Case Study, Grimshawe Mine, Transylvania Co., N.C.
Issue and History -
Where do we as a society draw the line when our realm of reality crosses with that of the natural world around us? Conservation of our natural resources is at its greatest importance ever, especially due to a booming human population. There has never before been a time in history where the Earth’s biodiversity hangs in a desperate balance with the expansion of our human societies. However, can such information be used to satisfy one special interest group’s agenda over another without a fair or truthful evaluation of the issue at hand? Yes, it can!
Two years ago, the Highlands Ranger District in North Carolina implemented a restoration plan for a former mine site, known as the Grimshawe Prospect or Mine Site 281, in the southern portion of Transylvania county. The Grimshawe Prospect “was mined for asbestos in the 50’s and 60’s (Jacquot 144).” Coincidentally, the associating minerals that form with an asbestos deposit can often include corundum, also called sapphire. After the mine shut down, mineral collectors soon discovered that this mine site produced gem quality sapphire and ruby. As a result, massive trenches were dug within the riparian zone of the creek below the mine’s spoil piles. Some of these holes were 5-7 feet long, 3-4 feet wide and anywhere from 3-5 feet deep. Picture a mini-battlefield with trenches running in every direction and that would give a fairly accurate image of what this riparian zone looked like before the restoration.
In most cases, such an environmental disturbance demands actions, but this situation might be quite the exception. The original use for this land by modern man was for the purpose of mining a mineral that, at the time, was used for fireproof insulation in buildings and homes. Since the closure of the operating mine, possession of the land ended up in the Forest Service’s ownership, and thus, the beginning of the end for rockhounds collecting at this site.
The National Forest Service defines a rockhound as a person who “hunts and collects rocks and minerals as a hobby” (Rockhounding on National Forest Land). However, there are strict limitations as to what a rockhound may or may not do on public lands. The following includes rules and regulations that must be followed while collecting:
§ The specimens are for personal, non-commercial use
§ The specimens are not of archeological value (all artifacts, including projectile points, chips and flakes may not be collected).
§ No mechanical equipment or blasting is utilized.
§ No significant surface disturbance results, and
§ Collection does not conflict with existing mineral permits, leases, claims, or sales. (Rockhounding on National Forest Land)
From a rockhound’s perspective, several faults can be found in these rules, but the most inconsistent rule deals with what each Forest Service District deems as “significant surface disturbance.”
During the 1990’s, a major portion of the public prospecting occurred at this site. However, the Nantahala Ranger District openly knew about the diggings due to frequenting the site. One of the biggest holes dug, at this time, was “probably 20' long, 8' deep and 3-4' wide” (Deney). The rangers were fully aware such violations were occurring yet chose to ignore the issue. No fines, no signage, and no punishment resulted from these diggings until a collector used a mechanical device to pump out water that had accumulated in this hole over a period of time. Only then did the Nantahala Ranger District impose their ‘rules and regulations.’ In fact, the two men responsible for this hole were arrested and fined $750 each based on mechanical equipment violations, not on charges pertaining to significant disturbance of the environment (Deney). Whatever sparked the change in policy for Mine Site 281 remains unclear, but rockhounds have lost their right to prospect the most productive portion of the sapphire deposit because a the sudden “urgency” to reclaim this small portion of land for conservation purposes. Thus, collectors who frequented the site no longer bother visiting the Grimshawe Prospect because very little material can be found.
