. After the slide show, the panel was asked questions from the club members and several things were brought to light, after seeing the damage caused at Charlies Creek and hearing the plans by the Georgia Forest Service to restore the area I do not see it as a future collecting site. The Forest Service plans to spend in the neighborhood of $20,000 to reclaim the area, the damage caused by careless rockhounds to the area is too severe and cannot be undone.

After talking with Randy Fowler who is currently working on the Laurel Creek area, there still may be hope to keep this site open. Jeff Owenby is still commited to working with us here in N.C. to keep collecting sites open and he has sent our proposal to the persons in the service who are working on the new North Carolina rules for rockhounding.

The Forest Service reps pointed out that the rules for each district vary, Georgia and South Carolina both have "no digging" rules in place for rockhounding, but at the same time you can get a permit in South Carolina to gold pan in creeks and streams. We viewed this as a double standard and as Ted pointed out, we are not second class citizens and should not have to get a "gold panning" permit to be able to hunt rocks.

We are lucky that N.C. is currently rewriting and defining the rules for rockhounding in this state and that our proposal made it to the Forest Service. Maybe some or all of it may be incorporated into the new state guidelines. I plan to work with the Pendleton club and the Georgia Mineral club to establish a communication network between our club here in N.C., their clubs in their states and the Forest Service in these states to keep our collecting sites open. Progress is slow but it is being made. It is sad to lose a site like Charlies Creek but we now have a chance to preserve the sites that are left. Our club M.A.G.M.A. is committed to policing collecting sites here in Western North Carolina. We make field trips to areas to help keep them free of litter and if we observe any violations or collecting practices that conflict with the rockhounds code of ethics or Forest Service rules we will report these individuals. I encourage the South Carolina and Georgia clubs to do the same. ---------------Rick Jacquot 11/18/03

Final Proposal for Forest Service
October 22, 2003

TO: U.S.F.S.
ATTN: District Rangers Paul Bradley, David McFee, Jeff Owenby
FROM:
Mountain Area Gem and Mineral Association,
Gaston County Gem and Mineral Club,
Cleveland County Gem and Mineral Club,
Charlotte Gem & Mineral Club,
Henderson County Gem & Mineral Society

RE: MINERAL COLLECTING GUIDELINES PROPOSAL

We have been asked—as rock, gem, and mineral hobby collectors (local clubs and private individuals) who use the resources in our state’s Forests—to advise the Forest Service of what we would consider reasonable rules, regulations, etc. adequate to preserve our hobby and allow us continued responsible access to Forest Service properties.

We have been working with several individuals in the forest service including District Rangers Paul Bradley and David McFee of the Appalachian District and Jeff Owenby of the Highlands District. After several meetings with them at which we discussed the concerns of both the Forest Service and the mineral collectors, we would like to propose the following:

The Forest Service’s concerns include:
1. The damage to creeks, streams and waterways caused by mineral collecting (such as siltation, rerouting of streams, etc.)
2. The damage to plant life (such as undermining of trees, uprooting of shrubs, etc.) by digging.
3. Significant land disturbance, depth of holes dug, trenches, etc.
4. Removal of artifacts found while collecting.
5. Littering at collecting sites.
6. Defining what is considered to be “mechanical equipment.”

We are aware that the existing rules and guidelines for rockhounding on National Forest lands in North Carolina are currently being reviewed and refined. We would like to address each of the above concerns individually to propose what we would consider mutually beneficial and equitable to all interested parties.

First, we as rockhounds and mineral collectors are concerned primarily with preserving access to sites at which we have been allowed to collect for several decades, but which are now in jeopardy of being closed to the public. Subsequently, we do not want to lose sight of other collecting opportunities, such as gold panning and prospecting for new mineral deposits.

The following response therefore keeps all hobby collecting activities in mind. These sites make up a miniscule part of the national forest, and are typically only used by persons participating in our hobby. When you consider how much land in the forest is devoted to logging, hiking, camping, biking, horse riding, etc., the amount of land on which we collect minerals is negligible in proportion to land available to other types of hobbyists and outdoors men. All of these other activities/hobbies also result in land disturbances to one degree or another, and we are confident that if an unbiased study were done, it would show that collective disturbance from these other hobbies would far surpass the environmental disturbance caused by hobby mineral collecting. Any criteria for what constitutes “significant damage” to resources needs to be developed with all activities in mind and applied evenly forest wide. A double standard would be unfair to mineral hobbyists.