On the evening of November 18, 2003, the Pendleton District Gem and Mineral Society, located in Seneca, SC, held a public forum, which included several representatives from different mineral clubs and rangers from the Sumter, Nantahala, and Chattahoochee National Forests. This forum served as the basis for the Mine Site 281 compromise, which will be discussed later in more detail, but the most bewildering fact gained from this meeting was that no standard exists for a level of “significant disturbance” between the different National Forests. How can a federal agency fairly and justly regulate public lands without a standard from which to rule by? In other words, the Sumter National Forest may define disturbance as strictly surface disturbance, while the Nantahala National Forest might define such disturbance as digging greater than 18 inches below the surface. Yes, this example may be a bit exaggerated, but it serves as a great point based on the fact that this regulatory inconsistency between federal ranger districts can have a deleterious effect on conservation issues across the board and fuel disgruntled “special interest groups,” like rockhounds.The Issue and Biodiversity Conservation –
The proposal for the restoration of Mine Site 281 provides the blue prints for the rehabilitation of the original stream and surrounding habitat. These plans were brought about by the concerns of certain environmental groups and the US Forest Service regarding the public prospecting of the Grimshawe mine. As with any mine, habitat destruction and degradation is a major conservation issue. In this case, the stream most affected by prospecting is a class C trout stream occurring off the Thompson River tributary (Bronk). Due to excessive mining in and around the stream, issues occur with decreasing biodiversity and loss of habitat in the surrounding area. The biggest problem facing this type of stream given its current state is the sedimentation from collectors sifting mine dump into the creek (Hart). Dave Hart, a member of the Mountain Area Gem and Mineral Association, states his opinion regarding this issue:
The stream is basically for young hatchlings to thrive. Being both an avid fisherman and a rockhound I'm kind of torn here. The thing that gets me is that they wanted to reconfigure the stream back to its original banks and to help with erosion and sedimentation. This is where I think the Forest Service goofed. I'm thankful we can sift in the stream but what good is it doing on the sedimentation aspect if we can silt it up by screening??
Presently, the Forest Service allows sifting material in the creek; they only restrict digging within the 100-foot zone on all sides of the creek (Bronk).
Moreover, large holes were dug throughout the area, including those in the stream and under trees, exposing their roots. The stream size decreased with increasing erosion and sedimentation due to digging and sifting in the stream, which resulted in a reduction of water flow. This reduction in stream size and water flow decreased habitat for trout and other aquatic species. Although no documentation is available, it was originally rumored that freshwater jellyfish were present in the streams and water filled trenches and holes dug by collectors (Moss). However, if this argument was used and documented by the Forest Service, then why did they fill in most of these areas? Distinguishing fact from fiction in cases like this can often be difficult to achieve but necessary in order to properly proceed with the correct decision and actions.
Other than the habitat loss itself, the environmental groups involved were concerned about intrinsic values and aesthetic quality of the mine site. Though this area may not have been able to support biodiversity like the surrounding land, it was meant for mining not as a biodiversity sanctuary. The purpose of mining deals with extracting minerals from underground deposits, which means the loss of habitat and biodiversity on a relatively small scale. Nonetheless, rockhounds understand the utilitarian value of Mine Site 281. The quality of sapphire from this location is potentially comparable to some of the world’s best sapphire locales. However, we might never know the true potential that this mine’s deposit has to offer unless this portion of land is sold or set aside as a “designated mining site” in the future.Stake Holders –
Rockhounds –
For those who appreciate the various rocks and minerals found here on Earth, they can also appreciate the journey that rockhounds sometimes endeavor to find these hidden treasures.
Furthermore, seasoned rockhounds understand the importance of respecting the land, as well as, the landowner, whether public or private. Based on the issue at hand, was it fair to convict the two men who were arrested at this site even though the rangers inadvertently encouraged their actions through their own silence and failure to perform their job correctly? John Deney, member of the Mountain Area Gem and Mineral Association and the Pendleton District Gem and Mineral Society, wrote the following in an email interview regarding the Mine Site 281 ordeal:
The Forest Service people would come by and watch them dig and talk with them. All was ok… Then one day after a heavy rain, they brought in a small pump to get the water out of the ditch. A local hunter used to also come by occasionally and happened to come the day they had the pump going. [The two collectors] think he reported them to the Forest Service for having this equipment in the area. Shortly, the Forest Service came in and arrested them for violating equipment regulations.
Apparently, a simple complaint led to the downfall of this collecting area, but no one really knows except for the Forest Service.
Mine Site 281 is a potential haven for collecting gem quality sapphire and ruby, and the collecting area is within the midst of the actual mine that once produced asbestos. It is a part of national history but often looked down upon due to the connotation mining operations receive from their ‘negative’ environmental impact. When one looks at the “big picture,” this section of land is microscopic in size compared to the millions of acres owned by the government. Rockhounds have the right to take part in the rich mining history of Western North Carolina instead of having to experience it from the very little literature that remains containing information on these mine sites. People like Rick Jacquot, Co-Founder of the Mountain Area Gem and Mineral Association, serve as not only advocates for the hobby, but more importantly, they keep alive an era of time full of history and tradition that otherwise would be lost forever. Losing access to these mine sites results in the loss of 100’s of years of Western North Carolina history.The U.S. Forest Service –
The Forest Service plays a vital role in protecting the United States’ natural resource. Their mission “is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations” (Mission). From previous experience, the Forest Service seems to downplay the collection of rocks and minerals on public lands, probably due to an outcry from environmentalists and, maybe even, potential commercial mining operations looking to stake a claim on public land. Regardless, the Forest Service must abide by their mission “to achieve quality land management under the sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people” (Mission). In this case, they claim their rehabilitation is due to following:
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. (Decision Memo)
The Forest Service’s stake in this predicament is based on rehabilitating a mine site to a more natural condition so that the group with the loudest voice will leave them alone (i.e. environmentalists). Furthermore, this project was in the best interest of the Forest Service, at the time, because the environmental group that participated in this project worked on a totally volunteer basis. Therefore, no excessive expenses relied on the Forest Service’s budget.Environmentalists –
Though the exact environmentalist organization cannot be identified that helped rehabilitate Mine Site 281, one can certainly determine their stake in this restoration project. Most environmental groups abhor the mining industry whether being commercial or hobby. According to the Sierra Club, mining can only be supported if it “is designed and conducted to meet goals consistent with the maintenance or improvement of environmental quality” (Sierra). Their website goes on to state:
These goals must be implemented through an effective and comprehensive program of planning, research, legislation, regulation, taxation, energy conservation, and utilization of environmentally acceptable alternative renewable and nonpolluting energy resources.
Understandably, mining should take place with proper care and research, but organizations like the Sierra Club want to make it extremely expensive and nearly non-profitable due to their view on how we, as humans, should care for the environment. These organizations claim to want to improve our environments with a conservationist approach, yet they take action with a preservationist attitude, an often extremist approach. As for Mine Site 281, vested interest in this site was due to the potential for vernal pools and other wildlife habitat to be restored in this area of public land so that everyone could enjoy its beauty, while enhancing biodiversity.
Issue Resolution
The official scoping period for the restoration project began in March of 2003 (Decision Memo). At the end of this period, the Forest Service held several meetings with local mineral collectors to discuss current problems and potential solutions for Mine Site 281. As stated earlier, the Pendleton District Gem and Mineral Society conducted a meeting involving representatives from three surrounding National Forests (Sumter, Chattahoochee, and Nantahala), along with representatives from several local mineral societies (Decision Memo). In these meetings, issues regarding prospecting and restoration were discussed.
In order to allow continued prospecting at Mine Site 281 and other mine sites, the representatives from the mineral societies proposed several ideas. One suggestion dealt with the possibility of a fee or yearly permit to allow for prospecting minerals on National Forests. The mineral societies also proposed the idea of a mine site adoption program, allowing clubs to access areas in return for the management and maintenance of these areas, mainly regarding the litter and abuse of the land (Decision Memo). Finally, a suggestion was made to delegate the Grimshawe Prospect as a Designated Mineral Collecting Area, but according to Kim Cochran, a representative for the Georgia Mineral Society, such a suggestion is unlikely to occur.
In order to allow for stream restoration and prospecting at Mine Site 281 to coexist, the initial project proposal by the US Forest Service planned to restrict digging within 200 feet of the stream (Decision Memo). However, due to responses generated from meetings with rockhounds and other interest groups, the restricted distance was reduced to 100 feet. Within this restricted area, the following procedures, as stated in the proposal, were decided upon to restore the structural integrity of the altered stream channel and bank back to their original condition (Decision Memo).