1. Damage to waterways in collecting areas
We understand that this is a problem for the Forest Service as many of our collecting sites have creeks and streams which run through the area. We propose a 3-part solution:
A buffer zone (set distance from the water source) around which we would be allowed to collect. We further propose that no screening or cleaning of minerals take place in the creek or stream. This would would work logistically if we could assist the forest service in piping in water from a secondary source for the purpose of cleaning and washing mineral specimens (just as water is piped in to certain areas for the horses on the designated bridle trails). If there was a central washing/cleaning area away from the main waterway, then the buffer zone could be minimal, as the collected material would be taken away from the creek or stream and would not be causing any damage. The buffer zone could be easily established by marking trees or boulders in the area or placing signs with required distances.

If no secondary water source is available, then we propose being allowed to clean and sift material in the creek or stream with some basic rules applied. Gold panning has been an accepted practice in the North Carolina forests for years and has not sparked nearly the controversy that mineral collecting has generated. Sifting and screening for gemstones is very similar to gold panning, but the problem arises when the discarded screened material is piled in one location in the creek or stream. Over time, a large amount can eventually cause the stream to be rerouted. One simple and logical solution is to disperse the discarded material throughout the stream or return it to the hole from which it was removed.
If there is no secondary water source and screening/sifting in the creek is still not acceptable, then collectors should be allowed to use water from the creek/waterway to clean their material at a location outside the buffer zone. If a buffer zone is appropriate for a certain site, the mineral clubs in the region also stand ready to assist the USFS in rehabilitating said sites, returning the streams/waterways to their natural condition (or as close as possible), and filling in all holes and trenches that fall inside the boundary of the buffer zone. By doing this, new collectors will not see the previous condition of the area and will not be tempted to collect inside the set boundaries.

In summary, we suggest either A) a 20-30 foot buffer zone with a secondary water source for cleaning minerals; B) an allowance for the use of water from the waterway for cleaning minerals; or C) permission to sift/clean in the waterway with a couple of simple rules to follow. 1. Disperse unwanted material throughout the area evenly, or 2. Return the unwanted material to the hole it was from which it was removed. Various sites will likely warrant varying restrictions and these alternatives can be used in accordance with individual site conditions and water availability.

2. Damage to plant life
We are aware of the damage caused to plant life in certain collecting areas. We acknowledge the safety hazard inherent in undermining large trees. We believe that small shrubs and bushes warrant less concern unless protected species. Damage to smaller vegetation is typically minimal and growth returns to the point of being overgrown in some areas every season.

We propose there be no undermining or removal of trees over 5" dbh (diameter at breast height) and that any trees in danger of falling be reported to the forest service to be removed for safety reasons. Also, we would like to request that all downed trees and shrubs be taken outside the boundaries of the collecting area for reasons of safety.

3. Significant land disturbance
Defining “significant” land disturbance precisely is difficult at best. Therefore, we would like to address this issue on several levels.

First, any land disturbance must occur within the boundaries set by the forest service and collectors at any given hobby collecting site. These boundaries would include any old mines/shafts/prospects and all of the dump material that was produced by same.

As previously mentioned, we do not want this proposal to in any way restrict the opportunity to prospect for new mineral digging sites on public forest land. We are simply addressing the current needs of existing sites but would like to preserve the future opportunity to discuss development and management of new and prospective digging sites. We hope to eventually cooperate with the Forest Service to establish a procedure through which new sites can be identified and responsibly accessed and managed.

As for depth of holes, as long as they remain within the boundaries of the collecting area, they could be any depth to be most productive for digging. For example, the Grimshawe Mine in Transylvania County could have a hole depth limit of 3-4 feet deep since the gravel sapphire bearing layer does not extend deeper than this, making it unproductive and unnecessary to dig any deeper. At the Ray Mica Mines in Yancey County, however, holes of any depth desired could be permitted as long as the area is producing dump material from the mine, the primary source of minerals being sought . Of course certain safety rules should be followed. "Dig safe" rules common to mineral collecting hobbyists include:
a. No tunneling.
b. No undermining of boulders too heavy to be moved by hand.
No vertical walls higher than 3-4'; any hole deeper than 3-4' must be tiered, leaving a “terrace” approximately 1' wide every 3-4' around the circumference of the hole.
d. Vertical walls and overhangs cannot be left behind at the end of the day. They must be collapsed to a safe slope.

Following these simple rules would allow safe collecting for all. They would not require filling in holes at the end of the day, but rather making them safe with stable slopes. It would be counterproductive for mineral collectors to have to repeatedly uncover or "dig out" a hole each time they return to it, often several times in a row to exhaust the deposit. Also, when a hole is depleted of any collectible resources, it could be flagged and filled in. This would serve as a sign to other collectors that the area had been dug but would not necessarily prohibit future digging in that spot. Filling in these holes periodically would, however, minimize the long term rearrangement of the landscape.