In order to redirect the stream back to the original channel, the forest service planned to remove several trees. Using soil from the original spoil pile, the stream bank was to be re-created and stabilized until it can support itself with natural vegetation. Stream structures, including pools and ripples, were to be included in the recreation of the stream to increase fish habitat. Also, the numerous large holes dug by prospectors in and around the stream were to be filled in with soil from the original spoil pile. In order to “enhance salamander and other wetland habitat fauna and flora” selected shallow holes will remain open to function as vernal pools (Decision Memo).
Shortly after the finalization of the proposed action by the US Forest Service, stream and habitat restoration began at Mine Site 281. Multiple trees were felled throughout the area. The larger trees were used to dam a small stream, which was not part of the original system. The stream still remains despite the implementation of the dam. Much of the underbrush and understory vegetation, including rhododendron and mountain laurel, was also cut and left in place to reduce access to the restricted area (Moss). According to Christopher Moss, member of Pendleton District Gem and Mineral Society and the Mountain Area Gem and Mineral Association:
A lot of the work done at this site seemed unnecessary. The understory lost during the restoration process was felled and left in place to prevent future collectors from visiting the site, yet presently, a path has been cleared through the debris so that collectors can still sift their material in the creek. Thus, the sedimentation problem still exists, but the Forest Service permits sifting mine dump material in the creek. I guess it is their way of pleasing both sides, yet it makes no sense at all. Grass was planted in this area to stabilize bank erosion, yet they planted it on portions of the old mine dumps that mainly consisted of rocks with little or no organic material in the soil structure. Therefore, the grass could not survive altogether, and the erosion problem still remains.
So it seems that restoration of Mine Site 281 really accomplished nothing more than satisfying all three parties. Only time will tell whether this type of action from the Forest Service will really make a difference in the long run.Summary –
Although rockhounds did not get the results that were most desirable from the outcome of this issue, it did offer a great lesson for everyone involved. For rockhounds, it taught them that if they want results that favor their hobby, then they have to become proactive and make their voice heard. For environmentalists, it taught them that hobbyists, like rockhounds, are willing to compromise so that both parties can enjoy their leisure activities. As for the Forest Service, it gives them hope that their efforts are not in vain. This case study involved a problem, allowed for input from public special interest groups, offered a solution, and implemented a proposal that, although not perfect, reflected the interests of every party involved.Chris Moss
Works CitedBronk, Erin M., Jeff Owenby. “Decision Memo.” 11 April 2006.
<http://wncrocks.com/pointsofaccess/currentnegs.htm>. Cochran, Kim. “Rockhounding in Our National Forests.” The Georgia Mineral Society
Newsletter. January 2004. 11 April 2006: 14.
Deney, John (agate1@bellsouth.net). “Grimshawe Mine.” E-mail to Chris Moss
(secffa02@yahoo.com ). 19 April 2006.
Hart, Dave (greendave41@yahoo.com). “Grimshawe.” E-mail to Chris Moss
(secffa02@yahoo.com ). 11 April 2006.
Jacquot, Richard James. Rock, Gem, and Mineral Collecting Sites In Western North Carolina.
Alexander, North Carolina: Land of the Sky Books. 2003: 144.
Moss, Christopher. Personal Interview. 20 April 2006.
Nantahala, Sumter, Chattahoochee Ranger District. “Grimshawe Mine- Mine Site 281.”
Pendleton Gem and Mineral Society. Seneca, South Carolina. 18 November 2003.
“Sierra Club Conservation Policies.” Sierra Club. 11 April 2006.
<http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/coal.asp>. United States. USDA Forest Service. “Rockhounding on National Forest Land
in National Forests in North Carolina.” 11 April 2006.
<http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/Rockhoundingnatlforestlands.htm>. United States. USDA Forest Service. “Mission.” 11 April 2006.
<http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/mission.shtml>.