As far as wildlife is concerned, these animals are used to coping with many dangers in their environment, and many of these mines have been present for decades. The wildlife is familiar with their location and condition. There would be no erosion problem since any erosion would actually contribute to refilling existing holes.

In summary, we suggest setting boundaries around collecting sites, and safe digging rules for collecting.

4. Preserving artifacts
We propose the continued enforcement of the existing rule that any artifacts found while collecting be left as found and the date and location of the find be reported to the local Forest Service office.

5. Littering and debris
While common sense would dictate that you remove any trash you bring into a site, we know that many do not follow the rules. There is no way to make these individuals comply if they choose to break the law. We, as concerned rockhounds and collectors, commit to policing the areas where we collect, and removing any trash left by others in order to preserve these sites for future collecting.

6. Mechanical equipment
Tools should be broken down into two categories, un powered hand tools and powered equipment.

Un powered hand tools would consist of, but not be limited to, the following:
Shovels
Picks / Mattock
Hammers
Chisels
Buckets
Sifting screens
Any other types of un powered hand tools

Mechanical or powered equipment would include:
Explosives,
Any machinery which is propelled by any type of fuel, electricity, or batteries;
Air compressed tools,
Hand tools which operate on any type of fuel, electricity or batteries.

Mechanical or powered equipment would not be allowed. Basically, if it is powered by hand, it is allowed. If powered by any type of fuel, electricity, batteries, compressed air or nuclear energy, it is not allowed.

We would like to have signs posted at all public forest collecting sites stating the rules and regulations for collecting at that site.

We would also like to ask that our mineral collecting sites be designated as “special use” areas or as “hobby mineral collecting areas.” With this designation, these sites will be among relatively few places we can be legally assured of having ongoing access to ensure the future of our hobby. We hope that the designation process will also address issues of accessibility. In the same spirit as Paul Bradley of the Appalachian District has been helpful and willing to work with us on sites like the Ray Mine, we believe that other collecting sites should have vehicular access for our elderly and disabled fellow enthusiasts. Our hobby is shared with a remarkable number of elderly and physically disabled citizens who have as much right to enjoy mineral collecting on public lands as do younger, abler-bodied bikers, hikers, etc. who enjoy the free use of the forest for the pursuit of their hobbies. Restricting vehicular access to these collecting sites unnecessarily is unfair to these individuals. We hope we can work with the Forest Service to improve access to many areas.

The biggest challenge faced by both mineral collectors and the Forest Service is public education and awareness. The public (those who use the forest) see holes dug by collectors and perceive this as damage done to the area. They need to be educated about the hobby of mineral collecting and mining and its many benefits, to individuals, groups and to the public. The public enjoys going to museums to view minerals and gems that come from our earth, but what many do not realize is that many times it is the hobby collector who finds these minerals in the forest and makes them available to the public through loan or donation to public museums.

We sincerely hope that we can work positively and productively with the Forest Service to preserve our mineral collecting hobby. We look forward to participating in future negotiations and planning.

Sincerely,

Richard Jacquot
Cofounder, Mountain Area Gem and Mineral Association (MAGMA)

Doug Dover
President, Gaston County Gem and Mineral Club

Alan Smith
President, Cleveland County Gem and Mineral Club

Jimmy Strickland
President, Charlotte Gem & Mineral Club

Mary Merkle
President, Henderson County Gem & Mineral Society

Grimshawe Mine Update • North Carolina
September 30, 2003

Hello all! The meeting with the forest service today regarding the Grimshawe Mine went great. Those who attended were: Chris Kelly (biologist for the U.S.F.S.), Frank Porter (Pendleton Gem and Mineral, S.C.), Tim Barton (Hendersonville Gem and Mineral), Steve Penley (M.A.G.M.A.), Rick Jacquot (Gaston County Gem and Mineral), Jeff Owenby (U.S.F.S.).



We discussed the damage that has been done to the area; the creek has been completely rerouted, huge trenches--some 20 feet long and 5-6 feet deep-- cover the area, trash was everywhere! From just plain garbage left by visitors to the area, to old screens and buckets and shovels, all broken of course. At this time the forest service already has a plan to restore the creek to its original condition, or as close as they can get it. The holes that cover the area will be filled in. Mr. Owenby states he wants to start fresh with the rockhounds as far as collecting goes. We can still collect, but we need to come up with a mutual agreement (set of rules/guidelines) between the rockhounds and the forest service. I, and all those who attended, need to come up with several conditions that will need to be approved by and negotiated with the forest service.

1. Buffer zone: the forest service wants a buffer zone (set distance) that rockhounds would be required to stay away from the creek while digging. Some at the forest service want this to be at least 200 feet. This is unacceptable for rockhounding as it would put us out of the sapphire gravel bearing layer. We have suggested 20-30 feet.

2. Depth of holes: at this time the depth allowed to dig is still being determined. Mr. Owenby wants our input as to what would be acceptable to us, to allow us to productively collect. We are thinking 5-6 feet deep, we may only get 3-4 feet but that would still allow access to the productive gravel layer. We may have to ask for more and settle for less.

3. All holes will have to be filled in at the end of each collecting day or trip.

4. No sifting or washing/screening any material in the creek will be allowed. This however may be compensated by the forest service. Mr. Owenby has stated he may be able to pipe water to the site for a central screening area, this would consist of a 1-1/2" water pipe with a valve that could be turned on by visiting rockhounds to wash and screen their material. The water from this pipe would be diverted away from the existing creek to prevent silting the creek etc. There would also be a pit created to dump your sifted material in. When this is full it would be covered and another pit dug. All this would control where digging, sifting and the dumping of waste material can occur and make it easier for the U.S.F.S. to manage the area.

5. All trash brought into the site should be packed out. This is common sense to most, but some don't seem to have any!

Once the distances and depths etc. are agreed upon by both us and the forest service, we plan to have signs made up in conjunction with the U.S.F.S. stating basically these five simple rules for all visitors to follow:

1. Buffer zone (distance from creek to dig)
2. Depth of holes (how deep you are allowed to dig)
3. Fill in all holes when finished
4. Use designated screening/rock cleaning area.
---------(Do not screen in creek)---------
5. Pack all trash out with you.

Once the signs are in place, the area will be monitored by both rockhounds/rock clubs visiting the area and the forest rangers. Any trash observed should be removed, and any persons violating the set rules should be reported to the field trip leader or the forest service. The forest service has stated there will be a probation period once all is agreed upon. If we can follow a few simple rules and make sure others do the same, we may be able to save this site. Mr. Owenby says this is plan A; plan B is to shut the site down altogether! So let's work together and save another site!

If anyone has any suggestions or comments, email me at rick-at-wncrocks.com, we would like to have our proposal in by this Friday and start negotiating the rules, etc.

Thank you, Rick Jacquot

Ray Mine Update • Yancey County, North Carolina
September 29, 2003

As you may know, I have been meeting with representatives from several clubs in the area and Paul Bradley of the forest service in an attempt to preserve the Ray Mine as a collecting site for us rockhounds.

I have great news! I talked with Paul Bradley of the U.S.F.S. on 9-23-03. Paul has met with other representatives in the forest service and they have agreed that it will be "ok" to fix a trail and road to accommodate a "gator" or "mule" type vehicle up to the mine. David McFee of the forest service is going to be in charge of building the road and trail. This will take place within the next few weeks!

The forest service plans to employ the services of the "Bridge Crew" which is a youth correctional organization. We talked about access to the site with the gator-type vehicle. Paul has agreed to two days per year, once every six months, when all the clubs in the area would get together and fill out a permit at the forest service office in Burnsville. They would then be allowed to use a vehicle (rented by the clubs) to shuttle people to and from the mine on that day.

This date could correspond with the large rock show at Grassy Creek in Spruce Pine in August and another date in the winter months. This will allow our elderly rockhounds and others who would otherwise be unable to visit the site to have access once again to this great collecting area. Of course anyone can visit the mine at any time and follow the trail to the mine to collect.

If the site becomes in danger of being closed to collecting due to any new forest service regulations etc. Paul has stated that he will proceed with designating this site as a "rockhound collecting area" for future generations to enjoy.

The site was on the verge of being shut down to any type of collecting other than surface collecting, but thanks to efforts of several individuals, we have been able to work with the forest service to provide a positive solution for the rockhounds. All it took was some effort to communicate on our part and to express our concerns.

I want to thank the Gaston County Gem and Mineral Club, Hendersonville Gem and Mineral, Charlotte Gem and Mineral, Mountain Area Gem and Mineral Association, Greenville Gem and Mineral, and the Colburn Museum for sending representatives to the meetings which led up to this agreement between us and the forest service. Paul will be calling me when work is started on the trail and road if anyone would like to be present to help out or observe the work. If interested you can email me at: rick-at-wncrocks.com. Thanks again to all for your support!

Sincerely, Rick Jacquot

 

Back to guide